JV talks, sort of

[hrotha]

Don't you think a sport where many riders can bring themselves up to or close to physiological human limits would become very boring, by virtue of everyone being so close there'd be very little gaps and everyone would ride very conservatively, effectively giving us no more than a few kilometers of racing per stage and possibly driving away the fans with a dull spectacle? I mean, I'm sure you found the 2012 Giro thrilling because Hesjedal was racing for the victory and he ended up winning, but from the outside I thought it was quite the snoozefest, and I think that, if this "human physiology cap" thing isn't to blame, it's still probably the kind of race that would develop from such a scenario.

Isn't that a real danger to cycling's long-term commercial viability?

 

[ChrisE]

The talented clean guy wasn't quite good enough in 2009. A 38 year old coming off a 3 year retirement and a busted collarbone beat your guy. Then the same talented clean guy wins in 2012 with alleged higher numbers than 5.9, meaning things must be better right? This is all so confusing.

I guess we finally figured out the plea for triple $ in testing; to keep the less talented from playing with your guys at 5.9 which makes it a crapshoot. Did you buy lotto tix as well in May 2012?

 

[Gregga]

Don't you think a sport where many riders can bring themselves up to or close to physiological human limits would become very boring, by virtue of everyone being so close there'd be very little gaps and everyone would ride very conservatively, effectively giving us no more than a few kilometers of racing per stage and possibly driving away the fans with a dull spectacle? I mean, I'm sure you found the 2012 Giro thrilling because Hesjedal was racing for the victory and he ended up winning, but from the outside I thought it was quite the snoozefest, and I think that, if this "human physiology cap" thing isn't to blame, it's still probably the kind of race that would develop from such a scenario.

Isn't that a real danger to cycling's long-term commercial viability?

1989' TdF was thrilling, with a clean guy called LeMond and old-fashioned-doped guy called Fignon, closing very little gaps every day...

 

[Dracks]

No announcement. i promise.

Here's why I rely on that number:

If it can be achieved by a clean, talented rider, and it can win the race, then if I find a clean, talented rider, my team can win the race.

I can't find any clean riders doing 6.5w/kg. Nor are there any winning races doing that much these days. So, you are correct to think a less than talented guy could boost himself to 5.9 w/kg illegally. He might get caught, he might not. Risky. But my clean guy still stands a chance to win. So, my team is still in the game! Meaning: I'm happy. Sponsors are happy.

In my career, the clean guy at 5.9 wasn't even in the game.

So, now my job is picking incredibly talented riders. Not running an illegal medical program. Much more fun. Not much margin for error, though! So, I better be good.

JV

I find your position on this baffling. What if you had a rider on your team who was consistently pushing 5.8 but was beaten by a doper who only doped himself to be able to push 5.9?

You seem to give the impression that it's fair game. Less talented people doping themselves to is fine as long as they don't exceed what is perceived as performances that are impossible without doping

 

[hrotha]

1989' TdF was thrilling, with a clean guy called LeMond and old-fashioned-doped guy called Fignon, closing very little gaps every day...

Of course you'll find examples of that, historically, but as I said, it seems like that particular kind of race would be the inevitable consequence of a peloton where everybody is artificially at the same level.

Think of Asterix's fellow tribesmen when they engage in any competition after drinking some magic potion.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

No announcement. i promise.

Here's why I rely on that number:

If it can be achieved by a clean, talented rider, and it can win the race, then if I find a clean, talented rider, my team can win the race.

I can't find any clean riders doing 6.5w/kg. Nor are there any winning races doing that much these days. So, you are correct to think a less than talented guy could boost himself to 5.9 w/kg illegally. He might get caught, he might not. Risky. But my clean guy still stands a chance to win. So, my team is still in the game! Meaning: I'm happy. Sponsors are happy.

In my career, the clean guy at 5.9 wasn't even in the game.

So, now my job is picking incredibly talented riders. Not running an illegal medical program. Much more fun. Not much margin for error, though! So, I better be good.

JV

I must say, good answer, I am not used to those, I demand an insult

But, 5,9 to 6,1 are some numbers JV. Hinault, Fignon and my hero could do that, I think it is strange a lot of riders nowadays can hit that. Please, call me a dinosaurus but I cannot comprehend how so many riders are able to equal that.

I do agree with you cycling is cleaner, but hell no, it is not clean.

1989' TdF was thrilling, with a clean guy called LeMond and old-fashioned-doped guy called Fignon, closing very little gaps every day...

Please, bit of respect for Laurent!

 

[Pentacycle]

No announcement. i promise.

Here's why I rely on that number:

If it can be achieved by a clean, talented rider, and it can win the race, then if I find a clean, talented rider, my team can win the race.

I can't find any clean riders doing 6.5w/kg. Nor are there any winning races doing that much these days. So, you are correct to think a less than talented guy could boost himself to 5.9 w/kg illegally. He might get caught, he might not. Risky. But my clean guy still stands a chance to win. So, my team is still in the game! Meaning: I'm happy. Sponsors are happy.

In my career, the clean guy at 5.9 wasn't even in the game.

So, now my job is picking incredibly talented riders. Not running an illegal medical program. Much more fun. Not much margin for error, though! So, I better be good.

JV

This is where I'm losing it. Does the 5.9 w/kg mean at the end of a stage(MTF), or in a climbing test/training, or a TT? For instance, does it mean what this guy was doing for 30 mins on the climb? (where he's riding close to his 180 BPM anaerobic treshold) :

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Both Hrotha and Draks have made VERY valid points.

Pulling these numbers really does nothing to prove how clean the "new" cycling is. It only allows one to prove a rider's performance, based on certain parameters, and further based on history we know to be false.

What is "physiologicaly possible"? At this point we're sorta f*cked, since any objective values (time and speed) over the last twenty years are fouled by profound and systemic doping. And that's not a theory, it's been a proven fact.

I've vacillated between lauding JV and villifying him for a long time.

He's not great at making his point, but he is truly awesome at politics.

I'm waiting for a real TRC, and then we may know.

 

[The Hitch]

That first graph looks suspiciously similar to the profile of a stage one of JV's boys won in France a year back.

 

[sniper]

...
Believe me, I'm not defending LA.

you're not exactly showing any outrage either.

If we are to believe Kimmage in 2008, you guys where scared ****less of Lance comeback 2.0.

"I spent the whole Tour this year with Slipstream, the Garmin team. That wasn’t by accident. I chose that team deliberately, because of what they were saying about the sport and the message they were putting out.

"But also the fact that so many of that team had raced with Armstrong during his best years and knew exactly what he got up to. And the stuff that I learnt on that Tour about him and what he was really like was absolutely shocking, really shocking.

"What’s going to happen now is he comes back and everybody’s going to wave their hands in the air and give him a big clap. And all the guys who really know what he’s about are going to feel so utterly and totally depressed.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-kimmage-for-the-soul-of-professional-cycling

Are you now seriously telling us you don't know if he doped and that the whole time you didn't really care as long as your clean guys could compete?

The BP is from 2008: if you didn't care in 2009 (as the BP would level things out), why did you care in 2008? Or what did you tell Kimmage in 2008?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I find your position on this baffling. What if you had a rider on your team who was consistently pushing 5.8 but was beaten by a doper who only doped himself to be able to push 5.9?

You seem to give the impression that it's fair game. Less talented people doping themselves to is fine as long as they don't exceed what is perceived as performances that are impossible without doping

He didn't say that, didn't even allude to it.
Of course it would be disappointing to have a clean guy beaten by a doper,that will always be a possibility. But what JV said was that now a talented clean rider can compete at the highest level, which could not be done 10ish years ago.

1989' TdF was thrilling, with a clean guy called LeMond and old-fashioned-doped guy called Fignon, closing very little gaps every day...

Yip, and what was great about that was it was one good one day, average the next. You had no idea who would win.

Of course you'll find examples of that, historically, but as I said, it seems like that particular kind of race would be the inevitable consequence of a peloton where everybody is artificially at the same level.

Think of Asterix's fellow tribesmen when they engage in any competition after drinking some magic potion.

That doesn't make sense, doping or not people do not end up all at the same level.

 

[Pentacycle]

That first graph looks suspiciously similar to the profile of a stage one of JV's boys won in France a year back.

It's just a training ride and definitely not from JV's team, wish it was mine though.

 

[sniper]

I find your position on this baffling. What if you had a rider on your team who was consistently pushing 5.8 but was beaten by a doper who only doped himself to be able to push 5.9?

You seem to give the impression that it's fair game. Less talented people doping themselves to is fine as long as they don't exceed what is perceived as performances that are impossible without doping

+1.

Note also that to push yourself to 5.9 by means of PEDs, preferably without exceeding it too much, and in any case without triggering the BP-alarm, you need very well-trained medical personell, which is potentially a big advantage for teams like Sky.

...
I do agree with you cycling is cleaner, but hell no, it is not clean.
Please, bit of respect for Laurent!

saying cycling is cleaner becomes a mute point if the cheating is concentrated at the top. Succesful BP-bandwidth doping (towards that 5.9 without exceeding it) is something for the rich guys, I reckon.

Note that Sky appeared to have 3 to 4 guys last season pushing themselves towards 5.9 or higher.
Indeed, JV better be good.

 

[hrotha]

That doesn't make sense, doping or not people do not end up all at the same level.

We're talking about people doping up to the physiologically clean limit. Of course that'll reduce the gaps between the contenders.

 

[Dracks]

He didn't say that, didn't even allude to it.
Of course it would be disappointing to have a clean guy beaten by a doper,that will always be a possibility. But what JV said was that now a talented clean rider can compete at the highest level, which could not be done 10ish years ago.

No he says:

So, now my job is picking incredibly talented riders. Not running an illegal medical program. Much more fun. Not much margin for error, though! So, I better be good.

What about his riders might get beaten by someone who is doping to get to that 0.1 w/kg more than them.

It just gives the wrong impression IMO.

I like JV, I don't want to come across as someone who signed up just to have a dig at him. I really respect that the engages with fans.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We're talking about people doping up to the physiologically clean limit. Of course that'll reduce the gaps between the contenders.

Ok, I misunderstood your original point.
However, people are not 'doping up' to that point, in essence they are doping down. Less use of PEDs means less consistency by a doped rider.

 

[pmcg76]

We're talking about people doping up to the physiologically clean limit. Of course that'll reduce the gaps between the contenders.

But wasn't that the same argument with the 50% limit when it was introduced. Everyone could dope to the same 50% level.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I utterly despise that argument - that doping made it level, since you had a 50hct limit.

 

[the asian]

No he says:

So, now my job is picking incredibly talented riders. Not running an illegal medical program. Much more fun. Not much margin for error, though! So, I better be good.

What about his riders might get beaten by someone who is doping to get to that 0.1 w/kg more than them.

It just gives the wrong impression IMO.

I like JV, I don't want to come across as someone who signed up just to have a dig at him. I really respect that the engages with fans.

He can't do anything about other guys doping. According to his opinion his clean riders stand a chance of winning and that's a very big progression from when he was riding, as those days a clean rider stood no chance of winning.

 

[will10]

But wasn't that the same argument with the 50% limit when it was introduced. Everyone could dope to the same 50% level.

That is in no way a level playing field. C'mon man, doping 101.

 

[the asian]

We're talking about people doping up to the physiologically clean limit. Of course that'll reduce the gaps between the contenders.

I agree with you. IMO that's what is happening now is a one factor in why races are so dull these days.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

saying cycling is cleaner becomes a mute point if the cheating is concentrated at the top. Succesful BP-bandwidth doping (towards that 5.9 without exceeding it) is something for the rich guys, I reckon.

Note that Sky appeared to have 3 to 4 guys last season pushing themselves towards 5.9 or higher.
Indeed, JV better be good.

You do not have to teach me Sniper, really

The 'cleaner' part I agree on, they dope untill the Sassi norm. Good for the gambling scene.

PS: NOS is a day late on news, check out the NOS Journaal nu

 

[hrotha]

But wasn't that the same argument with the 50% limit when it was introduced. Everyone could dope to the same 50% level.

Possibly, but it was misapplied back then, because now we all know you can dope two guys up to the 50% hematocrit cap and get two wildly different boosts in performance, whereas this time I'm talking about doping up so you can deliver a certain W/kg figure.

 

[the asian]

Probably the correct word is Cycling less dirty now than say 2001-2007 or 1993-1998.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Probably the correct word is Cycling less dirty now than say 2001-2007 or 1993-1998.

Given the fact there are still a lot of blood docs at cycling teams Ï would still call it a blodd arms race.