Gripper grasping at straws

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I like how some people slurp themselves and pretend it's objectivity.

Anyway, to suggest that the peloton is clean now is fanciful, but I do believe it is cleaner than it was. I do believe riders like Phinney and many of the younger European riders are riding clean. I think this is exerting pressure on riders to not perform in an extraterrestrial way anymore for fear of sticking out. I think this is a very new development when you look at how just a couple of years ago, amazing feats were still happening in the spring classics, etc. I also believe JV when he says he is trying to do it the right way. I used to flame the guy more than anyone here (check the tape), but he has convinced me he is genuinely dedicated to clean cycling. If he hasn't convinced you, I can respect that because he did ride during one of the dirtiest periods of cycling and he did participate. If that puts me at the head of the "slurp" line, so be it.

Notwithstanding any of that, I am going to enjoy this spring's races.
gotta disagree with you on Phinney TFF.

The 1'01 kilo and the 4'15 pursuit times, plus his long timetrial efforts, and high placing in olympics and worlds, indicate to me, (apart from the morphing of the facial bone physiognomy) = hormone program.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
"He's not a drug cheat - he's a bully, he's a manipulator, he's been incredibly unfair to a whole lot of people and he's a dead-set liar."-Gripper

The first would be indicative of the rest, even the bullying. This statement contradicts all logic.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
ChrisE said:
I did not say that JV's heart was not in the right place. I was talking about how who he claims is clean is suspect (Wiggans 2009/12, his AC evaluation BS, etc), and how his 'ryder' winning GT's at this time should be suspect while he is publicly clamoring for more testing. That in my mind is suspect, YMMV. People believing him just because he comes in here has happened, and you know it. That is different from what you are saying.

Methinks he has a delicate schtick going on, preaching cleanliness while waiting for the day when PED use is less prevalent, but he has to remain relevant while waiting and working towards that day. Winning does that.

I don't dislike JV and I agree with you he is the best hope. Heck, if it doesn't work out he can always become CEO of a fortune 500 company with all of his options he brags about.
Fair enough Chris.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
ChrisE said:
I did not say that JV's heart was not in the right place. I was talking about how who he claims is clean is suspect (Wiggans 2009/12, his AC evaluation BS, etc), and how his 'ryder' winning GT's at this time should be suspect while he is publicly clamoring for more testing. That in my mind is suspect, YMMV. People believing him just because he comes in here has happened, and you know it. That is different from what you are saying.

Methinks he has a delicate schtick going on, preaching cleanliness while waiting for the day when PED use is less prevalent, but he has to remain relevant while waiting and working towards that day. Winning does that.

I don't dislike JV and I agree with you he is the best hope. Heck, if it doesn't work out he can always become CEO of a fortune 500 company with all of his options he brags about.
this neatly sums my pov. But I coughed up a bit of dutch phlegm when his quotes post Opera (sic) about "truth" being the solution.

There are too many faulty bioparameter readings on the technical instruments really, we need to work on getting the technical aspect dialled in to a T first :D
 
I think Chris asks a really good question. I tend to be cynical like Sniper and say we will be able to conclude for sure the peloton is clean only when there is no major monetary advantage to winning. But of course that is not going to happen.

One of JV’s main arguments (echoed by Ryo) that the peloton is cleaner if not clean is that wattages are lower than they were in the late 90s. I remember his making a statement that the winning time in some recent MTF would not have been top 15 in 1997, or something like that. He might be right, but the obvious problem with comparisons like these is that there are many factors that can’t be controlled—weather, the difficulty of the ride preceding the finish, race strategy, etc. IOW, there is a lot of noise or variation in times that may be as great as the expected differences between a doped and clean performance.

I suggested a while back that a lot of these factors could be neutralized by having a climbing TT over the exact same route in every TDF. If the grade was fairly constant, it would be a good measure of power/weight. We couldn’t compare times on a route like this directly with those in the past, but over a few years we could get a very good idea of the maximum possible power outputs, and compare these with the maximum outputs performed under various conditions in the past. IOW, if we observed that, say, 6.2 watts/kg was the absolute best any current rider could put out for forty-five minutes, and if greater outputs were observed frequently in the past (particularly by more than one rider*), we could conclude with much greater certainty that current riders were at least less doped. We could also see how power outputs changed in the future.

I think we also need to take the notion of 24/7 observation seriously. I know it is wildly impractical, but if a few elite riders could prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had not performed any illicit operations on their bodies over the course of a season, we could take their performances seriously as clean. Some day not in the too-far future, there may even be technology that will be able to record everything that an individual has put in his body by any route, oral, IV or i.p. Together with the mountain test I suggested, this would give us a very good idea of how much power the best clean riders can put out.

Beyond this, better passports. Ones that look not just at blood values, but at all physiological parameters, and far more radical, functional parameters. Eventually, I think, it will be possible to know not only a rider’s natural physiology but his natural peak performances so well that almost any enhancement capable of making a significant difference in a race will be detectable. IOW, I would extend the passport beyond physiology, to create a baseline of performance, so that any performance significantly beyond this (taking into account a very detailed knowledge of how much clean training can raise performance) will immediately be suspect. We will probably need 24/7 information to establish natural performance maximums, but also contributing to this baseline will be a thorough genetic analysis of each athlete, using information about key genes, and the effect on their regulation by training, to estimate his maximum possible peak performance. I understand how controversial this sounds--it is basically the hardline Clinic position of "since he did so well, he must be doping"--but I really think this is where anti-doping eventually has to go--and can go. I have seen how careful scientists are to interpret blood passport values, and I really believe if this kind of care is extended to a performance passport, it can protect clean riders who have improved solely through legal methods. I raised this point with JV on one of his threads a while back, but he didn’t respond.

*This will make it less likely that a once-in-a-generation talent appears who is significantly better than anyone who follows him in the next several decades. However, even this possibility can be anticipated going forward. Science is approaching the point where we will know enough about the relationship of certain key genes to performance to be able to estimate the best possible performance by any conceivable genetic combination. IOW, we will be able to analyze the genetic makeup of athletes, and from this information, accurately estimate the best possible performance they are capable of.

Edit: This does not mean we are approaching a time where we will be able to predict the outcome of races just by a detailed knowledge of performance and physiological maxima. There are still factors like strategy, timing, motivation, etc. (though eventually I think these too will become more predictable). What I'm talking about here is just power, and a way of differentiating maximum power from a clean rider from that of the same rider doped.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
ChrisE said:
I did not say that JV's heart was not in the right place. I was talking about how who he claims is clean is suspect (Wiggans 2009/12, his AC evaluation BS, etc), and how his 'ryder' winning GT's at this time should be suspect while he is publicly clamoring for more testing. That in my mind is suspect, YMMV. People believing him just because he comes in here has happened, and you know it. That is different from what you are saying.

Methinks he has a delicate schtick going on, preaching cleanliness while waiting for the day when PED use is less prevalent, but he has to remain relevant while waiting and working towards that day. Winning does that.

I don't dislike JV and I agree with you he is the best hope. Heck, if it doesn't work out he can always become CEO of a fortune 500 company with all of his options he brags about.
good post. But if he's our best hope, that's bad.
On twitter JV is all over the place crediting the UCI-IC.
I don't know if he seriously wants the tree and branch surgery cycling needs.
I also felt he could have supported Kimmage in public. He didn't.
Not even in here.
Then posters also forget his plans to move out with Bruyneel.
And in at least one interview he was all over the place praising Riis for his confession. ('confession'). So Riis and Bruyneel: good guys. Kimmage? crickets.

Nothing new, but it's all sort of unexpected for someone who says he's devoted his life to clean cycling.

@ChewbaccaD: what was it that convinced you?
What do you make of his judgement of Wiggins/Contador? Was he naive or was he lying? He must have known about Contador, and he must know now about Sky as well, isn't it? So is he genuinely naive or is he lying just to create a better perception?
And, if I may ask, what's your view on Hesjedal: if he's clean, is he beating doped riders? Or is he a clean rider beating other clean riders? Or is he not really clean, but simply a bit cleaner than those guys in the 90s/00s?
 
sniper said:
good post. But if he's our best hope, that's bad.
On twitter JV is all over the place crediting the UCI-IC.
I don't know if he seriously wants the tree and branch surgery cycling needs.
I also felt he could have supported Kimmage in public. He didn't.
Not even in here.
Then posters also forget his plans to move out with Bruyneel.
And in at least one interview he was all over the place praising Riis for his confession. ('confession'). So Riis and Bruyneel: good guys. Kimmage? crickets.

Nothing new, but it's all sort of unexpected for someone who says he's devoted his life to clean cycling.

@ChewbaccaD: what was it that convinced you?
What do you make of his judgement of Wiggins/Contador? Was he naive or was he lying? He must have known about Contador, and he must know now about Sky as well, isn't it? So is he genuinely naive or is he lying just to create a better perception?
And, if I may ask, what's your view on Hesjedal: if he's clean, is he beating doped riders? Or is he a clean rider beating other clean riders? Or is he not really clean, but simply a bit cleaner than those guys in the 90s/00s?
To put some more context on this.

Santiago Blanco(my new favourite rode BTW) finished 11th in the 2000 Giro with known dopers all around him. L.Piepoli was 10th. According to Jesus Manzano, Blanco was clean:eek:

Now perhaps Manzano is talking crap but let's say he is not. If the front end of the peloton has slowed a bit since 2000, then surely there is a very good case for arguing that a clean rider could actually win the Giro in the current climate. Top 10 to winner is not a huge jump especially if the front end has slown down.

Blanco finishing 11th in 2000 also give credence to the possibility of Brad McGee riding clean to finish 8th in 2004 and Sandy Casar 6th in 2006
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
pmcg76 said:
To put some more context on this.

Santiago Blanco(my new favourite rode BTW) finished 11th in the 2000 Giro with known dopers all around him. L.Piepoli was 10th. According to Jesus Manzano, Blanco was clean:eek:

Now perhaps Manzano is talking crap but let's say he is not. If the front end of the peloton has slowed a bit since 2000, then surely there is a very good case for arguing that a clean rider could actually win the Giro in the current climate. Top 10 to winner is not a huge jump especially if the front end has slown down.

Blanco finishing 11th in 2000 also give credence to the possibility of Brad McGee riding clean to finish 8th in 2004 and Sandy Casar 6th in 2006
good points. nice context.
But Manzano's judgement is a couple of times more credible than Vaughters', for a simple reason: Manzano has no stakes in (clean) cycling, Vaughters does.
So the question remains: why trust Vaughters, and not, say, Brailsford?
Was Garmin's way of dealing with Matt White/Del Moral any more credible than Sky's way of dealing with Leinders? Is Garmin's Johnny Weltz any more credible than Sky's Shane Sutton or Sean Yates?
 
sniper said:
good points. nice context.
But Manzano's judgement is a couple of times more credible than Vaughters', for a simple reason: Manzano has no stakes in (clean) cycling, Vaughters does.
So the question remains: why trust Vaughters, and not, say, Brailsford?
Was Garmin's way of dealing with Matt White/Del Moral any more credible than Sky's way of dealing with Leinders? Is Garmin's Johnny Weltz any more credible than Sky's Shane Sutton or Sean Yates?
Why are you turning this into yet another Garmin thread....again. Do you have a crush on JV or something, your obsessiveness with that man knows no boundaries

Well if you believe Manzano, that automatically gives more credence to JV saying it is now possible to win a GT clean.

I thought the differences between SKY and Garmin were clear. SKY set up a ZTP which is what they are now being hauled over the coals about which Garmin never had. You cannot criticise Garmin for something they never claimed to have, no contact with past dopers. Are you really this thick??
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
pmcg76 said:
Why are you turning this into yet another Garmin thread....again. Do you have a crush on JV or something, your obsessiveness with that man knows no boundaries

Well if you believe Manzano, that automatically gives more credence to JV saying it is now possible to win a GT clean.

I thought the differences between SKY and Garmin were clear. SKY set up a ZTP which is what they are now being hauled over the coals about which Garmin never had. You cannot criticise Garmin for something they never claimed to have, no contact with past dopers. Are you really this thick??
agree with your point re: manzano.

the question posed by ChrisE earlier on was: why believe person X, and not person Y.

Why elieve Brailsford and not Vaughters. (or other way around).

I think I post about Sky/Brailsford as much as I do about Garmin/Vaughters.
Why shouldn't I?
 
sniper said:
agree with your point re: manzano.

the question posed by ChrisE earlier on was: why believe person X, and not person Y.

Why elieve Brailsford and not Vaughters. (or other way around).

I think I post about Sky/Brailsford as much as I do about Garmin/Vaughters.
Why shouldn't I?
Yeah but its the fact that you always seem to somehow mention JV in posts that have nowt to do with Garmin that makes it obvious. I am sure I am not the only person who has noticed that.

Who people choose to believe is up to them. What we do know is that Garmin haven't tried to claim to do something that is virtually impossible in the pro peloton, have no contact with dopers. Maybe that alone makes JV more believable because he is at least realistic about that situation whilst BD is living in cuckoo PR land on that matter.

Let me also respond to a question by asking another question. Why should anyone believe that Mard Madiot and Lfdjeux run a clean ship now when they were previously a noted doping team. Jef D'Hont, Rebellin, Gianetti, Mentheor etc, etc.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
pmcg76 said:
Yeah but its the fact that you always seem to somehow mention JV in posts that have nowt to do with Garmin that makes it obvious. I am sure I am not the only person who has noticed that.

Who people choose to believe is up to them. What we do know is that Garmin haven't tried to claim to do something that is virtually impossible in the pro peloton, have no contact with dopers. Maybe that alone makes JV more believable because he is at least realistic about that situation whilst BD is living in cuckoo PR land on that matter.

Let me also respond to a question by asking another question. Why should anyone believe that Mard Madiot and Lfdjeux run a clean ship now when they were previously a noted doping team. Jef D'Hont, Rebellin, Gianetti, Mentheor etc, etc.
I doubt Madiot. His dealings with Bassons left a lot to be desired IMO. It was while riding for Madiot's team in 1999 which Bassons left the team in the early hours.

Not defending Bassons was appalling.
 
pmcg76 said:
To put some more context on this.

Santiago Blanco(my new favourite rode BTW) finished 11th in the 2000 Giro with known dopers all around him. L.Piepoli was 10th. According to Jesus Manzano, Blanco was clean:eek:

Now perhaps Manzano is talking crap but let's say he is not. If the front end of the peloton has slowed a bit since 2000, then surely there is a very good case for arguing that a clean rider could actually win the Giro in the current climate. Top 10 to winner is not a huge jump especially if the front end has slown down.

Blanco finishing 11th in 2000 also give credence to the possibility of Brad McGee riding clean to finish 8th in 2004 and Sandy Casar 6th in 2006
15 minutes is quite a lot for a race determined by a couple of time trials and a few finishing climbs. Contador would have been far higher on GC and probably would have won.

Problem is looking at an entire era of doped riders you don't know what the dopers would have been able to achieve if they were clean. It's unlikely Moncoutie would have been #1 in a completely clean bunch so can't really be used as an upper limit of what to expect from a clean rider today.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
sniper said:
good post. But if he's our best hope, that's bad.
On twitter JV is all over the place crediting the UCI-IC.
I don't know if he seriously wants the tree and branch surgery cycling needs.
I also felt he could have supported Kimmage in public. He didn't.
Not even in here.
Then posters also forget his plans to move out with Bruyneel.
And in at least one interview he was all over the place praising Riis for his confession. ('confession'). So Riis and Bruyneel: good guys. Kimmage? crickets.

Nothing new, but it's all sort of unexpected for someone who says he's devoted his life to clean cycling.

@ChewbaccaD: what was it that convinced you?
What do you make of his judgement of Wiggins/Contador? Was he naive or was he lying? He must have known about Contador, and he must know now about Sky as well, isn't it? So is he genuinely naive or is he lying just to create a better perception?
And, if I may ask, what's your view on Hesjedal: if he's clean, is he beating doped riders? Or is he a clean rider beating other clean riders? Or is he not really clean, but simply a bit cleaner than those guys in the 90s/00s?
My interaction with him directly and his interaction with others. When he tweeted his support of Wiggins, I went after him really hard. He returned equally hard, actually making a pretty nasty reference to my place in my family. We had a little back and forth, and he then apologized for having gone too far, as did I. A little later, we interacted again, and he asked me to PM him about what I believed he needed to do. It wasn't anything too in depth, but he foreshadowed that he and others were going to come clean. Then he wrote his NY Times piece, and I read it and found it genuine. I also had conversations with a couple of people who have sat down with him in person and discussed all of the doping stuff before he made it public, and they were clear that in private, he was really clear and honest about the past, and what he wanted to do in the future. I guess my answer then is that the combined personal interaction, the impression I took from his NY Times admission, and most importantly, the discussion I've had with those who talk to him in person make me fall on the side of believing him.

He gets hammered for coming here and opening up, but who else does that? Sure there have been other riders who posted here. There is even a suggestion that HWMNBN posted here many times. My take from the way JV interacts here reinforces my belief because of the way the interacts, he comes in and says "ask me whatever you want." From my experience, people trying to hide sh!t don't do that. Why would they? The reality is that this little sub-forum has about as much importance in the world as used toilet paper. We are a small minority of people who give enough of a sh!t to delve into the issue of doping in cycling, but lets face it, most people don't give a f*&k about the topic other than the fact that everyone loves a car accident. Still, I don't expect the viewership hs increased too much even with Armstrong's admission.

JV came here to address a crowd with tomatoes in their hands, and skepticism and vitriol in their hearts. Sure his opinion vacillates between, "I don't know why I even bother because you guys mean nothing" to "Ask me anything." But just the act of facing people who accuse you suggests to me that he isn't trying to hide anything. If he were trying to hide something, he would make his public statements and stay as far away from interaction with his critics as he can. He doesn't do that.

As for Hesjedal, I do think he won clean. Why? Because I want to. Did he beat doped people? Surely. How? My guess is because they weren't nearly as doped as in the past. I don't have any proof of any kind about Hesjedal. We have JV proclaiming RH's cleanliness, and no actual evidence other than skepticism against that. Hesjedal won by clawing his way to minimized time loss on several stages. He didn't ride off into the sunset, leaving his opposition gasping in his wake. He didn't win because his entire team delivered him to the decisive moment by riding everyone off their wheels. That Giro win was one of the harder fought wins I ever remember watching. The win looked more credible to me. It just did.

Maybe I just want to be naive again, and believe in something positive? Whatever, my gut is that JV is being honest about his desire to usher in a time where a supremely talented athlete does not have to make the decision to dope to ride at the highest level of the sport. Is that time now? There are signs that point both ways. To me one of the signs that points to a cleaner movement is JV. And in case you haven't noticed, I am one skeptical motherf&^ker.

EDIT: And let me add that JV's support of Contador and Wiggins are no unequivocal in any way from what I read. They are more along the lines of a guy who has to work in cycling who is only willing to proffer an opinion based on the limited information he has, and not wanting to cast aspersions on people he has to see regularly. From my reading, I wouldn't characterize his support of Wiggins as unquestioning.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
And that is the enigma. He comes on here and it offers no benefit IMO, and puts him in a bind: as he tapdances around direct implications upon other current high profile riders (he has no choice), he makes statements and does things that are scrutinized as sniper points out, legitimately IMO. This while fielding an unexpected GT winner while stating PED testing is woefully inadequate and writing opeds only on the eve of the USADA report.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
ChrisE said:
And that is the enigma. He comes on here and it offers no benefit IMO, and puts him in a bind: as he tapdances around direct implications upon other current high profile riders (he has no choice), he makes statements and does things that are scrutinized as sniper points out, legitimately IMO. This while fielding an unexpected GT winner while stating PED testing is woefully inadequate and writing opeds only on the eve of the USADA report.
And those are very legitimate points. I fully admit that most of my opinion is based on gut feeling. Not the best guide usually, but that is the truth of the matter.
 
Benotti69 said:
I doubt Madiot. His dealings with Bassons left a lot to be desired IMO. It was while riding for Madiot's team in 1999 which Bassons left the team in the early hours.

Not defending Bassons was appalling.
Madiot's treatment of Bassons was a low moment I am sure he isn't proud of.

Madiot is a guy that sees things black and white. I get the feeling that fairly soon after 1999 he saw the light and really did work to implement riding clean on his team - and if so he doesn't do things half-way. Some echos from people I know who work for or have connections to FDJ would tend to confirm this.

However, given the state of cycling, how to be certain is beyond me.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
And those are very legitimate points. I fully admit that most of my opinion is based on gut feeling. Not the best guide usually, but that is the truth of the matter.
And that is usually what we base our opinions on. There is no way we will know who is clean thus this issue will perpetually go around in circles. MI makes some good points but in the end there is always a way to cheat when humans are involved, from the athletes side or the governing side.

Anyway I'm sitting in a hotel room in Mumbai and I need to go catch a plane for a lovely 20 hour flight back to civilization, so I'm outta here. C'est la vie.
 
I have always figured Gripper knows enough to blow the UCI out of the water. It seems to me though that her statements are often ambiguous, both critical yet defending the status quo. Maybe she is waiting until the corruption is made public before she speaks out. Could also be that she has signed a confidentiality agreement (typical UCI/Armstrong tactic to silence those in the know).
 
Benotti69 said:
I doubt Madiot. His dealings with Bassons left a lot to be desired IMO. It was while riding for Madiot's team in 1999 which Bassons left the team in the early hours.

Not defending Bassons was appalling.
You are correct on the Basson's incident. But that is 13 years ago now, my question is Madiot doing things differently now? Do you seriously believe the current Fdjeux team are anything like the 97-98 version of the team?

One of the things I don't get here is people saying someone was doing this or that 20/10 years ago so they are exactly the same now. People and circumstances change.

I know I hold different views on things that I might have viewed differently ten years 10 ago.
 
Ferminal said:
15 minutes is quite a lot for a race determined by a couple of time trials and a few finishing climbs. Contador would have been far higher on GC and probably would have won.

Problem is looking at an entire era of doped riders you don't know what the dopers would have been able to achieve if they were clean. It's unlikely Moncoutie would have been #1 in a completely clean bunch so can't really be used as an upper limit of what to expect from a clean rider today.
Ferminal, I don't understand the first part of your post. Where does Contador come into this? and what race are you talking about.

In fact I don't really get most of your post. Maybe I am just being thick here.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
The Final Solution: nobody can be considered clean until he/she posts the relevant data into the "Data from clean Pros" thread.

Howgh!
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I like how some people slurp themselves and pretend it's objectivity.

Anyway, to suggest that the peloton is clean now is fanciful, but I do believe it is cleaner than it was. I do believe riders like Phinney and many of the younger European riders are riding clean. I think this is exerting pressure on riders to not perform in an extraterrestrial way anymore for fear of sticking out. I think this is a very new development when you look at how just a couple of years ago, amazing feats were still happening in the spring classics, etc. I also believe JV when he says he is trying to do it the right way. I used to flame the guy more than anyone here (check the tape), but he has convinced me he is genuinely dedicated to clean cycling. If he hasn't convinced you, I can respect that because he did ride during one of the dirtiest periods of cycling and he did participate. If that puts me at the head of the "slurp" line, so be it.

Notwithstanding any of that, I am going to enjoy this spring's races.
Man, you might need to reconsider your position in The Clinic 12 after this - but seriously, its a great post as are your follow ups.

To get back to Grippers point - I do believe the Bio Passport works, and has cleaned up the sport quite a bit ie less doping by the majority of dopers.
The problem with the BP is that it still relies on the UCI, they have outsourced it somewhat, but it is on their terms and the UCI still identify the suspicious cases and have the final say.
Which means the big names can still get away with posting suspicious values.

In short, a great tool in the wrong hands.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Man, you might need to reconsider your position in The Clinic 12 after this - but seriously, its a great post as are your follow ups.

To get back to Grippers point - I do believe the Bio Passport works, and has cleaned up the sport quite a bit ie less doping by the majority of dopers.
The problem with the BP is that it still relies on the UCI, they have outsourced it somewhat, but it is on their terms and the UCI still identify the suspicious cases and have the final say.
Which means the big names can still get away with posting suspicious values.

In short, a great tool in the wrong hands.
agreed.

another obvious problem is that only those teams with the financial means have the medical means to implemente a regime sophisticated enough to avoid getting flagged.
So the passport might eventually cause a positive correlation between financial means and PED-abuse. So instead of creating a level playing field, we'll see an increasing concentration of dopers at the top.
The gap in results between richer teams and poorer teams could thus grow correspondingly, while the poorer teams are also more likely to be facing positives.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
sniper said:
good post. But if he's our best hope, that's bad.
On twitter JV is all over the place crediting the UCI-IC.
I don't know if he seriously wants the tree and branch surgery cycling needs.
I also felt he could have supported Kimmage in public. He didn't.
Not even in here.

Then posters also forget his plans to move out with Bruyneel.
And in at least one interview he was all over the place praising Riis for his confession. ('confession'). So Riis and Bruyneel: good guys. Kimmage? crickets.

Nothing new, but it's all sort of unexpected for someone who says he's devoted his life to clean cycling.

@ChewbaccaD: what was it that convinced you?
What do you make of his judgement of Wiggins/Contador? Was he naive or was he lying? He must have known about Contador, and he must know now about Sky as well, isn't it? So is he genuinely naive or is he lying just to create a better perception?
And, if I may ask, what's your view on Hesjedal: if he's clean, is he beating doped riders? Or is he a clean rider beating other clean riders? Or is he not really clean, but simply a bit cleaner than those guys in the 90s/00s?
Why do you make stuff up? Here is what JV said about PK on this forum - he has also said the same on twitter.
JV1973 said:
Sure. but then I have to go. cross country practice for my kid.

I don't agree with suing Kimmage. I am a friend of Paul's and feel his is being unfairly singled out. I also do not agree with resources that I provide the UCI (my license fee) being used to pursue such legal actions.

In addition, bringing a suit like this sends the wrong message. Paul, while sometimes a bit emotional, is a passionate fan of the sport and loves it. His criticisms come from a place of trying to help things get better, not hurt the sport.

JV
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY