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

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
Note what I'm highlighting. He refuses.
Just to note your 'quote' has my name in it in error - I'll just highlight that it was you who had made it.


BotanyBay said:
But you must be what you purport yourself to be. And someone just might call you to answer some questions on that.
Again - JV purports to have a clean team, which has nothing to do with his own doping which he has not denied.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Doc M, you are one of the most articulate, detailed, & factual posters here, IMO. I think you have made your point: that you believe JV missed an opportunity to “come clean” once and for all. Point made. What we have to look at though is that there might be some reason not apparent to us that JV chooses not to. I think he has satisfied the intelligent fan by admitting without spelling it out in grade-school terms. 131313 illustrated this point very well in the post above. Many have made that point here, so I will not beat a dead horse. I echo his point in hoping that what was said to the feds was complete and factual. With that, I propose it's time to let this thread go
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again - JV purports to have a clean team, which has nothing to do with his own doping which he has not denied.

Exactly.

That is also the way I feel about Lance and RadioShack, America's other Clean Team.

BTW, has anyone heard JV exclaim "SSDD" yet with all the sensational doping stories?

Maybe "SFDD"?
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Alright, just dug this out of the CN graveyard from a previous JV thread (man, that guy gets a lot of ink).

Nothing important, just what I thought was key point to this incessant argument...

I am not asking anyone to make a decision.

I am trying to comprehend how JV can expect to be viewed as anti-doping by anyone when he hasn't lived up to what most people would see as an extremely crucial requirement - honest personal disclosure about doping.

Not naming names, not scr*wing his riders and sponsors, not utterly destroying his carreer. Strictly lending some honesty to a position that would find honesty to be requisite.

I don't give rat's *ss whether he does or not.

All I'm saying is that he fundamentally CANNOT be viewed as who he would like to be viewed as. After reading a few hundred posts, I think that's the point a lot of posters are trying to make.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Deagol said:
Doc M, you are one of the most articulate, detailed, & factual posters here, IMO. I think you have made your point: that you believe JV missed an opportunity to “come clean” once and for all. Point made. What we have to look at though is that there might be some reason not apparent to us that JV chooses not to. I think he has satisfied the intelligent fan by admitting without spelling it out in grade-school terms. 131313 illustrated this point very well in the post above. Many have made that point here, so I will not beat a dead horse. I echo his point in hoping that what was said to the feds was complete and factual. With that, I propose it's time to let this thread go
Thanks for your kind words - although you forgot to add witty, good looking and hung like a horse.

To the highlighted - I agree, which is one of the things I was looking for when I started this thread, as perhaps I had missed something.
Unfortunately some here have just addressed the posters saying leave JV alone rather than articulating why.

No-one has said on any JV thread - "why should he confess to something he never did"? I have not read a harsh word about JVs doping - yet plenty calling him a hypocrite and even spineless.

I do agree with 131313 & others overall, which is why I just understand why he went and did that interview.
In closing - JV having doped is accepted, so I can't see why him admitting that could harm him or his team.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Thanks for your kind words - although you forgot to add witty, good looking and hung like a horse.

To the highlighted - I agree, which is one of the things I was looking for when I started this thread, as perhaps I had missed something.
Unfortunately some here have just addressed the posters saying leave JV alone rather than articulating why.

No-one has said on any JV thread - "why should he confess to something he never did"? I have not read a harsh word about JVs doping - yet plenty calling him a hypocrite and even spineless.

I do agree with 131313 & others overall, which is why I just understand why he went and did that interview.
In closing - JV having doped is accepted, so I can't see why him admitting that could harm him or his team.
Take it easy on your arm, there Mas. You might break it off patting yourself on the back...

None of this started with you, infact you defended JV's position for quite a while. The posts are there for you to read.

I agree with your new position (obviously), but take it easy on the cred.
 
Polish said:
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
No, that would be Lance.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Take it easy on your arm, there Mas. You might break it off patting yourself on the back...

None of this started with you, infact you defended JV's position for quite a while. The posts are there for you to read.

I agree with your new position (obviously), but take it easy on the cred.
I really have no idea what you are on about.

Here is Deagols quote which I highlighted and responded to.
Deagol
What we have to look at though is that there might be some reason not apparent to us that JV chooses not to [admit])
My responce
To the highlighted - I agree, which is one of the things I was looking for when I started this thread, as perhaps I had missed something.
I cannot see how the above is "patting myself on the back".

Yes I defended JVs position previously, and I stated that on this thread and indeed still standby that view. JV does not owe us a confession - but admitting his own doping would be appreciated.
This NEW interview was (IMO) for that express purpose - I started a thread to find out others opinions,
So I have no idea where you are going with your personal and inccurate comments.
 
131313 said:
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".
Sweet Zombi Jesus! He cannot tell the truth because it will lead to more truth? Instead he has to protect the biggest doper in the history of the sport.. This is the guy who will lead us to Shangri-La?

It is interesting to think about how the self-proclaimed clean cycling advocate is handling the torrent of lies around the FLandis/Novitzky affair. I can see it now. After a long hard day of telling riders not to go down the path that Armstrong went and collect those millions of dollars in start fees and endorsements, he trades in his tweed for a smoking jacket and retires to a wood paneled drawing room decorated like a nineteenth century English gentlemen's club. There he fires up his pipe and watches the spectacle of other riders, the head of the UCI, cycling commentators, race directors, and every bootlicker that Armstrong can muster calling Landis a liar and denying what Vaughters not only knows is true but has the means to prove. He stands by and watches this obscenity and then has the gall to tell us that everything has changed.

If you hold yourself out as a doping crusader then people will expect you to occasionally fight. Instead we get JV in his gaudy armor giving a pep talk to the troops before the battle is joined. At the first sight of the enemy, he hightaills it to the nearest hill to watch the slaughter of the poor bastards whose cause he claims to back. His apologists give him a pass because they hope that the land grant and title of nobility that he gets for remaining loyal to the crown will come with a secret agreement that gives the serfs a few more rights.

JV has become the UCI's Uncle Tom. He is the guy who gets trotted out to present the official party line that the the sport has changed, that the culture is completely different than a few years ago.. In the past it was mumble...mumble...cough...mumble...cough, but now it is so much better. If the sport really has changed then JV would not be tiptoeing around, afraid of his own shadow ,like Einstein during a zombie outbreak.

Evidently he has to keep everything on the down low because sensationalism will harm the sport. That type of secrecy and deception is no different than the corruption that we get from McQuaid. When Leipheimer has an offscore that is so high that the chance of it not being caused by doping is smaller than my chance of bumping into Jordana Brewster and Devon Aoki and having them offer me a starring role in a weekend long three-way, will Vaughters' new world order do anything different than the UCI warning the team so that Leipheimer can reduce his doping so it is a little less blatant?

What will happen when one of JV's own riders tests positive internally--if it has not already happened? Why should we think that he will handle it any differently than the way he has handled his time at Postal? From protecting Armstrong for the good of the sport it is a very small step to protecting others for the good of the sport and the team and himself. A rider or two of his doping, getting the results that bring in the sponsors, could easily be rationalized as a necessary evil to allow his good works to continue.

What JV offers us is a slippery slope of selective prosecution that will inevitably lead to corruption. Self policing done in secret will never work for long.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
BroDeal said:
Sweet Zombi Jesus! He cannot tell the truth because it will lead to more truth? Instead he has to protect the biggest doper in the history of the sport..
Honestly, I stopped reading right here because this is a complete straw-man argument. I believe he's been honest about his past, despite the fact that it's not as direct an admission as people would like. He hasn't pulled a Julich and avoided the question completely, and for that I think he deserves credit.

But how is he "protecting the biggest doper in the sport"? How would publicly calling out Armstrong help things? It may boost his own image, certainly among forum members here, but I still don't see that solving anything. It just becomes another "he said, she said" situation, or "he's just trying to make his team of losers look better", etc.

If he's not/hasn't been truthful in his discussions with the Feds, then I'll line up right next to you in vilifying him. As of now, we simply don't know. If you have some sort of inside knowledge regarding his discussions with the USADA, WADA and the Feds, please let us know. What I do know is that saying "Lance was doping" in a media interview doesn't really mean much at this point.

Personally, I'm fine with him saving his information for those in a position to actually change things for the better.
 
May 20, 2010
801
0
0
BroDeal said:
Sweet Zombi Jesus! He cannot tell the truth because it will lead to more truth? Instead he has to protect the biggest doper in the history of the sport.. This is the guy who will lead us to Shangri-La?

It is interesting to think about how the self-proclaimed clean cycling advocate is handling the torrent of lies around the FLandis/Novitzky affair. I can see it now. After a long hard day of telling riders not to go down the path that Armstrong went and collect those millions of dollars in start fees and endorsements, he trades in his tweed for a smoking jacket and retires to a wood paneled drawing room decorated like a nineteenth century English gentlemen's club. There he fires up his pipe and watches the spectacle of other riders, the head of the UCI, cycling commentators, race directors, and every bootlicker that Armstrong can muster calling Landis a liar and denying what Vaughters not only knows is true but has the means to prove. He stands by and watches this obscenity and then has the gall to tell us that everything has changed.

If you hold yourself out as a doping crusader then people will expect you to occasionally fight. Instead we get JV in his gaudy armor giving a pep talk to the troops before the battle is joined. At the first sight of the enemy, he hightaills it to the nearest hill to watch the slaughter of the poor bastards whose cause he claims to back. His apologists give him a pass because they hope that the land grant and title of nobility that he gets for remaining loyal to the crown will come with a secret agreement that gives the serfs a few more rights.

JV has become the UCI's Uncle Tom. He is the guy who gets trotted out to present the official party line that the the sport has changed, that the culture is completely different than a few years ago.. In the past it was mumble...mumble...cough...mumble...cough, but now it is so much better. If the sport really has changed then JV would not be tiptoeing around, afraid of his own shadow ,like Einstein during a zombie outbreak.

Evidently he has to keep everything on the down low because sensationalism will harm the sport. That type of secrecy and deception is no different than the corruption that we get from McQuaid. When Leipheimer has an offscore that is so high that the chance of it not being caused by doping is smaller than my chance of bumping into Jordana Brewster and Devon Aoki and having them offer me a starring role in a weekend long three-way, will Vaughters' new world order do anything different than the UCI warning the team so that Leipheimer can reduce his doping so it is a little less blatant?

What will happen when one of JV's own riders tests positive internally--if it has not already happened? Why should we think that he will handle it any differently than the way he has handled his time at Postal? From protecting Armstrong for the good of the sport it is a very small step to protecting others for the good of the sport and the team and himself. A rider or two of his doping, getting the results that bring in the sponsors, could easily be rationalized as a necessary evil to allow his good works to continue.

What JV offers us is a slippery slope of selective prosecution that will inevitably lead to corruption. Self policing done in secret will never work for long.
That's a brilliant post---and one of the reasons I read The Clinic. Chapeau!
 
TexPat said:
That's a brilliant post---and one of the reasons I read The Clinic. Chapeau!
That is +1 to you, you made me read it twice.

BroDeal:

Inbox me about the 3-way wouldya? I'm sure it will work out for you.

WRT riders that have tested positive? (or broke curfew, or were hanging out with the wrong crowed, or didn't shave their legs... wear argyle...)

If (big if) this has happened. (Any time there are rules...)

Probably some sort of multiple strike situation. Then they aren't there any more.

Dave.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
BroDeal said:
Sweet Zombi Jesus! He cannot tell the truth because it will lead to more truth? Instead he has to protect the biggest doper in the history of the sport.. This is the guy who will lead us to Shangri-La?

It is interesting to think about how the self-proclaimed clean cycling advocate is handling the torrent of lies around the FLandis/Novitzky affair. I can see it now. After a long hard day of telling riders not to go down the path that Armstrong went and collect those millions of dollars in start fees and endorsements, he trades in his tweed for a smoking jacket and retires to a wood paneled drawing room decorated like a nineteenth century English gentlemen's club. There he fires up his pipe and watches the spectacle of other riders, the head of the UCI, cycling commentators, race directors, and every bootlicker that Armstrong can muster calling Landis a liar and denying what Vaughters not only knows is true but has the means to prove. He stands by and watches this obscenity and then has the gall to tell us that everything has changed.

If you hold yourself out as a doping crusader then people will expect you to occasionally fight. Instead we get JV in his gaudy armor giving a pep talk to the troops before the battle is joined. At the first sight of the enemy, he hightaills it to the nearest hill to watch the slaughter of the poor bastards whose cause he claims to back. His apologists give him a pass because they hope that the land grant and title of nobility that he gets for remaining loyal to the crown will come with a secret agreement that gives the serfs a few more rights.

JV has become the UCI's Uncle Tom. He is the guy who gets trotted out to present the official party line that the the sport has changed, that the culture is completely different than a few years ago.. In the past it was mumble...mumble...cough...mumble...cough, but now it is so much better. If the sport really has changed then JV would not be tiptoeing around, afraid of his own shadow ,like Einstein during a zombie outbreak.

Evidently he has to keep everything on the down low because sensationalism will harm the sport. That type of secrecy and deception is no different than the corruption that we get from McQuaid. When Leipheimer has an offscore that is so high that the chance of it not being caused by doping is smaller than my chance of bumping into Jordana Brewster and Devon Aoki and having them offer me a starring role in a weekend long three-way, will Vaughters' new world order do anything different than the UCI warning the team so that Leipheimer can reduce his doping so it is a little less blatant?

What will happen when one of JV's own riders tests positive internally--if it has not already happened? Why should we think that he will handle it any differently than the way he has handled his time at Postal? From protecting Armstrong for the good of the sport it is a very small step to protecting others for the good of the sport and the team and himself. A rider or two of his doping, getting the results that bring in the sponsors, could easily be rationalized as a necessary evil to allow his good works to continue.

What JV offers us is a slippery slope of selective prosecution that will inevitably lead to corruption. Self policing done in secret will never work for long.

Just two questions BD. I come from the US in liberal California.

I always wondered why Colin Powell didn't buck the system when he heard the yellowcake story from Nigeria to Saddam story and why the Democrats voted unanimously for striking Iraq because of WMDs. I know why. I know why Jonathon is how he is.. it is not because he is a wussy- wimp, it is because he is a thinking man. If it were me and I worked inside the rarified air of cycling I might mind my Ps and Qs.
 
BroDeal said:
Sweet Zombi Jesus! He cannot tell the truth because it will lead to more truth? Instead he has to protect the biggest doper in the history of the sport.. This is the guy who will lead us to Shangri-La?

It is interesting to think about how the self-proclaimed clean cycling advocate is handling the torrent of lies around the FLandis/Novitzky affair. I can see it now. After a long hard day of telling riders not to go down the path that Armstrong went and collect those millions of dollars in start fees and endorsements, he trades in his tweed for a smoking jacket and retires to a wood paneled drawing room decorated like a nineteenth century English gentlemen's club. There he fires up his pipe and watches the spectacle of other riders, the head of the UCI, cycling commentators, race directors, and every bootlicker that Armstrong can muster calling Landis a liar and denying what Vaughters not only knows is true but has the means to prove. He stands by and watches this obscenity and then has the gall to tell us that everything has changed.

If you hold yourself out as a doping crusader then people will expect you to occasionally fight. Instead we get JV in his gaudy armor giving a pep talk to the troops before the battle is joined. At the first sight of the enemy, he hightaills it to the nearest hill to watch the slaughter of the poor bastards whose cause he claims to back. His apologists give him a pass because they hope that the land grant and title of nobility that he gets for remaining loyal to the crown will come with a secret agreement that gives the serfs a few more rights.

JV has become the UCI's Uncle Tom. He is the guy who gets trotted out to present the official party line that the the sport has changed, that the culture is completely different than a few years ago.. In the past it was mumble...mumble...cough...mumble...cough, but now it is so much better. If the sport really has changed then JV would not be tiptoeing around, afraid of his own shadow ,like Einstein during a zombie outbreak.

Evidently he has to keep everything on the down low because sensationalism will harm the sport. That type of secrecy and deception is no different than the corruption that we get from McQuaid. When Leipheimer has an offscore that is so high that the chance of it not being caused by doping is smaller than my chance of bumping into Jordana Brewster and Devon Aoki and having them offer me a starring role in a weekend long three-way, will Vaughters' new world order do anything different than the UCI warning the team so that Leipheimer can reduce his doping so it is a little less blatant?

What will happen when one of JV's own riders tests positive internally--if it has not already happened? Why should we think that he will handle it any differently than the way he has handled his time at Postal? From protecting Armstrong for the good of the sport it is a very small step to protecting others for the good of the sport and the team and himself. A rider or two of his doping, getting the results that bring in the sponsors, could easily be rationalized as a necessary evil to allow his good works to continue.

What JV offers us is a slippery slope of selective prosecution that will inevitably lead to corruption. Self policing done in secret will never work for long.
Excellent job Bro. Did somebody help you to write that?


131313 said:
...

But how is he "protecting the biggest doper in the sport"? How would publicly calling out Armstrong help things? It may boost his own image, certainly among forum members here, but I still don't see that solving anything. It just becomes another "he said, she said" situation, or "he's just trying to make his team of losers look better", etc.

...
131313, I have to disagree with you on this statement. Helping bring down Armstrong by calling him out won't erradicate doping, but it is another step in the right direction.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
BroDeal said:
Sweet Zombi Jesus! He cannot tell the truth because it will lead to more truth? Instead he has to protect the biggest doper in the history of the sport.. This is the guy who will lead us to Shangri-La?

It is interesting to think about how the self-proclaimed clean cycling advocate is handling the torrent of lies around the FLandis/Novitzky affair. I can see it now. After a long hard day of telling riders not to go down the path that Armstrong went and collect those millions of dollars in start fees and endorsements, he trades in his tweed for a smoking jacket and retires to a wood paneled drawing room decorated like a nineteenth century English gentlemen's club. There he fires up his pipe and watches the spectacle of other riders, the head of the UCI, cycling commentators, race directors, and every bootlicker that Armstrong can muster calling Landis a liar and denying what Vaughters not only knows is true but has the means to prove. He stands by and watches this obscenity and then has the gall to tell us that everything has changed.

If you hold yourself out as a doping crusader then people will expect you to occasionally fight. Instead we get JV in his gaudy armor giving a pep talk to the troops before the battle is joined. At the first sight of the enemy, he hightaills it to the nearest hill to watch the slaughter of the poor bastards whose cause he claims to back. His apologists give him a pass because they hope that the land grant and title of nobility that he gets for remaining loyal to the crown will come with a secret agreement that gives the serfs a few more rights.

JV has become the UCI's Uncle Tom. He is the guy who gets trotted out to present the official party line that the the sport has changed, that the culture is completely different than a few years ago.. In the past it was mumble...mumble...cough...mumble...cough, but now it is so much better. If the sport really has changed then JV would not be tiptoeing around, afraid of his own shadow ,like Einstein during a zombie outbreak.

Evidently he has to keep everything on the down low because sensationalism will harm the sport. That type of secrecy and deception is no different than the corruption that we get from McQuaid. When Leipheimer has an offscore that is so high that the chance of it not being caused by doping is smaller than my chance of bumping into Jordana Brewster and Devon Aoki and having them offer me a starring role in a weekend long three-way, will Vaughters' new world order do anything different than the UCI warning the team so that Leipheimer can reduce his doping so it is a little less blatant?

What will happen when one of JV's own riders tests positive internally--if it has not already happened? Why should we think that he will handle it any differently than the way he has handled his time at Postal? From protecting Armstrong for the good of the sport it is a very small step to protecting others for the good of the sport and the team and himself. A rider or two of his doping, getting the results that bring in the sponsors, could easily be rationalized as a necessary evil to allow his good works to continue.

What JV offers us is a slippery slope of selective prosecution that will inevitably lead to corruption. Self policing done in secret will never work for long.
This is the post I wish I had written myself. BroDeal, you are most definitely a "Bro".
 
Unfortunately I tend to agree with BroDeal. I like JV, but I feel like Mulder with my "I want to believe". JV gives me hope and it's hard to give up on hope altogether, but there might not be much backing said hope. I'm afraid much of the support JV gets is similarly emotional.
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
BroDeal said:
Sweet Zombi Jesus! He cannot tell the truth because it will lead to more truth? Instead he has to protect the biggest doper in the history of the sport.. This is the guy who will lead us to Shangri-La?

[snipped for brevity]
On the BroPoint rating system, this is 11 BroPoints out of a possible 10.

Seriously, one of the best posts I've read on a cycling messageboard.

Brotacular!
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
hrotha said:
Unfortunately I tend to agree with BroDeal. I like JV, but I feel like Mulder with my "I want to believe". JV gives me hope and it's hard to give up on hope altogether, but there might not be much backing said hope. I'm afraid much of the support JV gets is similarly emotional.
JV's the guy who could drop a bombshell today and come in with enough credibility and respect that McQuaid, Lance and pretty much everyone else would need to sit in a room with their PR firms for a full week before they could even dare to issue a reactionary statement. JV is the great white hope.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
BroDeal said:
JV has become the UCI's Uncle Tom. He is the guy who gets trotted out to present the official party line that the the sport has changed, that the culture is completely different than a few years ago.. In the past it was mumble...mumble...cough...mumble...cough, but now it is so much better. If the sport really has changed then JV would not be tiptoeing around, afraid of his own shadow ,like Einstein during a zombie outbreak.
Or he is saying, not that the culture is completely different (what you make of his words), but the that the direction has changed (his actual words).

Which turns

"If the sport really has changed then JV would not be tiptoeing around,"

quite likely into

"The reason why JV is still tiptoeing around could well be because he judges that the sport hasn't changed enough yet, to put things at risk, that simply aren't worth the price for him, or that he feels he cannot force others to pay that he is responsible for too."


That type of secrecy and deception is no different than the corruption that we get from McQuaid.
I think we know who would not qualify for the position of judge, if that's your honest opinion. There is a sliding scale from letting a colleague get away with a sick note, to writing one, to helming an organisation that industrializes and institutionalizes fraudulent sick notes, whilst taking underhand bribes to game the system that you helped set up yourself.

Yes, it is all bad. No, it is not all the same type.

He says he wants a cleaner sports and seems to claim that he is working to the best of his ability to make it happen.

You don't have to like him, you don't have to embrace him, you don't have to believe him.

But he also doesn't have to believe that what you say is true, that if he did what you proclaim, it would be so much better. In the end, you speculate. So does he.

He has also no obligation to fight your fight your way at his cost (and that of those around him), and not yours.

He picks his path, he will have to swallow his own consequences. I have learned one thing in life: if you are gonna make mistakes, you better make sure they are your own.

What JV offers us is a slippery slope of selective prosecution that will inevitably lead to corruption.
Possibly.

Self policing done in secret will never work for long.
There are plenty of exceptional characters around who give that a good run for their money though. Not for one moment claiming that JV is one of those.

I know he has opened his mouth in public about his doping stance, so he can be addressed on it in public. I however see no reason why a person who might well sincerely think this is not only the best way forward for him, but also for the sport as a whole, at this point in time, is "no different" from someone who you see as utterly corrupt, Pat McQaid.

It is a great argument you made, but it did start by overstating the claims that JV is actually making about the state of the sport right now. Building on the wrong foundation can lead to wonky houses.
 

jimmypop

BANNED
Jul 16, 2010
376
1
0
BroDeal said:
I can always bring it. I became so tired of the endless trolling of BPC, flicker, Polish, etc. that I stopped putting any effort into my posts. Short and sarcastic comments are cheap and easy.
Bring it? It's been broughten!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS