JV talks, sort of

[Mrs John Murphy]

Oh, for sure. If I ever got caught doping a rider or having complicit knowledge of a rider on my team doping, as management, there should be no amnesty. None. I should be imprisoned.

I'm not cool with amnesty regarding mgmt or enablers. They have the lives of young athletes in their hands.

The concern I have about the narrative that the likes of Armstrong, the UCI etc are trying to establish is that T & R is essentially, amnesty with a little bit of confession. The aim seems to be to avoid punishing anyone for the last 20+ years of doping. The media/UCI/sponsors don't want two years without Dertie Cont, Schleck, Frodo, Sky etc - there is money to be made off those boys, so they see T & R as a way to sweep it all under the carpet and to keep the money riders riding and the gravy train going.

More than that they seem to see T & R as limited to just the riders. The whole point of T & R is that it deals with the whole picture from the low level offenders, to management, to the authorities, to doctors and also the media. Users and enablers in its broadest sense.

The UCI could not run T & R because the UCI would be subject to it as well. T & R is meaningless unless McQuaid, Verbruggen, Gripper etc are also subject to it as well. T & R is meaningless unless Benson, Liggett etc are also subject to it, T & R is meaningless unless Leinders, Lim, Weltz, Riis, Sutton etc are subject to it.

T & R is meaningless unless it has the ability to remove the worst offenders from the sport for life.

If you do T & R you do it properly and you go the whole way otherwise it is a waste of time.

 

[Benotti69]

Digger, all I'm saying is that different people tell me different stuff on this. I don't know. I don't care! Perhaps you underestimate how much Allen ****ed me off leaving for RS in 2009. The guy who extolled clean racing to me and told me all the horrible stories about Discovery, which made it to IM via Frankie...that guy went and worked for the person he claimed to hate. It's all I can do to be objective here. believe me, it'd be much easier to just call the guy names, etc.

However, that just ain't cool.

Have you not talked to Floyd about it? Seems the sensible thing to do.

Cycling is a small community and pro cycling a even smaller circle. How can you not know.

I dont believe you.

 

[Benotti69]

The concern I have about the narrative that the likes of Armstrong, the UCI etc are trying to establish is that T & R is essentially, amnesty with a little bit of confession. The aim seems to be to avoid punishing anyone for the last 20+ years of doping. The media/UCI/sponsors don't want two years without Dertie Cont, Schleck, Frodo, Sky etc - there is money to be made off those boys, so they see T & R as a way to sweep it all under the carpet and to keep the money riders riding and the gravy train going.

More than that they seem to see T & R as limited to just the riders. The whole point of T & R is that it deals with the whole picture from the low level offenders, to management, to the authorities, to doctors and also the media. Users and enablers in its broadest sense.

The UCI could not run T & R because the UCI would be subject to it as well. T & R is meaningless unless McQuaid, Verbruggen, Gripper etc are also subject to it as well. T & R is meaningless unless Benson, Liggett etc are also subject to it, T & R is meaningless unless Leinders, Lim, Weltz, Riis, Sutton etc are subject to it.

T & R is meaningless unless it has the ability to remove the worst offenders from the sport for life.

If you do T & R you do it properly and you go the whole way otherwise it is a waste of time.

Yes.

But all these people, the worst offenders, have the sport by the balls.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Have you not talked to Floyd about it? Seems the sensible thing to do.

Cycling is a small community and pro cycling a even smaller circle. How can you not know.

I dont believe you.

Never ask a question you don't want to know the answer to, would seem to be the order of the day.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

If you do T & R you do it properly and you go the whole way otherwise it is a waste of time.

What you are saying is punishment should fit the crime?

Agree on that, but, sometimes, if all beans will be spilled, a pragmatic look on matters 'could' work. Do not believe it either.

Let's see.

Would be funny to see a peloton of 20 riders or so competing in the Tour or pick your race of choice.

 

[Parrulo]

i know this isn't exactly doping related but since JV is around anyway i thought i could ask.

JV what is your opinion on this "world series" idea that has popped up a couple months ago?

link:
http://inrng.com/2012/12/world-series-cycling-plans/

honestly i felt like the proper action to take would be throwing the people that came up with that off a reasonably high cliff, as this would end the traditional feeling cycling still has and most likely end many established old races for calendar reasons as you would need the weekends for those idiotic 4 day "events"

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

You are the clown here, explain how Thomas Dekker never disputed 'the arrogant ***' story we got out off JV here. Let's talk Dutch then...

Why do you try to disrupt every topic in the clinic?

this makes no sense

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

If you do T & R you do it properly and you go the whole way otherwise it is a waste of time.

I agree with this. The job has to be done properly or not at all.

Do you know the basis under which "contributers" to the SA T&R attended? Were they compelled by statute or was it voluntary? Thanks.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=16650

ryo check that thread if you still have doubts. . . .

ok thanks


....

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

What you are saying is punishment should fit the crime?

Agree on that, but, sometimes, if all beans will be spilled, a pragmatic look on matters 'could' work. Do not believe it either.

Let's see.

Would be funny to see a peloton of 20 riders or so competing in the Tour or pick your race of choice.

Yes. There are two aims of T & R. The first is truth. You can not have reconciliation without truth. You also can not have reconciliation if the worst offenders are not punished.

T & R has to involve everyone involved in the sport. T & R in South Africa involved not just politicians, security services but also the media, medical profession etc.

The punishment has to fit the crime. The degree of sentence depends on i) what you did and ii) your confession. So for example 'I stopped in 2006' will not get you an amnesty because your confession is only half-hearted and mere lip service.

Refuse to testify, or testify in an incomplete/evasive/unhelpful manner and you are punished. Get implicated by someone else - get punished, refuse to break omerta and name names - get punished.

T & R is about remaking the moral order. The old order represents a subverting of values and attitudes - ie omerta and the acceptability of doping, one of the principal motives for transitional justice is to mark a decisive break with the ‘abnormality’ and ‘immorality’ of the old system.

So guess what, if it means the peloton is 20 strong at the start of the TDF then so be it. Those 20 deserve their place at the start line and they deserve their right to race and to win the race clean. An unrepentant doper and his DS do not deserve to be there.

 

[JV1973]

Have you not talked to Floyd about it? Seems the sensible thing to do.

Cycling is a small community and pro cycling a even smaller circle. How can you not know.

I dont believe you.

Of course I've spoken to Floyd. Quite a bit. That still doesn't mean i don't get conflicting stories from different people. Cycling is small, as you note.

Your absolute disbelief in everything undermines any argument you ever have. You aren't a credible poster ...

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I agree with this. The job has to be done properly or not at all.

Do you know the basis under which "contributers" to the SA T&R attended? Were they compelled by statute or was it voluntary? Thanks.

One of the criticisms of TRC in SA was that it did not have the ability to compel certain people to testify. ie P.W.Botha refused to testify. As I recall the non-compulsion was a clause in the transition agreement.

However, other TRC have had the power to compel witnesses. So it can be done.

 

[JV1973]

Yes. There are two aims of T & R. The first is truth. You can not have reconciliation without truth. You also can not have reconciliation if the worst offenders are not punished.

T & R has to involve everyone involved in the sport. T & R in South Africa involved not just politicians, security services but also the media, medical profession etc.

The punishment has to fit the crime. The degree of sentence depends on i) what you did and ii) your confession. So for example 'I stopped in 2006' will not get you an amnesty because your confession is only half-hearted and mere lip service.

Refuse to testify, or testify in an incomplete/evasive/unhelpful manner and you are punished. Get implicated by someone else - get punished, refuse to break omerta and name names - get punished.

T & R is about remaking the moral order. The old order represents a subverting of values and attitudes - ie omerta and the acceptability of doping, one of the principal motives for transitional justice is to mark a decisive break with the ‘abnormality’ and ‘immorality’ of the old system.

So guess what, if it means the peloton is 20 strong at the start of the TDF then so be it. Those 20 deserve their place at the start line and they deserve their right to race and to win the race clean. An unrepentant doper and his DS do not deserve to be there.

I'd agree with all of this.

 

[sniper]

Cycling is a small community and pro cycling a even smaller circle. How can you not know.

Well, JV is being consistent here.
In addition to Lim, there are a couple of other dodgy figures who've featured in JV's business plans and whom he somehow didn't know about (Contador, Weltz, White and Bruyneel spring to mind). He doesn't know if Lance 2009/10 doped either...

 

[Benotti69]

Of course I've spoken to Floyd. Quite a bit. That still doesn't mean i don't get conflicting stories from different people. Cycling is small, as you note.

Your absolute disbelief in everything undermines any argument you ever have. You aren't a credible poster ...

So Floyd told you and you dont believe him now that he laid it all bare. Lim shall be jusdged by his actions.

So Lim enabled doping. End of.

Why you think you can sell cycling as cleaner and get away with it is for the clueless fans who still yearn for EPO era like performances.

Cleaner peloton still means riders are doping and what we saw in 2012 showed that doping makes a big difference. The difference between arriving on a podium or not. I think of Boonen at PR, Wiggins whole season, Froome, La Vuelta.

You aren't credible. You think posting in here gives you cred. Blow that!

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I'd agree with all of this.

Can you make sure that when anyone (especially the media) discusses T & R with you - that you explain to them what T & R is and what it has to involve, because at the moment, no one involved in cycling seems to really understand it. What the UCI and Armstrong are trying to create is a perversion of T & R to suit their own ends.

 

[JV1973]

Well, JV is being consistent here.
There are a couple of other dodgy figures who've featured in JV's business plans and whom he somehow didn't know about (Contador, Weltz, White and Bruyneel spring to mind). He doesn't know if Lance 2009/10 doped either.

Hold up... Weltz? I know. White. I knew...Bruyneel? I testified... Contador, fair enough, I don't know.

There's a difference between having an opinion and knowing. I don't always share my opinions here. It's public and I get quoted.

Knowing, to me, means having been presented with overwhelming evidence or having seen, first hand. That is knowing. Opinions can be formed on less.

 

[V3R1T4S]

JV,

A simple question I am very curious to hear. In Iñigo San Millán's w/kg step test, how long did Contador last?

 

[JV1973]

Can you make sure that when anyone (especially the media) discusses T & R with you - that you explain to them what T & R is and what it has to involve, because at the moment, no one involved in cycling seems to really understand it. What the UCI and Armstrong are trying to create is a perversion of T & R to suit their own ends.

Have you seen the USADA proposal? It's very similar to what you propose.

 

[JV1973]

JV,

A simple question I am very curious to hear. In Iñigo San Millán's w/kg step test, how long did Contador last?

He was only 20 or 21 when he took it. From what I know, he is the only athlete to ever make it through the 6.5 w/kg stage. Barely, from what I heard. Meaning 10 mins at 6.0 and 10 mins at 6.5 w/kg... This probably means on a climb of 30-45 mins he could sustain 6.2 range.

 

[JV1973]

Can you make sure that when anyone (especially the media) discusses T & R with you - that you explain to them what T & R is and what it has to involve, because at the moment, no one involved in cycling seems to really understand it. What the UCI and Armstrong are trying to create is a perversion of T & R to suit their own ends.

Yes. I will do that. I have done, but what i say gets edited down into juicy sound bytes that **** me off.

 

[mastersracer]

from a behavioral game theorist: anti-doping won't be effective until team management faces direct sanctions for rider violations. The best model would be one of strict liability: regardless of DS culpability, the DS is suspended along with the rider for some period of time for a first offense, which escalates with every violation. The sport looks like a joke when DS's like Riis continue in it.

 

[Cerberus]

how do you guys know this is really jonathan vaughters?

It's been confirmed that this is the real one. For example when the forum JV told that Zabriskie and others had been using doping, the non-digital version elaborated on the comments. One would think he'd have denied making the comments if the forum JV it was just some random internet troll.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

One of the criticisms of TRC in SA was that it did not have the ability to compel certain people to testify. ie P.W.Botha refused to testify. As I recall the non-compulsion was a clause in the transition agreement.

However, other TRC have had the power to compel witnesses. So it can be done.

Thanks - Compulsory attendence seems like a long shot to me. Maybe it could be a requirement for riders to be eligible to ride for a Pro Tour team. Legal enforcability issues abound, one assumes.

How would people who didn't sign up be treated for subsequent first offences? How would the need for equality of treatment across sports - if any - apply? Thanks again.

 

[Cerberus]

from a behavioral game theorist: anti-doping won't be effective until team management faces direct sanctions for rider violations. The best model would be one of strict liability: regardless of DS culpability, the DS is suspended along with the rider for some period of time for a first offense, which escalates with every violation. The sport looks like a joke when DS's like Riis continue in it.

Not a realistic option. It's a very basic principle of fairness that you can't be punished for what others do. While a DS can certainly do many things to keep his team clean no DS can guarentie that his riders won't take something, no matter how hard he tries.