JV reaches out to anonymous critic.

[Benotti69]

Oh, ok, he just won't answer questions to Kimmage truthfully.

I think with Kimmage's recent statement about clean riders sitting in silence on the sidelines is not good enough anymore, it is quite possible that he feels JV's method of going about his business in a softly softly approach is no longer valid too.

I defo would like to hear what Kimmage, Walsh and Ballestre think about JVs methods in the current scene, which is an opportunity for all those clean to jump on this and say no more, but they need an outsider to take up the baton or an ex rider to lead a newly created association of clean riders.

I know i know, dream on

 

[microdose]

Somewhere in here I lost the plot.
Whose contact details do you want? I may be able to help.
As you would expect, I agree with damn near everything that Buckwheat says.
Put up or shut up JV. You knew the score all along. Quite a few people got railroaded, and run out of town while others sat on their hands.
To be fair: Now there may be
some mitigating circumstance (i.e. he has been instructed to keep mum while the investigation is under way)? Of course, it's impossible to know.
Still, he had ample opportunity to make right over the last few years, and I cannot understand why he would let people burn --assuming he knew what was going on as indicated by statements, suggestions, and IM conversations from the past.
I don't buy the change starts from within nonsense. It won't work.
I love this sport. It's got to be fixed. And I disagree with JV's soft approach.

+1 Agreed on this.

If JV was really trying to do everything he could to make cycling clean then why not stand up when the Landis allegations broke? He could have also supported Matt White to do the same. Then if Frankie supports Betsy you have 4 ex LA team riders all saying the same thing and it is much harder to discredit.

It's not enough for JV to infer to Buckwheat that he has spoken to Novitsky openly (at least I think that's what he inferred). What would have happened if there wasn't an investigation? What if LA gets off on some kind of technicality, or through political pressure, or dumbing down of charges so the public don't realise what has actually happened? What will be the result of JV's efforts then? IF LA does get off then there's no chance of JV saying anything and little hope for the sport really changing.

The sport needs LA conviction + Contador conviction + approved plasticizer/transfusion test, as a minimum, if there's any chance of breaking the mould.

JV is in a unique position, yes it would take balls to step up but he can't have it both ways. Either he is against doping and does everything he can to clean it up or he allows it through his silence.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Either he is against doping and does everything he can to clean it up or he allows it through his silence.

If only life were really that easy......

Susan

 

[CycloErgoSum]

+1 Agreed on this.

If JV was really trying to do everything he could to make cycling clean then why not stand up when the Landis allegations broke? He could have also supported Matt White to do the same. Then if Frankie supports Betsy you have 4 ex LA team riders all saying the same thing and it is much harder to discredit.

It's not enough for JV to infer to Buckwheat that he has spoken to Novitsky openly (at least I think that's what he inferred). What would have happened if there wasn't an investigation? What if LA gets off on some kind of technicality, or through political pressure, or dumbing down of charges so the public don't realise what has actually happened? What will be the result of JV's efforts then? IF LA does get off then there's no chance of JV saying anything and little hope for the sport really changing.

The sport needs LA conviction + Contador conviction + approved plasticizer/transfusion test, as a minimum, if there's any chance of breaking the mould.

JV is in a unique position, yes it would take balls to step up but he can't have it both ways. Either he is against doping and does everything he can to clean it up or he allows it through his silence.

I agree with this and with Buckwheat's stance as well (sorry I've been quiet on this, buddy).

JV's motivation to keep quiet has been mercenary for a long time. He's complicit by his silence. Maybe now he has a good reason to remain silent. Time will tell, but his lack of courage on this issue will always taint him somewhat. It's as if he makes the quietest noises possible then retracts. Not so brave by my book.

 

[Race Radio]

If only life were really that easy......

Susan

Exactly.

Effecting long term change in the sport is complicated.

 

[skidmark]

+1 Agreed on this.

If JV was really trying to do everything he could to make cycling clean then why not stand up when the Landis allegations broke? He could have also supported Matt White to do the same. Then if Frankie supports Betsy you have 4 ex LA team riders all saying the same thing and it is much harder to discredit.

It's not enough for JV to infer to Buckwheat that he has spoken to Novitsky openly (at least I think that's what he inferred). What would have happened if there wasn't an investigation? What if LA gets off on some kind of technicality, or through political pressure, or dumbing down of charges so the public don't realise what has actually happened? What will be the result of JV's efforts then? IF LA does get off then there's no chance of JV saying anything and little hope for the sport really changing.

The sport needs LA conviction + Contador conviction + approved plasticizer/transfusion test, as a minimum, if there's any chance of breaking the mould.

JV is in a unique position, yes it would take balls to step up but he can't have it both ways. Either he is against doping and does everything he can to clean it up or he allows it through his silence.

I agree with this sentiment somewhat. However, I would ask the question - why do you think a Lance Armstrong conviction is important to the sport? Or further, why do you think, that if you were in the shoes of Jonathan Vaughters, that convicting Lance Armstrong should be more important than trying to run a squad of clean riders at the highest level of the sport, with regards to 'fighting doping' in the sport?

I realize the two aren't mutually exclusive, but neither is opposing doping and keeping quiet on Lance. Like Susan and RR said, it's a complicated conundrum. Just seems to me like the guy is picking his battles.

 

[Benotti69]

I agree with this sentiment somewhat. However, I would ask the question - why do you think a Lance Armstrong conviction is important to the sport? Or further, why do you think, that if you were in the shoes of Jonathan Vaughters, that convicting Lance Armstrong should be more important than trying to run a squad of clean riders at the highest level of the sport, with regards to 'fighting doping' in the sport?

I realize the two aren't mutually exclusive, but neither is opposing doping and keeping quiet on Lance. Like Susan and RR said, it's a complicated conundrum. Just seems to me like the guy is picking his battles.

A conviction for doping would send out the biggest message to cycling that the guy who ruled the sport like a hammer and treated all others as nails can be taken down and no dopers are safe from being caught. He didn't do it on his own and i think that is what Novitsky is trying to go after, all the players, but for cycling Armstrong was a figure head and for people to see him getting done and hopefully he will be the first domino to fall that takes other the other dominos too, Hog, Weisel, Carmicheal etc....and to get that first domino over needs a big push and the more who can push it the better. People talk about Armstrong as the past, cop on, he wants to buy the TdF so if he doesn't get convicted he could be the future and does JV want that ???

 

[BotanyBay]

I find it interesting that the mods jump upon the word 'boycott'.

As if any of us (singly or as a group) has that kind of power.

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly.

Effecting long term change in the sport is complicated.

+1

The purists will have you believe there is only one way. Frankly, I don't get it.

JV is somehow supposed to undo, overnight, a generational
deep seeded problem that is compounded by a completely corrupt governing body.

Line up all the current DS's and pick which one is heading the sport down the correct path.

Too slow for some? I guess so.

 

[buckwheat]

As if any of us (singly or as a group) has that kind of power.

I'm trying to avoid getting pulled back into this, but......

It's funny that when I mention the possible consequences of JV NOT speaking up, all kinds of opinions fly out about my hypocrisy???

No matter what he does there are going to be consequences.

My voice is sometimes my dollars.

The sponsors have the idea their PR is going to increase revenues.

In some cases it may decrease revenues.

Just the way the world works. I didn't create it.

Celebrity endorsers are sometimes a turnoff? That's not a true statement?

 

[tifosa]

I find the whole idea that JV is somehow the anointed (self or otherwise) anti-doping cycling savior/spokesperson to be both counter-intuitive and counter-productive.

Cycling needs saving, but JV? Really? In all the world of cycling, JVs the guy that has to step up? Seriously?


If JV thinks that he's that guy, he's got bigger problems with his ego than I though possible.


He's one cog in a wheel of sh!t.

 

[BotanyBay]

I'm trying to avoid getting pulled back into this, but......

It's funny that when I mention the possible consequences of JV NOT speaking up, all kinds of opinions fly out about my hypocrisy???

No matter what he does there are going to be consequences.

My voice is sometimes my dollars.

The sponsors have the idea their PR is going to increase revenues.

In some cases it may decrease revenues.

Just the way the world works. I didn't create it.

Celebrity endorsers are sometimes a turnoff? That's not a true statement?

I just find it funny that you mention the word boycott (oh my!) of JV, and people react as if you're going to start taking meals away from innocent little kids or something. I'm fairly new here, so I was not expecting to see JV on a pedestal.

I guess one thing is true: Everyone needs to have their heroes, and they'll defend their honor with a special kind of fervor.

 

[buckwheat]

I agree with this and with Buckwheat's stance as well (sorry I've been quiet on this, buddy).

JV's motivation to keep quiet has been mercenary for a long time. He's complicit by his silence. Maybe now he has a good reason to remain silent. Time will tell, but his lack of courage on this issue will always taint him somewhat. It's as if he makes the quietest noises possible then retracts. Not so brave by my book.

Hi, no need to apologize.

I myself am trying to stay out of the quicksand here.

 

[buckwheat]

I just find it funny that you mention the word boycott (oh my!) of JV, and people react as if you're going to start taking meals away from innocent little kids or something. I'm fairly new here, so I was not expecting to see JV on a pedestal.

I guess one thing is true: Everyone needs to have their heroes, and they'll defend their honor with a special kind of fervor.

Even more odd, I don't think I used the dreaded B word....

I'm using a polar now anyway and wouldn't mind being freed from that.

Would be nice to use sunrise and sunset and fit the riding in there somewhere.

Read a few good books, live on your own terms.

Kinda like the cavemen.....

edit; I earlier said actively discourage.

What I probably should have written was, 'if it came up in conversation,' someone was going to buy a certain brand, I would say something.

This would be to remind people there are consequences to NOT doing something.

 

[BotanyBay]

I agree with this and with Buckwheat's stance as well (sorry I've been quiet on this, buddy).

JV's motivation to keep quiet has been mercenary for a long time. He's complicit by his silence. Maybe now he has a good reason to remain silent. Time will tell, but his lack of courage on this issue will always taint him somewhat. It's as if he makes the quietest noises possible then retracts. Not so brave by my book.

Well, things are coming to a head now, and JV has essentially been implying "you've gotta trust me, fellas". When he says stuff like that, it means that I'll be waiting for the day when it's all straightened-out, and I'll be looking for the info that suddenly makes all of his innuendo "crystal clear".

 

[BotanyBay]

Somewhere in here I lost the plot.
Whose contact details do you want? I may be able to help.
As you would expect, I agree with damn near everything that Buckwheat says.
Put up or shut up JV. You knew the score all along. Quite a few people got railroaded, and run out of town while others sat on their hands.
To be fair: Now there may be
some mitigating circumstance (i.e. he has been instructed to keep mum while the investigation is under way)? Of course, it's impossible to know.
Still, he had ample opportunity to make right over the last few years, and I cannot understand why he would let people burn --assuming he knew what was going on as indicated by statements, suggestions, and IM conversations from the past.
I don't buy the change starts from within nonsense. It won't work.
I love this sport. It's got to be fixed. And I disagree with JV's soft approach.

Several people have burned (standing alone) at the stake while someone else stood by and "worked from within". Several others dove into the fire by choice. Everyone knows that there is more credibility in numbers. Mr. Vaughters could have stood next to his friends and former teammates and lended them his credibility.

People in the cycling world have made many assumptions about Mr Vaughter's "true intentions", many of which are "shh, he's our inside man!". If it's true, the strategy does not appear to be paying-off.
And I don't believe he's the sole holdout on the Chicago Blacksox either.

Mr. Vaughters should stand-up and be counted. If he truly "can't", then I truly hope the reason is a really good one. If he truly can't, then weathering this criticism should not prove difficult for him. He's doing just fine.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I like this POV a lot..

I don't know how you can say that - as 'JMBeaushrimps' point contains something (in the blue) that is very very different to what you are advocating:

Not naming names, not scr*wing his riders and sponsors, not utterly destroying his career. 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 agree with 'JMB' in that JV should be more honest on his own personal doping - but what you are constantly requesting is full disclosure to get LA which has very different consequences.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, things are coming to a head now, and JV has essentially been implying "you've gotta trust me, fellas". When he says stuff like that, it means that I'll be waiting for the day when it's all straightened-out, and I'll be looking for the info that suddenly makes all of his innuendo "crystal clear".

Can you point out where JV has said that. In the blue you have gone from him "essentially" saying that" to full on "when he says stuff like that...", so where has he said this?

The only point he said in private to Buckwheat was "if you don't believe me contact these people"..... which BW did not do and essentially changed their position. Then after a few days changed back to their original position and blames JV for not answering an email that he probably has not read yet.
Now thats spineless.

 

[BotanyBay]

Can you point out where JV has said that. In the blue you have gone from him "essentially" saying that" to full on "when he says stuff like that...", so where has he said this?

The only point he said in private to Buckwheat was "if you don't believe me contact these people"..... which BW did not do and essentially changed their position. Then after a few days changed back to their original position and blames JV for not answering an email that he probably has not read yet.
Now thats spineless.

I've got a good memory, but sorry, I can't recall the urls where I've seen him make such statements (but I maintain that he's made them).

The fact that he said to BW "if you don't believe me contact these people" helps support that. He wants us to believe that he's fighting the good fight.

He began an exchange with an individual here, made an action-oriented offer, and then failed to check and see if the offer had been accepted. Either the offer wasn't genuine, or he figured that this form of "trust me" would be enough.

I've actually given Buckwheat some of the contact information that JV offered, but I believe he wants to hear it from JV (to see if the offer was actually genuine). Lesson to be learned: public figures should only make offers to put you in touch with certain people if they're serious about following through.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I've got a good memory, but sorry, I can't recall the urls where I've seen him make such statements (but I maintain that he's made them).

The fact that he said to BW "if you don't believe me contact these people" helps support that. He wants us to believe that he's fighting the good fight.

He began an exchange with an individual here, made an action-oriented offer, and then failed to check and see if the offer had been accepted. Either the offer wasn't genuine, or he figured that this form of "trust me" would be enough.

I've actually given Buckwheat some of the contact information that JV offered, but I believe he wants to hear it from JV (to see if the offer was actually genuine). Lesson to be learned: public figures should only make offers to put you in touch with certain people if they're serious about following through.

No - this is what Buckwheat said after receiving the PM:

His direct message to me has led me to reconsider that behavior and admit it's wrong, and apologize for it, and I do apologize JV. The stuff I write does reflect upon me and I should take more effort to refine my words. Going forward I'll try harder in that area.

It is BW who failed to chase up the information - not JV.
I also offered to BW that I would contact all those if he wished or pass on their details.

So, if you cannot find where JV said "trust me" then I can't see how you can continue that line of thinking - he either said it or he didn't.

 

[buckwheat]

No - this is what Buckwheat said after receiving the PM:


It is BW who failed to chase up the information - not JV.I also offered to BW that I would contact all those if he wished or pass on their details.

So, if you cannot find where JV said "trust me" then I can't see how you can continue that line of thinking - he either said it or he didn't.

I want the information from JV. He offered it to me if I asked. I asked. He hasn't given it to me.

When/If he does, I'll forward it.

My apologies were about my behavior. A lot of my behavior was in response to a decent amount of abuse I took on these forums.

No matter, JV is either going to be transparent about these issues, or not.

I don't understand you getting on me btw.....

One thing which influenced my apology was my perception that I may have been perceived as bullying.

Another thing was an unflattering comparison between JV and Rosa Park's ....I won't repeat it.

In conclusion, this has very little to do with me and everything to do with JV's actions whatever they are.



As far as what I've done. I'll weigh Mike Anderson's opinion more heavily than anyone else's seeing that he's the one most closely associated with these issues.

 

[buckwheat]

Can you point out where JV has said that. In the blue you have gone from him "essentially" saying that" to full on "when he says stuff like that...", so where has he said this?

The only point he said in private to Buckwheat was "if you don't believe me contact these people"..... which BW did not do and essentially changed their position. Then after a few days changed back to their original position and blames JV for not answering an email that he probably has not read yet.
Now thats spineless.

Oh boy, do you really want to go down that road?

 

[Barrus]

Uhm, considering the forwarding of the contact info, do you guys really think that is the best idea? I would think if you get this information, it would be better for all those involved not to further disclose this information. Mainly for the concern of the privacy of those whose contact info this will be. I would also think that JV does not react that quickly to you BW, as he would first need to clear it with the people whose contact info he will disclose.

And I will already say hear that however does disclose this information openly in a thread, without the consent of the person of whom the contact info it, that person will get a suspension

 

[buckwheat]

Uhm, considering the forwarding of the contact info, do you guys really think that is the best idea? I would think if you get this information, it would be better for all those involved not to further disclose this information. Mainly for the concern of the privacy of those whose contact info this will be. I would also think that JV does not react that quickly to you BW, as he would first need to clear it with the people whose contact info he will disclose.

And I will already say hear that however does disclose this information openly in a thread, without the consent of the person of whom the contact info it, that person will get a suspension

Barrus,

The only info that I think isn't out of bounds is the WADA info.

I think it's quite presumptuous of JV to want to have Kimmage and Walsh comment for free on something they would normally charge for. Writing and transmitting information is their profession.

Re, JV, maybe he didn't think of that aspect regarding everyone getting their pay for their work.....

I stated my admittedly very strong opinions regarding JV on the forums. Evidently it touched a nerve.

I also stated that I feel the name calling brings ME down, and I'm doing my best to not get involved in that.

CN is also in the NEWS business. The thoughts and opinions of all of these people, FA, BA, JV, DW, PK, Howman ARE News.

If CN forums are a part of the NEWS, maybe it's best for a CN writer to handle this?

In closing, I have to start getting paid a living wage myself.....

 

[Barrus]

Barrus,

The only info that I think isn't out of bounds is the WADA info.

I think it's quite presumptuous of JV to want to have Kimmage and Walsh comment for free on something they would normally charge for. Writing and transmitting information is their profession.

I stated my admittedly very strong opinions regarding JV on the forums. Evidently it touched a nerve.

CN is also in the NEWS business. The thoughts and opinions of all of these people, FA, BA, JV, DW, PK, Howman ARE News.

In closing, I have to start getting paid a living wage myself.....

The info you get is not out of bounds, no matter what info it is (unless it is knowingly falsified by you, not saying you would do this, but that is the only boundary I could come up with)

HOWEVER the contact info, so the information as to how you can contact them, is out of bounds to publicly disclose, due to privacy reasons, unless the information is readily available to the general public through other, legitimate, means, this information as to how to contact these persons are not to be made public