Jörg Jaksche: Doping, hypocrisy and a dog called Bella

[The fridge in the blue trees]

No, no one's saying Garmin should have signed JJ because he was an ex-doper and Garmin sings ex-doper. What some people were saying is that, if Garmin wanted a clean sport, helping out a blacklisted whistleblower would have sent out a very powerful message to the cycling world. JV then explained why it didn't happen, convincing some forumers, but not all.

Sure, there's some people here going a bit too far and getting too personal, but I don't think that's the majority of the Clinic.

But the with the bolded part (by me) is: JJ wasn't a "real" whistleblower. He was one of the most outspoken deniers for quite a long time. It was impossible that he was bella, since some of the days this bella visited he was in Australia or somewhere else, etc etc. And you didn't just read it once, you could read Jaksches denials almost non stop for months. Seemed almost like Jaksche was calling up journalists to tell his version, because nobody could be interested in him that much, with the other names involved. Then... all of the sudden, after almost a year I think, very likely when he realized that he wasn't going to beat the charge, he turned into a "whistleblower". Starting with... again, an interview in der Spiegel I think . And from then on he was the repentant whistleblower, all his interviews before that completely forgotten, the months of denial, seemingly never happened. 180 degree turn, before he was the blameless victim, after that the honest guy that was there to save cycling. And the reason IMO very likely was just that he realized that he wasn't going to get away with it. Might be wrong about that though. But where I'm not wrong is that Jaksche seems to have needed to be in the spotlight, first as denier, then as "whistleblower". And of all the riders involved in the Puerto affair he made the worst impression on me. The nonstop media presence, the sudden turnaround? Mmh... not much respect for the guy. And I'm just a fan. If I was a DS... would I have hired him? No, exactly for this reason, not because he is a "traitor to cycling", but because he comes across as a guy with not much integrity. JVs assessment about "sneaky" and "gossip" actually fits quite well with the image I have of Jaksche after the Puerto affair.
Then, was he blacklisted? I don't know, maybe.. .possible. But for what, for being a whistleblower or for his general "sneakiness"? He certainly was good enough so that he should have been able to find a team. So yeah, maybe he was blacklisted. But I don't really now. Or maybe all of the teams just came to the conclusion that they didn't want him by themselves.. don't know.

But then, why should JV hire him? It's not really his job to clean up cycling or to send messages to the cycling world about clean cycling. If he wants that he can hire me, just a bit older than Horner, I climb like an 80 year old Cav and go down half as fast as Basso (or a bit slower), he can be sure I won't dope, since that wouldn't help either. Clean and slow! Very powerful signal! JV has a team to run, the goal is winning, not send signals. As a PR coup for the casual fan? Just saying "we're a clean team" does the same to the casual fan basically. A powerful signal to the cycling world? What is the cycling world? Other teams? UCI? ASO? The public? And I really don't see the power behing the signal. "We won't let people who fight against doping be blacklisted"? Don't really see it, because the way I see Jaksche is not as a "doping-fighter" but a guy who tries to use the media to his advantages, and his advantage only. My outside impression, so I wouldn't have gotten the signal anyway. And even if he was honest in his 180 turn, even if he then was blacklisted, nobody has an obligation to hire anybody (ok, except me maybe, 3 year contract please, but I won't give up smoking) you don't want a guy... then you don't want him. OK, nobody is saying he had to be hired, but could have been a powerful signal. Which I personally just don't see that way. Wouldn't have been a powerful signal to me.

 

[BigBoat]

But the with the bolded part (by me) is: JJ wasn't a "real" whistleblower. He was one of the most outspoken deniers for quite a long time. It was impossible that he was bella, since some of the days this bella visited he was in Australia or somewhere else, etc etc. And you didn't just read it once, you could read Jaksches denials almost non stop for months. Seemed almost like Jaksche was calling up journalists to tell his version, because nobody could be interested in him that much, with the other names involved. Then... all of the sudden, after almost a year I think, very likely when he realized that he wasn't going to beat the charge, he turned into a "whistleblower". Starting with... again, an interview in der Spiegel I think . And from then on he was the repentant whistleblower, all his interviews before that completely forgotten, the months of denial, seemingly never happened. 180 degree turn, before he was the blameless victim, after that the honest guy that was there to save cycling. And the reason IMO very likely was just that he realized that he wasn't going to get away with it. Might be wrong about that though. But where I'm not wrong is that Jaksche seems to have needed to be in the spotlight, first as denier, then as "whistleblower". And of all the riders involved in the Puerto affair he made the worst impression on me. The nonstop media presence, the sudden turnaround? Mmh... not much respect for the guy. And I'm just a fan. If I was a DS... would I have hired him? No, exactly for this reason, not because he is a "traitor to cycling", but because he comes across as a guy with not much integrity. JVs assessment about "sneaky" and "gossip" actually fits quite well with the image I have of Jaksche after the Puerto affair.
Then, was he blacklisted? I don't know, maybe.. .possible. But for what, for being a whistleblower or for his general "sneakiness"? He certainly was good enough so that he should have been able to find a team. So yeah, maybe he was blacklisted. But I don't really now. Or maybe all of the teams just came to the conclusion that they didn't want him by themselves.. don't know.

But then, why should JV hire him? It's not really his job to clean up cycling or to send messages to the cycling world about clean cycling. If he wants that he can hire me, just a bit older than Horner, I climb like an 80 year old Cav and go down half as fast as Basso (or a bit slower), he can be sure I won't dope, since that wouldn't help either. Clean and slow! Very powerful signal! JV has a team to run, the goal is winning, not send signals. As a PR coup for the casual fan? Just saying "we're a clean team" does the same to the casual fan basically. A powerful signal to the cycling world? What is the cycling world? Other teams? UCI? ASO? The public? And I really don't see the power behing the signal. "We won't let people who fight against doping be blacklisted"? Don't really see it, because the way I see Jaksche is not as a "doping-fighter" but a guy who tries to use the media to his advantages, and his advantage only. My outside impression, so I wouldn't have gotten the signal anyway. And even if he was honest in his 180 turn, even if he then was blacklisted, nobody has an obligation to hire anybody (ok, except me maybe, 3 year contract please, but I won't give up smoking) you don't want a guy... then you don't want him. OK, nobody is saying he had to be hired, but could have been a powerful signal. Which I personally just don't see that way. Wouldn't have been a powerful signal to me.

I understand your point of view, but I like JJ & I think more should have/should do what he did. Its a shame that in a way Vaughter's posts have hurt JJ's position because his opinion that each year cycling is "new and clean" is very true. Those words couldn't be truer. Each year we see the winner of the Grand Tours basically put out similar (although lower by 5% or so) performances to the so called 'dark era' where riders injected epo into the bellyfat.

 

[hiero2]

My boss pressured me to hire him because they are friends.

So let me get this straight. A guy your boss is friends with won't fit into the culture of the team. So either your boss or his friends are incompatible with your team culture.

Sounds interesting.

And your boss can't pressure you to do things. Chapeau. Or more PR spin?

Nyet - please use your reasoning and logic better than this: "either your boss or his friends are incompatible with your team culture." Obviously his boss does fit, at least for now, and at least sufficiently to keep the team together. Next, assuming that all the boss's friends do not fit because one does not fit is not logical. It is an emotional plea to convince others that you are correct.

If JV is doing stuff like this for PR spin, he is better at being Machiavellian than Machiavelli himself was. That would be diabolical scheming in the extreme. If you bring your suspicions back from movie-land for a minute, you will realize that someone trying such a ploy in reality could not be sure of it's outcome. This puts it in the category of high-risk ploys, and therefore it is unlikely that a major public figure would even attempt it.

On the other hand, he might be slightly exaggerating both the friendship and the pressure - THAT would be typical of real-life behavior.

I will stick with your "chapeau" on this one.

 

[hiero2]

But the with the bolded part (by me) is: JJ wasn't a "real" whistleblower. He was one of the most outspoken deniers for quite a long time. . . .

A long post, but I think a worthy addition to the dialogue.

 

[hiero2]

Who would've thought even six months ago we'd have this kind of discussion going on with an almost open naming of certain riders and their past. OK so CVV, Zabriskie and Danielson are hardly white as white given their history, but coming out and naming them on a public forum? Talking about Danielson's o2 vector doping as if it's the most normal thing in the world? I'd like to think that's a big step forward.

Thanks JV for your contribution.

+1. And if ballot-stuffing is allowed, +10,000. This conversation would NOT have happened 6 months ago. And thank you, JV.

 

[hiero2]

Or, . . .
You can be the best employee, great worker and performer, but if you are a PITA to deal with, have a bad attitude and in general don't get along with people, a company will find a way to get rid of you.

As a manager for well over 10yrs, I don't need PITAsses. I just need people to show up, do their job, do it well, and curb any egos and issues they might have. I'm not a jerk to work for, . . .

We don't need to read anymore into things and generate more conspiracy, it really is that simple.

Concur. 10 char

 

[Red Lobster]

Who would've thought even six months ago we'd have this kind of discussion going on with an almost open naming of certain riders and their past. OK so CVV, Zabriskie and Danielson are hardly white as white given their history, but coming out and naming them on a public forum? Talking about Danielson's o2 vector doping as if it's the most normal thing in the world? I'd like to think that's a big step forward.

Thanks JV for your contribution.

Indeed. However, after years and years of trying to read between the lines of procycling double-speak, code words, and absurd justifications and defenses of what anyone with two eyes could recognize, it's almost as if my brain refuses to process such straightforward talk in this context. I have to keep rubbing my eyes and re-reading things.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

I understand your point of view, but I like JJ & I think more should have/should do what he did. Its a shame that in a way Vaughter's posts have hurt JJ's position because his opinion that each year cycling is "new and clean" is very true. Those words couldn't be truer. Each year we see the winner of the Grand Tours basically put out similar (although lower by 5% or so) performances to the so called 'dark era' where riders injected epo into the bellyfat.

Mmh.. I don't really agree that more people should do what JJ did. Reason? Credibility, how can we trust someone like JJ? Long denial, then whistleblower.

Do we know what he actually said to the UCI? No, we just have him claim he told them important stuff. Like he claimed that he was innocent at first. Is it true this time? Or maybe the UCI is was right and in the end it was just worthless info he gave and not deserving of a ban reduction? We really have no way of knowing.

The "good" way of doing it is the Järmann way. After retiring he wrote an anonymous report in a newspaper about his doping experiences, later adding his name to it. Without ever having been caught, without being under special suspicion. And THAT'S a report I can believe in. A link to his article in german:

http://www.cycling4fans.de/index.php?id=311

A confession like that? Yes, more could or should do that. The JJ way, no thanks. Just my opinion, but I really have trouble fully believing anything JJ says. Not saying he's a pathological liar, just that... saying one thing, ok, it was a lie, but now I say the truth... isn't really convincing (to me)

 

[meandmygitane]

Thank you, JV.

You made me a fan and supporter of you and yours. Keep fighting for a cleaner sport and don't let the haters nor the dopers win.

 

[hrotha]

But the with the bolded part (by me) is: JJ wasn't a "real" whistleblower. He was one of the most outspoken deniers for quite a long time.

Just like Landis, or Hamilton.

To this day, Basso and Valverde still deny, and there they are, riding for two of the world's top teams and with an extra GT in their palmares.

 

[webvan]

Valverde ? Did you mean Bertie who is indeed about to win a GT after coming back from suspension unlike Valverde, granted he's not very far...Why give Bertie a "pass", he's no better. At least Basso, "partially" admitted.

 

[hrotha]

Valverde ? Did you mean Bertie who is indeed about to win a GT after coming back from suspension unlike Valverde, granted he's not very far...Why give Bertie a "pass", he's no better. At least Basso, "partially" admitted.

Valverde won the Vuelta in 2009, Contador wasn't suspended for Puerto and therefore wasn't in the same boat as Jaksche, and Basso's partial admission was a joke.

 

[the big ring]

Valverde ? Did you mean Bertie who is indeed about to win a GT after coming back from suspension unlike Valverde, granted he's not very far...Why give Bertie a "pass", he's no better. At least Basso, "partially" admitted.

And Vino.

 

[will10]

Valverde ? Did you mean Bertie who is indeed about to win a GT after coming back from suspension unlike Valverde, granted he's not very far...Why give Bertie a "pass", he's no better. At least Basso, "partially" admitted.

Valverde still walked straight back to a big team with a big contract.

 

[webvan]

Like Basso, Bertie, Vino, Kash, unlike Ullrich, Landis and JJ, yeah, life's unfair isn't it...

Valverde won the Vuelta in 2009, Contador wasn't suspended for Puerto and therefore wasn't in the same boat as Jaksche, and Basso's partial admission was a joke.

No difference between Bertie and Valverde, they cheated, they got caught, they got suspended, there is ZERO reason to give Bertie any "leniency", especially in the clinic.

A partial admission may be a joke but obvously it's better than no admission.

 

[hrotha]

Like Basso, Bertie, Vino, Kash, unlike Ullrich, Landis and JJ, yeah, life's unfair isn't it...
No difference between Bertie and Valverde, they cheated, they got caught, they got suspended, there is ZERO reason to give Bertie any "leniency", especially in the clinic.

A partial admission may be a joke but obvously it's better than no admission.

I'm not giving Contador any leniency. You can check my post history if you don't believe me. But I'm talking about riders who were in the same situation as Jaksche - i.e. banned due to Puerto. Is that so hard to grasp?

Anyway, it's pretty irrelevant: yes, Contador denied and denied and continues to deny at this point, just like Jaksche did at first.

As for Basso's limited confession, I don't think it's better than not confessing at all. Basso took all cycling fans for fools by saying he only intended to dope but never got to it. A non-confession that was simply "no comment" would be better (ethically) than that.

 

[raindog]

All of your theories and conspiracies.... It's like watching monkeys trying to figure out how to open a coconut.

JV

ROFL
well said JV

 

[will10]

I'm not giving Contador any leniency. You can check my post history if you don't believe me. But I'm talking about riders who were in the same situation as Jaksche - i.e. banned due to Puerto. Is that so hard to grasp?

Anyway, it's pretty irrelevant: yes, Contador denied and denied and continues to deny at this point, just like Jaksche did at first.

As for Basso's limited confession, I don't think it's better than not confessing at all. Basso took all cycling fans for fools by saying he only intended to dope but never got to it. A non-confession that was simply "no comment" would be better (ethically) than that.

...after the most dominant GT performance since LA.

 

[Benotti69]

Mmh.. I don't really agree that more people should do what JJ did. Reason? Credibility, how can we trust someone like JJ? Long denial, then whistleblower.

Do we know what he actually said to the UCI? No, we just have him claim he told them important stuff. Like he claimed that he was innocent at first. Is it true this time? Or maybe the UCI is was right and in the end it was just worthless info he gave and not deserving of a ban reduction? We really have no way of knowing.

The "good" way of doing it is the Järmann way. After retiring he wrote an anonymous report in a newspaper about his doping experiences, later adding his name to it. Without ever having been caught, without being under special suspicion. And THAT'S a report I can believe in. A link to his article in german:

http://www.cycling4fans.de/index.php?id=311

A confession like that? Yes, more could or should do that. The JJ way, no thanks. Just my opinion, but I really have trouble fully believing anything JJ says. Not saying he's a pathological liar, just that... saying one thing, ok, it was a lie, but now I say the truth... isn't really convincing (to me)

then you cannot trust JV.

 

[Benotti69]

JV loves to come in here make a few comments throw some insults and leave.

To accuse the clinic of conspiracists trying to crack a coconut at the same time that the USADA is investigating the bigget doping CONSPIRACY in the history of western sport kind makes him a hypocrite.

Next he will be calling the clinic 'witch hunters'!

By the way JV, what about your (ex)dope courier Weltz? Did he talk to USADA and WADA about USPS?

and if so why all the denials now? and if not why not?

 

[Morbius]

Benotti
JV did not deny for three years - he made a point of not denying (or admitting)

Re Weltz, this is what his last two twitter comments say (Most recent first). Pretty d@mn clear if you ask me

As long as Johnny decides to be honest, tomorrow, I will support him.

Jeezus... Now it seems I need to have a talk with Johnny Weltz about just letting this crap end and to stop BSing people..

 

[the big ring]

Benotti
JV did not deny for three years - he made a point of not denying (or admitting)

Re Weltz, this is what his last two twitter comments say (Most recent first). Pretty d@mn clear if you ask me

Damn clear about what? No mention of WADA or USADA at all.

JV continues to blather on about his "public team policy on doping" but noone can tell me wtf it is, or where it is documented. We get dribs and drabs. eg: riders who doped are fine to join the team as long as they talk to WADA and USADA before coming on board the team.

Did that apply to team support staff or not? I am guessing not. Seems inconsistent yeah?

Or did JV ask Weltz if he'd done anything nefarious and get a negative response and believe it? With his super magical psychology powers that can turn flat tyres into 145psi tubulars and arrogant Dutch men into nice team players? If he's asking his team riders "do you dope" and being told, "no" - is his superpower as fallible with them too?

 

[Morbius]

well he's publically called Weltz a liar

the rest? I dunno. As a manager though, I know that there are only so many 'high maintenance' people you can handle at a time, and that is in a job which is not nearly as intense as pro cycling. You take a gamble with one, fine. Another comes along? Sorry I'm full up.

 

[the big ring]

well he's publically called Weltz a liar

the rest? I dunno. As a manager though, I know that there are only so many 'high maintenance' people you can handle at a time, and that is in a job which is not nearly as intense as pro cycling. You take a gamble with one, fine. Another comes along? Sorry I'm full up.

wth does that have to do with anything?

 

[Morbius]

I guess I kind of tangled up your comment about arrogant dutchmen, the original topic of this thread, and whether JV should have taken on Jaksche.

More important is JV calling out Weltz in public as a liar. That's a significant moment surely?