Internal Garmin Email from Prentice Steffen

[Anonymous]

What happened to Ozzies post giving the twitter link to some Ny velo city.

I was going to respond to that, asking who the leak is (if its so obvious) and pointing out that CN forums is becoming the centre of cycling

i was going to ask as well.

here's the tweet

 

[Anonymous]

i guess it is the guy who just got sacked or trent lowe, I think it is an old email.

well its dated 2008 so one would assume so.

Daotec and The Hog are gonna be ****ed that they didnt get to release it though.

 

[The Hitch]

well its dated 2008 so one would assume so.

Daotec and The Hog are gonna be ****ed that they didnt get to release it though.

Why would Hog care. It has little relation to a certain texan.

 

[ingsve]

The only thing I get out of that is that it's all in line with JVs stance of handling things from within and not through journalists.

 

[Ferminal]

Well, we've always known JV has managed perception of doping in his team, the reality it seems, is rather clear.

 

[JPM London]

JPM London, i think the quoted bits are actually quite interesting.

Ok, how?

All it's saying is that journos cannot simply get your personal info - IMO very fair - and that riders can't have any info they want - very fair as well.

Please note in which way the quote is interesting - I for one (and other as well it seems) are quickly getting bored with this non-info...

Why would clean riders need to be reassured that their lab numbers look okay? Wouldn't they naturally fall within the proper parameters?

If I were a rider and submitted to those tests and my career would depend on how those tests came out I'd really like to know how it looked - clean or dirty. Don't forget that there's plenty of variance down to other factors than cheating - some explainable, some not. I'd most def want to know and I wouldn't need to know specific figures, just whether I could focus on riding and training or whether I should be scarred shtlss about being a statistical anomaly...

Isnt this the problem? What's the point of keeping it a secret if you are just gonna tell them yourselves if there's a problem? Isnt the only time they should know about the values when you give them their walking papers?

Try to make sense much? The email actually says the riders can't have any info they want. They can have bits and only if management thinks it's appropriate. I think in any place it would be problematic if you submitted people to tests and kept the information completely confidential from the person who's data it, in the end, is...

 

[JV1973]

I don't want to start another frenzy by posting, but you I'm happy to give an explanation on this one.

In 2008, blood profiling was brand new and the riders had a lot of questions. One was "Can we see our results?" This email was politely telling them "no" and the reason why. Perception equals reality is just that. If the public or even WADA thought we were giving the riders their results, it would look as if we were providing riders data to help them dope. In my meetings with WADA is 2006 and 2007, where we were conceiving this program, they were insistent that the riders not be given access to the results "quickly"...Of course, a few months after the fact is fine, as its of little value then and a rider may want these for their medical records or to help track training load vs. blood profile. So, this was a nice way of saying "no, you don't get them, but its not because we think you're cheating or that you're little children, but that we must make sure everyone's perception of our team is in line with what the reality is."

I honestly don't think riders have requested any of these results since the email. They do get their UCI quarterlies, which I think is a good thing, as those tests are no used for anti-doping and are performed in any lab you'd like.

I can't help it if Prentice meanders a bit in his writing. He's a doctor, not Bill Bryson.

As far as the press. Yes, we have a strict procedure in releasing blood data:
1. You are an accredited journalist asking for it.
2. You have a hematologist on retainer to help you review the data.

Seems pretty logical, eh? Its the same now as it was in 2008. And if you were a pro rider, i'd imagine you'd want something like this is place to, as opposed to just giving the info away to anyone.

Anyhow, just FYI, legally I could have this post taken down, at least according to the CN legal staff, but I'm choosing to let this stay up, as I'm pretty sick and tired of being accused of not being "really transparent" or whatever the weird "the moon comes and JV will suffer under the shadow of the five a**ed monkey at midnight" that sometimes gets posted here.

So, here's your transparency, approved by JV himself.

Any questions?Just email me or call. Its way easier than this. And I will get back to you. I'm not posting my email or phone number, as I'm already stocked up on Viagra ads, but just call the office and ask. i'll get back to you....as soon as I'm done teaching PVP English.

 

[The Hitch]

JV.

Daniel Martin is on my cq team. Could you take him to the tour please.

Cheers

 

[JV1973]

he needs to get a bit better at ttt(read: JV's OBSESSION WITH TTT)... but...you never know. tomorrow on faron, i'm hoping he wins.

 

[DAOTEC]

well its dated 2008 so one would assume so.

Daotec and The Hog are gonna be ****ed that they didnt get to release it though.

Hmm this one is for you ...

 

[Anonymous]

I don't want to start another frenzy by posting, but you I'm happy to give an explanation on this one.

snip

pretty much what most of us thought. The perception question had people who dont have too good a grasp of english all excited.

Whats more interesting is who posted it and what their motivation is. Because if this is meant to cause waves it clearly isnt going to.

Maybe the CN legal team will pass on their IP address

 

[Kennf1]

pretty much what most of us thought. The perception question had people who dont have too good a grasp of english all excited.

Whats more interesting is who posted it and what their motivation is. Because if this is meant to cause waves it clearly isnt going to.

Maybe the CN legal team will pass on their IP address

Agreed. Really nothing controversial in this e-mail. And as for Steffen, the man took a punch to the face in the name of anti-doping!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

pretty much what most of us thought. The perception question had people who dont have too good a grasp of english all excited.

Whats more interesting is who posted it and what their motivation is. Because if this is meant to cause waves it clearly isnt going to.

Maybe the CN legal team will pass on their IP address

To the blue - as I said on twitter, this is more a dribble than a leak.

But the highlighted is the question - as discussed on the 'Freibe' thread here we know that Lowe is in negotiations with Slip Stream over the unpaid part of the contract.
Slipstream have said that TL (through Hardie) was seeking $500,000 - obviously Slipstream revealing that would knock down that amount.

Is this email part of a negotiation strategy? And are there more emails that could be leaked (dribbled)?

 

[Ferminal]

as soon as I'm done teaching PVP English.

Oh...

I guess he wasn't on Mercury for long enough (nor would it have inspired him to learn the tongue!)

 

[Colm.Murphy]

JV,

You make mention of a requesting journalist having a Haematologist on retainer to interpret a riders blood data. Who is the Haematologist that your team uses for this purpose?

Also, I think you are being disingenuous with your claim that hood values were not being used by the UCI before 2008. Clearly the Hamilton case, as well as the notifications to Levi regarding questionable blood values pre-date this. It seems convenient for you to make his claim based on he contents of he email.

I don't want to start another frenzy by posting, but you I'm happy to give an explanation on this one.

In 2008, blood profiling was brand new and the riders had a lot of questions. One was "Can we see our results?" This email was politely telling them "no" and the reason why. Perception equals reality is just that. If the public or even WADA thought we were giving the riders their results, it would look as if we were providing riders data to help them dope. In my meetings with WADA is 2006 and 2007, where we were conceiving this program, they were insistent that the riders not be given access to the results "quickly"...Of course, a few months after the fact is fine, as its of little value then and a rider may want these for their medical records or to help track training load vs. blood profile. So, this was a nice way of saying "no, you don't get them, but its not because we think you're cheating or that you're little children, but that we must make sure everyone's perception of our team is in line with what the reality is."

I honestly don't think riders have requested any of these results since the email. They do get their UCI quarterlies, which I think is a good thing, as those tests are no used for anti-doping and are performed in any lab you'd like.

I can't help it if Prentice meanders a bit in his writing. He's a doctor, not Bill Bryson.

As far as the press. Yes, we have a strict procedure in releasing blood data:
1. You are an accredited journalist asking for it.
2. You have a hematologist on retainer to help you review the data.

Seems pretty logical, eh? Its the same now as it was in 2008. And if you were a pro rider, i'd imagine you'd want something like this is place to, as opposed to just giving the info away to anyone.

Anyhow, just FYI, legally I could have this post taken down, at least according to the CN legal staff, but I'm choosing to let this stay up, as I'm pretty sick and tired of being accused of not being "really transparent" or whatever the weird "the moon comes and JV will suffer under the shadow of the five a**ed monkey at midnight" that sometimes gets posted here.

So, here's your transparency, approved by JV himself.

Any questions?Just email me or call. Its way easier than this. And I will get back to you. I'm not posting my email or phone number, as I'm already stocked up on Viagra ads, but just call the office and ask. i'll get back to you....as soon as I'm done teaching PVP English.

 

[Anonymous]

Im more fascinated by the fact that there are people who keep their emails for nearly 3 years. The only ones i have from that far back are ones with software licence numbers in them.

They must have a mac. Theres no way windows could have survived 3 years without a re-install at some point.

 

[Ferminal]

Im more fascinated by the fact that there are people who keep their emails for nearly 3 years. The only ones i have from that far back are ones with software licence numbers in them.

They must have a mac. Theres no way windows could have survived 3 years without a re-install at some point.

I've just cracked two years!

I wonder if the other riders and staff saw this e-mail in the same way the leaker did. They obviously saved it and remembered what it said. Maybe it sounds better with their context.

 

[JV1973]

Certain new fixed blood values were in use starting in 2004...ie off-score of 133+ and you're out. also, obviously, the homologous transfusion test was in place in 2004. Individual profiling, ie looking at individual variation and comparing that to standard deviation, was not in use in 2004. The focus of ACE in 2008 and the current blood passport model is deviation of the individual's values from his norms. not fixed, standardized cross-population values such as 50% hct or 133 off-score.

here's a little factoid too: hematocrit hasnt been seen as big factor in anti-doping for quite some time. its all about hemoglobin and retic relationships. the 50% hct rule hasnt been in place for a while, as any small sample transport delay or exposure to heat can really mess with hct% by swelling the cells or even popping them. However, Hemoglobin is stable for much longer.

Just thought I'd get geeky on you.

Do you call people disingenuous to their face? I don't, unless I know them and have enough information to base that opinion on.

 

[pedaling squares]

I agree with JPML's take on that e-mail. This would be a better thread if The Hitch could get a few more DS's here and help them select their GT lineups.

 

[pedaling squares]

Just thought I'd get geeky on you.

Don't worry about the geek factor because that was new information to me and I found it interesting. Which probably makes me a geek...

 

[The Gnome]

"I can't help it if Prentice meanders a bit in his writing. He's a doctor, not Bill Bryson"

Classic!

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I call a spade a spade, to a bloke's face, in print, email, message forum, whatever. I do appreciate your reply. I note you failed to address my question about blood doctors. Is it because Slipstream does not have one on "retainer" or does the team rely on the UCI to provide a review, and subsequent reassurances, such as with the case with Wiggo's blood profile from the 2009 TdF?

As an aside, why is there such a disparity in the lengths the teams and riders will go to protest race radios as compared with doping issues?

It would seem that, except in the recent case of Ricco's blood sickness, nary a peep from teams and riders when Contador is popped, or when F. Schlock has been caught paying Fuentes, or when riders visit known doping doctors like... Well, you know to whom I refer.

Certain new fixed blood values were in use starting in 2004...ie off-score of 133+ and you're out. also, obviously, the homologous transfusion test was in place in 2004. Individual profiling, ie looking at individual variation and comparing that to standard deviation, was not in use in 2004. The focus of ACE in 2008 and the current blood passport model is deviation of the individual's values from his norms. not fixed, standardized cross-population values such as 50% hct or 133 off-score.

here's a little factoid too: hematocrit hasnt been seen as big factor in anti-doping for quite some time. its all about hemoglobin and retic relationships. the 50% hct rule hasnt been in place for a while, as any small sample transport delay or exposure to heat can really mess with hct% by swelling the cells or even popping them. However, Hemoglobin is stable for much longer.

Just thought I'd get geeky on you.

Do you call people disingenuous to their face? I don't, unless I know them and have enough information to base that opinion on.

 

[Ferminal]

Hardie -

newcyclingpath

We are not cyclingleaks we are not dealing with the lowe issue in the cycling media

 

[Anonymous]

why is there such a disparity in the lengths the teams and riders will go to protest race radios as compared with doping issues?

The topics that way -------------->

lets not degenerate this into another jv picking holes and *****ing session. i think weve had enough of those recently.

 

[Race Radio]

Certain new fixed blood values were in use starting in 2004...ie off-score of 133+ and you're out. also, obviously, the homologous transfusion test was in place in 2004. Individual profiling, ie looking at individual variation and comparing that to standard deviation, was not in use in 2004. The focus of ACE in 2008 and the current blood passport model is deviation of the individual's values from his norms. not fixed, standardized cross-population values such as 50% hct or 133 off-score.

here's a little factoid too: hematocrit hasnt been seen as big factor in anti-doping for quite some time. its all about hemoglobin and retic relationships. the 50% hct rule hasnt been in place for a while, as any small sample transport delay or exposure to heat can really mess with hct% by swelling the cells or even popping them. However, Hemoglobin is stable for much longer.

Just thought I'd get geeky on you.

Do you call people disingenuous to their face? I don't, unless I know them and have enough information to base that opinion on.

Thanks for taking time out to post here.

A few years ago Garmin talked about incorporating output readings as a data point in their internal program. How have you done this and and would you consider it successful?

You have also indicated that the race radio protest was not only about radios but lack of representation, a valid point. Given that most fans care more about doping and UCI incompetence then radios do you see similar actions addressing these important issues? As president of the AGICP what is the long term strategy to address these issues beyond better testing?