Christian Vande Velde

[Polish]

Mandatory weekly drugs tests?

Really?

The Denver paper says really. Is it true though?

Mandatory weekly drug tests. Couple years worth of data.
Is that data up on the Internet somewhere?
Be a great benchmark. Clean CVV data going back years.

Of course, if it WAS public info, the slueths would find dirt.
Of course they would. Find dirt even when squeaky clean.

 

[ElChingon]

Mandatory weekly drugs tests?

Really?

Where's Trent's test scores post Matt's directed Dr.s visit? (I maybe wrong but the whole firing of both wasn't for the fun of it)

What makes David and Christians more damning than Floyd or Tyler? Were they crowned supreme beings without our (my) knowledge? Maybe equally as damning but more? Why? Within a few weeks they'll be in the same boat as Floyd and Tyler if things go as we want.

 

[BotanyBay]

Mandatory weekly drugs tests?

Really?

No one's veins could handle that.

 

[Polish]

Where's Trent's test scores post Matt's directed Dr.s visit? (I maybe wrong but the whole firing of both wasn't for the fun of it)

What makes David and Christians more damning than Floyd or Tyler? Were they crowned supreme beings without our (my) knowledge? Maybe equally as damning but more? Why? Within a few weeks they'll be in the same boat as Floyd and Tyler if things go as we want.

CVV and DV are clean IMO - and THAT makes the difference.
There goes the "paid by the USADA immunity" argument for those 2.
They would not NEED immunity. Honest witnesses without an incentive to talk. How will Lance explain their condemnations?

Of course with CVV being clean during the 99 Tour, it will invalidate the "we were forced to dope" angle presented by the riders on the 99 team who DID dope. Wonder how dirty Tyler and dirty Frank and dirty George felt about clean man CVV. Friction back then on the team? Maybe we will find out.

 

[Maxiton]

CVV and DV are clean IMO - and THAT makes the difference.
There goes the "paid by the USADA immunity" argument for those 2.
They would not NEED immunity. Honest witnesses without an incentive to talk. How will Lance explain their condemnations?

Of course with CVV being clean during the 99 Tour, it will invalidate the "we were forced to dope" angle presented by the riders on the 99 team who DID dope. Wonder how dirty Tyler and dirty Frank and dirty George felt about clean man CVV. Friction back then on the team? Maybe we will find out.

No doubt they're going to testify they weren't clean - because they were pressured into doping; or, at the very least, clean but pressured into silence. But I'll go with doping.

 

[Polish]

No doubt they're going to testify they weren't clean - because they were pressured into doping; or, at the very least, clean but pressured into silence. But I'll go with doping.

What is worse, Maxiton - Being pressured into doping or being pressured into testifying in a Star Chamber?

The latter Maxiton, the latter.
Sad yes. Legal, not sure.

We need some legal input from our legal eagles here.
The heavy lifters.

What do you guys feel about being pressured into testifying in a Star Chamber?
Repugnant?

 

[sniper]

One of Lance's only personal accusations during part I of th interview was directed at Van de Velde.

(paraphrasing: )
"I didn't pressure or threaten Van de Velde. After all, he continued doping after he left USPS."

At least that's how I took Lance's words.

Was it indirect mudthrowing at Garmin, or more an individual sneer at VdV? or was it nothing?

 

[webvan]

He says, she says...Oprah didn't ask specifically about that meeting VDV right so I guess he can weasel his way out. VDV went to CSC after and doped if memory serves so LA's got a point there.

 

[Ferminal]

Didn't CVV admit to doping up until the magical year of 2005 (Year 0 BCE)? If Lance said he continued doping after he left he's only repeating what was in the reasoned decision.

 

[sniper]

Vande Velde on motors:

“Cookson and the UCI are getting the job done on motor fraud,” Vande Velde said. “It is too risky to try this in a road race, and it will stay that way as long as the UCI flashes their muscle with effective testing. I give the UCI credit for being proactive on this. They have been testing for a few years already.”
http://www.dohacycling2016.com/american-riders-support-increased-motor-checks-laud-uci-efforts/

And only a few days ago he said this:

Vande Velde answered, succinctly, “No, not remotely,” when asked in an email if he’d ever noticed or suspected in his 17-year career that a rider used a motor in a race.
http://www.bicycling.com/racing/doping/are-tour-de-france-racers-cheating-with-secret-motors

Not remotely? Every fool close to the peloton would've gotten wind of the rumors surround Cance from 2010 onwards. Such omerta, I can only assume Christian has either had *** in his ears from 2010 onwards or he's been using a motor himself.

His bike in 2009:

In spite of the 100g or so of added weight relative to the standard 7900 package, Vande Velde’s complete bike still comes in under the UCI weight limit at 6.57kg (14.48lb) when fitted with Zipp 202 carbon tubular wheels. Depending on the particular configuration of the day, Shanks plans to wrap up short sections of chain links in bubble wrap and drop them into the seat tube to make the difference if needed.
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/pro-bike-christian-vande-veldes-garmin-slipstream-felt-f1-sl-20463/

 

[yaco]

Re:

Vande Velde on motors:

“Cookson and the UCI are getting the job done on motor fraud,” Vande Velde said. “It is too risky to try this in a road race, and it will stay that way as long as the UCI flashes their muscle with effective testing. I give the UCI credit for being proactive on this. They have been testing for a few years already.”
http://www.dohacycling2016.com/american-riders-support-increased-motor-checks-laud-uci-efforts/

And only a few days ago he said this:

Vande Velde answered, succinctly, “No, not remotely,” when asked in an email if he’d ever noticed or suspected in his 17-year career that a rider used a motor in a race.
http://www.bicycling.com/racing/doping/are-tour-de-france-racers-cheating-with-secret-motors

Not remotely? Every fool close to the peloton would've gotten wind of the rumors surround Cance from 2010 onwards. Such omerta, I can only assume Christian has either had **** in his ears from 2010 onwards or he's been using a motor himself.

His bike in 2009:

In spite of the 100g or so of added weight relative to the standard 7900 package, Vande Velde’s complete bike still comes in under the UCI weight limit at 6.57kg (14.48lb) when fitted with Zipp 202 carbon tubular wheels. Depending on the particular configuration of the day, Shanks plans to wrap up short sections of chain links in bubble wrap and drop them into the seat tube to make the difference if needed.
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/pro-bike-christian-vande-veldes-garmin-slipstream-felt-f1-sl-20463/

Dont reflect your thoughts on others in the pro peleton - It's like everything in life where there will be a divergence of opinions.

 

[sniper]

There was a persistent rumour both in press and among pros about Cance using a motor. If you missed it, you can read all about it in the Cance thread and the "doped bike exists" thread.
VDV pretends not to have heard it. "No, not remotely".
Either he lived under a rock or he used a motor himself.

Opinion has nothing to do with anything.

 

[yaco]

Re:

There was a persistent rumour both in press and among pros about Cance using a motor and VDV pretends not to have heard it. "No, not remotely".
Either he lived under a rock or he used a motor himself.

Opinion has nothing to do with anything.

The key word is rumour - Some will believe it and some will disbelieve - But it's poor form to quote a particular rider's opinion on a subject as if they are wrong - After all it's a rumour.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Funny how he didn't win the Tour then if he was doping and motordoping. Unless you obviously suspect everyone else also was motordoping in 2009 which wouldn't surprise me one bit. VdV rode very anonymously in that Tour, nothing special at all.

Of course he has heard about Cance, but I can't see how his answer = motordoping.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

There was a persistent rumour both in press and among pros about Cance using a motor and VDV pretends not to have heard it. "No, not remotely".
Either he lived under a rock or he used a motor himself.

Opinion has nothing to do with anything.

The key word is rumour - Some will believe it and some will disbelieve - But it's poor form to quote a particular rider's opinion on a subject as if they are wrong - After all it's a rumour.

Indeed that's the key word. He was asked whether he'd heard any.

"No, not remotely"

 

[Tom the Engine]

Re: Re:

Indeed that's the key word. He was asked whether he'd heard any.

No, per your own quote he was asked whether he himself has "ever noticed or suspected in his 17-year career that a rider used a motor in a race". Not whether he has heard a rumor about it. Big difference.

 

[Netserk]

scatter at it again...

 

[sniper]

Netserk whining again? Say it aint so.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Indeed that's the key word. He was asked whether he'd heard any.

No, per your own quote he was asked whether he himself has "ever noticed or suspected in his 17-year career that a rider used a motor in a race". Not whether he has heard a rumor about it. Big difference.

What's your point besides irrelevant semantics?
These guys are asked clear questions about motors and are both playing dumb. Why? Maybe because they live in a cave. Maybe because they used motors themselves.

And "Cookson and UCI are getting the job done".
"It's too risky".
It's motor omerta 101 from VDV.

 

[Tom the Engine]

Re: Re:

Indeed that's the key word. He was asked whether he'd heard any.

No, per your own quote he was asked whether he himself has "ever noticed or suspected in his 17-year career that a rider used a motor in a race". Not whether he has heard a rumor about it. Big difference.

What's your point besides irrelevant semantics?
These guys are asked clear questions about motors and are both playing dumb. Why? Maybe because they live in a cave. Maybe because they used motors themselves.

And "Cookson and UCI are getting the job done".
"It's too risky".
It's motor omerta 101 from VDV.

That's not irrelevant semantics. You obviously either misread or misunderstood the sentence that you quoted yourself. And consequentially all your next posts ("living under a rock" etc) were utter rubbish. I (and others before me) just pointed that out.
Just acknowledge it and move on.

 

[sniper]

I made my point. You haven't addressed it, but turned it into an exercise in splitting hairs.
You're good at that, acknowledged, and indeed lets move on.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

Funny how he didn't win the Tour then if he was doping and motordoping. Unless you obviously suspect everyone else also was motordoping in 2009 which wouldn't surprise me one bit. VdV rode very anonymously in that Tour, nothing special at all.

Of course he has heard about Cance, but I can't see how his answer = motordoping.

Yes ....but......
If you are on a PED program and you can't win or shine are you Not on a PED program? Same with motors. The natural physical selection will still happen. But a motor could put you over the top.

 

[Tom the Engine]

I made my point. You haven't addressed it, but turned it into an exercise in splitting hairs.
You're good at that, acknowledged, and indeed lets move on.

Alright, I can answer to that, too.
You made your point? No need for that. Everybody knows your point anyway. It condenses to probably 3 main preconceived statements that are copy-pasted in different flavors into every thread. And in-between there unfortunately are a lot of heavily flawed arguments to support them at all costs under all circumstances.
A discussion is about exchanging and analyzing arguments. So if you think this is "splitting hairs" because the quality of arguments doesn't matter and it's only about the ultimate answer that is already carved in stone anyway, then feel free to do so. But I disagree. Just comparing opinions and conclusions is the lowest possible form of discussion. Quality and correctness of arguments does matter a lot and if the answer is already fixed then what's the point of engaging in a debate to start with? And acknowledging a mistake is a virtue not a weakness.

Again: You stubbornly insisted over 3 posts against all objection that in the source you quoted VdV claimed to never have heard rumors. Which is simply not true. And the fact that VdV is a cheat and omertà does not change the fact that your claim was bogus as you obviously misread the sentence.
Up your game.
That's all I have to say and I'm not going to further comment on a personal level.


To your point:
(1) It's very possible (or likely) that he lied about it. And that he either suspects or knows that some riders used motors or he even used one himself. We don't know yet. We'll find out someday.
Such denials always sound exactly the same irrespective of whether they're genuine or not. By their nature. Because whoever is lying in a denial is trying to mimick the way he would act if he was honest about it to appear convincing. (Some are very good at it, others less so.) And therefore these statements carry absolutely zero information.
Or can you provide us with a good quote that a rider should use if he genuinly doesn't believe that motors have been used? Not so easy, is it? And when thinking about this don't forget that the goal is never to make the few Clinic members happy but to address a broader spectrum of people.
In summary, I really think it's not worth it to lose so much sleep over these denials. They're just part of the game.

(2) From time to time it's good to maybe remind ourselves that there are no confirmed cases in the pro cycling peloton yet. Even Cancellara 2010 and Froome 2013 and other blatant cases that rank very high on all our lists are officially still rumors at this point in time. Unless it's proven there's still a possibility for each case that no motors were involved there. We all form our opinions but we cannot run around and call everybody a liar who doesn't fully agree with our own conclusions. Especially because neither of us has access to real insider information.

(3) There are considerable differences in external circumstances for doping and motors (as discussed elsewhere). It's not automatically guaranteed that everything we know about doping can simply be extrapolated to motors. Maybe it'll turn out someday that the two systems indeed worked exactly the same way, maybe not. But for now to simply draw parallel lines everywhere is quite a large assumption that is not really warranted yet.

 

[sniper]

Re:

I made my point. You haven't addressed it, but turned it into an exercise in splitting hairs.
You're good at that, acknowledged, and indeed lets move on.

Alright, I can answer to that, too.
You made your point? No need for that. Everybody knows your point anyway. It condenses to probably 3 main preconceived statements that are copy-pasted in different flavors into every thread. And in-between there unfortunately are a lot of heavily flawed arguments to support them at all costs under all circumstances.
A discussion is about exchanging and analyzing arguments. So if you think this is "splitting hairs" because the quality of arguments doesn't matter and it's only about the ultimate answer that is already carved in stone anyway, then feel free to do so. But I disagree. Just comparing opinions and conclusions is the lowest possible form of discussion. Quality and correctness of arguments does matter a lot and if the answer is already fixed then what's the point of engaging in a debate to start with? And acknowledging a mistake is a virtue not a weakness.

Again: You stubbornly insisted over 3 posts against all objection that in the source you quoted VdV claimed to never have heard rumors. Which is simply not true. And the fact that VdV is a cheat and omertà does not change the fact that your claim was bogus as you obviously misread the sentence.
Up your game.
That's all I have to say and I'm not going to further comment on a personal level.

I was posting in the JV thread at the same time, and drawing on the same section of the article by the same author.
JV was asked about the rumor.
For VDV there is no mention of the word "rumor". So indeed I mixed them up. My bad and hereby acknowledged.

The question is, is it relevant?
In your view apparently it is. In my view no it is not.
Firstly (there'll be a "secondly", later ), we can safely assume that he and JV were asked (roughly) the same questions. And notice that the author of the piece apparently didn't feel a need to distinguish between "rumour" and "suspicion". Why? Because it's not relevant. It's clear what's being asked. And it looks to me as if he uses the word "motor rumors" (when quoting JV) as a shortened substitute for "have you ever heard about motors/ suspected motor use" etc.

At least that's how I read it. And, crucially, there's no need to split hairs over it (although that's what we're doing now), because, secondly, it doesn't affect my point (which i'm happy you finally addressed) about VDV and omerta. You can disagree with my point, of course, or comment on it, as indeed you have now done, but silvousplait not on the basis of whether the particular set of questions posed to VDV contained the exact word "rumour" or not (which in the end we don't even know because we don't get to see the original set of questions). It has zero bearing on my point that VDV's statements, taken together, look alot like motor-omerta.

To your point: (1) It's very possible (or likely) that he lied about it. And that he either suspects or knows that some riders used motors or he even used one himself. We don't know yet. We'll find out someday.
Such denials always sound exactly the same irrespective of whether they're genuine or not. By their nature. Because whoever is lying in a denial is trying to mimick the way he would act if he was honest about it to appear convincing. (Some are very good at it, others less so.) And therefore these statements carry absolutely zero information.
Or can you provide us with a good quote that a rider should use if he genuinly doesn't believe that motors have been used? Not so easy, is it? And when thinking about this don't forget that the goal is never to make the few Clinic members happy but to address a broader spectrum of people.
In summary, I really think it's not worth it to lose so much sleep over these denials. They're just part of the game.

VDV is not an active rider. He's retired. Like Lemond.

I'm not losing sleep over VDV's or Vaughters' denials or alleged ignorance.
Just observing what looks to me like omerta 101. They've either lived in a cave or they are pretending.
If they are pretending, why are they pretending?
Didn't Yaco say that motorization is perceived by pros as so much worse than doping?
Well if that's the case, why is Vaughters saying he's not worried about it?
And VDV: "it's too risky", and "Cookson/UCI have it all under control".
Is he taking the absolute piss?
He could simply say nothing.

(2) From time to time it's good to maybe remind ourselves that there are no confirmed cases in the pro cycling peloton yet. Even Cancellara 2010 and Froome 2013 and other blatant cases that rank very high on all our lists are officially still rumors at this point in time. Unless it's proven there's still a possibility for each case that no motors were involved there. We all form our opinions but we cannot run around and call everybody a liar who doesn't fully agree with our own conclusions. Especially because neither of us has access to real insider information.

We've gone here so often. It's not a discussion I think is worth having again.
Bottom line: this is the Clinic, not a court of law.

(3) There are considerable differences in external circumstances for doping and motors (as discussed elsewhere). It's not automatically guaranteed that everything we know about doping can simply be extrapolated to motors. Maybe it'll turn out someday that the two systems indeed worked exactly the same way, maybe not. But for now to simply draw parallel lines everywhere is quite a large assumption that is not really warranted yet.

This is a strawman.

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

Funny how he didn't win the Tour then if he was doping and motordoping. Unless you obviously suspect everyone else also was motordoping in 2009 which wouldn't surprise me one bit. VdV rode very anonymously in that Tour, nothing special at all.

Of course he has heard about Cance, but I can't see how his answer = motordoping.

Huh? VDV somehow came 8th after crashing and almost abandoning the race. He went from team leader to riding his ar$e off for Wigans. Under the circumstances it was quite an impressive ride