JV talks, sort of

[sniper]

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.

Two dopers won GTs in 2012.
But JV is happy, he says.
Odd for a guy who says he dedicates his life to anti-doping.

Ow, by the way, as an on-the-side: the biopassport isn't working optimally (understatement), the NOS journaal is now telling me (thanks for the tipp, Fearless! ).

Who cares, clean cyclists are now winning GTs.

 

[pmcg76]

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.

+1 Dr.Mas

One of the barb's frequently thrown at JV is that even though he claims things are improving, he also claims that more money needs to be spent on improving anti-doping. Some people see that statement as contradictory whilst I do not view it as such. I think it makes a lot of sense.

I think JV is happy that at least his guys now have a chance to compete which is what he means when he says things have improved, but he is also realistic enough to know that there are still guys who are doping to reach that 5.9/6ish or above level so more money needs to be spent on catching those guys as the BP is not getting it done.

Once again the BP might be giving his guys a chance which was definitely not the case back when he raced so that is a definite improvement but on the flip-side, doping has not been eradicated so more needs to be done i.e. more money spent.

To me anyway, it seems real logical.

 

[the asian]

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

But surely at a slower pace than those two eras. It's more of a Hurdles race now than a flat out sprint.

 

[sniper]

+1 Dr.Mas

One of the barb's frequently thrown at JV is that even though he claims things are improving, he also claims that more money needs to be spent on improving anti-doping. Some people see that statement as contradictory whilst I do not view it as such. I think it makes a lot of sense.

I think JV is happy that at least his guys now have a chance to compete which is what he means when he says things have improved, but he is also realistic enough to know that there are still guys who are doping to reach that 5.9/6ish or above level so more money needs to be spent on catching those guys as the BP is not getting it done.

Once again the BP might be giving his guys a chance which was definitely not the case back when he raced so that is a definite improvement but on the flip-side, doping has not been eradicated so more needs to be done i.e. more money spent.

To me anyway, it seems real logical.

What BP? The latest news (you'll read it at CN tomorrow no doubt) is that there is way too little testing for the BP to be effective. If you want to believe cycling is cleaner, you'll have to put your faith in the goodwill of the new generation of cyclists, faith in JV's and Brailsford's words. I wouldn't put much faith in the BP. (If you're Dutch, check the NOS journaal)

 

[the asian]

Two dopers won GTs in 2012.
But JV is happy, he says.
Odd for a guy who says he dedicates his life to anti-doping.

Ow, by the way, as an on-the-side: the biopassport isn't working optimally (understatement), the NOS journaal is now telling me (thanks for the tipp, Fearless! ).

Who cares, clean cyclists are now winning GTs.

He's happy because his clean guy won a GT. Just because two dopers won GTs why shouldn't he lose his happiness.

It's all relative. Don't think in Black and White terms.

Just because a person's ambition isn't fulfilled entirely, that doesn't mean that person can't be happy at progress been made.

 

[pmcg76]

Two dopers won GTs in 2012.
But JV is happy, he says.
Odd for a guy who says he dedicates his life to anti-doping.

Ow, by the way, as an on-the-side: the biopassport isn't working optimally (understatement), the NOS journaal is now telling me (thanks for the tipp, Fearless! ).

Who cares, clean cyclists are now winning GTs.

Really two??

Now as much as I am aware of the suspicions around SKY and Wiggin's etc, you are now stating that your personal opinion is an actual fact and using it in an debate!!!

 

[sniper]

He's happy because his clean guy won a GT. Just because two dopers won GTs why shouldn't he lose his happiness.

It's all relative. Don't think in Black and White terms.

Just because a person's ambition isn't fulfilled entirely, that doesn't mean that person can't be happy at progress been made.

he was happy in 2009 as well, when his brittish guy missed out on a podium place in favor of three dopers.

 

[the asian]

Whether blood passport is working or not, we aren't getting outrageous performances to the same extent that we got in the EPO rampant era.

That's a sign for me that it is less dirty,

 

[sniper]

Really two??

Now as much as I am aware of the suspicions around SKY and Wiggin's etc, you are now stating that your personal opinion is an actual fact and using it in an debate!!!

JV assumes Sky/Wiggo are clean and uses it in the debate.

Go figure.

 

[the asian]

he was happy in 2009 as well, when his brittish guy missed out on a podium place in favor of three dopers.

Yep, coz the supposed clean guy at least got 4th place whereby during iJV's racing years it would have been next to impossible. So there's progress made.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

But surely at a slower pace than those two eras. It's more of a Hurdles race now than a flat out sprint.

Of course, it is slower. but credible? The question is who is going at what speed in my book. We do not see Rasmussen versus Conti anymore, no wonderboy on Sestriere, but enough mindboggling other stuff.

(If you're Dutch, check the NOS journaal)

This was yesterday here on CN. Thats why I said old news.

Did y see dear old Mart on 'DWDD'?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Whether blood passport is working or not, we aren't getting outrageous performances to the same extent that we got in the EPO rampant era.

That's a sign for me that it is less dirty,

Careful doping doesn't mean less dirty.
20ml vs 50ml is still dirty.
Teams/riders are spending cash to stay under the radar.
Top end of doping however is capped.

 

[the asian]

Of course, it is slower. but credible? The question is who is going at what speed in my book. We do not see Rasmussen versus Conti anymore, no wonderboy on Sestriere, but enough mindboggling other stuff.
This was yesterday here on CN. Thats why I said old news.

Did y see dear old Mart on 'DWDD'?

Nobody's saying that it's entirely credible or entirely clean.

 

[Lanark]

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.

I don't think the ramifications of exceeding that w/kg figure are nearly enough to stop people from doping too much.

What would really happen? A couple of scientists like Vayer and Portoleau would say it's not possible (like they did with Contador in 2009, and most riders in the 2012 Tour), a story that would die down after a couple of days at best (if there is a story in the first place). Maybe some DS's like Vaughters would say something, although most of them aren't well versed enough to say anything, and Vaughters is probably too much of a gentleman to accuse somebody of doping without at least some evidence.

I just don't see why you would suddenly stop doping at 5.9 or 6 w/kg, maybe you'd be tested more (although there is nothing to suggest that the UCI target-tests rider who produce suspicous wattages), but that would happen if you'd win anyway, whether you do that with 6 or 6,4 w/kg. That's even asuming doping-programs are sofisticated enough to let you reach such an exact number.

 

[the asian]

Careful doping doesn't mean less dirty.
20ml vs 50ml is still dirty.
Teams/riders are spending cash to stay under the radar.
Top end of doping however is capped.

That is what I meant by less dirty.People aren't doping to the extent they doped before. They have to be more careful now.

 

[pmcg76]

Of course, it is slower. but credible? The question is who is going at what speed in my book. We do not see Rasmussen versus Conti anymore, no wonderboy on Sestriere, but enough mindboggling other stuff.
This was yesterday here on CN. Thats why I said old news.

Did y see dear old Mart on 'DWDD'?

More credible than 10-15 years ago I would say. I think people will argue that as long as there are dopers, cycling will never be credible even though no such utopia exists in any facet of life.

As I pointed out JV has made the point previously that more money needs to be spent on improving anti-doping and he was slammed by the usual suspects for making that statement seeing as Garmin won a GT, it was viewed as a contradictory statement.

Clearly that statement by JV is now proving very accurate.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

That is what I meant by less dirty.People aren't doping to the extent they doped before. They have to be more careful now.

Understand, but stealing $100K is still a crime.
I see no difference in cheating just below the radar or above.
I do see a difference in puffing on a asthma inhaler vs injecting EPO and blood directly into the vein.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Nobody's saying that it's entirely credible or entirely clean.

But it should be or not?

Careful doping doesn't mean less dirty.
20ml vs 50ml is still dirty.
Teams/riders are spending cash to stay under the radar.
Top end of doping however is capped.

Jackpot. Dope to the limit, like the 50 procent rule 15 years ago.

Keep it believable.

I will wait for JV to answer if HE thinks itis normal guys like Froome are matching/bettering numbers Greg did in his best days.

 

[skidmark]

he was happy in 2009 as well, when his brittish guy missed out on a podium place in favor of three dopers.

What do you want, for him to rouse a group of Bolsheviks to storm the gates of Aigle and overthrow the current system of cycling? It's not like it's a car rolling down a hill that you can just stop.

This is not necessarily meant specifically as a comment about you, sniper, but I often wonder if some clinic posters have ever really thought of what it takes to induce a paradigm shift in a long-term, meaningful way. Blunt and obvious solutions are things that I find fanciful - look at history, if there's a drug war, things don't get better if the leader is killed, other cartels just scramble for the same positions of power. Same with dictatorship, quite often. Hell, look at cycling post-Festina, post-Puerto, etc. Saying 'McQuaid needs to go' and 'BP testing isn't enough' are statements I'd agree with, but that's not just going to happen tomorrow, and it's not going to change the culture without a slow shift. We're at the point now where it's sort of okay for top-level riders like Kittel to call out dopers, or Phinney to talk about his stance on painkillers. That's a ways away from someone being ashamed to dope, or more practically, fearing to because the chances of getting caught are so high, but it's a sea change from 1999. If you trust JV saying you can win a GT on 5.9w/kg, that's a pretty significant change.

Vaughters has always struck me as a pragmatist, and saying 'I'm happy my guys can compete' is a pragmatic viewpoint on progress, and it's clear that he has a direction he'd like to see the sport move in and sees it moving that way. Whether you think that's gutless and he should be more outspoken and confrontational is your own opinion, but I could see how biding your time and being satisfied with small improvements might be less insanity-inducing than being satisfied with nothing but immediate and complete overhaul of a firmly established culture. I could also see the opposite, I guess it depends on what kind of person you are.

Anyway, I'm sure it's possible/likely that you've thought about this context and made up your mind based on it, so if that's the case fair enough, but I'm willing to venture that a lot of people haven't.

 

[blackcat]

Nobody's saying that it's entirely credible or entirely clean.

you mean, like half pregnant. RoevWaderu486 and coat hangers.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

What do you want, for him to rouse a group of Bolsheviks to storm the gates of Aigle and overthrow the current system of cycling? It's not like it's a car rolling down a hill that you can just stop.

This is not necessarily meant specifically as a comment about you, sniper, but I often wonder if some clinic posters have ever really thought of what it takes to induce a paradigm shift in a long-term, meaningful way. Blunt and obvious solutions are things that I find fanciful - look at history, if there's a drug war, things don't get better if the leader is killed, other cartels just scramble for the same positions of power. Same with dictatorship, quite often. Hell, look at cycling post-Festina, post-Puerto, etc. Saying 'McQuaid needs to go' and 'BP testing isn't enough' are statements I'd agree with, but that's not just going to happen tomorrow, and it's not going to change the culture without a slow shift. We're at the point now where it's sort of okay for top-level riders like Kittel to call out dopers, or Phinney to talk about his stance on painkillers. That's a ways away from someone being ashamed to dope, or more practically, fearing to because the chances of getting caught are so high, but it's a sea change from 1999. If you trust JV saying you can win a GT on 5.9w/kg, that's a pretty significant change.

Vaughters has always struck me as a pragmatist, and saying 'I'm happy my guys can compete' is a pragmatic viewpoint on progress, and it's clear that he has a direction he'd like to see the sport move in and sees it moving that way. Whether you think that's gutless and he should be more outspoken and confrontational is your own opinion, but I could see how biding your time and being satisfied with small improvements might be less insanity-inducing than being satisfied with nothing but immediate and complete overhaul of a firmly established culture. I could also see the opposite, I guess it depends on what kind of person you are.

Anyway, I'm sure it's possible/likely that you've thought about this context and made up your mind based on it, so if that's the case fair enough, but I'm willing to venture that a lot of people haven't.

JV is part of the problem imo.

 

[blackcat]

What do you want, for him to rouse a group of Bolsheviks to storm the gates of Aigle and overthrow the current system of cycling? It's not like it's a car rolling down a hill that you can just stop.

This is not necessarily meant specifically as a comment about you, sniper, but I often wonder if some clinic posters have ever really thought of what it takes to induce a paradigm shift in a long-term, meaningful way. Blunt and obvious solutions are things that I find fanciful - look at history, if there's a drug war, things don't get better if the leader is killed, other cartels just scramble for the same positions of power. Same with dictatorship, quite often. Hell, look at cycling post-Festina, post-Puerto, etc. Saying 'McQuaid needs to go' and 'BP testing isn't enough' are statements I'd agree with, but that's not just going to happen tomorrow, and it's not going to change the culture without a slow shift. We're at the point now where it's sort of okay for top-level riders like Kittel to call out dopers, or Phinney to talk about his stance on painkillers. That's a ways away from someone being ashamed to dope, or more practically, fearing to because the chances of getting caught are so high, but it's a sea change from 1999. If you trust JV saying you can win a GT on 5.9w/kg, that's a pretty significant change.

Vaughters has always struck me as a pragmatist, and saying 'I'm happy my guys can compete' is a pragmatic viewpoint on progress, and it's clear that he has a direction he'd like to see the sport move in and sees it moving that way. Whether you think that's gutless and he should be more outspoken and confrontational is your own opinion, but I could see how biding your time and being satisfied with small improvements might be less insanity-inducing than being satisfied with nothing but immediate and complete overhaul of a firmly established culture. I could also see the opposite, I guess it depends on what kind of person you are.

Anyway, I'm sure it's possible/likely that you've thought about this context and made up your mind based on it, so if that's the case fair enough, but I'm willing to venture that a lot of people haven't.

corrected this para

What do you want, for him to rouse a group of Bolsheviks to storm the gates of argyle and overthrow the current system of cycling? It's not like it's a car rolling down a hill that you can just stop

 

[The Hitch]

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

 

[DirtyWorks]

What do you want, for him to rouse a group of Bolsheviks to storm the gates of Aigle and overthrow the current system of cycling? It's not like it's a car rolling down a hill that you can just stop.

If the managment committee and Hein were actually interested in less doping and more transparency to bring some confidence back to the sporting aspects of cycling, then it would happen. But, they are not, so nothing changes.

 

[sniper]

You do not have to teach me Sniper, really

ok, i'm relieved. for a moment there i though jv had gotten into your head

This was yesterday here on CN. Thats why I said old news.

ok, i see. well it was still pretty newish to me. and from where i'm sitting (south germany) it's nice to see this little doping earthquake unfold in holland.

Did y see dear old Mart on 'DWDD'?

it's past my bedtime, but thanks for the tip, will check podcast tomorrow.
I always wondered if Mart doped as a basketball player.