JV talks, sort of - Page 206 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2051  
Old 11-05-12, 11:18
GJB123's Avatar
GJB123 GJB123 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper View Post
Fact remains that JV has ranted on here for no reason when confronted with difficult questions regarding his clean cycling theme.
No reason? Really?
__________________
"Anyway, Sons of Anarchy, it's about a pack of hardcore bikers who live outside the law. Think Lance Armstrong but with less crime and drug dealing." - Craig Ferguson
Reply With Quote
  #2052  
Old 11-05-12, 11:32
Benotti69's Avatar
Benotti69 Benotti69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,989
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GJB123 View Post
No reason? Really?
We are talking about cycling, a dirty sport! So why would JV have reason to get angry about difficlut questions.

He has not been part of the solution yet in my opinion.

I think when JV becomes part of the solution the current UCI will be trying to bury him.
__________________
"ahaha, ever had the feeling you been cheated?" JL SF Jan'78
Reply With Quote
  #2053  
Old 11-05-12, 12:10
GreggGermer GreggGermer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oudenaarde, Belgium
Posts: 64
Send a message via Skype™ to GreggGermer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Thanks for the input - much appreciated.

Were you aware of the doping accusations leveled at Ramunsas in the time period JV mentions (2010 I believe)? Do you have any idea of what their foundation was?
I am not aware of the doping allegations. Since 2007 I've only seen Ramunsas off and on at the start or finish of an odd pro race (recently I saw him at the Giro before a stage).

I'm not sure of the foundation, but I know his training style was very eastern-bloc-esque, as in, two or three workouts a day, lots of hours. Not sure of the intensity, but they trained together a whole lot.

I won't vouch for Ramusas's being clean (or ANY other rider) as I can't. Same way I can't say people on this forum aren't certifiably crazy, I just don't know them well enough

I've had people call me a doper back in the day on a forum(s) ... all for going 42nd at Scheldeprijs. Hell, I've had my own team mates ask other team mates what I was on after a good performance, but the whole time I was clean. I guess it's the curse of cycling, the mentality that performance=doping, but it leads to a level of paranoia that makes me think back to the 60's paranoia of everyone being a "communist".

I'm not naïve to the ways of cycling, but I'm much more of the "Trust buy Verify" mentality.

This whole discussion goes the fundamental problem cycling is facing, Trust ... trust that has been broken by numerous riders, numerous teams and the UCI ... I believe cycling is cleaner, I also believe there are still dopers, but we can't just paint all guys with the same brush.

If there are suspicions about Ramunsas it seems JV has done his homework to put them to rest. I personally don't like the fact a former doper is running a "clean" team based off largely off his experiences and accomplishments that came about from doping. Then again, many security firms hire ex-cons to help run their business's because they know the system from the other side, so I do see the value of someone with JV's experiences.

I've pretty much summed up most of my opinions about doping in these two articles I penned:

http://www.podiuminsight.com/2012/09...-i-didnt-dope/

and

http://www.thechainstay.com/blog/201...s-fix-cycling/
Reply With Quote
  #2054  
Old 11-05-12, 13:57
irongrl's Avatar
irongrl irongrl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 95
Default

Gregg,

I enjoyed reading your story-thanks for sharing it!
__________________
“We focused solely on finding the truth without being influenced by celebrity or non-celebrity, threats, personal attacks or political pressure because that is what clean athletes deserve and demand,” Tygart said.
Reply With Quote
  #2055  
Old 11-05-12, 14:17
maltiv maltiv is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hrotha View Post
Maybe he got to see the profiles of Cervélo riders during the merger, to help decide which ones he was going to take. But I think that Sastre signed with Geox before the merger was official, and he supposedly didn't know anything about it. I don't think his blood profile could be shared without his consent.

Maybe it's someone from Garmin? Hushovd?
Can't be Hushovd, he says the rider was performing sub-par at the time, which doesn't sound like Hushovd either before he joined Garmin (when he became WC) or in his year at Garmin. He's also not constantly referred to as clean in the clinic at least.

Must be Moncoutie really, I guess JV saw his profile because he thought of signing him? And his point isn't that said rider was doped, but that blood levels can vary even (or particularly) for clean riders, if he for example were dehydrated during the test. Also, clean riders don't manipulate their blood, so perhaps their numbers to some degree can have more variance than that of a doped rider on a great program...
Reply With Quote
  #2056  
Old 11-05-12, 14:36
skidmark skidmark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs John Murphy View Post
Yes, the only person who he doesn't want involved in cycling is Ricco. Who is i) out of the sport and ii) other than Rasmussen, about the easiest target in cycling.

He is very reluctant to break omerta about currently active members of the peloton and that is frustrating for people, because what they see with their eyes when they see Dertie Cont, Piti and Froome riding up mountains as if on motorbikes does not square with what JV is telling us. By refusing to confirm what is 'obvious' to many, he appears to be 'maintaining omerta' and his comments about clean cycling appear to be blatantly unsustainable and untrue.
I get what you're saying, but essentially you're asking someone with a high position in the sport to call out people he has nothing but suspicion about. Like, how is JV more qualified to talk about Froome than anyone here? What is he supposed to say, go to cyclingnews and say 'Froome must be doping'? That's not only unprofessional, but if he's wrong it's tantamount to libel. I think journalists and blood testers are in a much better position to do that than someone who runs a different team than he's even on. Like, if Froome was positive for something, it would be the UCI and his team's job to out him. If his blood profile was suspicious, I would expect Ashenden, Morkenberg etc to be qualified to analyze and talk about that, more than a team manager (even though he seems to understand blood profiling better than most team managers). And if it's nothing more than "Froome has come out of nowhere to be a GT contender", I don't see how it'd be productive to make accusations in a public setting.

I want a clean sport, but I don't see airing every suspicion in public as a productive way of going about that.

edit: this is not to say that I don't appreciate your line of questioning. The 'three obstacles to clean cycling' is interesting; I was more thinking of the 'name 5 riders you wouldn't hire' question.

Last edited by skidmark; 11-05-12 at 14:39.
Reply With Quote
  #2057  
Old 11-05-12, 14:45
sniper sniper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreggGermer View Post
I am not aware of the doping allegations. Since 2007 I've only seen Ramunsas off and on at the start or finish of an odd pro race (recently I saw him at the Giro before a stage).
(...snipped...)
I've pretty much summed up most of my opinions about doping in these two articles I penned:

http://www.podiuminsight.com/2012/09...-i-didnt-dope/

and

http://www.thechainstay.com/blog/201...s-fix-cycling/
nice informative post, much obliged.

Quote:
I won't vouch for Ramusas's being clean (or ANY other rider) as I can't.
Would have been nice to hear something similar from JV or Millar in reference to Wiggo 2009/12 and Hesjedal 2012.
Instead, JV and Millar somehow miraculously 'know for sure' that those results were obtained on paniagua. As GreggGermer points out, you by definition cannot vouch for that, yet JV and Millar somehow can.

Last edited by sniper; 11-05-12 at 14:48.
Reply With Quote
  #2058  
Old 11-05-12, 14:49
JV1973 JV1973 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 662
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
I get what you're saying, but essentially you're asking someone with a high position in the sport to call out people he has nothing but suspicion about. Like, how is JV more qualified to talk about Froome than anyone here? What is he supposed to say, go to cyclingnews and say 'Froome must be doping'? That's not only unprofessional, but if he's wrong it's tantamount to libel. I think journalists and blood testers are in a much better position to do that than someone who runs a different team than he's even on. Like, if Froome was positive for something, it would be the UCI and his team's job to out him. If his blood profile was suspicious, I would expect Ashenden, Morkenberg etc to be qualified to analyze and talk about that, more than a team manager (even though he seems to understand blood profiling better than most team managers). And if it's nothing more than "Froome has come out of nowhere to be a GT contender", I don't see how it'd be productive to make accusations in a public setting.

I want a clean sport, but I don't see airing every suspicion in public as a productive way of going about that.

edit: this is not to say that I don't appreciate your line of questioning. The 'three obstacles to clean cycling' is interesting; I was more thinking of the 'name 5 riders you wouldn't hire' question.

BINGO!!! Thank you.

It's not that I wouldn't answer these questions if you came over for dinner. But I'm not touching them on a public forum. You guys don't get quoted from what you say on a forum in mainstream media. I do.
Unless I'm prepared to legally and publicly defend my position that "I think xyz doped" then I say nothing. I don't have hard evidence and I'm not one to go accusing people without hard evidence. That is just as immoral as doping.

When I say "i don't know" it means "I don't know"... It does not mean I don't have a private opinion.

And this applies to contract talks with Contador... We never got to the point of the talks that i saw his blood values. So, I can't say one way or the other on the guy. I'd be happy to give you my opinion on this, if you want to come over for dinner. But not here. I'm not going to publicly judge someone who I have never even seen their blood profile or medical records.

But I have my opinion. just not for here.

I only give my opinion on items/riders that I have hard facts about.

In the end, what maybe you guys don't get, I don't care as much as you might think about if rider xyz doped or not. I don't claim the sport is totally clean, what i claim is that clean riders are winning more than at any other point in cycling's history. That's all.
Reply With Quote
  #2059  
Old 11-05-12, 14:55
hrotha's Avatar
hrotha hrotha is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,465
Default

We could talk about a hypothetical rider instead. Say, Adalberto Cantador.
Reply With Quote
  #2060  
Old 11-05-12, 14:56
sniper sniper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
I get what you're saying, but essentially you're asking someone with a high position in the sport to call out people he has nothing but suspicion about. Like, how is JV more qualified to talk about Froome than anyone here? What is he supposed to say, go to cyclingnews and say 'Froome must be doping'? That's not only unprofessional, but if he's wrong it's tantamount to libel. I think journalists and blood testers are in a much better position to do that than someone who runs a different team than he's even on. Like, if Froome was positive for something, it would be the UCI and his team's job to out him. If his blood profile was suspicious, I would expect Ashenden, Morkenberg etc to be qualified to analyze and talk about that, more than a team manager (even though he seems to understand blood profiling better than most team managers). And if it's nothing more than "Froome has come out of nowhere to be a GT contender", I don't see how it'd be productive to make accusations in a public setting.

I want a clean sport, but I don't see airing every suspicion in public as a productive way of going about that.

edit: this is not to say that I don't appreciate your line of questioning. The 'three obstacles to clean cycling' is interesting; I was more thinking of the 'name 5 riders you wouldn't hire' question.
Very well, but JV proactively propagates that cycling is so much cleaner now (viz. since 2008), also on this forum. So either he has no suspicions regarding the likes of Contador, Valvi, Wiggins, Froome, Riis, Bruyneel, the Schlecks, etc., or he is simply not being very truthful.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.