JV reaches out to anonymous critic.

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 20, 2010
801
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
I don't completely disagree with this, however, it is easy to say from the cheap seats. You are asking him to commit professional suicide, and thereby cease his means of providing for his family and team. Its easy to say "hey, throw it all away because we as fans want you to be honest so we can feel satisfied in our opinions about what is happening in cycling." It is quite another to actually be the person falling on the sword. FLandis had nothing to lose. JV does, and I for one think the idea that he should place your ideal over his survival is fanciful and ignorant of the gravity of the consequences of such an action. The fact is that most people fail when the rubber meats the road in their lives in even less drastic moral decisions.

I really just don't like the sideburns. Seriously.
As one who fell on the sword and committed professional suicide, I can say that it wasn't fun. But I'd do it again. And again.
I don't think that Floyd weighed his options in the way that people might think (i.e. nothing to lose). It was a question of doing right. That's my take on it anyway.
I think that if anyone in the peloton truly wants to buck up and clean house, they should start with themselves.

P.S. My sideburns are way better than JV's and are the product of years of careful cultivation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Martin318is said:
Yep - thats about as far as this one goes for now.

I am closing this thread while I go back and delete the last (roughly) 40 posts.
damnit, i miss all the good stuff. Although it cant have been that good, I dont see any suspensions :D
 
Mar 11, 2009
18
0
0
Hypocrisy

What JV personally did or did not do does not change the state cycling is in now.

What bothers me, and still does, is when the high profile stakeholders in cycling - who sanctimoniously proclaim they are anti-doping to the media - openly make a statement that in essence contradicts the very thing they declare to stand for:

JV has publically stated on this forum that he thinks the biological passport is working. It clearly is not! We have the eye-witness account from Bernard Kohl that the passport was an effective tool in doping as it gave the riders and doctors a threshold to work with. There is also the testimony from Floyd Landis that micro dosing allowed the parameters set by the passport not to be breached - a statement confirmed by Michael Ashenden following his own research and subsequent experiments that brought the same result. Along with other drugs that allow the haemoglobin variables of reticulocytes, or the concentration between haemoglobin and reticulocytes to return to normal (or to return under the passports parameters), it is simply nonsense to state that the passport works.

JV knows this, so I find it odd that he would state the opposite. So I’d like to ask JV for proof that the passport works when the evidence we have states the complete opposite.

I am mentioning the passport and JV’s support of it because apart from being a glorified continuation of the 50% hematocrit farce, the UCI are using this as a tool to evangelise how holy than thou they are and how they have the best interest of the sport in mind. And we all know what happened to the sport when the 50% rule was introduced.

To me, the passport does not change anything. It allows riders to charge up providing they keep within the limits. It allows the UCI to operate under a charade.

And JV goes along with this……..
 
What happened to the sport when the 50% rule was implemented was that cycling was made a lot safer and riders couldn't dope as much as before. It was a step forward, as much of a step forward as the then-current technology allowed. Same for the biological passport. Riders can dope if they do it right, but they can't juice as much as they used to. JV has said the biological passport is working in that the performances are more human now and the wattage has gone down.

Sure the biological passport has not solved the problem of doping, but it would be unreasonable to expect anything to fix the problem overnight. What matters here is that it's a step forward and a good foundation for further developments.

I think JV should come clean, but criticizing him over his support for the biological passport is short-sighted.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexPat said:
As one who fell on the sword and committed professional suicide, I can say that it wasn't fun. But I'd do it again. And again.
I don't think that Floyd weighed his options in the way that people might think (i.e. nothing to lose). It was a question of doing right. That's my take on it anyway.
I think that if anyone in the peloton truly wants to buck up and clean house, they should start with themselves.

P.S. My sideburns are way better than JV's and are the product of years of careful cultivation.
Yes, you did.

I respect opinions such as yours and JMB's <redacted> toilet paper <redacted> JV.

P.S. Not all sideburns are bad. His are.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Martin318is said:
Yep - thats about as far as this one goes for now.

I am closing this thread while I go back and delete the last (roughly) 40 posts.

When I get a chance to re-open it, the next person that starts playing the man instead of the ball gets a suspension.

(to clarify for those that have not heard the expression before, I am saying that anyone that starts arguing directly at another member at a personal level instead of discussing the topic will get a suspension)
Thoughtforfood said:
He was able to do something you appear incapable of. Maybe learn from that???
Thoughtforfood said:
Yes, you did.

I respect opinions such as yours and JMB's much more than those of some dude who gets angry over toilet paper who also happens to be angry at JV.

P.S. Not all sideburns are bad. His are.
Moderators.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
pedaling squares said:
Blowing the lid off might have great short term effect but a poor medium term effect on people who depend on him. Would it have a better long term effect than his current path? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that he has a better handle on it than do you or I.
I study addiction and the psychology that surrounds it. One thing I've learned (if anything) is that rarely (if ever) do people simply perform a 180-degree turn and give something up and turn to the correct path of their own volition. It usually requires the ground hitting them (or rather, them hitting the ground) at terminal velocity in order to motivate any real change. Consequences. These consequences can (and do) affect other people. The turnaround itself is usually the ugliest part. There will be times of hurt down the road, and it won't always be an upward curve, but the overall trend will be a positive one.

If you think JV's telling the whole truth should be avoided to prevent negative consequences, then you are unfortunately blinded and perhaps his codependent. Because right now, we are all swimming neck-deep in the negative consequences of doping (as far as fans can be affected). If you think it's getting better, it's not. Everyone just has a nice, thick layer of scar tissue that allows them to tolerate it better now. We've developed a high tolerance for doping.

But 20-30 years down the road when these young men are psychological and physiological basket cases, suffering from a plethora of medical and psychological disorders, none of this talk will have mattered, will it?
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Martin318is said:
To be honest, I think the use of this word is absolutely crucial to the reaction you are getting. Of course we all WANT people like JV to step forward and do everything in their power to publicise all they know and actively fight for cleaner cycling.

That is NOT the same as us having the right to DEMAND than they do so.

Most of your posts (and those of a few others) in this thread have quite strongly argued that somehow JV is obligated to come forward - he absolutely is not - legally, ethically, morally, or otherwise, no matter how much we want him to.
He's not obligated to do anything, true, but given his current market positioning (his own personal positioning), I think that to offer a few winks, a few bits of innuendo and a flurry of "non-statement" statements, he lacks sufficient spine required to occupy such a position. In contrast, Frankie Andreu has admitted a little bit of the story himself and decided to go no further. That's his right. But Frankie does not purport himself to be anything other than a retired pro that has a beef with Lance.

Vaughters wants to wear the coat of an entirely redeemed man without having actually completed the prerequisites required to wear it.

So, my critics are correct. I have no right to demand anything, or even call him to the carpet. But I do have the right to my opinion that he is disgraceful to the anti-doping movement if he maintains his current "no-comment" stance. I feel that it lacks a sufficient spine. Those are my 2 shillings.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
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.
Thank you for doing in one sentence what I was unable to do in 1 day's worth of posting here.

If there were an anti-doping jersey in the TDF, JV would not even be in contention to wear it. Not until he provides full details. A complete accounting.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Hope I don't fuel anyone's ire here...



Although you agree with the tenor of my post, I'm not sure you understand the tenor of my post...

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.

I'm really too jaded to get rabid over it...
Excellently put.

One fault I had with the JV Kimmage interview was he did not answer PK's direct question “I want to know: Did you dope? I want to know: Why did you dope? And I want to know how you felt about doping?” .......although I can understand JV's hesitation given that he (correctly) suspected that PK was angling towards his time in USPS.

To the blue - hmmm, unfortunatley I think some posters are only interested in JV mentioning Armstrong, which is a different matter entirely and has nothing to do with JV and his anti-doping stance of his team.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
To the blue - hmmm, unfortunatley I think some posters are only interested in JV mentioning Armstrong, which is a different matter entirely and has nothing to do with JV and his anti-doping stance of his team.
I'm not salivating at the prospect of JV implicating Armstrong. I think he just needs to be willing to go wherever it goes (truthfully). I don't think we need JV to deliver Armstrong on a platter. Plenty of others have already done it (including Armstrong himself).

But I do believe that Lance is the reason that JV wouldn't go through the act of disclosure, because he knew that Lance would do. But that was years ago. Vaughters has more power than Lance does today (in this regard). That's why I think it's time. Lance can't do **** to JV now.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
I'm not salivating at the prospect of JV implicating Armstrong. I think he just needs to be willing to go wherever it goes (truthfully). I don't think we need JV to deliver Armstrong on a platter. Plenty of others have already done it (including Armstrong himself).

But I do believe that Lance is the reason that JV wouldn't go through the act of disclosure, because he knew that Lance would do. But that was years ago. Vaughters has more power than Lance does today (in this regard). That's why I think it's time. Lance can't do **** to JV now.
You think McQuaid would break down and cry "Its all true" if JV highlights Lance?

The only power Vaughters has is over his own team, and LA has something better to the UCI & apologists than power, marketability.

And again you're assuming JV has a story to tell about LA - at best I would expect it to be like FL's - his word against LA's. Unless he had something to corroborate his story it would be professional suicide.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
2
0
If JV has any info about Armstrong, he likely has been asked by the feds not to disclose any info he may have given to them.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
The only power Vaughters has is over his own team, and LA has something better to the UCI & apologists than power, marketability.
I did a poor job again. I meant that Vaughters does not need to fear Lance anymore. The tide is turning against him, and I personally believe that he and McQuaid would stay quiet. Vaughters (unlike Lance) is well-liked. That's power.

If JV were to stand-up with guys like Frankie and Bobby, and perhaps a few others, and do it all at once, then that'd be REAL power.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Unless he had something to corroborate his story it would be professional suicide.
Vaughters has a lot of popularly perceived credibility. Lance only has apologists now. Most people who still support him are of the variety that not doing so would serve only to hurt kids with cancer. But most people understand that Lance is dirty now. He's no longer the God he once was.

Lance has surrounded himself with innocent kittens. You wouldn't hurt an innocent little kitten, would you?

 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Beech Mtn said:
If JV has any info about Armstrong, he likely has been asked by the feds not to disclose any info he may have given to them.
This could well be true, but he's been doing the "Shhh, I can't talk about this" bit for several years now.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
Vaughters has a lot of popularly perceived credibility. Lance only has apologists now. Most people who still support him are of the variety that not doing so would serve only to hurt kids with cancer. But most people understand that Lance is dirty now. He's no longer the God he once was.

Lance has surrounded himself with innocent kittens. You wouldn't hurt an innocent little kitten, would you?

JV has credibility because he put his money where his mouth is and set up a team that has an environment where you are not forced to dope.

If JV said anything about LA then he is just preaching to the converted- we all know what he says would be true.

However those who are not familiar with the sport would take their cue from the likes of McQuaid and Phil&Paul etc.... who would turn on JV to protect the cashcow which would only hurt JV, his team and most importantly what he is trying to do.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
JV has credibility because he put his money where his mouth is and set up a team that has an environment where you are not forced to dope.

If JV said anything about LA then he is just preaching to the converted- we all know what he says would be true.

However those who are not familiar with the sport would take their cue from the likes of McQuaid and Phil&Paul etc.... who would turn on JV to protect the cashcow which would only hurt JV, his team and most importantly what he is trying to do.
No one is ever forced to dope in this sport. Everyone chooses to dope. Doping is a choice one makes.

I think if JV came forward, others would follow. They'd not let him take the fall alone. McQuaid is not well-liked, nor is he well respected. His power is waning. The people who turn on JV would find themselves on the losing side very quickly.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
No one is ever forced to dope in this sport. Everyone chooses to dope. Doping is a choice one makes.

I think if JV came forward, others would follow. They'd not let him take the fall alone. McQuaid is not well-liked, nor is he well respected. His power is waning. The people who turn on JV would find themselves on the losing side very quickly.
Ok, forced maybe the wrong term - but it is not as simple as a choice to dope or not dope, it is often a choice to remain in employment or not.

Who would join JV? When Floyd confessed one anonymous person came forward (probably JV).

McQuaid is an idiot who has shown over the last year that he is lying and corrupt official, yet he is still in power and no-one has requested he resign. Nor did anyone come forward and challenge him for Presidency at the last election.

If JV admits his own doping no-one would bat an eyelid - but bring in LA and everyone closes ranks to protect the cashcow.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok, forced maybe the wrong term - but it is not as simple as a choice to dope or not dope, it is often a choice to remain in employment or not.

Who would join JV? When Floyd confessed one anonymous person came forward (probably JV).

McQuaid is an idiot who has shown over the last year that he is lying and corrupt official, yet he is still in power and no-one has requested he resign. Nor did anyone come forward and challenge him for Presidency at the last election.

If JV admits his own doping no-one would bat an eyelid - but bring in LA and everyone closes ranks to protect the cashcow.
Floyd had something in it for him. That's easy to attack. JV could easily say "what do I have to gain by lying?" There'd be nothing in it for him, and everyone who is anyone would know it.
 

Bilirubin

BANNED
Nov 3, 2010
77
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Floyd had something in it for him. That's easy to attack. JV could easily say "what do I have to gain by lying?" There'd be nothing in it for him, and everyone who is anyone would know it.
It would help ruin Armstrong's reputation with the wider public and possibly send him to jail, but why would Vaughters want to do that? Would something so divisive and painful be good for the sport? JV would be hated by most of the fans for being such a tale, tale about such a big star in an era where everyone knows what the guys at the front had to do.

JV is not about vendettas and spitefulness, he is about moving the current sport forward and leading by example. This strategy has already worked - if it weren't for Garmin I doubt British cycling would have entered the fray by setting up their team, widely accepted as a clean set up. Columbia and others have also followed Garmin's no needle policy procedures. There is no need to rip up previous eras and possibly destroy the sport in order to save it.

At the end of the day this is only a sport. Nobody needs to go to jail. I'm sure Vaughters would agree with that.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
TexPat said:
As one who fell on the sword and committed professional suicide, I can say that it wasn't fun. But I'd do it again. And again.
I don't think that Floyd weighed his options in the way that people might think (i.e. nothing to lose). It was a question of doing right. That's my take on it anyway.
I think that if anyone in the peloton truly wants to buck up and clean house, they should start with themselves.

P.S. My sideburns are way better than JV's and are the product of years of careful cultivation.
Floyd is on a Mission from God like Jake in the Blues Brothers. Simple as that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY