JV talks, sort of

[Ryo Hazuki]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-y38WZAtgc

compare this to the tour of this year and sky's train... end of discussion

 

[cineteq]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-y38WZAtgc

compare this to the tour of this year and sky's train... end of discussion

Your comments are always so thoroughly researched. It's uncanny. NOT.

 

[sniper]

It's a far more complex situation than that though, this is too black and white. You say JV can't know they are clean, I'd say you can't know 100% that they aren't.

Personally I think the comparison to USPS are anecdotal, nothing more. If Sky are doping then they are doing something very different to USPS. The sport has changed, the drugs have changed. JV points out the numbers are different, lower, meaning those results can be achieved clean and clean riders can be competitive, which is a massive change from the Armstrong era. This means the doping has changed, perhaps more focus on recovery over speed, or weight loss perhaps.

of course I agree.

The point is obviously this:
objectively, we don't know about sky. the passport malfunctions, so that's not an argument either way. and there are some seriously dodgy markers surrounding sky, but still: objectively, we don't know. (cf. Ashenden's opinion on the matter.)
yet, there comes Jonathan, proactively spreading the message that Sky are clean, including off the record to Walsh. Why?
Again, the objective, agenda-less thing for Jonathan to say to Walsh would be: "I honestly don't know, David."

EDIT: and where is Jonathan admitting the BP is flawed? why is he going to such length to defend a fig leaf?

 

[theyoungest]

Your comments are always so thoroughly researched. It's uncanny. NOT.

Does it need that much research? People saying that Sky resembles US Postal, and Wiggins resembles Armstrong, have bad memory, or simply didn't watch those Tours.

Wiggins is no Armstrong, not even close. Whether that is because he's clean, or less talented, I don't know, but the comparison doesn't make sense. Armstrong was a Michelin man flying up those mountains, Wiggo an emaciated diesel who could barely follow his own domestique.

 

[sniper]

JV says we are hiding behind our anonymity.
I say he's hiding behind his lack of anonymity.

he's a clever guy, and i think he's one of the first in cycling (a) to understand the power (positive or negative) of the internet and (b) to understand that perception is reality.

JV admits he is too compromised to talk in here about guys like riis, leinders, contador, wiggins. of course he is. So why isn't he coming in here anonymously? (rethorical question)

More generally, if JV is dedicating his life to anti-doping (which he says he is), I don't understand why he contents himself with the current situation. He seems quite passive at the moment (disregarding his activity here in the forum). I don't see him asking for Pat's head, I don't see him supporting kimmage, I don't see him asking questions about Leinders, the BP, etc.
to be sure, all very understandable from the perspective of a guy who simply is trying to make a good living off of cycling. his sponsorship deals largely depend on the message. but imo it undermines his credibility.

 

[JimmyFingers]

of course I agree.

The point is obviously this:
objectively, we don't know about sky. the passport malfunctions, so that's not an argument either way. and there are some seriously dodgy markers surrounding sky, but still: objectively, we don't know. (cf. Ashenden's opinion on the matter.)
yet, there comes Jonathan, proactively spreading the message that Sky are clean, including off the record to Walsh. Why?
Again, the objective, agenda-less thing for Jonathan to say to Walsh would be: "I honestly don't know, David."

EDIT: and where is Jonathan admitting the BP is flawed? why is he going to such length to defend a fig leaf?

Agree too. Clearly the BP and drug controls are flawed and the UCI compromised, so no trust should be placed in the testing.

As for JVs reasons, he has said more than a few times why he comes here. It becomes a matter of faith whether you believe him or not, or when he says he thinks Sky race clean. If he is on the level, he is in a much better position to know than either you or me.

He could be guilty of a clever PR ploy, coming here, but I'd question the point of trying to court you lot to his way of thinking. Irresistible force meets immovable object comes to mind.

 

[arjanh]

JV admits he is too compromised to talk in here about guys like bruyneel and riis. of course he is. So why isn't he coming in here anonymously? (rethorical question).

What makes you think he isn't?

 

[The Hitch]

JV admits he is too compromised to talk in here about guys like bruyneel and riis. of course he is. So why isn't he coming in here anonymously? (rethorical question)

.

What would be the point of that?

 

[Von Mises]

yet, there comes Jonathan, proactively spreading the message that Sky are clean, including off the record to Walsh. Why?

He thinks they are clean. You think they are dirty. Both of you have an opinion.. Do you have problem with people having different opinions?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

but imo it undermines his credibility.

Whereas you seriously consider that Sky had one of their doctors cremated to hide any evidence of doping.

 

[The Hitch]

Maybe David Walsh believes Sky are clean because of the interview he had with Dave Brailsford in the flesh, from which he came away tweeting that he 'believed [DB] is committed to clean cycling'. Any hypothetical conversations JV had with him over ribs and wine is superfluous, and JV is as free to voice his belief that Sky is clean as you are to say they are not.

Remember this is a forum, not a court of law. We are exchanging opinions based on the evidence and information available to us and our analysis of that. Some of course are more informed than others.

You seem to be angry with him for talking to Walsh about Sky. JV had stated he believes Sky are clean, as has Millar and Talansky, and all have been derided here for doing so because it undermines the 'Sky are the new USPS' narrative so entrenched here.

Difference with Millar is, he doesn't think sky are clean. He knows it. Same way ligget knows it.

 

[sniper]

What would be the point of that?

I don't know. Perhaps none.

But please don't forget that the discussions on this forum are ultimately not about JV or his credibility.
They are about whether or not cycling is genuinely cleaning up through internal processes of change.

I'm not questioning JV for the sake of questioning JV.
I'm questioning JV because I don't believe in the internal process.
Imo, we need external pressure including UCI root-branch surgery, but I don't see JV fighting for that. Instead, he's suggesting that the most important changes have already been made cycling-internally.

 

[sniper]

Whereas you seriously consider that Sky had one of their doctors cremated to hide any evidence of doping.

please don't derail.
i considered it in one post. then i didn't consider it anymore.
people change their minds. (hell, I'd even change my mind on clean cycling, if i'd see some bloody evidence)

 

[JimmyFingers]

Difference with Millar is, he doesn't think sky are clean. He knows it. Same way ligget knows it.

I'll concede the point that Millar et al can't talk in definitives when judging whether riders/teams are clean anymore than people here can say they are definitely are doping.

However people here frequently use that language.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

please don't derail.
i considered it in one post. then i didn't consider it anymore.

You are the one that brought up credibility.

people change their minds.

Yet when cyclists do that they don't seem to be offered the same leeway that you seem to expect.

 

[Ferminal]

Can we please not drift into a wholesale Sky thread, plenty of others available. JV doing everyone favour by posting here so better not to lose it in the wash.

 

[sniper]

He thinks they are clean. You think they are dirty. Both of you have an opinion.. Do you have problem with people having different opinions?

"problem" is a bit of a big word.
clearly, JV's opinion isn'T just anybody's opinion.
we've seen for instance how it influenced Walsh. But regardless of whether it's JV, or Millar, or Brailsford, or Pat, or Lance: there is a general consensus spreading according to which cycling is now finally so much cleaner, new generation, biopassport, etc. It is a message strongly accompanied by the suggestion that the important changes have already occurred cycling-internally!
I simply wouldn't like to see that message settle in. I think it doesn't serve the shared goal, which is clean cycling.

 

[Alphabet]

What if JV is posting anonymously as Hog... that would explain all those 'mystery sources'

 

[SundayRider]

What if JV is posting anonymously as Hog... that would explain all those 'mystery sources'

where has Hog gone?

 

[Alphabet]

He was banned for a week, I think.

 

[JimmyFingers]

He's still posting though....

 

[JimmyFingers]

"problem" is a bit of a big word.
clearly, JV's opinion isn'T just anybody's opinion.
we've seen for instance how it influenced Walsh. But regardless of whether it's JV, or Millar, or Brailsford, or Pat, or Lance: there is a general consensus spreading according to which cycling is now finally so much cleaner, new generation, biopassport, etc. It is a message strongly accompanied by the suggestion that the important changes have already occurred cycling-internally!
I simply wouldn't like to see that message settle in. I think it doesn't serve the shared goal, which is clean cycling.

I think you should give Walsh more credit, he's a big enough boy to make up his own mind

 

[sniper]

I think you should give Walsh more credit, he's a big enough boy to make up his own mind

true.
but i'm using walsh merely as a case in point.
the consensus is spreading (cf. Lance, Pat, Gripper, Millar, JV, the affidavits, Brailsford, etc. all claiming the same) and it doesn't serve the cause. it doesn't invite change; it suggests change has already occurred internally.

 

[Von Mises]

"problem" is a bit of a big word.
clearly, JV's opinion isn'T just anybody's opinion.
we've seen for instance how it influenced Walsh. But regardless of whether it's JV, or Millar, or Brailsford, or Pat, or Lance: there is a general consensus spreading according to which cycling is now finally so much cleaner, new generation, biopassport, etc. It is a message strongly accompanied by the suggestion that the important changes have already occurred cycling-internally!
I simply wouldn't like to see that message settle in. I think it doesn't serve the shared goal, which is clean cycling.

Well, you asked why JV believes that Sky is clean and I gave you one possible answer - maybe he says what he believes.

You think that cycling is dirty and Sky is very dirty. I have no problem with this opinion. But I do have a problem that you think that everyone who does not agree with you, is either duplicitous (they do understand, but have some hidden agenda) or stupid (they just do not understand). Like you said: "as for the narrative: it's not a narrative, it's something you wouldn't be able to deny with dry eyes, unless (a) you've got an agenda or (b) you've been living in a cave in the past 20+ years."

 

[sniper]

Well, you asked why JV believes that Sky is clean and I gave you one possible answer - maybe he says what he believes.

You think that cycling is dirty and Sky is very dirty. I have no problem with this opinion. But I do have a problem that you think that everyone who does not agree with you, is either evil (they do understand, but have some hidden agenda) or stupid (they just do not understand). Like you said: "as for the narrative: it's not a narrative, it's something you wouldn't be able to deny with dry eyes, unless (a) you've got an agenda or (b) you've been living in a cave in the past 20+ years."

I didn't use the word evil, so don't put it in my mouth.

no, I don't think Sky are very dirty. i think they dope sophisticatedly. bandwidth microdoping. there is no more or less dirty. it's deliberate cheating with the intention to win races and not get caught. i couldn't care less if the overall quantity of doping is less at Sky than it was at USPS (it probably is less indeed). I think their program makes a difference, and that there are other teams that do not have the know-how to dope at that level without getting caught.