Internal Garmin Email from Prentice Steffen

[dolophonic]

If someone was going to do their own program they would have their own info?
So the giving them / not giving them the results is not really a big deal or even a deterrent.
The amount of $ spent on doping i think they could get their own blood work done. So its all a bit of a mute point.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To be honest - I think its great he comes here.

If people took the time to be polite, not bash him over the head but ask honest and respectful questions about actual issues instead of the other tripe then he might come here more often. Might take the time to explain some of the other issues we all query.

But while he gets trashed for taking the time to answer an pretty lame leak such as this .... he isnt likely to try anything deeper or more complicated

Completely agree - if people treated other posters the way JV has been treated (not so much in this thread) your name would be quite rightly added to the member suspensions list.

However "Colm's' point of being starstruck is true too - and I got a chuckle from JV taking exception to being called "disingenuous" by Colm as he is one of the few posters not hiding behind anonymity.

i generally avoid commenting in the jv threads, but here is my last one, why do you think there is sudden increase in the number of threads about him (you know too well yourself) or why there are so many righteous demand for him 'come clean', when his story is essentially the same from the moment he took over the team ?

I started that thread you referred to - and there is nothing righteous about questioning why he does not 'come clean'.
'We' have been asked to place our trust and faith in him and his team - not admitting his own previous actions seriously erodes that.

I said I didn't believe him and that he should openly talk about other issues. Here's what he came up with

Ok, don't believe me.... Back to my evil laboratory!!! Broohoohhahaha!!

Surprise, surprise, he backs way from the question.

I have to ask - what 'questions' did JV not answer? You mentioned Lowe and Landis earlier - I am not sure what questions have not been answered through various interviews or statements.

 

[NashbarShorts]

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"

 

[sniper]

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"

+1
Indeed.
The email remains odd. At least, if you believe G-C are doing all they can to ride clean.

 

[Anonymous]

However "Colm's' point of being starstruck is true too - and I got a chuckle from JV taking exception to being called "disingenuous" by Colm as he is one of the few posters not hiding behind anonymity.

Im not A quick google will tell you just about everything from where i was married to how many o'levels i have.
If anyone wants to steal my identity they are welcome to it. Its long outgrown its usefulness

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Lets hope that does not happen.

 

[scribe]

I started that thread you referred to - and there is nothing righteous about questioning why he does not 'come clean'.
'We' have been asked to place our trust and faith in him and his team - not admitting his own previous actions seriously erodes that.

Sometimes I feel like this hasn't served Riis especially well. But it really should for cycling to improve itself.

 

[Barrus]

I started that thread you referred to - and there is nothing righteous about questioning why he does not 'come clean'.
'We' have been asked to place our trust and faith in him and his team - not admitting his own previous actions seriously erodes that.

I actually presumed he was talking about Buckwheat

 

[pedaling squares]

Unsatisfiying at best.

Prentice speaks of "perception rather than reality".

Vaughters' answer:
"Perception equals reality"
and
"perception (...) is in line with (...) reality"

See the difference between "rather than" and "equals"/"in line with"? It's a mathematical thing, as in "we have 2 rather than 1" vs. 1 equals 1". It's difficult not to see the difference...

I think you're sniping from the grassy knoll, you really have to be searching for a conspiracy to draw any conclusion from that wording.

 

[sniper]

I think you're sniping from the grassy knoll, you really have to be searching for a conspiracy to draw any conclusion from that wording.

I was just pointing out how JV meanders around it, by saying Prentice was meandering.
No conclusions in any direction.
And I do appreciate JV showing himself here.
In fact, I'm very willing to give JV the benefit of the doubt: without a doubt, he's one of those who really really wants the best for his riders, without them doping themselves into the hospital.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I also appreciate JV taking the time to post here, share his thoughts and speak his side of the coin. He didn't have to and I don't think you always have to accuse someone of an 'ulterior motive' or self-serving reason to do so. ...some folks just like to speak from their gut and respond when they feel like it.

I disagree with the comment from Colm about being 'star-struck'...and don't appreciate him speaking for me on that one. Maybe some folks do really act or speak differently around someone that they see as on a 'different level' or 'celebrity' or whatever....

The bottom line is, everyone is just a human....I, for one, do not feel intimidated or 'awed' by someone's status or name, and I don't think most others of any maturity do either....

Anyway, thanks to JV for his input. I , for one, welcome more open conversations from anyone involved in cycling. You don't have to agree with someone or even like them to be gracious and open.
cheers and ciao

 

[Cobblestones]

I was just pointing out how JV meanders around it, by saying Prentice was meandering.
No conclusions in any direction.
And I do appreciate JV showing himself here.
In fact, I'm very willing to give JV the benefit of the doubt: without a doubt, he's one of those who really really wants the best for his riders, without them doping themselves into the hospital.

I think sniper has a point here. Here's my observation:

1) the email, posted in the clinic, isn't particularly well worded. It is 'meandering'. Or should I say, its perception by a lot of clinic members doesn't put JV's team in the best light.

2) The authenticity of the email is basically confirmed by JV. And apparently his perception of the email is such that he finds it necessary to answer (instead of deny, ignore, or let it be taken down (and I'm not convinced that CN would legally be obliged to do that)). Of course he doesn't really make things better by some of his own meandering and non-answers.

A side comment: I disagree with all the posters who think it's so great to have JV post here and we shouldn't scare him away with uncomfortable questions. Completely wrong. This game for access can be played by spineless 'journalists'. The day questions to riders, DS, or other cycling personalities on this board will be censored in exchange for access, will also be the last day you'll see my sorry a$$ here.

3) One important point raised here is why this email was leaked. It sure wasn't to make JV look good. So was it part of an extortion plot? Was it an attempt to expose something such as microdosing or whatever? If, on the other hand, it is just some guy whose goal it is to throw mud and hope it sticks, he just got a lot of help by JV himself. I'm not at all reassured.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I think sniper has a point here. Here's my observation:

1) the email, posted in the clinic, isn't particularly well worded. It is 'meandering'. Or should I say, its perception by a lot of clinic members doesn't put JV's team in the best light.

2) The authenticity of the email is basically confirmed by JV. And apparently his perception of the email is such that he finds it necessary to answer (instead of deny, ignore, or let it be taken down (and I'm not convinced that CN would legally be obliged to do that)). Of course he doesn't really make things better by some of his own meandering and non-answers.

A side comment: I disagree with all the posters who think it's so great to have JV post here and we shouldn't scare him away with uncomfortable questions. Completely wrong. This game for access can be played by spineless 'journalists'. The day questions to riders, DS, or other cycling personalities on this board will be censored in exchange for access, will also be the last day you'll see my sorry a$$ here.

3) One important point raised here is why this email was leaked. It sure wasn't to make JV look good. So was it part of an extortion plot? Was it an attempt to expose something such as microdosing or whatever? If, on the other hand, it is just some guy whose goal it is to throw mud and hope it sticks, he just got a lot of help by JV himself. I'm not at all reassured.

It doesn't necessarily go hand -in-hand that posters who think it's 'great' to have JV post here feel we 'shouldn't scare him away'....
This forum is not an exclusive club, even though some members may like to feel that it is 'their' domain. Everyone is welcome if they ask or post reasonable and pertinent info. Don't think I read where anyone was worried about censoring or asking uncomfortable questions of JV....?

 

[Jamsque]

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-judgement 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.

Vaughters runs a pro cycling team, and he claims he is trying to run a clean one. If he, apropos of nothing, tells the world that he did all of the things we suspect he did in his racing career, the headlines here and on every other sports news website will be "Boss of super-clean Garmin squad admits doping past". That helps no-one: not JV, not his team, CERTAINLY not his riders, and not the sport. I know 'protecting the image of the sport' gets used a lot to mean 'cover up doping' by powerful people in cycling, but unless we have a genuine and widespread process of truth and reconciliation the impact of individuals owning up to their past does not seem to be positive. All that Bjarne Riis got for owning up was the confiscation of his yellow jersey and a ban from the team car at the Tour de France.

Vaughters has another much more immediate reason to keep his mouth shut, and that is the ongoing US investigation into doping at US Postal. It would be nearly impossible for JV to talk openly about whatever doping history he may have without wandering in to dangerous legal territory, and we all know how lawyer-happy a certain testicularly challenged cycling star can get when he is under pressure.

I think our sport is in desperate need of truth and reconciliation, to help draw a line under the era of organised doping and move forward to a cleaner sport, but it has to be all-encompassing for it to be worth anything at all. If Vaughters and everyone who rides for him came out tomorrow and listed in meticulous detail everything they had ever taken or seen done at other teams, they would be shunned by the sport and more likely than not sued to hell and back.

MAYBE, if Armstrong is forced to face the music AND something can be done about the corruption and denial that runs rife through the upper echelons of the sport AND we see top-down comprehensive reform, maybe then riders and managers could come clean about the past without being lambasted and pilloried like so many Floyd Landises.

 

[pedaling squares]

Don't think I read where anyone was worried about censoring or asking uncomfortable questions of JV....?

Nor did I. It's great to have someone involved in the sport come here to explain or discuss his team. I don't see that as a green light to jump on the guy or to raise topics that are beyond the thread, but I don't see any reason to protect JV or anyone else from tough questions. And I don't think he's asked for nor been shown any special treatment.

 

[mewmewmew13]

+1 Nicely worded and thoughtful reply, Jamsque

 

[roundabout]

+1 Nicely worded and thoughtful reply, Jamsque

Eh, no. A reply that starts with own preconceived notions about other people's intentions is hardly thoughtful.

 

[Granville57]

I fully agree with the above from Jamsque.

I'll add this:
That email is from over 2.5 years-ago. Is that the most incendiary thing one could produce in all that time?
I also have to believe that if some nefarious behind-closed-door actions were taking place at Garmin,
they wouldn't be discussing it in a team-wide email!

As for JV coming on here:
Sure we should be able to ask him tough questions, but he is not obligated to withstand a panic attack of accusations and innuendo. There's seems to be no reason to believe that he won't engage thoughtful exchanges, so perhaps a more tempered reaction will yield more information if that is the ultimate goal of any questions directed his way. There's nothing keeping him here. He can sign-off at any time and I'm reasonably convinced that his daily schedule keeps him busy enough as it is.

Anyone's words can be parsed endlessly. I still need something more to go on that what the OP offers.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Boy am i surprised with ACF.

He is one of those that now DOUBTS a ds in a debate about doping.

And on that twitter link he also said this



It seems that ACF has decided that doping is more widespread in cycling than it seems, and I for one am glad and impressed that he takes this point of view now.

Thanks. Read my twitter page and then you'll see me grilling JV like he said to us to do.

My opinio is still not clear cut as waht you are saying but yes aafter recent events I think JV needed to be called up on a few things.

 

[peloton]

Thanks. Read my twitter page and then you'll see me grilling JV like he said to us to do.

My opinio is still not clear cut as waht you are saying but yes aafter recent events I think JV needed to be called up on a few things.

(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.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I disagree with the comment from Colm about being 'star-struck'...and don't appreciate him speaking for me on that one. Maybe some folks do really act or speak differently around someone that they see as on a 'different level' or 'celebrity' or whatever....

I certainly was not speaking for you, or even with you.

To the thought that JV "cannot speak" on matters related to doping investigations, I doubt this crosses into the realm of the White/Lowe issue.

To me, that issue is far more important than some old email that has been posted here. That he selectively responds to the things that suit him, while certainly his prerogative, does not instill the confidence in me that it may in others.

Open dialogue is just that: OPEN

I welcome it, if the other party would do us the honor of being "open".

 

[Jamsque]

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.

 

[Willy_Voet]

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.

But he does owe us something Jamsque: the truth. There was one email already that has been interpreted as systematic doping (or monitoring of doping) at Garmin. Think of how many more emails since 2008 could be interpreted as doping. 100's? 1000's?! I anxiously await more from the original poster and expect JV to respond to all of them in a truthful manner. I will assume his non-responses are admissions of guilt. And his selective responses must be attempts at obfuscation, unless he admits to doping, then they will be the truth.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Colm, you seem to have a sense of entitlement about this and I'm not sure it's merited.

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.

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.

I agree. He does not "owe" anyone anything. But he does ask something from us. Trust, or to be more descriptive, acceptance of his explanations.

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.

Now you are speaking for me without any knowledge of my beliefs. I cannot have formed an opinion of what JV does or does not do, since I have no interaction with the man. I do not "demand" it, I only make it known that JV clearly has chosen which items he will address an which ones he will not, while present on the forum. Sure, there may be many valid reasons why he chooses this way but they are not articulated. That lack of articulation allows for a certain latitude and speculation, which is at risk for eroding the trust he so clearly desires. Simple statements offered as to what he will or will not discuss is not ever mentioned. Perhaps my expectation is that instead of fishing for trust he is a little more complete in his dialogue? Even if only to offer a "cannot comment". Any seasoned manager of anything should have a grasp of how to manage a mixed group when communicating. This is clearly something he has forgone. I think he thought he'd just drop by, give us a dose of "transparency" and we'd be transfixed with his pseudo-bourgeois presence, eating up his words like deprived "fans".

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.

Surely you jest. "This one", in a world of millions of twitter entries? This one. No. Not with the other open items which are bandied about. He chose to address this for a reason. He tried to explain and I think it was a bit of a cop out, considering the other more glaring items and no boundary set as a preface to his post.

This is not hard. That is why I think he was silly and unprofessional to come here, despite how "great" some think it is, or what people think of his team or views. 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.

 

[Jamsque]

God dammit willy I thought you were serious for a second there. It is so hard to detect sarcasm on this board.