• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Internal Garmin Email from Prentice Steffen

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
roundabout said:
Eh, no. A reply that starts with own preconceived notions about other people's intentions is hardly thoughtful.
Agree.

Jamsque said:
It seems to me that the only people who are finding anything suspicious in this 'leak' and JV's responses are those who came to the discussion with the pre-judgment that Garmin is a dirty team and JV is a con-man. For those like me who are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, there is nothing here that contradicts anything Vaughters has said in the past about the way his team goes about its business. I can't see a neutral finding anything suspicious about it either.

As for the question "Why doesn't Vaughters talk about his past", which pops up all the time here and seems to usually be code for "Why doesn't Vaughters tell us everything he ever saw Lance Armstrong do", he has a very good reason for not answering it and I am pretty sure he has said as much before now.
<snipped for brevity>
The first paragraph is (IMO) a fair statement - but you went astray with the second.

I am one of those who believes he needs to be honest about his past (keyword HIS). JV all but admitted his own doping in the Kimmage interview from 2008 -so it would not be a shock to the sport if he admitted.

Why this has come up recently was he went and did an interview with Tan - he was thrown the softball and avoided the answer.

Much of what we know about Garmin is from what has been said - that requires us to put our faith and trust in what he says, avoiding questions is not the best way to do that - and what makes this stupid and frustrating is that his doping will come out in the FDA case soon.

While I have no doubt that some are only interested in JVs doping to get at Armstrong he could have used the ongoing investigation as the perfect reason not to discuss it.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,052
0
0
sniper said:
Prentice is aguably the one who's gone to school the longest. So why should he be meandering in his language?
my god you must be joking. I take it you haven't spent any time with any doctors....
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,052
0
0
Colm.Murphy said:
Open dialogue is just that: OPEN

I welcome it, if the other party would do us the honor of being "open".
JV was spectacularly OPEN in his response to this thread.

He was quite correct in that he only had to write a short email or make a phone call to have CN remove it completley. (He didn't even need a lawyer to do that). Instead, he chose to come here and quite openly and in a friendly relaxed manner address THAT question.

The fact is that everything else raised here is technically off topic. By normal moderation standards I should have removed all the off topic posts via either creating new threads or deleting them. I have not, because this would then simply fuel the paranoia of a few.

As has repeatedly been the case, JV has come here and answered the question very clearly and once again made the offer of being happy to be taken up on any other questions via email or phone. Why? because shockingly he only comes here every month or so.

try taking him up on his offer - but if you are going to write about it here then do so in a new thread and not this one.

Colm.Murphy said:
Entitlement has nary a thing to do with it. It is Mr. JV who logged in here to present himself. I do not follow his twitter, email him, or the like. It is he who stepped into this domain. Not the other way around.
yeah - to answer A question. He did so honestly and openly. Nobody says he therefore has to then respond to anything else you care to ask in the manner you have.



Colm.Murphy said:
He made a tactical decision to pipe in and then failed to address the issue fully, even when it was clear people were courteous and forthright.
Sorry? What about his answer was unclear. It seemed starkly obvious to me and others that this whole thing is an rather sad attempt at trying to be relevant with a "leak". JV confirmed this quite convincingly (not that it was that hard to do)
 
Jul 8, 2009
447
0
0
+1 Martin.

IMO JV came onto the site of his own volition, how he came to hear about the "leaked" email is purely conjecture and is not important. What IS important is that he answered the OP with a clearly worded post. Sure he could have gone on to opine about numerous things that would make a lot of people around here happy, but is that really relevant to the OP? I think not.

Just because of who he is, he will be derided for coming on here and posting anything, the naysayers will never be content.

I applaud Garmin-Cervelo for their efforts, because from afar they seem to be at least doing something of substance.
 
Jul 28, 2009
769
0
0
NashbarShorts said:
I give JV alot of credit for coming on here and setting the record straight. However, he should realize why this email is concerning to a lot of us, esp in today's cycling climate where there are very few shreds of integrity to cling to. Personally I would have expected the email to read this way --

"Peeps:

A lot of you have been asking if you can have access to your ACE data. The short answer is "no".
The long answer is "why the f*ck are you asking for it?".
There is NO DOPING on this team.
If you dope, you are out, and we will unleash the lawyers on you and sue for backwages as explained in the contracts that all you f*ckers signed.

So to re-iterate: NO. You bast*rds better be clean!

Love,
Prentice"
Well maybe in your organisation the employees get addressed as if they are the scum of the earth but that actually isn't generally considered a productive way to run things.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
Jamsque said:
Colm, you seem to have a sense of entitlement about this and I'm not sure it's merited. Vaughters doesn't owe you, me or ACF anything. He's running a cycling team to the standards set by the UCI, WADA, and his own conscience. He says his team is clean, some (like me) believe him, some (like you) don't, and that is our prerogative. You are free to disbelieve and doubt everything he says and does but for you to demand that he must meet your personal standards for openness to have any credibility is ludicrous. You cannot possibly expect the manager of a professional sports team to sit on a message board for an hour a day and respond to every accusation and conspiracy theory cooked up by every crazed cycling fan with an internet connection.

There is no ulterior motive behind the fact that he replied in this thread and not others, this one just happened to catch his attention because of a twitter post.

[edit]Also ACF, what you did to JV on twitter was not 'grilling'. You seem to have journalistic aspirations, which is great, but you need to work on your interview technique.
I never expected him to sit on a forum board day by day but I found it interesting that he came on for that one email. Why doesn't he answer questions about Floyd's or Lowe's specific accusations? If this email means so little why come on?

peloton said:
(Your spelling is a bit off today)

Funny you want to grill JV but not the bad boys Ochowicz and Lelangue who Floyd fingered.
Oh wait... ;)

I fully agree with Jamsque too, good post.
With recent events & comments I think JV is more relevant and suspicious
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Would you be willing to share the email headers so that this can be authenticated?
I can (and do) rewrite headers all day long. Don't go down that road because it can't be reasonably authenticated.

I didn't see anything in the email that's damning.

What I consistently observe is JV acting like a white knight in a den of thieves. Some people can't wrap their heads around all of the inconsistencies this generates. The thieves aren't changing their behavior anytime soon, probably never, especially Pat and Hein. Honorable mention goes to their peers in the U.S. Wiesel and the rest of the Tailwind principals.

I don't see what he gets out of his Sisphean task, other than it's a way to stay in Pro cycling. I'd encourage him to find different work among more honorable people.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Would you be willing to share the email headers so that this can be authenticated?
I think the manner in which JV reacted pretty much authenticated the e-mail.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,006
0
0
If many of you think I am being too suspicious of JV let us consider some context.

He appears here, prompted by a twitter post that exclaims there is a "leaked" team document from Steffen, and offers what possibly is a plausible explanation. Ok, fine.

The "leaked" communication is based on Steffen, who by all accounts is a fervent anti-doping MD, who "took a punch" for anti-doping and got himself in some legal bind with regard to statements he made about Hamilton and Jamison asking for doping products.

JV bestows on the forum (his words) "transparency" and then dodges very logical and valid follow-on questions stemming from his (sill plausible) explanation, choosing instead to focus on the tenor of the questions.

Bearing in mind, the current climate of doping and scandal in the peloton, as well as his own, yet to be clarified doping past, the truth of which MAY be relevant to an ongoing investigation.

All of this, to me, gives me pause. Enough to not want to simply accept his gloss over explanation of the email.

My view is that JV answers are incomplete:

1. He mentions the 2008 date as being the start of blood parameters being gathered and viewed by the UCI. This is not true. The UCI has been doing so LONG before then, and I cite Hamilton's case, in which he was waned at least twice of having unusual blood parameters, and Levi's warnings, which Holczer claims to be ignorant of. I called him on this and he went on a tangent about HCT, and its usefulness.

2. He mentions the requirement of Haematologist being retained by a journalist wishing to gain access to blood profiles of team riders. I challenged him to name, or at lease acknowledge that Slipstream has one, too. He does not answer. In fact, push the issue to the point where I mention his reliance on the UCI (how wise is that? they are haematologists?) to "assure" him that Wiggo's blood profile from the 09 Tour was "ok".

3. We still wonder what is going on with the White/Lowe situation. Facts are fuzzy but it seems the same Dr. Prentice and JV were too negligent to notice, or tacitly approved, two visits by Lowe to Del Moral in 2009, pushed there by JV's trusted DS, White. JV seems to be pushing the limits of what is reasonable accommodation for Lowe to gather with his new team, and withhold some of his pay. Lowe seems perturbed that JV is selectively applying some things (meaningless contract details) and not others (internal policy and procedure on doctor referrals/visits).
JV is playing both sides of the fence, and is placed in the unsavory position of having the Del Moral visits, which we know now they most certainly had notice of and cannot claim ignorance of the issue, come to the public. Placing White and Lowe under the immediate black cloud of visiting a known doping doctor, making JV and Prentice look suspect for having "overlooked" this pretty serious, and not isolated, violation.

So, no, I will not simply accept JV's cuffshot web posting addressing "perception is reality" or rules for journalist, or what appears to be selective application of his own rules, when it benefits him. Ask yourself this, if Lowe had not made the threat he was going to disclose how JV has selectively applied contract language and internal procedures, would JV have fired White?

Look, it may be something simple in explaining the email. JV may be honest on this topic. The questions I posed were valid, relevant, and were not formed in an confrontational tone. He chose to ignore them, under his wand of "transparency" and has played hit-and-run in choosing what he will and will not address.

I am not so trusting or gullible, in today's world where Contador is about to be acquitted, where the depths of the corruption and doping as revealed by Landis show JV stayed on the sidelines mute for years, not stepping doing the right thing and providing the authorities with what he knew about Lance, to the point where Lance returns to the sport and knocks his own (clean?) rider from the podium.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
auscyclefan94 said:
So if this letter has nothing to do with possible doping at Garmin then why are you so agitated that you have to come onto a forum to explain the email? Seems odd that you don't come on when everyone was gossiping (fairly or unfairly) about Del Moral, White and the Trent Lowe situation? Did the email touch a nerve? What about the Landis/Kimmage interview where you were mentioned numerous times? Didn't you feel the need to answer those claims?
Because we're being played. JV has something he wanted to communicate. He gets someone to drop what looks (on the surface) to be a bombshell of an email, and that then affords him the platform upon which he gets to "white knight" himself yet again. Him being who he is, it is a bit awkward to call a reporter directly for this purpose, or to call a press conference. So he used this manner. It's called "getting ahead of the curve" to make it look like it was "your" idea (not his).

JV knows that this place is quite the hangout, and a good place to get some info communicated, and he did so.

It's like a presidential candidate holding an open Q&A, and then planting his own pre-selected questioners in the audience. That way, you appear "transparent", yet you still control every word. It's really a press release in "press conference" clothing.

"Psst, post this, and I'll respond at around 20-30 posts into the discussion. That way, I can make the loudmouths look like donkeys and come out appearing to be the smart one and everyone who's been hammering me in regards to Lowe will look like they have tinfoil hats stitched to their scalps."

I could smell this one.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,006
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Because we're being played. JV has something he wanted to communicate. He gets someone to drop what looks (on the surface) to be a bombshell of an email, and that then affords him the platform upon which he gets to "white knight" himself yet again. Him being who he is, it is a bit awkward to call a reporter directly for this purpose, or to call a press conference. So he used this manner. It's called "getting ahead of the curve" to make it look like it was "your" idea (not his).

JV knows that this place is quite the hangout, and a good place to get some info communicated, and he did so.

It's like a presidential candidate holding an open Q&A, and then planting his own pre-selected questioners in the audience. That way, you appear "transparent", yet you still control every word. It's really a press release in "press conference" clothing.

"Psst, post this, and I'll respond at around 20-30 posts into the discussion. That way, I can make the loudmouths look like donkeys and come out appearing to be the smart one and everyone who's been hammering me in regards to Lowe will look like they have tinfoil hats stitched to their scalps."

I could smell this one.
Yes, this is a technique that some might use but doubt that JV could have this ruse in his bag. Would be very surprised if this was the case.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Colm.Murphy said:
Yes, this is a technique that some might use but doubt that JV could have this ruse in his bag. Would be very surprised if this was the case.
Yet this email gets "leaked" 3 years after it was written? Why?

"Who's been asking questions about dead emails?" (Imagine I then included a photo of Tobin Bell of "The Firm")
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Why would you do that? ;)
It's done to better manage unsolicited email. When an email arrives at my server, I know which headers should/should not be there. I also add headers for the Mail Deliver Agent to categorize email as it comes in.

The nature of conventional standards based email service is such that the whole email can be rewritten and neither the sender or recipient would be aware. There are no integrity checks. No privacy. Treat email as if you are sharing the content with the world. Because you are to some degree.

PM me for more.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,006
0
0
Jamsque said:
We're through the looking glass here people.
Accept what you want. No positives means clean. Most tested in the world.

Keep in mind this team uses Catlin's internal anti-doping service. Keep in mind they're tossing out Matt White and replacing him with PVP.

Perhaps a mixed metaphor would be fun for this, "if it walks like a duck, there's fire".

Just answer me this: If JV were concerned about Wiggo's blood from the 09 Tour, why did he consult the UCI? He has not disclosed fully what they did to feel comfortable with the blood profile attributed to Wiggo. Do they have a Haematologist on retainer? What did the UCI respond with regarding this issue?

I'd like to know if Slipstream has ever "donated" to the UCI anti-doping cause. Those machines do have a certain service life, and need replacement form time to time.
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,826
0
0
When you're done discussing how Master Criminal Jonathan Vaughters carefully orchestrated this leak and the entire thread so that he could fluff his ego on the grand stage of the Cyclingnews doping forum by lording it over some conspiracy theorists, then I'll be willing to have a conversation with you.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Colm.Murphy said:
\I'd like to know if Slipstream has ever "donated" to the UCI anti-doping cause. Those machines do have a certain service life, and need replacement form time to time.
JV, did your organization ever donate money to the UCI in any manner?
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Jamsque said:
When you're done discussing how Master Criminal Jonathan Vaughters carefully orchestrated this leak and the entire thread so that he could fluff his ego on the grand stage of the Cyclingnews doping forum by lording it over some conspiracy theorists, then I'll be willing to have a conversation with you.
Instead of ridiculing me, why not tell me what things are really like? If I'm wrong, please tell me WHY I'm wrong.

3 year old Garmin email gets "leaked" and suddenly, JV is available (here) to refute what people begin to think. Along the way, he imparts additional information.

Why? Do tell.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
JV1973 said:
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.

Unless it's a doctor you don't approve... So, it's not really 'any lab you'd like'. How's Lowe doing? And White?

Hey, I was racing back in the stone-age but still needed to get blood-work done to keep up on my health and performance.

Getting that info a 'few months later' to check the effect training load on recovery is sort of pointless. I would want that (and NEED it) NOW . If your highly paid docs can't do that, of course I'd get an independent doc to let me know if I was defficient.

I can understand how a lot of posters can view this is as a weak 'release'.

This might be a new level of JV at his best. Politician first, cycling advocate later.

I'd like to throw my hat in the ring as to saying that JV will end up in a position of influence in the UCI. Not now, not tomorrow, but he's playing a game that they like.

Mark my words.
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,826
0
0
You want to know what things are really like? They are like EXACTLY WHAT THEY SEEM LIKE. Occam's razor tells us as much.

Someone, possibly a disgruntled former employee with a desire for revenge, decided to try and make JV look bad. This person had access to old Slipstream emails, so they dug through them and settled on one that included some fairly innocuous talk of internal testing and the possibility that riders could use it to evade dope tests. Knowing the propensity of this forum to leap to fantastic conclusions on the scantest of evidence, they posted it here and waited for the accusations to start flying. The mods got a bit worried about the legal situation they were facing, and so they contacted JV and offered to remove the thread. Instead of clamping down, which he would have been well within his rights to do, he decided to come here and explain that the email was just as innocuous as it seemed, as well as answering a few questions. When the tone started to get a bit aggressive and silly, he decided it best to leave the thread be, but left an invitation for people to contact him directly with questions.

It's a simple and easily understandable sequence of events, and I can't see any reason to think they are any more than what they appear to be on the surface. If you want to invent motives and plans and plants and cover-ups you are welcome to, but there is NOTHING in what transpired in this thread that is in any way supportive of your theories.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS