JV ......Is "yes" so hard to say?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Spider1964 said:
It might be my Catholicism but ever since Mary Magdelene rocked up to Jesus many moons ago, I was of the opinion that past sins could be forgiven? Obviously not around here.
Sure they can be forgiven. Once we actually exit the confessional. But the priest is having some trouble hearing the guy speak. He's also not being very specific. He keeps asking for bathroom breaks and changing the subject to collecting blankets for the homeless.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I agree with pretty much everything you said - with (perhaps) the exception of the highlighted.

I don't think an honest admission would have an effect on the teams participation nor would his sponsors leave. He has heavily hinted at his prior doping - so its not really news.

Riis denied denied denied and only "came clean" becasue he was going to be outed by D' Hondt book. It did not cost him any sponsorship - the only fallout was not being allowed at one Tour.
Actually I think Riis would disagree with you there....I think he has had serious problems....he just hasn't given up....witness this years debacle....and the protracted negotiation with Rasmussen.

There is a very big difference between hinting...and admitting to an Editor. Trust me. And to a newspaper or magazine's lawyers.

Also. You are missing an original point. I don't think JV thinks that sensationalising doping, either by his own admission or by mudslinging is going to actually help.

I totally get that. Honestly, I think cycling is the most transparent elite sport there is in regards to doping, with the most rigorous (though flawed) testing procedures. Hence we get more positives than any other sport. We all thought that would be a good thing right? And yet witness the sensationalist, salacious and pretty unedifying spectacle we have turned into in the eyes of the mainstream press. And honestly I think Walsh and Kimmage (sorry I really tried not to bring him up:D) help cause that in an attempt to raise their profiles as "journalists". To be seen as crusaders going after the big fish. Righting wrongs. The righteous brothers.

Do you ever read football forums? or tennis forums? do you see the coverage those sports get in the mainstream press? It's great. How much copy is about doping?

I think what JV and some others are trying to do is to put cycling in the back pages for the right reasons again, rather than just providing yet another "doping cyclist" story.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
straydog said:
Do you ever read football forums? or tennis forums? do you see the coverage those sports get in the mainstream press? It's great. How much copy is about doping?
Their fans only want harder hits and bigger tits. That's it.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
straydog said:
Yes....but confession is always private....between only the sinner and priest.....not posted for all to see on an internet forum....so actually I think his analogy is perfectly apt.:)
Thanks. Yet another reason to maintain my status as an agnostic recovering Catholic....
 
Jul 8, 2009
501
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
My Catholicism may be rusty... Isn't confession the road to absolution?

You may want to try another analogy...
Nope... analogy is fine. Find it slightly surreal that we're debating Catholicism on a cycling forum... And who's to say JV hasn't made a confession? As another poster has rightly pointed out... it's between the priest (They big guys rep down here) and the sinner.

Anyway... I'm getting over to the forum at http://www.catholic.org to rattle a few chains over there... seeya heathens. :)
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
straydog said:
Also. You are missing an original point. I don't think JV thinks that sensationalising doping, either by his own admission or by mudslinging is going to actually help.
I really don't think JV, or our self-important forum, could do any more to sensationalize doping in cycling.

I believe the cheaters have done enough on their own, and those who ostensibly are trying to 'come clean' don't have enough media weight to create enought of a sh*t storm on their own. Under the rug comes to mind.

It's already sensational. To say the least.

To borrow a phrase, the soup's already been p*ssed in...
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Their fans only want harder hits and bigger tits. That's it.
And WTF is wrong with that? I want to see the quickest race I can see....the best climbers....the fastest TTers. Man, sorry to say it, but your comment smacks of someone who doesn't watch much sport.

I hope that people like JV are helping ensure that my desire to be entertained doesn't come at the expense of young cyclists ruining their lives through posting positives as a result of a pressure to dope to keep up. And I also hope cycling becomes the story again and not dope. Cos frankly it's more fun.

Why don't we all stop looking at our navels for a second and look at the road ahead? Something I think JV is encouraging us to do.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
I really don't think JV, or our self-important forum, could do any more to sensationalize doping in cycling.

I believe the cheaters have done enough on their own, and those who ostensibly are trying to 'come clean' don't have enough media weight to create enought of a sh*t storm on their own. Under the rug comes to mind.

It's already sensational. To say the least.

To borrow a phrase, the soup's already been p*ssed in...
You kind of have a point Beau....but that is exactly what I think JV and others are trying to do...make cycling the more interesting story again. Hence the "whole" clean team Garmin it doesn't matter if we don't win, story.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
Spider1964 said:
Nope... analogy is fine. Find it slightly surreal that we're debating Catholicism on a cycling forum... And who's to say JV hasn't made a confession? As another poster has rightly pointed out... it's between the priest (They big guys rep down here) and the sinner.

Anyway... I'm getting over to the forum at http://www.catholic.org to rattle a few chains over there... seeya heathens. :)
lol....nice plug too btw
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Give 'er! As long as Spider and Dog are visiting the altar, maybe you could throw a little prayer in there for me.

I'm unrepentant, but it doesn't hurt to hedge your bets...
 
I do not get how people are willing to give JV the benefit of a doubt. Why? Because he tells us he is one of the good guys? Everyone in cycling, including the scumbag at the top, Pat McQuaid, will tell you that he is anti-dope. Being a public figure in cycling and lying to the public is as normal as putting on anti-deoderant in the morning. Because he looks like a good guy when he is dressed up like a character out of the game of Clue? We saw how well the "looks innocent test" worked with Hamilton. This is a guy who never gives answer that can be parsed without consulting Slick Willy's Dictionary of Deceitful Misdirection. Why should anyone believe anything he has to say?

Just as snarky comments from Bruyneel indicated years ago, I think JV's clean team posture is a cynical scam. Right from the start he was thinking about publicity. The entire image of himself and his team was carefully planned. A man whose image consultants dressed him up as Professor Plum would have no problem crafting his public statements on doping to fit the image he wants to portray.

I think he stuck his finger in the air, determined which way public sentiment was blowing, and recognized that he could get huge amounts of free publicity by holding himself out as the Great White Hope of anti-Dope, and that the publicity would allow him to attract sponsors and build a major team. Last year when Wigans was rumored to be leaving, JV made comments that placed a ludicrous valuation on riders based on the publicity they bring to the team and what it would cost for a sponsor to purchase a similar amount of coverage. This is a guy who looks at things through a prism of media coverage.

The company that he keeps does not inspire confidence, David Millar in particular. I do not trust Millar one bit. He strikes me as a publicity seeking prima donna who was way more than satisfied with himself as the golden boy of the UK press. After he was busted he found he could still garner coverage for himself if he came to Jesus and fashioned himself into a reformed doper and clean cycling crusador. His comments about FLandis were enlightening. It was all about him, I, I , I. "I could have helped him." "I called him." "He would not listen to me." This was of course followed by the infamous branding of what Landis was doing as "disgusting." If people like Millar truly believed in cleaning up cycling then they, even if they don't have the balls to do it themselves, should be getting a fair amount of smug satisfaction while watching Landis take it to the Man. Instead we get "disgusting."

There are those who say that JV will work behind the scenes. For someone who wants to work quietly in the background he sure does spend a lot of effort on his public image. Even if this were true, what would be the result? As I have gotten older and more cynical. the more I have come to believe that the ends resemble the means. What does JV's working behind the scenes offer us that is any different than McQuaid's current backroom dealings? It looks like a continuation of the current policy, but under different leadership. The King is dead, long live the King.

I firmly believe that the number one problem in cycling is a lack of transparency. It is the secrecy that allows the corruption. The only thing I can see from Vaughters is more of the same.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
straydog said:
Why don't we all stop looking at our navels for a second and look at the road ahead? Something I think JV is encouraging us to do.
The road ahead means little to me if we've not accurately identified where we are and where we've been.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
straydog said:
Actually I think Riis would disagree with you there....I think he has had serious problems....he just hasn't given up....witness this years debacle....and the protracted negotiation with Rasmussen.

There is a very big difference between hinting...and admitting to an Editor. Trust me. And to a newspaper or magazine's lawyers.

Also. You are missing an original point. I don't think JV thinks that sensationalising doping, either by his own admission or by mudslinging is going to actually help.

I totally get that. Honestly, I think cycling is the most transparent elite sport there is in regards to doping, with the most rigorous (though flawed) testing procedures. Hence we get more positives than any other sport. We all thought that would be a good thing right? And yet witness the sensationalist, salacious and pretty unedifying spectacle we have turned into in the eyes of the mainstream press. And honestly I think Walsh and Kimmage (sorry I really tried not to bring him up:D) help cause that in an attempt to raise their profiles as "journalists". To be seen as crusaders going after the big fish. Righting wrongs. The righteous brothers.

Do you ever read football forums? or tennis forums? do you see the coverage those sports get in the mainstream press? It's great. How much copy is about doping?

I think what JV and some others are trying to do is to put cycling in the back pages for the right reasons again, rather than just providing yet another "doping cyclist" story.
To the highlighted you bring up something else that JV brought up in the interview.

“Now, what seems to me to be happening over and over again is that a high-profile person will test positive and that completely hijacks the fact that you’ve got a complete turnaround in the majority of the peloton’s direction as far as doping goes. And quite frankly, it’s offensive to those who work in anti-doping that their efforts are hijacked whenever a high-profile rider tests positive or whatever else.”
Cyclings problem is not the high profile doping - it is that it is so pervasive throughout the sport. If it was limited to just 'high profile' riders then it could be spun that thats the result of effective testing - you catch the big fish.
But when we have everything from Masters to 16yolds and even a amateur Doctor doping its time to stop and reflect 'honestly' on the state of the sport - to try and effect a change and not keep saying its a 'few bad apples'.

Again - you're bringing up Kimmage & Walsh, why? They are sports journalists who mainly cover other sports. When did either last write a piece on doping?? I don't see what they do or do not say has any relevance to todays comments.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
BroDeal said:
I do not get how people are willing to give JV the benefit of a doubt. Why? Because he tells us he is one of the good guys? Everyone in cycling, including the scumbag at the top, Pat McQuaid, will tell you that he is anti-dope. Being a public figure in cycling and lying to the public is as normal as putting on anti-deoderant in the morning. Because he looks like a good guy when he is dressed up like a character out of the game of Clue? We saw how well the "looks innocent test" worked with Hamilton. This is a guy who never gives answer that can be parsed without consulting Slick Willy's Dictionary of Deceitful Misdirection. Why should anyone believe anything he has to say?

Just as snarky comments from Bruyneel indicated years ago, I think JV's clean team posture is a cynical scam. Right from the start he was thinking about publicity. The entire image of himself and his team was carefully planned. A man whose image consultants dressed him up as Professor Plum would have no problem crafting his public statements on doping to fit the image he wants to portray.

I think he stuck his finger in the air, determined which way public sentiment was blowing, and recognized that he could get huge amounts of free publicity by holding himself out as the Great White Hope of anti-Dope, and that the publicity would allow him to attract sponsors and build a major team. Last year when Wigans was rumored to be leaving, JV made comments that placed a ludicrous valuation on riders based on the publicity they bring to the team and what it would cost for a sponsor to purchase a similar amount of coverage. This is a guy who looks at things through a prism of media coverage.

The company that he keeps does not inspire confidence, David Millar in particular. I do not trust Millar one bit. He strikes me as a publicity seeking prima donna who was way more than satisfied with himself as the golden boy of the UK press. After he was busted he found he could still garner coverage for himself if he came to Jesus and fashioned himself into a reformed doper and clean cycling crusador. His comments about FLandis were enlightening. It was all about him, I, I , I. "I could have helped him." "I called him." "He would not listen to me." This was of course followed by the infamous branding of what Landis was doing as "disgusting." If people like Millar truly believed in cleaning up cycling then they, even if they don't have the balls to do it themselves, should be getting a fair amount of smug satisfaction while watching Landis take it to the Man. Instead we get "disgusting."

There are those who say that JV will work behind the scenes. For someone who wants to work quietly in the background he sure does spend a lot of effort on his public image. Even if this were true, what would be the result? As I have gotten older and more cynical. the more I have come to believe that the ends resemble the means. What does JV's working behind the scenes offer us that is any different than McQuaid's current backroom dealings? It looks like a continuation of the current policy, but under different leadership. The King is dead, long live the King.

I firmly believe that the number one problem in cycling is a lack of transparency. It is the secrecy that allows the corruption. The only thing I can see from Vaughters is more of the same.
Nicely said, and a fun read. Thanks.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
BroDeal said:
I do not get how people are willing to give JV the benefit of a doubt. Why? Because he tells us he is one of the good guys? Everyone in cycling, including the scumbag at the top, Pat McQuaid, will tell you that he is anti-dope. Being a public figure in cycling and lying to the public is as normal as putting on anti-deoderant in the morning. Because he looks like a good guy when he is dressed up like a character out of the game of Clue? We saw how well the "looks innocent test" worked with Hamilton. This is a guy who never gives answer that can be parsed without consulting Slick Willy's Dictionary of Deceitful Misdirection. Why should anyone believe anything he has to say?

Just as snarky comments from Bruyneel indicated years ago, I think JV's clean team posture is a cynical scam. Right from the start he was thinking about publicity. The entire image of himself and his team was carefully planned. A man whose image consultants dressed him up as Professor Plum would have no problem crafting his public statements on doping to fit the image he wants to portray.

I think he stuck his finger in the air, determined which way public sentiment was blowing, and recognized that he could get huge amounts of free publicity by holding himself out as the Great White Hope of anti-Dope, and that the publicity would allow him to attract sponsors and build a major team. Last year when Wigans was rumored to be leaving, JV made comments that placed a ludicrous valuation on riders based on the publicity they bring to the team and what it would cost for a sponsor to purchase a similar amount of coverage. This is a guy who looks at things through a prism of media coverage.

The company that he keeps does not inspire confidence, David Millar in particular. I do not trust Millar one bit. He strikes me as a publicity seeking prima donna who was way more than satisfied with himself as the golden boy of the UK press. After he was busted he found he could still garner coverage for himself if he came to Jesus and fashioned himself into a reformed doper and clean cycling crusador. His comments about FLandis were enlightening. It was all about him, I, I , I. "I could have helped him." "I called him." "He would not listen to me." This was of course followed by the infamous branding of what Landis was doing as "disgusting." If people like Millar truly believed in cleaning up cycling then they, even if they don't have the balls to do it themselves, should be getting a fair amount of smug satisfaction while watching Landis take it to the Man. Instead we get "disgusting."

There are those who say that JV will work behind the scenes. For someone who wants to work quietly in the background he sure does spend a lot of effort on his public image. Even if this were true, what would be the result? As I have gotten older and more cynical. the more I have come to believe that the ends resemble the means. What does JV's working behind the scenes offer us that is any different than McQuaid's current backroom dealings? It looks like a continuation of the current policy, but under different leadership. The King is dead, long live the King.

I firmly believe that the number one problem in cycling is a lack of transparency. It is the secrecy that allows the corruption. The only thing I can see from Vaughters is more of the same.
ok Bro...I didn't think I would ever be saying this....but that is a great post. I disagree with a lot of it, but never the less....very interesting.

Ok simply. I give him the benefit because I find him credible and I am an optimist. I want him to be telling me the truth. I reserve the right to come back here in six months time if it comes out that chipotle have a blood bank round the back of their kitchen and call him a four eyed, silly sideburned liar.

As for Dave Millar. Well I agree with you up to a point. Sometimes he just needs to shut his gob, or at least think before he opens it. He played a PR blinder when he came back (Fran is his agent after all), but his outbursts about Kohl and Landis were bordering on the idiotic, and can smack of double standards if he is not careful. I do actually like him, and think he is genuinely sorry for what he did, and I think he is working as a genuine role model for younger riders now, but I don't buy his story about his introduction to doping entirely. I think he could be a bit more honest with himself and us if he is going to say anything. I raced for a year for a french team in 1990 and trust me, doping was never cloak and dagger. It wasn't something that crept up on you or was something that "corrupted" you. I knew what it was and what it entailed from the day I arrived.

As for JV's image. Sure he does sell himself. He has to. He sells himself and Garmin as "clean". And for that to work I think he is right to not comment on any doping past too explicitly. It's a a very thin tight rope to walk.

Sorry just to add....I am still laughing at the professor plum bit:D
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again - you're bringing up Kimmage & Walsh, why? They are sports journalists who mainly cover other sports. When did either last write a piece on doping?? I don't see what they do or do not say has any relevance to todays comments.
Mas....you really do have a boner for him don't you?...lol....apologies

Ok....I brought them up for this reason....show me twenty of their last articles that were cycling related and then show me how many of those twenty didn't mention the D word. That is my point. There is a general lack of balance when it comes to cycling journalism and I picked the terrible twosome because I think they are a pretty egregious example of it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BroDeal said:
I do not get how people are willing to give JV the benefit of a doubt. Why? Because he tells us he is one of the good guys? Everyone in cycling, including the scumbag at the top, Pat McQuaid, will tell you that he is anti-dope. Being a public figure in cycling and lying to the public is as normal as putting on anti-deoderant in the morning. Because he looks like a good guy when he is dressed up like a character out of the game of Clue? We saw how well the "looks innocent test" worked with Hamilton. This is a guy who never gives answer that can be parsed without consulting Slick Willy's Dictionary of Deceitful Misdirection. Why should anyone believe anything he has to say?

Just as snarky comments from Bruyneel indicated years ago, I think JV's clean team posture is a cynical scam. Right from the start he was thinking about publicity. The entire image of himself and his team was carefully planned. A man whose image consultants dressed him up as Professor Plum would have no problem crafting his public statements on doping to fit the image he wants to portray.

I think he stuck his finger in the air, determined which way public sentiment was blowing, and recognized that he could get huge amounts of free publicity by holding himself out as the Great White Hope of anti-Dope, and that the publicity would allow him to attract sponsors and build a major team. Last year when Wigans was rumored to be leaving, JV made comments that placed a ludicrous valuation on riders based on the publicity they bring to the team and what it would cost for a sponsor to purchase a similar amount of coverage. This is a guy who looks at things through a prism of media coverage.

The company that he keeps does not inspire confidence, David Millar in particular. I do not trust Millar one bit. He strikes me as a publicity seeking prima donna who was way more than satisfied with himself as the golden boy of the UK press. After he was busted he found he could still garner coverage for himself if he came to Jesus and fashioned himself into a reformed doper and clean cycling crusador. His comments about FLandis were enlightening. It was all about him, I, I , I. "I could have helped him." "I called him." "He would not listen to me." This was of course followed by the infamous branding of what Landis was doing as "disgusting." If people like Millar truly believed in cleaning up cycling then they, even if they don't have the balls to do it themselves, should be getting a fair amount of smug satisfaction while watching Landis take it to the Man. Instead we get "disgusting."

There are those who say that JV will work behind the scenes. For someone who wants to work quietly in the background he sure does spend a lot of effort on his public image. Even if this were true, what would be the result? As I have gotten older and more cynical. the more I have come to believe that the ends resemble the means. What does JV's working behind the scenes offer us that is any different than McQuaid's current backroom dealings? It looks like a continuation of the current policy, but under different leadership. The King is dead, long live the King.

I firmly believe that the number one problem in cycling is a lack of transparency. It is the secrecy that allows the corruption. The only thing I can see from Vaughters is more of the same.
C'mon Bro, tell us what you really think.

To the highlighted - I don't really agree, but the Fed investigation will reveal all - but it should not have had to come to that.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
straydog said:
Mas....you really do have a boner for him don't you?...lol....apologies

Ok....I brought them up for this reason....show me twenty of their last articles that were cycling related and then show me how many of those twenty didn't mention the D word. That is my point. There is a general lack of balance when it comes to cycling journalism and I picked the terrible twosome because I think they are a pretty egregious example of it.
Hey theres no need to get jealous - 19 of your 265 posts have the word Kimmage in them, he's all yours.

As PK & Walsh rarely write about cycling 20 stories would go back probably 5 years. But as a quick example Kimmage was at the TdF this year with no mention of doping.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
I think people on both sides of this question make good points.
I also agree with Brodeal regarding David Millar. I'm not sure why he was designated as the "go to guy" for anti-doping quotes when others in the peleton were busted. I do believe, though that DM has a financial stake in the team. Bad move to allow that in my opinion... but heck, it's just a fan's opinion. Doesn't really matter in the real world.
I guess that ultimately is the same with JV: to come clean (in plain english) or not- it's his choice.

Clarification: I hope he eventually does, but can see why he might not want to, at least for the next few years.
Also, maybe he already gave investigators some good information that could be used for a higher purpose.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Hey theres no need to get jealous - 19 of your 265 posts have the word Kimmage in them, he's all yours.

As PK & Walsh rarely write about cycling 20 stories would go back probably 5 years. But as a quick example Kimmage was at the TdF this year with no mention of doping.
You went and counted my posts....I am flattered...no wonder it took you so long to write 5 lines:p

lol.....so 8 percent of my posts talk about trolly and he's all mine?

Where does that put you with Lance?

Listen, clearly I will get jealous if you ever become LA fanboy number one...but kimmage (20)....I promise....I will never try to take him away from you.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Dr. Maserati, when you quote JV...

“Now, what seems to me to be happening over and over again is that a high-profile person will test positive and that completely hijacks the fact that you’ve got a complete turnaround in the majority of the peloton’s direction as far as doping goes. And quite frankly, it’s offensive to those who work in anti-doping that their efforts are hijacked whenever a high-profile rider tests positive or whatever else.”
... i am not reading what you are reading ("and not keep saying its a 'few bad apples").

I know some folk don't like picking on words for the exact meaning, but it does really matter if people draw conclusions which are not supported by the words they quote.

A change in direction of the peloton is saying that from riders in general "using more and more", the majority has started to use less and less. This is not the same as "not using" or "100% clean apples", or "high-profile users are the exception".

And he also states that, at the moment, (in his eyes) the efforts of "those who work in anti-doping" are not helped by the sensationalism that gets triggered with each high-profile positive.

Like it or not, it appears that JV has concluded that when he adopts the softly softly approach, in the end it will help more than hinder. And that for his own involvement, that is more fruitful than the burn and start again approach.

I'll leave it in the middle if he judges that it "all" should be softly softly, or if he judges that the best communal route would be a combination of different attitudes, and he is simply on the chair which has "my most fruitful role requires me to tread softly".

We all have views on if he is right with this, but ultimately they are just "our best hunches", more or less informed. No one can guarantee which one works best, or works at all.

By the sound of it he also has witnessed from the inside looking out, how (in his eyes) blips of sensationalism are genuinely hindering rather than helping.

I'm guessing here, but i expect it would put folk in various positions on the defensive, or side-tracks them, and the whole thing clamps down and becomes harder to nudge on in the right direction. Rather than simply get on with taking step towards an even cleaner goal, with further transparacy built-in too. If you witness backlash overwhelming peers, it tends to make herds cautious.

I doubt that JV is less open than you want him to be because he is against transparency and openness. But because he judges that "we the public/media" aren't ready to deal with it, and that in the current climate, his personal openness would actually hinder progress, rather than help. So he talks in tongues that are deflecting the hysteria, but are as open as he dares to be and judges wise, to careful listeners.

Personally I can see where JV is coming from, and I might agree or disagree with his personal judgement calm, but i think that if we are gonna badger someone, JV is the wrong person. I can also see that some judge him to be the lever that helps topple the lot and appeal to him to fall in line with a different philosophy about "best route home".

In the end we all see a path we think is best, but none of us have the map that proves where the road leads to, let alone know for sure if it was indeed the best route home. In the end we are all having hunches.

So all I can conclude is that JV is probably, at worst, someone who is trying to get me safe home too. Those people are never "problems" if we cannot guarantee the exact route of our own paths.

At best you can give argumentations why you think your route is better (which you do), and hope to persuade.

But to say" he is not taking responsibility for not saying yes now" is wrong though. IMO, JV's entire course comes from trying to do it utterly responsibly, to the best of his judgement. Maybe more than most.

I would be astonished if he judges, guessing where he comes from, that in the current media climate where the planet earth media is chasing a high-profile cycling dope story for the 24/7 feeds and consumer hungry businesses, that he thinks that saying "yes" now would help.

I am confident however that there will be a point where he will judge the time to be right for that "yes". When that will be I don't know. Possibly after his responsibility (that word again) to others has stopped, or when "we" are ready, or when circumstances create a momentum when he thinks it would help with a pushing the rot out.

[when quoting me please edit my posts to the relevant bit, or simply reply without quoting]
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Francois the Postman said:
Dr. Maserati, when you quote JV...



... i am not reading what you are reading ("and not keep saying its a 'few bad apples").

I know some folk don't like picking on words for the exact meaning, but it does really matter if people draw conclusions which are not supported by the words they quote.

A change in direction of the peloton is saying that from riders in general "using more and more", the majority has started to use less and less. This is not the same as "not using" or "100% clean apples", or "high-profile users are the exception".

And he also states that, at the moment, (in his eyes) the efforts of "those who work in anti-doping" are not helped by the sensationalism that gets triggered with each high-profile positive.

[when quoting me please edit my posts to the relevant bit, or simply reply without quoting]
Firstly - where the hell were all you guys over the last couple of weeks when I was almost the only one standing up for JV?

Seriously - ok, I wasnt suggesting that the 'few rotten apples' is what JV was saying (although I see why you picked that up) but when he says that the sport is being hurt by 'high profile' positives that is not really accurate.

It is the volume of high profile positives that is killing the sport - it has been almost a constant flow of positives & scandals since 2004.

Again - I think JV is doing a great job with his team - but there was an oppurtunity today to set the record straight by his terms
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts