Jörg Jaksche: Doping, hypocrisy and a dog called Bella

[JV1973]

As you're here JV perhaps you could give us your thoughts on Riis and whether he is a fit and proper person to be running a cycling team?

It would be massively hypocritical for me to comment on that. it's lose/lose.

I think, like many managers, Riis is pragmatic. Pragmatically speaking, in this day and age, doping is not worth the risk/reward ratio for his business.

If you keep that risk/reward ratio as it is now, managers of teams won't want doping. If you change the risk/reward ratio back to where it was in 1996, then the mentality will shift as well. And you'll have a few isolated idealists getting run over.

 

[Benotti69]

It would be massively hypocritical for me to comment on that. it's lose/lose.

I think, like many managers, Riis is pragmatic. Pragmatically speaking, in this day and age, doping is not worth the risk/reward ratio for his business.

If you keep that risk/reward ratio as it is now, managers of teams won't want doping. If you change the risk/reward ratio back to where it was in 1996, then the mentality will shift as well. And you'll have a few isolated idealists getting run over.

Sky looks like they dont care about risk v reward. they steamrolled the TdF!

Now Purito is steamrolling La Vuelta.

Doping is back on the menu, but then it was never off.

 

[roundabout]

So in other words too much of a risk to go doping behind your back?

Or saying publicly what more than one person thought, but doing it in Slipstream colors.

And of course Dekker passed the psychological test to become a helper. Where's the difference?

And am I right in saying that you never tested Jaksche. You labeled him as you wanted, but didn't go further than that? Didn't test, didn't invite to a training camp. How much time did you spend talking to him anyway?

 

[JV1973]

Yeah, we remember Landis said you advised him not to name people



just like Dekker



Still with the immature name calling, didn't your Mammy tell you not call people names?

No, read what Landis said again..(or ask him):

I told him, be specific with WADA and USADA. Be vague (and don't name names) with media and apologize.

I stick with that to this day.

Folks like yourself, that really just exist to tear down others, don't deserve full disclosure, because they will not do anything productive with that information.

Truth is useful for those that have a conscience and vision.

 

[JV1973]

So in other words too much of a risk to go doping behind your back?

Or saying publicly what more than one person thought, but doing it in Slipstream colors.

And of course Dekker passed the psychological test to become a helper. Where's the difference?

And am I right in saying that you never tested Jaksche. You labeled him as you wanted, but didn't go further than that? Didn't test, didn't invite to a training camp. How much time did you spend talking to him anyway?

Very little. I wasn't interested in figuring out JJ's specific physiology because I felt he would not be good in the team. My physiological judgements are based on observation, not testing.

But then, i never tested Talansky either, and he's proved my eyeballing to be fairly good.

 

[JV1973]

So in other words too much of a risk to go doping behind your back?

Or saying publicly what more than one person thought, but doing it in Slipstream colors.

And of course Dekker passed the psychological test to become a helper. Where's the difference?

And am I right in saying that you never tested Jaksche. You labeled him as you wanted, but didn't go further than that? Didn't test, didn't invite to a training camp. How much time did you spend talking to him anyway?

Dekker I was interested enough to study it further. He completed a lot of testing.

 

[hrotha]

It would be massively hypocritical for me to comment on that. it's lose/lose.

I think, like many managers, Riis is pragmatic. Pragmatically speaking, in this day and age, doping is not worth the risk/reward ratio for his business.

If you keep that risk/reward ratio as it is now, managers of teams won't want doping. If you change the risk/reward ratio back to where it was in 1996, then the mentality will shift as well. And you'll have a few isolated idealists getting run over.

But your own transgressions don't compare to Riis's. No one's judging Riis as a rider here, we're judging him as a DS, so unless there's something you haven't told us about Garmin (I keed, I keed) you and Riis shouldn't be comparable. Also, his dealings with Fuentes would be at least as recent as 2006. That's within the normal SOL. Shouldn't it be exactly the same as if a current DS was caught supporting doping right now?

 

[JV1973]

Were his numbers that bad riding clean[ish]?

Off course you make your own decisions but given the fact you are such a high tech testing fan we assume you look objectively towards the numbers and analyze if a rider is an asset to the team, or are you like Bjarne paintballing and making survival trips in the mountains for that jolly good team feeling?

And to be clear, when an arrogant little pr@ck like T. Dekker does fit in your team, Jorg J must really be an a@@hole!

But to the good of you, you weren't the only one who had a character clash with Jorg. And to be objective, he made too many enemies in the peloton.

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

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Of course Millar and Dekker have both upheld omerta since being busted while Jaksche did not.

Why would it be hypocritical for you to comment on Riis? Should he with his history and the allegations pending against him be allowed to run a team?

 

[roundabout]

Interested enough in Thomas the rockstar Dekkker? Yeah, I can see where the word subjective comes in.

And you don't need to tell me about Talansky. Even a rube like me could figure out that he was talented in 2010.

You still should have tested him anyway...

 

[JV1973]

But your own transgressions don't compare to Riis's. No one's judging Riis as a rider here, we're judging him as a DS, so unless there's something you haven't told us about Garmin (I keed, I keed) you and Riis shouldn't be comparable. Also, his dealings with Fuentes would be at least as recent as 2006. That's within the normal SOL. Shouldn't it be exactly the same as if a current DS was caught supporting doping right now?

You make very good points. WADA will need to make a determination on that.

 

[sniper]

It would be massively hypocritical for me to comment on that. it's lose/lose.

I think, like many managers, Riis is pragmatic. Pragmatically speaking, in this day and age, doping is not worth the risk/reward ratio for his business.

If you keep that risk/reward ratio as it is now, managers of teams won't want doping. If you change the risk/reward ratio back to where it was in 1996, then the mentality will shift as well. And you'll have a few isolated idealists getting run over.

contador's case suggests you might be wrong on this. he got caught, came back, and his name still sells like hot cookies.
him juicing his way up the hills was well worth the risk. made him a (multi)millionaire.
same with Valverde and others who've come back 'clean' after a ban. they all know it's well worth the risk.
Of course those are individual riders and you're talking about team managers. But a guy like Brailsford knows it's worth the risk. A team like Katusha knows the rewards are worth the risk.

And what risk are we talking about anyway? How is Sky gonna test positive with UCI as head of cycling and tons of pounds invested in medics like Leinders who know how to avoid testing positive?

 

[JV1973]

contador's case shows you're wrong on this. he got caught, came back, and his name still sells like hot cookies.
him juicing his way up the hills was well worth the risk. made him a (multi)millionaire.
same with Valverde and others who've come back 'clean' after a ban. they all know it's well worth the risk.
Sky also know it's worth the risk. UCI knows it's worth the risk.

And what risk are we talking about anyway? How is Sky gonna test positive with UCI as head of cycling and tons of pounds invested in medics like Leinders who know how to avoid testing positive?

Listen, I see all of your points. I just don't agree. I say that from the knowledge I have. Maybe you have better knowledge than I?

But don't paint me in the "protect his income by saying whatever" corner... I've been given many opportunities to leave cycling for other lucrative jobs. I'm currently enrolled in an EMBA program that will probably increase that. Point being: I don't protect cycling to cover my mortgage. I say what I mean. If you disagree, ok, cool by me. But I'm not changing my opinion.

 

[JV1973]

OK, I have to leave now. I'm not just popping in to annoy you guys, as accused of, but I do have to get back to work.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Have fun, but come on, don't hedge on Riis. This is someone who needs to be kicked from the sport and this is your chance to show some backbone instead of saying 'trust me'. Someone needs to speak up before not after the fact.

 

[Walkman]

Guys,

Have any of you ever met Jackshe? Sorry, but his confession, level of, transparency has nothing to do with my decision on him. Good for him to come clean! Great that he gave details to UCI (too bad it wasn't WADA)!! Ive got no problem with any of this stuff. None. Zero. Have encouraged my riders to be honest to WADA USADA etc for YEARS!!! And they have. Good for them and good for JJ.

I still would not hire the guy!

I had my original $10M investor telling me I should hire hire him. And? Still I said NO!

Why?

Because he won't fit in and he won't perform well. That's my subjective judgement. Period.

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

JV

With all that has been going on for the last 14 years within the world of cycling and all of the stories involving Armstong, UCI, coverups, blacklisting people and so on, of course some people is going to find it difficult to understand that such an normal thing as differences between personalities can be a reason for not hiring a guy when the "blacklisted" option fits so much better according to them.

And I not going to lie, that was my first thought, but at the same time, I know from personal experience that there are people that I'd never work with, how good they might be within their line of work. So if you says that's the case, then I'd be ready to take a little leap of faith and say I believe you.

So don't judge us to harlsy. We might come across as a bunch of monkeys to you, since you have the insight we all lack. But given the history of cycling the last 14 years, many on these forums has been pretty spot on regarding Armstrong and we did just got that confirmed so yeah, for now the tin foil hats is going to the on 24/7 until we have all the facts on the table regarding LA/JB/US Postal/UCI.

Sorry, but's that the nature of many cycling fans today. We all been cheated on to some extend in the past and in orded to not be made fool of again many will act cynical, wich I understand must totally suck when you take time to come here and post.

Furthermore I'd just like to thank you for coming here to from time to time and interact with us fans. I think that shows you care about the perception about the sport among the more hard core fans and personally, I really appreciate your effort.

 

[the big ring]

In a sport like cycling, I'd like to ask JV how you determine such a thing.

4 minute IP, definitely.

 

[Benotti69]

4 minute ip, definitely.

:d


..............

 

[the big ring]

Good article. When I saw the name Anne Gripper, it had me reflecting. What seems like years has only been months since her presence was a main stay in cycling. I'm curious at what point she's going to come out of hiding and spill the beans. Always struck me as a very smart woman, maybe she's sitting in the wings, waiting for the McQuaid/Hein ivory tower to crumble to dust.

+infinity and beyond.

 

[the big ring]

"Just didn't fit", "synergistic" - for whom are these sorts of tweets designed? No wonder so many of these "reformed" dopers like Vaughters take to Twitter, since it's easier to avoid serious questions there.

JJ is "very intelligent" but he "just didn't fit" at Garmin.

LOL.

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?

 

[hrotha]

With all that has been going on for the last 14 years within the world of cycling and all of the stories involving Armstong, UCI, coverups, blacklisting people and so on, of course some people is going to find it difficult to understand that such an normal thing as differences between personalities can be a reason for not hiring a guy when the "blacklisted" option fits so much better according to them.

There's little reason to doubt Jaksche was blacklisted. JV has basically explained why his decision not to hire him had nothing to do with either his speaking out or his being blacklisted by the UCI, but the fact that he couldn't find a team and that the UCI pressed to have him banned for 2 years despite his cooperation should be a clear sign that the blacklisting was real.

Look at Mancebo or Sevilla. They weren't banned, and they remained competitive for years (hell, Mancebo still is). Yet they were never able to find a team in Europe. Don't you think they were blacklisted? (Different scenario since they never admitted to anything, but just to establish that the blacklist does exist).

 

[Arnout]

Jonathan Vaughters, since you appear to be reading this, I have a question. In a recent interview with you, you explained how, in the current environment, doping is reduced to small amounts, if any. You were happy about this, saying it is now possible to beat dopers clean, if using the right technology, science, and stuff. Marginal gains, if you like (although I don't really want to include Sky in this question).

For me, this sounded very illogical. What is stopping guys that dope a little bit (so that the blood passport doesn't notice (sufficiently)) from using marginal gains as well? And, as we all know, most competitive advantages from science and technology are temporary, so dopers will catch up sooner or later. As a scientific approach will almost certainly have diminishing returns to scale (ie at one point you're simply reaching the asymptote of performance: the first time trial aero bars used by LeMond are always going to increase performance more than another slight reduction in drag due to extensive wind tunnel testing), in the long run, marginal gains and the scientific approach will always lose out to doping again, assuming similar capabilities.

So how can you be confident the current approach works and will change cycling, as long as the current system, inherited from the past, is not cleaned out comprehensively, as long as the public (certainly the most passionate fans, which you will find in this clinic among others) isn't made aware of changes, of tests, as long as cycling isn't getting any more transparant?

Sorry for going off-topic, but thanks for considering

 

[roundabout]

No, I think I can understand why Jaksche wasn't signed a bit better.

Still, I am not exactly sure why he was deemed less likely to change his ways at Garmin than all the other past dopers who now wanted to ride clean.

 

[sniper]

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?

basically from everything you read or hear from JV it's clear he doesn't want the branch/tree surgery that Kimmage rightly advocates. it's not difficult to see why. JV fares rather well in the current cycling culture.

MJM: Someone needs to speak up before not after the fact.

+2
but expect the reverse from JV. He's at the forefront applauding Sky's marginal gains strategy.

 

[Walkman]

There's little reason to doubt Jaksche was blacklisted. JV has basically explained why his decision not to hire him had nothing to do with either his speaking out or his being blacklisted by the UCI, but the fact that he couldn't find a team and that the UCI pressed to have him banned for 2 years despite his cooperation should be a clear sign that the blacklisting was real.

Look at Mancebo or Sevilla. They weren't banned, and they remained competitive for years (hell, Mancebo still is). Yet they were never able to find a team in Europe. Don't you think they were blacklisted? (Different scenario since they never admitted to anything, but just to establish that the blacklist does exist).

I am not denying that there seems to be blacklisting within cycling, just pointing out that some times we, the fans (me included) can be somewhat overly cynical. But as I also wrote, there is a reason for it.