happychappy said:Pretty clear, his legs/flanks and even his shoulder muscles/arms are all slimmer, and the slimmer photo was taken in september.
I don't doubt he's on everything he can get his mitts on though, like the rest of them.
+1
Exactly.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
happychappy said:Pretty clear, his legs/flanks and even his shoulder muscles/arms are all slimmer, and the slimmer photo was taken in september.
I don't doubt he's on everything he can get his mitts on though, like the rest of them.
Von Mises said:There are almost endless amount of scenarios, why CVV finisihed 85th (1999), 56th (2004), 24th (2006), 25th (2007), but 4th (2008) and 8th (2009).
Boeing said:for birth control JV relies on his personality
Ninety5rpm said:How could they come even close to ever winning if they are clean?
Folks, it's entertainment, and part of the entertainment is playing to the myth that cycling is tough on doping and the few dopers are the rare exception.
There are probably no exceptions. None. Nada. Nil.
dr_wok said:So you are saying that there are NO pro cyclists not on dope? NADA? A wise man once said a man who speaks in absolutes is a man who speaks out his a**.
In any natural group or population, there is a bell curve distribution. Some will dope a lot, some will dope a bit, some will possibly not dope at all.
What about Linus Gerdemann, who can't stop talking about being clean, who is inviting journalists to search his hotel room during the Tour? What about Davey Millar, who is a hell of a lot slower than the Millar of old (but I kinda like him anyway).
I personally know and lived with riders who were getting their a** kicked as clean Euro amateurs during the EPO era, but started achieving as amateurs as soon as the 2000 EPO test was introduced, and have undergone slow progression since then. Why should I assume they dope?
By refusing to believe in the existence of clean riders, even mediocre ones, you perpetuate the myth that up-and comers should start doping or give up. Your opinions are perpetuating doping culture, and encouraging up and comers to dope.
What would you tell your son if he wanted to turn pro?
Just my 2 cents.
HL2037 said:
BroDeal said:The photo is not technically Photoshopped, but it is distorted because of the camera. Check out the length of Wigans' lower legs. They are as long as his whole torso including his head.
In the past I have posted side shots of Wigans time trialing in the 2009 Tour and an earlier Tour when he was on Cofidis.
Creatine Bob said:That is a bit juvenile. I simply said that I think Garmin is clean. I think all of their riders are clean. It can be done.
I can understand the cynical views, but I really think it is possible.
I think Contador is clean as well, although I am not sure about the Kazak.
Creatine Bob said:Yes, he looks leaner and his aerodynamics look like they might be slightly better ... marginal gains all add up!
Creatine Bob said:Yes, he looks leaner and his aerodynamics look like they might be slightly better ... marginal gains all add up!
BroDeal said:I think he looks more aero in the Cofidis pic, but you cannot go by looks.
I also don't see that he is any leaner in the Garmin pic. He does not look to have 10% less mass to me.
kurtinsc said:His arms look a bit thinner in the Garmin pic, and maybe his thigh area as well... but there doesn't seem to be a huge difference. Now that one pic from last year when he looked like a skeleton (P-R maybe?)... THEN he looked thin.
Creatine Bob said:I am a big fan of the arms being tilted up slightly. Closes the gap below the chin. Also, in the Garmin photo his helmet meshes better into his upper back.
Think rounded more than spear or arrow.
Creatine Bob said:Yes, he looks leaner and his aerodynamics look like they might be slightly better ... marginal gains all add up!
thingswelike said:Well for what it's worth (diddly squat I know) I believe that Garmin and Sky are clean. I also strongly suspect that any ex-british cycling rider is clean as they would have it drilled into them that any misdemeanour would bring down everyone in that organisation.
I have absolutely no evidence other than trusting the way some people talk, Millar's interviews, their disdain for people found cheating, their past experiences and how they didn't 'fit in', the fact that LA doesn't like them , etc.
I used to think sprinters might be an exception, then the Zabel story came out.kurtinsc said:I think it's likely that few cyclists with any significant results are dope-free.
Maybe some sprinters... we don't hear about them much. But when there was that report about "suspicious blood values" from the Tour and something like 17 of the top 20 riders were under suspician... that sounds about right. And I bet they missed 2 of the other 3.
In order to solve a problem you have to face it first. Denying the scope of doping in cycling is not helpful to solving the problem of doping in cycling.dr_wok said:So you are saying that there are NO pro cyclists not on dope? NADA? A wise man once said a man who speaks in absolutes is a man who speaks out his a**.
In any natural group or population, there is a bell curve distribution. Some will dope a lot, some will dope a bit, some will possibly not dope at all.
What about Linus Gerdemann, who can't stop talking about being clean, who is inviting journalists to search his hotel room during the Tour? What about Davey Millar, who is a hell of a lot slower than the Millar of old (but I kinda like him anyway).
I personally know and lived with riders who were getting their a** kicked as clean Euro amateurs during the EPO era, but started achieving as amateurs as soon as the 2000 EPO test was introduced, and have undergone slow progression since then. Why should I assume they dope?
By refusing to believe in the existence of clean riders, even mediocre ones, you perpetuate the myth that up-and comers should start doping or give up. Your opinions are perpetuating doping culture, and encouraging up and comers to dope.
What would you tell your son if he wanted to turn pro?
Just my 2 cents.
Mongol_Waaijer said:edited....
Ask any physician what the odds are of that occuring naturally and they'll tell you it's nigh on impossible. The reason they set the limit at 50 is that it's the around highest "freak" value range that can be recorded without enhancement.
.
Ninety5rpm said:I used to think sprinters might be an exception, then the Zabel story came out.