JV reaches out to anonymous critic.

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
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.
I also would prefer if JV was more direct about his own PED use. (Although anyone who cant put one and one together about that interview is...)

But surely if he did talk about it, there would just be increased clamoring for him to speak out about what he knew of others doping, and increased criticism if he didn't comment? It doesn't seem to me as if it would solve the problem from his perspective.

The 'talk about your own doping, no need to mention other names' makes me twitch a bit too. There's an unfortunate parallel with the omerta code....where tearful confessions are acceptable, as long as you don't rat out anyone else. That rule of behavior is a big part of how cycling ended up in this mess. I'm not suggesting that anyone is trying to enforce omerta here, just that I'm uncomfortable with things that reinforce the status quo, however unintentionally. JMO

Overall I do think that JV needs to be more forthcoming now than he has been in the past. I'm just not sure whether that should be in the press or in Novitsky's office. My real objection is the way buckwheat is delivering his message, not the message itself.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
I also would prefer if JV was more direct about his own PED use. (Although anyone who cant put one and one together about that interview is...)

But surely if he did talk about it, there would just be increased clamoring for him to speak out about what he knew of others doping, and increased criticism if he didn't comment? It doesn't seem to me as if it would solve the problem from his perspective.

The 'talk about your own doping, no need to mention other names' makes me twitch a bit too. There's an unfortunate parallel with the omerta code....where tearful confessions are acceptable, as long as you don't rat out anyone else. That rule of behavior is a big part of how cycling ended up in this mess. I'm not suggesting that anyone is trying to enforce omerta here, just that I'm uncomfortable with things that reinforce the status quo, however unintentionally. JMO

Overall I do think that JV needs to be more forthcoming now than he has been in the past. I'm just not sure whether that should be in the press or in Novitsky's office. My real objection is the way buckwheat is delivering his message, not the message itself.
Well, then you can proverbially, "kill the messenger.";)

A lot of this stuff was being dismissed until I submitted my widely ridiculed, "historical analogies."

The point many were making was that JV had to fear for his livelihood.

My point was, who doesn't?
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
buckwheat said:
Well, then you can proverbially, "kill the messenger.";)
Nah - a short spell on in the naughty corner should do the trick :)

buckwheat said:
A lot of this stuff was being dismissed until I submitted my widely ridiculed, "historical analogies." The point many were making was that JV had to fear for his livelihood. My point was, who doesn't?
Not ridiculed by me. I had no objection to them, but then I don't mind sideburns and argyle either.

Your point about fear for livelihood effecting everyone is valid. I find the argument that the situation has changed, so fear for livelihood is no longer a motivating pressure and therefor no longer a reason for staying quiet more compelling.

I'm pleased to see that you have decided to contact some people for more information, and plan to hold off deciphering whether or not they choose to respond to you. I'm awaiting further developments with interest.

One other thing I will say, if it ever comes out that JV was less than forthcoming with Novitsky, or failed to do everything in his power to persuade others to be forthcoming (and I mean everything), then I will be lining up to tear a few strips off him too. Just not until then.

peace?
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
So, as an internationally recognized DS who is running a ProTour team with a budget in the millions of euros, he HASN"T been on a computer for a week?
Huh?

Who is saying that? All that was stated (by me quite a lot earlier) was that he has not been on the CN site since BEFORE this thread was started, making a lot of what is said here pretty pointless.

In other words, he sends a PM to Buckwheat and logs off. Buckwheat contacts him asking for the info but JV has no idea that he is on the clock and has no reason to give it priority (since the issues being discussed have dragged on for years).

So, until he logs back on here, he has no idea whatsoever he is being judged so harshly for the fact that he put his mountain of work as a DS ahead of a request from a forum member.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
buckwheat said:
I took down the JV PM because of veiled, threats/accusations, whatever they may be called.
Who threatened you? And why didn't you report it?
(answer this in PM please)
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
buckwheat said:
And if they refused to speak with me it means anything?

What would it mean either good or bad?

It's up to JV to clear this stuff if he wants to.

It's not up to me to contact these guys without him providing me with the info.

I also gave JV my name, tele # and two addresses......

So, unless this stuff is in the mail, I haven't heard.
I'm not sure I'd take their word for it anyway. Who's to say they've not been had as well? It wouldn't be the first time people have been fooled. Kimmage, Walsh and the Andreus are not the gatekeepers of the anti-dope movement. Everyone has to make up their own minds.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Martin318is said:
Huh?

Who is saying that? All that was stated (by me quite a lot earlier) was that he has not been on the CN site since BEFORE this thread was started, making a lot of what is said here pretty pointless.

In other words, he sends a PM to Buckwheat and logs off. Buckwheat contacts him asking for the info but JV has no idea that he is on the clock and has no reason to give it priority (since the issues being discussed have dragged on for years).

So, until he logs back on here, he has no idea whatsoever he is being judged so harshly for the fact that he put his mountain of work as a DS ahead of a request from a forum member.
His PM to me specifically invites/urges me to contact him if I need the info.

Remember, I addressed my posts to everyone on this forum. JV contacted me first with concerns that I misconstrued the situation and he volunteered to provide information that would give a clearer perspective...
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
buckwheat said:
His PM to me specifically invites/urges me to contact him if I need the info.

Remember, I addressed my posts to everyone on this forum. JV contacted me first with concerns that I misconstrued the situation and he volunteered to provide information that would give a clearer perspective...
You mean he wanted you to "trust him", right? (Got that Doc?)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
You mean he wanted you to "trust him", right? (Got that Doc?)
No - because JV did not say that.
He said to BW, here is a list of names of people, find out from them what they think. By giving the names of these people JV is saying, I know you dont trust me - so go to them directly.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
No - because JV did not say that.
He said to BW, here is a list of names of people, find out from them what they think. By giving the names of these people JV is saying, I know you dont trust me - so go to them directly.
Or "trust me, these people will back me up"
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
Or "trust me, these people will back me up"
If he was saying that (which from BWs post he didn't) he would not have asked BW to go ahead and contact them......he would have just said "trust me".
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
If he was saying that (which from BWs post he didn't) he would not have asked BW to go ahead and contact them......he would have just said "trust me".
He's asking for trust without using those words, and he's willing (trust required) to back it up with references. If he were not seeking trust, he would have just said "look, you don't believe me, so talk to these people: __________, ____________, & ____________"

 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
He's asking for trust without using those words, and he's willing (trust required) to back it up with references. If he were not seeking trust, he would have just said "look, you don't believe me, so talk to these people: __________, ____________, & ____________"
And that is what he said, simple.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Martin318is said:
Who is saying that? All that was stated (by me quite a lot earlier) was that he has not been on the CN site since BEFORE this thread was started....
Actually like JMbeaushimp, I can't believe he didn't check in here for a few minutes without logging on, to see whether there was a reaction. At which point he might have seen this post, and assumed he didn't need to supply any info, then not checked again later. It's not till post 106 thatbuckwheat asks for the info in public, and we know JV hasn't read his PMs.

That's why I think there is a real possibility that he doesn't know that buckwheat wants the info. Therefore IMO it would be fair to send him a request through separate channels or give him more time to respond.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BotanyBay said:
We went around this carousel because he didn't technically use the word "trust"? You've gotta be kidding me.
Im not - you said JV said "trust me", I ask where and you can't provide a quote.
You're stuck on the carousel, I jumped off long ago.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
buckwheat said:
Ball's in his court..


If you (and others of like mind) understand the "ball's is in his court", then let it be.
Wait for JV's return of serve.
If he does not engage, it's because he does not want to, or cannot--through legal restraint--engage in a dialogue of this particular matter on a public forum or in a private message.


Again, he does not personally owe you ANY explanation about ANYTHING--cycling or otherwise--even if YOU feel he made you a promise (and that "promise" would not be legally binding.


I have never seen such concerted nagging on an internet forum!
And to what effect?
To wear JV down, berate, and otherwise emasculate him to prompt a response?
It's worse than a toddler hounding his parents for a treat, and then throwing a tantrum when the parent doesn't respond.
I would like answers too - but that doesn't mean I'm entitled.


Is this how an intelligent cycling community demands attention?
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
buckwheat said:
His PM to me specifically invites/urges me to contact him if I need the info.

Remember, I addressed my posts to everyone on this forum. JV contacted me first with concerns that I misconstrued the situation and he volunteered to provide information that would give a clearer perspective...
yeah but my point is - did he give you a promise of a time frame? Was there anything to suggest to him that it was expected that he do so immediately or that he be watching daily for your response?

I'm just trying to point out that he has NO idea that this conversation exists, let alone that it took the path that it is taking.

(Note that this is entirely different to the argument of whether he should be saying more in public, etc. It is just providing some objective realism around the delay in getting back to you this week - or next week for that matter.)
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Hey, we're all very important people here!

I demand IMMEDIATE satisfaction!
Precisely!

To not have expectations based upon that knowledge would be truly delusional....


...no, wait! :D
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Martin318is said:
Precisely!

To not have expectations based upon that knowledge would be truly delusional....


...no, wait! :D
Most of my knowledge is delusional, to say nothing of my expectations...
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
eeeezzzzz

tifosa said:
If you (and others of like mind) understand the "ball's is in his court", then let it be.
Wait for JV's return of serve.
If he does not engage, it's because he does not want to, or cannot--through legal restraint--engage in a dialogue of this particular matter on a public forum or in a private message.
I said the ball's in his court, relax.



tifosa said:
Again, he does not personally owe you ANY explanation about ANYTHING--cycling or otherwise--even if YOU feel he made you a promise (and that "promise" would not be legally binding.
Again, quaalude, 714. Relax.....



tifosa said:
I have never seen such concerted nagging on an internet forum!
And to what effect?
To wear JV down, berate, and otherwise emasculate him to prompt a response?
It's worse than a toddler hounding his parents for a treat, and then throwing a tantrum when the parent doesn't respond.
I would like answers too - but that doesn't mean I'm entitled.


Is this how an intelligent cycling community demands attention?

C'mon, stop. You're making me feel like I'm Pharmstrong, up on the dais in Las Vegas, steamrolling GL.. Ok, ok...


Martin318is said:
yeah but my point is - did he give you a promise of a time frame? Was there anything to suggest to him that it was expected that he do so immediately or that he be watching daily for your response?

I'm just trying to point out that he has NO idea that this conversation exists, let alone that it took the path that it is taking.
(Note that this is entirely different to the argument of whether he should be saying more in public, etc. It is just providing some objective realism around the delay in getting back to you this week - or next week for that matter.)
We don't know what's in the bolded is true or not.

I'm getting the feeling that the next event that matters is the resolution of the Federal Investigation. JV may in fact, have done a lot in that area and other areas, which would make it even more unfortunate that he's the subject of speculation. His equivocal statements may have left him partially to blame for his situation though.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
buckwheat said:
I'm getting the feeling that the next event that matters is the resolution of the Federal Investigation. JV may in fact, have done a lot in that area and other areas, which would make it even more unfortunate that he's the subject of speculation. His equivocal statements may have left him partially to blame for his situation though.
We can only hope...

I'd rather not have to be disappointed in the guy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY