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

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
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?
Thinking you could stand your ground fine on your own. :D

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
OK.

But in the end that is still a judgement call. That coming clean today would help. You claim it would, or it would be better. As if that is written somewhere. Both judgement calls are speculative.
 
straydog said:
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.
That might be a good argument if there were any real evidence that the attitude towards doping was really shifting at any level. The only thing I can see changing is how much doping they can get away with.
If you are studying your navel when it comes to the doping issue, I bet your view is from it's backside.
 
Jul 11, 2010
177
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
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?
Sitting on the sidelines watching the train wreck, too utterly embarrassed to get involved in the JV bashfest on ANY side.

I like what you say and respect you, but the JV pummeling is on par with the doper du jour pummeling: gratuitously satisfying to some, but not really reflective of the complexity and scope of the problem.

Please do carry on with your good works though.
 

Dettol

BANNED
Nov 10, 2010
98
0
0
Ultimately JV has to do what he thinks is right for himself and his family. The softly, softly approach is probably the right way. Landis finally confessed when he had nothing left.
 
Dettol said:
Ultimately JV has to do what he thinks is right for himself and his family. The softly, softly approach is probably the right way. Landis finally confessed when he had nothing left.
At the end of the day, JV is a peripheral figure in the greater doping picture.

Riis won the Tour while doping. Not JV.

JV cannot carry the entire cycling world on his shoulders.

In many ways he has already done more than I would have anticipated, and more than pretty much anyone else has done. There is no question that he knows that he and his team are being watched very closely. From what I have been able to discern, he is very aware of the past implications of his riders.

Responding to an online forum to admit anything related to doping on USPS likely isn't rational at all.

Can we count on him to stand up and be counted when it really matters, such as in testimony to the GJ? I don't know. But I do know that it is not rational that he grandstand about what he would say, or even did say.

The biggest statement that he can make is likely one that we will never hear. If he does that, I would be happy never hearing it. The outcome is all that matters.

Dave.
 
Jul 27, 2010
625
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
If you are studying your navel when it comes to the doping issue, I bet your view is from it's backside.
You know that would have been witty if it was....you know....witty:p

Or even made sense....but hey...to the point you vaguely addressed...

The point is JV's attitude and focus is to try and change attitudes to doping in his riders...and also with his work as a DS rep to the UCI within the peloton as a whole.

Attitudes to doping are changing, if you can't see that, maybe try removing your head from your Januss. Yes it is way from fixed or even near yet, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Drop by drop. Drop by drop. Better than giving up.
 
straydog said:
You know that would have been witty if it was....you know....witty:p

Or even made sense....but hey...to the point you vaguely addressed...

The point is JV's attitude and focus is to try and change attitudes to doping in his riders...and also with his work as a DS rep to the UCI within the peloton as a whole.

Attitudes to doping are changing, if you can't see that, maybe try removing your head from your Januss. Yes it is way from fixed or even near yet, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Drop by drop. Drop by drop. Better than giving up.
Once you get past Saturn you get a really good view of Uranus.
The drops only keep dropping as long as fans are clamoring for change, if we all just sit and say as you do, it's ok it's changing don't bother talking about it anymore everything is fine, then nothing has to change.
And my reference was wittier than yours, so there.:p
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
There was some on topic in there. You are being kind of picky for someone who's sig line references flatulence.:D
Why do you think I said "only"? You had your fun, that bit you can drop now.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
I haven't followed the JV threads. In the article, there was definite waffling. And for a guy with a strong vocabulary, he used the word "sensationalized" a lot. The thread title asks if it's so hard to say "yes". The bottom line for me is, it's extremely easy to say "no" if that's the truth. He didn't. There would be nothing sensationalized, or newsworthy, about a former rider saying he didn't dope. Lance probably has it embossed on his stationery. So innocence requires no waffling. If he couldn't say no after so many opportunities, I infer that he cheated. I don't need to know the details. I know nothing about him prior to the past couple of years anyway. But nothing I read gave me the impression that he denies doping.

It is is getting to be crux time in the Armstrong investigation. I don't know if JV talked to Novitsky, but if he did, there's a good reason to stay quiet right now. I won't elaborate and drag this off topic. But some times guys waffle when they really want to say something, or find a way to convey the information, but aren't able to for some reason. "No comment" is simple enough. Maybe he doesn't want to tarnish the image of the current team, or the sponsors.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
i see only one problem with jv - continuing to engage and trying to satisfy the ppl who ultimately have little impact on his team.

yes=trouble
no=trouble
'it's not about me'=trouble
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Francois the Postman said:
Thinking you could stand your ground fine on your own. :D



OK.

But in the end that is still a judgement call. That coming clean today would help. You claim it would, or it would be better. As if that is written somewhere. Both judgement calls are speculative.
To quote Leslie Nielsen, Bingo.

This goes straight to why I am frustrated with what he said (actually what he didn't say) in the new interview.

The sole purpose of the interview (IMO) was to address this issue.
He could have said he cannot comment because of the ongoing investigation etc - and move on. But he did address the issue, he was forthcoming about the USPS case, his own team but when it came to his own doping (which is about him) he took a pass.
If JV did not want the scrutiny then don't address the subject.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
To quote Leslie Nielsen, Bingo.

This goes straight to why I am frustrated with what he said (actually what he didn't say) in the new interview.

The sole purpose of the interview (IMO) was to address this issue.
He could have said he cannot comment because of the ongoing investigation etc - and move on. But he did address the issue, he was forthcoming about the USPS case, his own team but when it came to his own doping (which is about him) he took a pass.
If JV did not want the scrutiny then don't address the subject.

JV is one of many many riders who doped in the past who are involved at the sharp end of the sport. Do we need an admission from each and every one of them?
What purpose does it serve, other than to confirm what you already know?
How will it improve the problem?
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
If you have a brain, or even half of one, JV has said what needs to be said.

Many of the posters who are continuing to pursue this seem to have at least half a brain, and I wonder what they think they are going to achieve by continuing? Other than further tarnishing the reputation of this forum among guys trying to make things better...

It really is time to leave him alone.

Just in case it needs pointing out again - here is the clue in the latest interview:

""I think... is very aware of what my history is in the sport of cycling, and the good points and the bad points. To make that a public issue, I think the logic in that is fundamentally flawed."
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
andy1234 said:
JV is one of many many riders who doped in the past who are involved at the sharp end of the sport. Do we need an admission from each and every one of them? What purpose does it serve, other than to confirm what you already know?
How will it improve the problem?
No - and again, this is the point.
JV doped - he as good as said it straight out in the 2008 interview. However some people expect him to do more which I argued over the last number of weeks was probably unreasonable for various reasons.

But then JV does this interview - pretty much to address the issue of his prior doping. IMO it was the time to address the issue, be honest, draw a line in the sand and move on.

This is in particular because of the blue - an admission by JV would not be a 180 like Riis, or a shock to Cycling, it is not like JV has denied it.

Good question re "what purpose does it serve"?
IMO it allows him (& some of his detractors) to move on, issue dealt with and over and he can concentrate on what he has set out to do without any questions of his past lingering over him, particularly when there is a high chance it could come out in the Fed investigation.
 
Jun 18, 2009
374
0
0
I love it how you hassle Vaughters and leave snakes like Gianetti and his ilk alone.

'I demand a confession!' it's like the Monty Python Inquisition, with more plaintive bleating and fewer Comfy Chairs. Get over yourselves.

You have your way of trying to clean cycling- by being outside the tent and ****ing in. He has his way- being outside the tent and ****ing out.

You want him to wave his wand about and **** everywhere.

Edit- I understand and agree that cycling has to face up to the fact of its near-compulsory doping in the last decades. But to have public tantrums against team DS because they won't do the bidding of petulant forum members seems to me to be a bit delusional, not to say counterproductive. 'Yeah, you showed him, didn't ya?' Now, what did you achieve by your little strop session?
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
Winterfold said:
If you have a brain, or even half of one, JV has said what needs to be said.

Many of the posters who are continuing to pursue this seem to have at least half a brain, and I wonder what they think they are going to achieve by continuing? Other than further tarnishing the reputation of this forum among guys trying to make things better...

It really is time to leave him alone.
in reference to the bolded:
vaughters isn't a victim. he's a big boy and for the most part this is an intellectual public debate about public matters. other than with one or two posters (certainly not me, dr M, etc) comments have rarely fallen out of bounds. your sympathies are misplaced. his partial confessions have created this debate. he launched a "clean team" without acknowledging his past. he's skipped a step which he should have addressed ages ago. he wanted to eat his cake and have it to, it's HIS fault (something even he seems to acknowledge).
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
python said:
i see only one problem with jv - continuing to engage and trying to satisfy the ppl who ultimately have little impact on his team.

yes=trouble
no=trouble
'it's not about me'=trouble
yep, that's step one in the decision making process, i think it's been covered already. :rolleyes:

steps 2-100 - walk thru each of those scenarios, imagine the nature of that "trouble" and all intended and uninteded consequences, then do what's best not for you indivdually but for YOUR business.

the short short version:
yes = medium short term trouble dropping off exponentially plotted against time, possibly mitigated further if his timing is good, (ie issue gone in a week or two)
no = major trouble, zero credibility
'it's not about me' = small nagging lasting trouble you'll never get rid of

i'm not sure vaughters is thinking through this problem and making a sound business decision, he's just taking the path that was easiest for him up until this point.

for the record, i don't care if he spills his guts or not. my biggest concern is cleaning up the sport and when it's all said and done i don't really think he plays much of a role in it.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
If JV did not want the scrutiny then don't address the subject.
Precisely.

In marketing, there are these things called the "P's of marketing". One of them is called "positioning". A bag of whole wheat flour can be placed on a cheap store shelf, in a fancy 'upscale' store, in an organic "hippie" market, etc. Put different graphics on the bag and you can put that flour wherever you like. And you can charge a wide variety of prices for it. But you must be what you purport yourself to be. And someone just might call you to answer some questions on that.

JV has been able to select from a variety of shelves to place his team on (and mind you, JV is inextricably joined to his team). He has chosen the "Clean racing" shelf. Lance and AC don't market themselves there. Nor does Riis. Few others do.

But when you place yourself on that unique shelf, and you introduce innuendo and hints that you've got some kind of "history" with doping to help create credibility, you can't maintain that credibility if you refuse to comment by using specifics.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency,

Runitout said:
I love it how you hassle Vaughters and leave snakes like Gianetti and his ilk alone.

'I demand a confession!' it's like the Monty Python Inquisition, with more plaintive bleating and fewer Comfy Chairs. Get over yourselves.

?
Gianetti does not market or sensationalize himself as a Crusader for Clean Cycling.

Live by the media fart, die by the media fart.

And by the way - NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
I have to say, I just don't see why an explicit admission is either necessary or beneficial. It's very clear from his past interviews that he's tacitly admitted to doping. Any person working in his organization knows that and any reasonably curious cycling fan knows that as well.

So what's the benefit? I don't see how it will "answer the question once and for all", it's already been answered! It will simply give the mainstream press one more snippet to print: "clean director admits doping", and will again lead to "the Lance question". As long as he's honest with those investigating Big Tex, that's enough for me.

Outside of satisfying a certain bloodlust for some people, I really don't see an upside to a more complete admission than he's made already.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
Precisely.

In marketing, there are these things called the "P's of marketing". One of them is called "positioning". A bag of whole wheat flour can be placed on a cheap store shelf, in a fancy 'upscale' store, in an organic "hippie" market, etc. Put different graphics on the bag and you can put that flour wherever you like. And you can charge a wide variety of prices for it. But you must be what you purport yourself to be. And someone just might call you to answer some questions on that.

JV has been able to select from a variety of shelves to place his team on (and mind you, JV is inextricably joined to his team). He has chosen the "Clean racing" shelf. Lance and AC don't market themselves there. Nor does Riis. Few others do.

But when you place yourself on that unique shelf, and you introduce innuendo and hints that you've got some kind of "history" with doping to help create credibility, you can't maintain that credibility if you refuse to comment by using specifics.
I do not want this to turn in to the other JV threads but to the highlighted, JV does.
Your view would be correct if JV denied doping and/or his team were not what they say.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
But you must be what you purport yourself to be. And someone just might call you to answer some questions on that.
Note what I'm highlighting. He refuses.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
131313 said:
I have to say, I just don't see why an explicit admission is either necessary or beneficial. It's very clear from his past interviews that he's tacitly admitted to doping. Any person working in his organization knows that and any reasonably curious cycling fan knows that as well.

So what's the benefit? I don't see how it will "answer the question once and for all", it's already been answered! It will simply give the mainstream press one more snippet to print: "clean director admits doping", and will again lead to "the Lance question". As long as he's honest with those investigating Big Tex, that's enough for me.

Outside of satisfying a certain bloodlust for some people, I really don't see an upside to a more complete admission than he's made already.
Again, this is the point - it isn't.

Yet JV decided to speak to Tan on this issue (as he could have said to Tan no doping questions).
So he knew the question would come. Tan even teed it up nicely for JV as he separated JVs personal doping from questions of his team and the Fed investigation.

JV answered about his team and the USPS case but by answering with a "non denial denial" on his own personal doping means the question lingers and (for some) calls in to question his honesty.
I just think he missed a great opportunity to clear the air and move on.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS