Jörg Jaksche: Doping, hypocrisy and a dog called Bella

[Moose McKnuckles]

Yes, Thomas is an arrogant ***. Or was. hugely insecure guy. It's been a lot of work with him. A lot....

"Arrogant ***" Dekker - gets Garmin contract
"Very intelligent guy" Jaschke - does NOT get Garmin contract

This is not exceptional. 6.1 w/kg gets you around 15th place in 2001 Tour de France.

Well, that's one step above the squeaky clean 16th-place finisher, Vinokourov.

 

[red_flanders]

did I miss something?

Possibly. As noted in the post above, insults have been edited out and posts deleted if the content was all insult.

 

[Kwibus]

Some people here really lost it.

I mean if JV really was such a ******* as some of you seem to think, he really wouldn't bother even considering replying to all the stuff that's being said here.

Or is he really the master of the omerta? Maybe that's it! JV is being paid by the UCI to defend doping use. For his payment he has to endure endless heaps of comments and tweets and has to join the discussion to make it look like he really means it!

Seems legit.

 

[the big ring]

Some people here really lost it.

I mean if JV really was such a ******* as some of you seem to think, he really wouldn't bother even considering replying to all the stuff that's being said here.

Or is he really the master of the omerta? Maybe that's it! JV is being paid by the UCI to defend doping use. For his payment he has to endure endless heaps of comments and tweets and has to join the discussion to make it look like he really means it!

Seems legit.

I am curious why JV deigns to respond to a bunch of conspiracy monkeys. Seems inconsistent. Unless these monkeys are somehow pressing some buttons - accidentally of course.

Maybe JJ can tell us why he and JV do not get along. He seems pretty open about more damaging things these days...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Possibly. As noted in the post above, insults have been edited out and posts deleted if the content was all insult.

Perhaps you should have done the same at the Inigo topic wich was omerted quite nicely and subsequently closed after deleting a certain explosion of testosteron by a certain poster and public person?

Moderate, do not treat people like they are 12 year olds.

Back on topic:
It will be a nice day for dear old Bjarne tomorrow, september fifth, judgement day. Jaksche and Hamilton in one week, nice!

 

[Benotti69]

I am curious why JV deigns to respond to a bunch of conspiracy monkeys. Seems inconsistent. Unless these monkeys are somehow pressing some buttons - accidentally of course.

Maybe JJ can tell us why he and JV do not get along. He seems pretty open about more damaging things these days...

Particularly telling was JVs accusation of gossiping. Was he fearful of JJ talking about stuff going on at slipstream?

 

[D-Queued]

I am curious why JV deigns to respond to a bunch of conspiracy monkeys. Seems inconsistent. Unless these monkeys are somehow pressing some buttons - accidentally of course.

Maybe JJ can tell us why he and JV do not get along. He seems pretty open about more damaging things these days...

Possibly because JV

1. Feels a part of the community (here)
2. Feels it is better to be a part of the conversation
3. Isn't afraid of the dialog
4. Feels that if he professes accountability, he needs to show up

This is not to endorse or oppose JV. But, there are perfectly rational reasons for his participation. He could still be spinning like crazy, but this is an inefficient way (for him) to pursue any sort of smokescreen.

It didn't work for Floyd (and Will, Arnie, etc.), and they didn't have to worry about managing a team and actually conducting business.

If JV were really trying to control the dialog, he would do what Lance does and recruit a bunch of morons to sing the anthem.

Of course, consistent with many others here, I try and read every post with a view to whether the information is correct, or if there is an underlying motive.

Dave.

 

[red_flanders]

Perhaps you should have done the same at the Inigo topic wich was omerted quite nicely and subsequently closed after deleting a certain explosion of testosteron by a certain poster and public person?

Moderate, do not treat people like they are 12 year olds.

In a world where I had unlimited time to moderate a thread, that would be the best course of action. When there is a thread that is out of control from the start and people ignore requests to quell the nonsense, my options were:

1. repeat myself and hope
2. shut down the thread
3. start handing out bans

One wasn't an option. You may notice that threads here rarely are shut down. I'm sorry you took this as me treating folks as 12 year olds, but it's not like any content which was going to improve the world was lost.

Feel free to PM me if you have further concerns about the moderation.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Particularly telling was JVs accusation of gossiping. Was he fearful of JJ talking about stuff going on at slipstream?

Millar knows the script and can be trusted to be a good soldier and to sell the brand. JJ probably not so much.

Another question (which may have been asked elsewhere so apologies if this is re-asking an old question) what kind of checks did JV do on CVV, Danielson etc and the other ex-USP/Disco riders.

I mean JV obviously knew what went on at USP so in signing ex-USP riders did he give them the same kind of tests and examination that he gave JJ? Or do you only get the tests and questions about doping if you've been busted, not if you come from the DS's former team where he knows (because he was part of it) the doping that went on.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Feel free to PM me if you have further concerns about the moderation.

Don't feel criticized, just reopen the topic and delete idiotic rants when they appear.
[didn't see it in this topic though]

Sorry for the of topic.

Game on.

JJ never got a drive, Manzano didn't, Hamilton/Landis didn't, the last two didn't spill the beans. What is up with that omerta sport?

 

[the big ring]

Millar knows the script and can be trusted to be a good soldier and to sell the brand. JJ probably not so much.

Another question (which may have been asked elsewhere so apologies if this is re-asking an old question) what kind of checks did JV do on CVV, Danielson etc and the other ex-USP/Disco riders.

I mean JV obviously knew what went on at USP so in signing ex-USP riders did he give them the same kind of tests and examination that he gave JJ? Or do you only get the tests and questions about doping if you've been busted, not if you come from the DS's former team where he knows (because he was part of it) the doping that went on.

JV said upthread he didn't even test JJ, he knew from observation he was no good, but didn't consider him due to personality issues regardless.

 

[ElChingon]

Wait, it wasn't JV who started the discussion. People were wondering why Slipstream didn't sign Jaksche as a way to support a blacklisted whistleblower, and we were speculating why that would be. Some of the speculation wasn't favourable to JV. He came and gave his version of why he didn't sign Jaksche (and he put it in more blatant terms that he initially intended to). Since a big part of Jaksche's story is the way he couldn't find a team, all of this is relevant, and if it was relevant before JV showed up, it definitely remains relevant when he's here addressing the points raised.

Doesn't take a anti-doping advocating spin doctoring ex-doping DS to figure out that signing Jaksche was a death sentence to any team. Say what the spin doctors maybe spinning as we all know it was a death sentence and lead to his demise as a rider. The Blacklist is still in effect, no amount of spin doctoring is going to erase that.

In closing, puack puack puack to the spin doctors!

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

JV said upthread he didn't even test JJ, he knew from observation he was no good, but didn't consider him due to personality issues regardless.

My point was slightly different.

JJ, Millar and Dekker all had to jump through hoops before being signed or not signed because they were coming off bans, they were proven dopers.

Now, my question is this - what does Vaughters do with riders who are not coming off bans but coming from teams with a long history of doping, for example the ex-USP/Disco riders or the ex-Gerol riders. Riders who JV knows and knew about doping at USP and knew that they would have been part of the program. Do they also need the same kind of 're-education' that Dekker underwent? Or is this only for those who have been popped?

How does JV handle the ex-dopers on his team who haven't or hadn't been outed when they were signed?

To be fair though JJ sounds like he is a much happier position than say Millar. At least he no longer has to twist and turn, lie and pretend and uphold omerta. So maybe being blackballed and not being signed was a blessing in disguise.

 

[JV1973]

Millar knows the script and can be trusted to be a good soldier and to sell the brand. JJ probably not so much.

Another question (which may have been asked elsewhere so apologies if this is re-asking an old question) what kind of checks did JV do on CVV, Danielson etc and the other ex-USP/Disco riders.

I mean JV obviously knew what went on at USP so in signing ex-USP riders did he give them the same kind of tests and examination that he gave JJ? Or do you only get the tests and questions about doping if you've been busted, not if you come from the DS's former team where he knows (because he was part of it) the doping that went on.

Valid question. CVV, Zabriskie, Danielson, while all clearly have a past, and from an ethical standpoint are no different from JJ, there is a very pragmatic difference. That difference is performance based. Basically, I knew from what my time at USPS, how "inside" or not those riders were. Based on this, I knew there transgressions, while ethically the same as JJ's, were much less in terms of enhancing performance. Therefore, i knew they could perform close to their enhanced level, clean. I did not feel this was the case with JJ, because he was "all in"....

Dekker was also " all in" at times, and if you'll notice, he's struggling. I hope that will change, but we will see.

Ask JJ about me. we don't have a personal history at all. I've spoken to him 3-4 times in my life. However, I'm a big believer in first impressions, and my first impression of JJ was that he was very intelligent, but in a sneaky way.

For Benotti: I don't like gossip because it tears young riders apart.

 

[JV1973]

Valid question. CVV, Zabriskie, Danielson, while all clearly have a past, and from an ethical standpoint are no different from JJ, there is a very pragmatic difference. That difference is performance based. Basically, I knew from what my time at USPS, how "inside" or not those riders were. Based on this, I knew there transgressions, while ethically the same as JJ's, were much less in terms of enhancing performance. Therefore, i knew they could perform close to their enhanced level, clean. I did not feel this was the case with JJ, because he was "all in"....

Dekker was also " all in" at times, and if you'll notice, he's struggling. I hope that will change, but we will see.

Ask JJ about me. we don't have a personal history at all. I've spoken to him 3-4 times in my life. However, I'm a big believer in first impressions, and my first impression of JJ was that he was very intelligent, but in a sneaky way.

For Benotti: I don't like gossip because it tears young riders apart. They can easily be convinced of very negative things by people like YOU, that only enjoy gossip and not reality.

BTW - "their" transgressions... not "there" sorry.

 

[JV1973]

Perhaps you should have done the same at the Inigo topic wich was omerted quite nicely and subsequently closed after deleting a certain explosion of testosteron by a certain poster and public person?

Moderate, do not treat people like they are 12 year olds.

Back on topic:
It will be a nice day for dear old Bjarne tomorrow, september fifth, judgement day. Jaksche and Hamilton in one week, nice!

I get frustrated by stupidity. What can I say?

 

[JV1973]

My point was slightly different.

JJ, Millar and Dekker all had to jump through hoops before being signed or not signed because they were coming off bans, they were proven dopers.

Now, my question is this - what does Vaughters do with riders who are not coming off bans but coming from teams with a long history of doping, for example the ex-USP/Disco riders or the ex-Gerol riders. Riders who JV knows and knew about doping at USP and knew that they would have been part of the program. Do they also need the same kind of 're-education' that Dekker underwent? Or is this only for those who have been popped?

How does JV handle the ex-dopers on his team who haven't or hadn't been outed when they were signed?

To be fair though JJ sounds like he is a much happier position than say Millar. At least he no longer has to twist and turn, lie and pretend and uphold omerta. So maybe being blackballed and not being signed was a blessing in disguise.

I treat guys the same, ex-doper not caught, ex-doper caught and suspended, ex-doper publicly confessed, ex-doper no confessed, or always clean rider. To me, i treat them the same. With one condition: That they will ride clean on my team.

How do I pick? Talent, work ethic, and personality. the above things aren't part of my consideration, because quite frankly taking the Sky/new suisse team stance on "we're hiring no one with a known history in doping" is just stupid in cycling today. It's just glorifying those who managed to slip by and damning those who got caught, even though the crime is exactly the same. It's ethically untenable for me.

So, I do it in a way that i get some **** for hiring Millar and Dekker, and I get some **** for not hiring Jackshe, but I can sleep knowing that I'm not choosing based on public perception or some BS PR strategy. Just on how they will ride, clean.

 

[hrotha]

I treat guys the same, ex-doper not caught, ex-doper caught and suspended, ex-doper publicly confessed, ex-doper no confessed, or always clean rider. To me, i treat them the same. With one condition: That they will ride clean on my team.

Would you sign a rider you knew or strongly suspected to be an ex-doper (if not currently a doper) if he wasn't willing to confess both to you and to WADA?

 

[luckyboy]

btw JV thanks for continuing to come here and speak to everyone in spite of all the insults you get.

Really great to know that there is a somebody inside the sport who is willing to answer questions and talk about this kind of thing (whatever people here think of your motivations). Wish there were more who would do the same.

 

[JV1973]

Would you sign a rider you knew or strongly suspected to be an ex-doper (if not currently a doper) if he wasn't willing to confess both to you and to WADA?

No. And our publicly stated policy would prevent that as well.

 

[JV1973]

Here's a fun example: So, Tommy D... Here's a guy that has used o2 vector doping, and with some success. But when you test him, without o2 vector doping, you quickly see this guy has massive aerobic ability. O2 transport isn't the limiting factor with his body/mind. However, he is not a mentally strong athlete. He succumbs to nerves and pressure very easily.

So, in looking at his physiology and psychology, the rate limiting factor is the latter, not the former. So, working on that makes huge strides. Giving him o2 vector doping is akin to putting a bigger engine in a car with a flat tire, because you want it to go faster. yes, it will make the car with the flat tire go faster, but you could just go ahead and fix the flat tire instead?

This isn't true with with lots of guys. Imagine a psychologically strong athlete that has great tactical sense, and is muscularly very strong as del, but who doesn't have a great o2 delivery system. This athlete benefits perfectly from o2 vector doping, and it would be difficult for them to perform as well without it. So, as a manager, i need to know that going in.

With Tommy D, I knew I could get great performances out of him, clean, but it would take some unconventional work. This is not always true.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Would you sign a doper who had not been caught, said as much to you but was unwilling to go to WADA?

Given the current discussion about the cycling media and omerta. Would you still encourage Landis or others not to name names to the media? Do you not think the 'teflon' answers that Jaksche talks about are unhelpful? Do you think Wiggins could say something more decisive than 'it's bad for the sport'?

One more question - do you believe Riis when he says he had 'no idea' about Hamilton and Fuentes, just like he had no idea about Basso and Fuentes?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

No. And our publicly stated policy would prevent that as well.

Not asking about specific names but would you agree that there is a problem for riders that speak out and then attempt to return to cycling (in any capacity but especially as a rider) that is prevalent even today?

 

[JV1973]

Would you sign a doper who had not been caught, said as much to you but was unwilling to go to WADA?

Given the current discussion about the cycling media and omerta. Would you still encourage Landis or others not to name names to the media? Do you not think the 'teflon' answers that Jaksche talks about are unhelpful? Do you think Wiggins could say something more decisive than 'it's bad for the sport'?

One more question - do you believe Riis when he says he had 'no idea' about Hamilton and Fuentes, just like he had no idea about Basso and Fuentes?

Answer to number 1: No

I would tell Landis the same stately today as i did back then. Be totally honest to anti-doping authorities. Name names. Be apologetic and vague, publicly.

save your bullets for where they can make a difference.

The rest I'm going to decline answering.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

JV, I give you and your team the benefit of the doubt but there is one thing that bothers me.

You often talk about cycling being so much cleaner now, as if the problems are over. But I just can't accept that: too many people still getting caught, UCI not biopass testing, ToC no testing.....dare I say it SKY

Are you just trying to encourage people to try to ride clean by giving them hope or what? I can't make sense of it (monkey struggling with coconut)