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

Internal Garmin Email from Prentice Steffen

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
JV wrote:

Anyhow, just FYI, legally I could have this post taken down, at least according to the CN legal staff,
Hello Mods. Can any of you find out if he ever had such a conversation with CN legal?

Why would he have such a discussion and then choose to leave the post up?

The man has all of these opportunities to be direct, yet he always chooses foggy.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Jamsque said:
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.
I really think the people here are going a bit OTT with the conspiracy theories, but I don't really care about those.

But just this, as far as I know none of the moderators has done that. Either the mainsite has forwarded it to the legal department of them, or JV had contacted them himself
And frankly I do not care, if anyone want to know about that, take it up with the legal division of CN or with Dan, I nor any of the other mods will have anything to do with it

Alse the reason as to why he choose to leave the post up is included in the same post
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,826
0
0
Well, I guess I misunderstood the JV-CN exchange a little but it doesn't change anything.

BotanyBay said:
JV wrote:
Hello Mods. Can any of you find out if he ever had such a conversation with CN legal?

Why would he have such a discussion and then choose to leave the post up?

The man has all of these opportunities to be direct, yet he always chooses foggy.
Wait, so you are saying that the DIRECT thing to do would have been to tell CN to purge the thread, but instead he chose the FOGGY route of coming here and explaining it in simple terms?
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
Colm.Murphy said:
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?
He wasn't concerned about Wiggins's blood, he was concerned about the precedent of releasing the data publically.

There's an interview with Anne Gripper on the front page were she says that's what they talked about.

"I had quite a few conversations with Jonathan [Vaughters] before Bradley released his results, but it really wasn't about the profile at all, it was more just about the working precedent," Gripper said.

"I cautioned Jonathan about whenever you release anything like that you'll always have amateur armchair haematologists and physiologists putting their spin on what the numbers are showing.

"At that point there was nothing of concern in the profile, and my conversations with Jonathan were not about the profile itself, it was more about the concept of releasing it.

"I don't recall what the profile was. I certainly would've known when I was talking with Jonathan if the profile had been reviewed by the experts and if there were any issues with the profile, so the fact that there was none of that in our discussion indicated that as far as the profile went, it was OK."
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
Jamsque said:
You want to know what things are really like? They are like EXACTLY WHAT THEY SEEM LIKE. Occam's razor tells us as much.
Not quite... That razor is based upon the best available evidence.

If we look at it based upon the 'best available evidence' of pro cycling (particularly in regards to the TdF), then it would seem that our buddy Occam would fall off the razor's edge on the side of doping. I really hope that guy's got a parachute...
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,006
0
0
Jamsque said:
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.
Because YOU cannot think of any, does not mean the rest of us cannot or have not. I gave several reasons, and you're ignoring them to make your point. Fine, your opinion is certainly your to have. Ignorance is bliss, they say.

I am not "inventing" anything. I am posing several very reasonable follow-ons, which in now way imply wrong-doing, but should be easy enough to answer considering the presence of mind JV had to slum with us here for a few minutes. Getting zilch as a reply to the points does not help his "transparency" gift he dangled in front of us. Not answering may have a valid reason, such as an ongoing investigation, but he was mute on that as well.

Hey, he wants to ride the chariot of goodness, the least he can do when he slows down to wave at the crowd is fully answer thoughtful and relevant questions. That he does not makes me wonder what is pulling the chariot in which he rides.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
I don't really see a whole lot wrong here.

The email is from Prentice, as JV confirmed that.
He has posted here before so its not like he suddenly appeared. The email was posted here - pretty obvious then that this is where he would go to comment on it.

He did answer the questions that some had raised - but I also see why he would not hang around as he has been treated rather unfairly (by a vocal minority) here in the past and everything he says is analyzed too much.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Jamsque said:
Well, I guess I misunderstood the JV-CN exchange a little but it doesn't change anything.



Wait, so you are saying that the DIRECT thing to do would have been to tell CN to purge the thread, but instead he chose the FOGGY route of coming here and explaining it in simple terms?
What I'm saying, is don't pull passive-aggressive crap like this ("I could have just had CN legal yank it down, but instead, I'll enlighten you all with my presence of being"), because those are the tell-tale signs of a narcissist.

I'm saying that if you want to pull it down, PULL IT DOWN. Don't dangle that crap in front of us. But if you want to address the questions openly, then ADDRESS THEM OPENLY.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I don't really see a whole lot wrong here.

The email is from Prentice, as JV confirmed that.
He has posted here before so its not like he suddenly appeared. The email was posted here - pretty obvious then that this is where he would go to comment on it.

He did answer the questions that some had raised - but I also see why he would not hang around as he has been treated rather unfairly (by a vocal minority) here in the past and everything he says is analyzed too much.
His appearance was sudden. He's posted here before, but only when he feels he needs to.

Why does he feel that he needs to? He has some kind of affinity for us? Thinks we're cute?
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Barrus said:
I really think the people here are going a bit OTT with the conspiracy theories, but I don't really care about those.

But just this, as far as I know none of the moderators has done that. Either the mainsite has forwarded it to the legal department of them, or JV had contacted them himself
And frankly I do not care, if anyone want to know about that, take it up with the legal division of CN or with Dan, I nor any of the other mods will have anything to do with it

Alse the reason as to why he choose to leave the post up is included in the same post
Anyone who argues with a qualifier such as "I could have just made this whole thread go away, but just to show you what a man I am...." is immediately suspect with me (doping discussion or otherwise). Tin-foil hat? Perhaps. JV has a historical pattern of making such statements. As if we'll all be so enamored that he's graced us with a reply.

JV, we're all people and on a level playing field, so don't come in here playing the big-shot as some kind of way to make us believe your position.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
BotanyBay said:
His appearance was sudden. He's posted here before, but only when he feels he needs to.

Why does he feel that he needs to? He has some kind of affinity for us? Thinks we're cute?
Ah - seriously?
How do you think it was sudden and what odds does that make?
Was he supposed to have someone come on and say 'expect message from JV at 12:00 tomorrow'?

He may have seen the post himself or more likely someone brought it too his attention. Why he engaged - well he has already offered some clues to his opinions of 'us' here - its not flattering.
So a quick way to spike any mad theory is to address it early, then hang around to post an answer to a few queries and then leave.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Ah - seriously?
How do you think it was sudden and what odds does that make?
Was he supposed to have someone come on and say 'expect message from JV at 12:00 tomorrow'?

He may have seen the post himself or more likely someone brought it too his attention. Why he engaged - well he has already offered some clues to his opinions of 'us' here - its not flattering.
So a quick way to spike any mad theory is to address it early, then hang around to post an answer to a few queries and then leave.
Other people involved in pro cycling (that think we're A$$hats) simply ignore us. Yet JV seems to care what we think. People who don't care, just move onward.
 
Apr 20, 2009
902
0
0
I've probably made a few not-so-flattering comments about JV in the past...

On the other hand, much respect for him choosing to come into such a hornets nest and make his case - and make it well.

I learned a lot from your few posts JV, thanks. I hope you chose to come around again (though I certainly wouldn't blame you for not doing so)
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,043
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
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)?
That's what it sounds like to me too. First you start with the "small stuff", then...
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
eleven said:
I've probably made a few not-so-flattering comments about JV in the past...

On the other hand, much respect for him choosing to come into such a hornets nest and make his case - and make it well.

I learned a lot from your few posts JV, thanks. I hope you chose to come around again (though I certainly wouldn't blame you for not doing so)
How did he make his case well?

He basically said that in-house testing will remain to be in-house, and that riders will not be able to access their data (but at the same time admit that they will want/need it to modify training).

Not only that, but he said that any rider would be able to hit up any doctor they wanted to get their own info, and yet that seems to not be too accurate based upon what has happened with Lowe and White.

Not only did it impact the rider, but also resulted in the firing of a key staff member.

All I can think of is "spin, baby, spin". Keep it up, JV. The more this guy opens his mouth, the more he sounds like a professional appoligist for the UCI and the Pro Tour team structure.

He must really think that he's a whole lot smarter than any of us...
 
Jun 22, 2009
249
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
So a quick way to spike any mad theory is to address it early, then hang around to post an answer to a few queries and then leave.
Maybe in general, but in this case I thought the initial "bombshell" was in fact so innocuous as to barely give it a second thought. Yawn. But then JV turns up! I'm still taking JV at face value on this but in the back of my mind I can't help wondering why he decided to weigh in on this, because my impression of JV is of someone too clever and too discliplined to have randomly jumped into this thread when virtually all other "mad theories" go unchallenged. :confused:
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Red Lobster said:
Maybe in general, but in this case I thought the initial "bombshell" was in fact so innocuous as to barely give it a second thought. Yawn. But then JV turns up! I'm still taking JV at face value on this but in the back of my mind I can't help wondering why he decided to weigh in on this, because my impression of JV is of someone too clever and too discliplined to have randomly jumped into this thread when virtually all other "mad theories" go unchallenged. :confused:
I have the same opinion. Why this thread when there is so much more material.

"I just got back from Red Lobster" Nice Screen Name:D
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
BotanyBay said:
What I'm saying, is don't pull passive-aggressive crap like this ("I could have just had CN legal yank it down, but instead, I'll enlighten you all with my presence of being"), because those are the tell-tale signs of a narcissist.

I'm saying that if you want to pull it down, PULL IT DOWN. Don't dangle that crap in front of us. But if you want to address the questions openly, then ADDRESS THEM OPENLY.
JV had no legal right to get it pulled down hence the passive-aggressive crap. My lawyer friend told me once confidential information is published you have no right to stop it - only to get damages including from CN

In the interests of transparency I still wanna see his 'policy' that he sacked White with.

And if he is gonna teach Prentice English - will that include reading lessons?
 
auscyclefan94 said:
well the leaker of the email doesn't work for him
You're probably right about that. It's probably someone that's holding a grudge. Maybe a couple of Australians that were recently either given the heave-ho or simply not signed. That would be an interesting place to start.;)
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Mambo95 said:
He wasn't concerned about Wiggins's blood, he was concerned about the precedent of releasing the data publically.

There's an interview with Anne Gripper on the front page were she says that's what they talked about.
Funny how she had an inside line into the meeting between Cycling Australia and JV the day after he sacked MW

As JV has said himself - JV for President of the UCI (god help us all)
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Angliru said:
You're probably right about that. It's probably someone that's holding a grudge. Maybe a couple of Australians that were recently either given the heave-ho or simply not signed. That's would be an interesting place to start.;)
Yes, that's probably what someone wants you to think. It's called obfuscation.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
blackcat said:
JV had no legal right to get it pulled down hence the passive-aggressive crap. My lawyer friend told me once confidential information is published you have no right to stop it - only to get damages including from CN
Then you need to prove how you were damaged by the revelation (not by the truth).
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
blackcat said:
JV had no legal right to get it pulled down hence the passive-aggressive crap. My lawyer friend told me once confidential information is published you have no right to stop it - only to get damages including from CN
It probably depends on the jurisdiction
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
I can't see anything in that email that would "damage" JV in any meaningful way if it were leaked 3 years after the fact. Unless JV's got a water-tight clause in the contract that assigns a penalty for any breach of confidentiality.

It's funny how people make fun of fanboys, yet the moment JV "clarifies" something, many of you get a bit giddy
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts