JV talks, sort of

[JV1973]

OK, that changes everything. See, it wasn't that hard, was it? You could have said that from the start.

You forget that I've gotten zinged a few times here by revealing too much. I mean, it all comes out anyway, but I have to be more careful than the other posters. Its one thing if you misinterpret me, it's another if Het Nieusblad or Marca does....

 

[jfromm]

Sure. Svein was paid the full bonus. But i did make it very difficult for him because I was not happy about the Pegasus camp situation, same as Lowe. There were also some other factors that i won't get into, but to simplify it: I will never deal with the agent Svein had hired ever again, no matter who he represents.....However, once Svein just contacted me himself, he was paid, in full, mainly because, while I felt I was in the legal right, and was very upset, Svein had done an honorable job for my team and did, from a non-legal perspective deserve the bonus money.

Thanks. I guess he and Christian Meier don't have the same agent.


"Jonathan Vaughters and Mauro Gianetti are good guys though, they have time to talk to you and are open in their dealings, but not everyone is like that in cycling. I often wish folks would just say, ‘no’ instead of stringing you along."

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...-difficult-transfer-market.aspx#ixzz2KKvf0Zt7

 

[ToreBear]

Dr. Evil eh JV

Something totally different, which relates to your general knowledge. I'm curious about how much variance can be expected in a normal HGB profile. Or rather your anecdotal experience.

As an example I had my blood tested a few months ago. I had an hgb of 16.5. This got me thinking. 16.5hgb to hematocrit conversion is x3 IIRC. That means I would have a hematocrit of 49,5%, something that would get my notice if I had seen that as a value a few years ago in cycling.

Just 0.5% off of the magical number. I'm thinking I have been too quick to assume things when the numbers are a little off when reading in the clinic.

So the question is, how much have you seen these values vary across situations for athletes that are clean? +-1.0 hgb or more?

 

[Netserk]

Hi JV

I have the impression that your team isn't amongst the wealthiest, but how wealthy are you (the team). How much of your budget do you use on rider salaries, and how much does the rider earn that earn the most on your team?

It's just that you seem to be with limited resources compared to teams like BMC, Astana, sky etc. and yet still manages to get some good results. How much does it limit you as a team manager that you have a limited amount of resources?

IF you signed a big fat contract with a sponsor what would you do with the extra money?

Cheers.

 

[JV1973]

Dr. Evil eh JV

Something totally different, which relates to your general knowledge. I'm curious about how much variance can be expected in a normal HGB profile. Or rather your anecdotal experience.

As an example I had my blood tested a few months ago. I had an hgb of 16.5. This got me thinking. 16.5hgb to hematocrit conversion is x3 IIRC. That means I would have a hematocrit of 49,5%, something that would get my notice if I had seen that as a value a few years ago in cycling.

Just 0.5% off of the magical number. I'm thinking I have been too quick to assume things when the numbers are a little off when reading in the clinic.

So the question is, how much have you seen these values vary across situations for athletes that are clean? +-1.0 hgb or more?

Blood profiles are more art than science sometimes. Labs can read differently, especially with retics. The body can dilute and concentrate blood based on temperature, altitude, and a whole myriad of stuff.

In diagnosis for illnesses, a 48 vs a 52 hct is irrelevant. But anti doping requires greater precision than diagnosing illness. Irony there.

Labs being a little off here and there is a whole can of worms. Or go drink a couple of bottles of wine. Get tested the next day. You're hct will be around 53, if you were 49.5 normally. Interesting, eh? Try it. Send in th results.

If it makes you feel better, at my last check up, I tested at 53.4.

 

[JV1973]

Hi JV

I have the impression that your team isn't amongst the wealthiest, but how wealthy are you (the team). How much of your budget do you use on rider salaries, and how much does the rider earn that earn the most on your team?

It's just that you seem to be with limited resources compared to teams like BMC, Astana, sky etc. and yet still manages to get some good results. How much does it limit you as a team manager that you have a limited amount of resources?

IF you signed a big fat contract with a sponsor what would you do with the extra money?

Cheers.

If I had the money, I'd go get Taylor Phinney. But, sadly, you are correct, we are a below average wt team in terms of funding.

 

[skidmark]

We published all the emails etc etc... Kimmage was not a factor. He was upset about the whole thing, but not factor in decision making. Why would he be?

Anyhow, Trent and I don't see the events of they year the same. He did race around 30 days too, so it's unfair to say he didn't race at all. Not sure how many he finished.

In the end, the workload of pro cycling was too high for him. That isn't to say there aren't people who can handle the workload. Different humans can do different things. We both agree on that now, but it's too bad it ended up so nasty. Two people being stubborn.

On the other side, if I had never angered him, I would have never found out about Del Moral, which unto itself, I'm happy we did find out.

JV

edit: I wrote this before realizing I had missed the last several dozen replies - pardon if it's been covered, oops.

Didn't you sign off on a sheet months before that had mentioned the del Moral and Lowe visit? I believe you addressed that awhile ago (when it was a hot issue) by saying you didn't really look at the details of every paper that came across your desk, and regretting the oversight. But I can't remember.

Two things, then, that I hope you can elaborate on now that things seem settled for a long time on that issue:

1) You say if Lowe had acted differently and apologized, you would have responded differently. You also just said you wish you had acted differently. Not sure if you mean not ignoring his emails in the first place when things were reasonable, or asking him to sit down when he came on confrontationally, or what. But I'm just curious how that incident has been incorporated into your procedures now. Like, do you check every paper carefully? Do you communicate with riders differently? Do you delegate those things to someone with less of an inclination to be stubborn? That's more of a boring HR question than a salacious doping question, but I'm curious, because it seems to me like an administrative oversight and then a poorly-handled HR situation blew a bunch of things up that could have left both parties calmer.

2) If I'm remembering correctly and White did report to you that Lowe had visited del Moral, however peripherally, why do you think Matt thought that was an okay thing to do? If you had noticed it then, would you have fired him on the spot, or would you have had an explicit talk with the team about it to ensure everyone was on the same page?

 

[JV1973]

edit: I wrote this before realizing I had missed the last several dozen replies - pardon if it's been covered, oops.

Didn't you sign off on a sheet months before that had mentioned the del Moral and Lowe visit? I believe you addressed that awhile ago (when it was a hot issue) by saying you didn't really look at the details of every paper that came across your desk, and regretting the oversight. But I can't remember.

Two things, then, that I hope you can elaborate on now that things seem settled for a long time on that issue:

1) You say if Lowe had acted differently and apologized, you would have responded differently. You also just said you wish you had acted differently. Not sure if you mean not ignoring his emails in the first place when things were reasonable, or asking him to sit down when he came on confrontationally, or what. But I'm just curious how that incident has been incorporated into your procedures now. Like, do you check every paper carefully? Do you communicate with riders differently? Do you delegate those things to someone with less of an inclination to be stubborn? That's more of a boring HR question than a salacious doping question, but I'm curious, because it seems to me like an administrative oversight and then a poorly-handled HR situation blew a bunch of things up that could have left both parties calmer.

2) If I'm remembering correctly and White did report to you that Lowe had visited del Moral, however peripherally, why do you think Matt thought that was an okay thing to do? If you had noticed it then, would you have fired him on the spot, or would you have had an explicit talk with the team about it to ensure everyone was on the same page?

I have to run, so I can't get into detail, but I would like to address the first part. No, I never signed off on anything re del moral. A blood test with his stamp (no letterhead) was sent to the uci as part of Trent's quarterly testing requirement. The riders are free to use whatever lab they like for the quarterly health check blood tests. This is not part of the bio passport.

While I may have been cc'd on it being sent to the uci, I do not open non biopass blood tests unless the doctors or rider asks me to look. It is their private health record.

I do keep track of biopass tests, because I have permission from the riders to do so.

Non biopass lab tests cannot be used for anti doping purposes, as they aren't calibrated to that standard.

 

[JV1973]

edit: I wrote this before realizing I had missed the last several dozen replies - pardon if it's been covered, oops.

Didn't you sign off on a sheet months before that had mentioned the del Moral and Lowe visit? I believe you addressed that awhile ago (when it was a hot issue) by saying you didn't really look at the details of every paper that came across your desk, and regretting the oversight. But I can't remember.

Two things, then, that I hope you can elaborate on now that things seem settled for a long time on that issue:

1) You say if Lowe had acted differently and apologized, you would have responded differently. You also just said you wish you had acted differently. Not sure if you mean not ignoring his emails in the first place when things were reasonable, or asking him to sit down when he came on confrontationally, or what. But I'm just curious how that incident has been incorporated into your procedures now. Like, do you check every paper carefully? Do you communicate with riders differently? Do you delegate those things to someone with less of an inclination to be stubborn? That's more of a boring HR question than a salacious doping question, but I'm curious, because it seems to me like an administrative oversight and then a poorly-handled HR situation blew a bunch of things up that could have left both parties calmer.

2) If I'm remembering correctly and White did report to you that Lowe had visited del Moral, however peripherally, why do you think Matt thought that was an okay thing to do? If you had noticed it then, would you have fired him on the spot, or would you have had an explicit talk with the team about it to ensure everyone was on the same page?

Oh, and no, Matt never mentioned, even in passing, del moral. I had testified to the Feds by the time Matt sent him to del moral. I would have to have been truly insane to ok that, right after giving testimony regarding del moral.

Apart the the basic fact it was just a bad idea.

 

[ToreBear]

Blood profiles are more art than science sometimes. Labs can read differently, especially with retics. The body can dilute and concentrate blood based on temperature, altitude, and a whole myriad of stuff.

In diagnosis for illnesses, a 48 vs a 52 hct is irrelevant. But anti doping requires greater precision than diagnosing illness. Irony there.

Labs being a little off here and there is a whole can of worms. Or go drink a couple of bottles of wine. Get tested the next day. You're hct will be around 53, if you were 49.5 normally. Interesting, eh? Try it. Send in th results.

If it makes you feel better, at my last check up, I tested at 53.4.

Damn JV your more man than I am! Yours is bigger!

I think my doctor would get a stroke if I came drunk for the blood test that was supposed see if my D vitamin levels were up to acceptable levels. You cured my vitamin deficiency doctor, but now I can't stop drinking!

But yes testing procedures is a complicating variable. I would not expect my blood to be tested to the same standards as that of an anti doping test. Weather my hgb is 16.5 or 17.0 is of no consequence for me, but for an athlete before the introduction of the bio passport, those values would be essential.

But would all that wine only effect the hematocrit or would it effect the hgb values too? As far as I understand it the alcohol would remove water from the blood and increase the hematocrit levels. I thought one benefit of using hgb in measuring for doping was less fluctuation in values due to external factors?

By the way do you remember when the UCI went over to focusing on hgb instead of hct? I seem to remember they added a few parameters and focused more on hgb in the early 2000s or something?


One experiment that would be interesting though, is to quit smoking and see if it has an effect on my hgb. In theory if those red cells didn't have to transport all that nicotine I wouldn't need that many of them and my hgb would drop. If that were to happen I would have discovered a new way to elevate hgb. Start smoking!

 

[Merckx index]

But would all that wine only effect the hematocrit or would it effect the hgb values too? As far as I understand it the alcohol would remove water from the blood and increase the hematocrit levels. I thought one benefit of using hgb in measuring for doping was less fluctuation in values due to external factors?

Hemoglobin and hematocrit change pretty much in lockstep, unless one is measuring total Hb, as opposed to Hb per unit volume. But there is no approved test at present for measuring total Hb. When anti-doping tests like the passport refer to Hb, they are talking about Hb/unit volume, not total Hb.

I don’t know about JV’s claim that drinking wine increases HT. Studies have shown that alcoholics have lower than normal HTs, though often acute and chronic consumption of substances have opposite effects. I guess if the dehydration is significant, and you don't drink any water, HT would rise some. In any case, if you follow JV’s recommendation to drink a “couple of bottles” of wine, you will have other problems to worry about. I think, I hope, JV, you meant a “couple of glasses” of wine!

One experiment that would be interesting though, is to quit smoking and see if it has an effect on my hgb. In theory if those red cells didn't have to transport all that nicotine I wouldn't need that many of them and my hgb would drop. If that were to happen I would have discovered a new way to elevate hgb. Start smoking!

Red cells don’t transport nicotine, except some that dissolves incidentally in the cell membrane. Smoking does elevate HT, but that’s because the carbon monoxide present in smoke decreases oxygen transport, triggering a compensatory mechanism, as has been discussed in the Clinic before (i.e., use of CO to increase HT).

 

[Parker]

JV

If I may ask some questions, not all about doping I afraid.

1. Dan Martin - is he going to amount to anything? He threatens, but has yet to do much.

2. Talansky - is he ready to challenge for GTs this year?

3. Rohan Dennis- better than Talansky or Hesjedal in the long run?

4. How do you deal with Rasmussen getting an 18 months ban for bad paper work, while big cheats for several years only get 6 months.

 

[ToreBear]

Hemoglobin and hematocrit change pretty much in lockstep, unless one is measuring total Hb, as opposed to Hb per unit volume. But there is no approved test at present for measuring total Hb. When anti-doping tests like the passport refer to Hb, they are talking about Hb/unit volume, not total Hb.

I don’t know about JV’s claim that drinking wine increases HT. Studies have shown that alcoholics have lower than normal HTs, though often acute and chronic consumption of substances have opposite effects. I guess if the dehydration is significant, and you don't drink any water, HT would rise some. In any case, if you follow JV’s recommendation to drink a “couple of bottles” of wine, you will have other problems to worry about. I think, I hope, JV, you meant a “couple of glasses” of wine!

I think JV really loves wine, so I didn't want to risk putting him on the spot for drinking to much wine like you just did.

Thanks for the explanation! Do you know by the way what kind of variance would be considered within normal limits in regards to hgb levels. I think there is a difference between periods of heavy training when it would be expected the values would be below normal and perhaps rested returning from altitude when the values were expected to be at it's highest?

I have an idea that one can expect a lot of variation, but I'm not sure how much.

Red cells don’t transport nicotine, except some that dissolves incidentally in the cell membrane. Smoking does elevate HT, but that’s because the carbon monoxide present in smoke decreases oxygen transport, triggering a compensatory mechanism, as has been discussed in the Clinic before (i.e., use of CO to increase HT).

I guess my dreams of a Nobel prize in medicine just got squashed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You should care because cycling has a severe trust problem. Having a prominent rider like Cancellara publicly ostracizing riders who were clients of Dr. Fuentes, some of whom like Sevilla and Botero were never formally sanctioned, when he himself was a client smells very bad. Aside from being way up there on the d-bag scale, it makes people question everything pro cyclists say. This is one of those things that drops fans' jaws because it is hard to imagine anyone being that big of an a-hole. It is not an isolated incident. These sorts of perplexing statements seem to be made all the time.

All true - but aren't we taking a Pro (Hamilton) at his word, when he hardly would know. I checked and they did not overlap at CSC, so how would he 100% know? The had code-names for a reason, and as inept as Fuentes &co were I doubt they had all the names stuck on the fridge - although it might not have been bad idea.
Educated guess, yip - and one that would not be a surprise but the Pro circuit has more rumors than this place.


Anyway - this is my take on what really happened at Cali 08 - Cipolini was with rock Racing........

 

[skidmark]

Oh, and no, Matt never mentioned, even in passing, del moral. I had testified to the Feds by the time Matt sent him to del moral. I would have to have been truly insane to ok that, right after giving testimony regarding del moral.

Apart the the basic fact it was just a bad idea.

According to the article below, he was sent in June 2009, so you must mean you testified to the feds before you found out in December 2010, not before he was sent, right?

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that White mentioned it, in passing or directly, I meant 'however peripherally' in the sense that I was under the impression that White had sent info to the UCI through you for you to okay. That's from memory of stuff that happened 2 years ago, so now I see that you were copied on that info, it didn't go 'through' you, which I could see why you'd defend against that impression. And I don't see mention that White sent it, but rather 'the team physician', so that must have been my brain filling in gaps. Didn't take much homework to find the article that gave me that impression, should've done it before I wrote.

But anyway, I didn't ask/imply that you thought it was okay, I asked why you thought Matt White thought it was a good idea. Like, was it not clear enough that that was your policy? Was he just being, frankly, stupid and/or careless? I'm just curious how an incident like that can change the way you handle things on your team, because it must have left you guys a bit shaken. I unwittingly obfuscated my own point by unintentionally accusing you of something more serious than the actual facts.

Anyway, 2 minutes of searching and reading gave me what I was looking for, from this article. I think careless reading/2 years passed time made me think that Lowe had told you via email that he had gone to del Moral in 2009, not in December 2010 in the first sentence:

Lowe took his third quarterly health check - which requires a blood test, as mandated by the UCI - in June 2009 and in December last year the rider told Vaughters via email that this procedure had taken place in del Moral's clinic.

"The quarterly health check does not require you to go to a doctor - it doesn't require any interaction with a doctor who could prescribe medicines or a treatment to you," explained Vaughters.

"It's simply that the rider, of his own volition, can go to any clinic and he simply gives them a list of different elements that need to be tested for in his blood that is required by the UCI - that clinic then sends those results to the rider and then he would send those to [Slipstream Sports doctor] Prentice Steffen and Prentice then sends it onto the UCI.

"We make absolutely no requirements [regarding the choice of doctor to conduct the health check]," continued Vaughters. "Is it annoying that he went to del Moral's clinic? Sure. But that was his choice and since there's no interaction with the doctor or medicines being prescribed as a result of that, we're not going to require that the rider goes to a certain clinic because they're just going for a quarterly blood test - as is required by the UCI."

Vaughters explained the implications inherent in Lowe's correspondence thus: "I think that they're implicitly saying, 'Look, here's some letterhead that you didn't read, we're going to go public and show that you were complicit'. Prentice or myself can't name any letterhead on any of the riders' [letters] who have sent in their quarterly exam.

"It's not something that we look at - we're focused on the data. When you go into a clinic for a blood test this is not an interaction where medications could be prescribed or treatment could be prescribed. It is simply an interaction to get a test that is then sent to the team physician which is then sent to the UCI," he continued.

"All of these clinics have an attending physician, and the attending physician was del Moral. Did we miss that on the letterhead? Yes we did. But is that nefarious and imply complicity? I certainly don't think so but that's the threat here.

 

[Runitout]

Skidmark,

In that article you quoted, JV is full of horses&$t. You do need to see a doctor for your quarterly medical. And Lowe didn't go to del Moral of his own volition, he did it because JV's no2 told him to.

I have some real issues with the way JV has handled this one. It's one thing to treat a rider suffering from chronic fatigue as a malingerer unfit to race grand tours. It's another still to renege on one's contractual obligations for a ****weak reason just after his next team and paycheck have vanished. It's another still to crucify him before a slavering media. And then to back it up by saying things that aren't right...

I hope you treat the current talents on your list with a bit more care when they are overtrained, and answer their emails before you come here to post.

 

[Athame]

One of the most hypocritical ones of the [former] peloton is though. What a farce he was in 2004/2005. He could have won the Tour if he wanted.

_____________ The Cricket?

 

[Benotti69]

JV

If I may ask some questions, not all about doping I afraid.

1. Dan Martin - is he going to amount to anything? He threatens, but has yet to do much.

2. Talansky - is he ready to challenge for GTs this year?

3. Rohan Dennis- better than Talansky or Hesjedal in the long run?

4. How do you deal with Rasmussen getting an 18 months ban for bad paper work, while big cheats for several years only get 6 months.

Do you believe Rasmussen when he says it was sloppy paperwork or was he avoiding the vampires to avoid a positive?

 

[peterst6906]

JV, at risk of being too nice, I think that was a good article.

The self-flagellation isn't probably so heavily deserved as you expressed it, but the idea to fix this going forward is much better than other administrators in cycling have been prepared to accept up to this point.

Kudos for looking at it the way you are.

Regards,

Peter

PS. Sorry about the bikes. Hope they are all returned undamaged.

 

[Race Radio]

Great piece by JV

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jo...e-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping

He hit it on the head. Remove the UCI from Anti-doping and fund it properly

 

[Jeremiah]

Great piece by JV

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jo...e-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping

He hit it on the head. Remove the UCI from Anti-doping and fund it properly

About the "great piece." I disagree completely. Too many words by the guy.

He could have said it all with your second sentence which I agree with 100%.

I read the piece and after all that has gone before it just made me tired.

And I'm not blaming him either. He's just too warped by the culture and I'm a little annoyed that I had to sit through his "evolution" to reach your second sentence which was clear as day, FROM THE BEGINNING.

But for some reason, he's on the inside, and it was thought change could come from the inside so we had to listen to justifications and legalisms...

Tyler evolved, Floyd evolved, I even suspect Lance will evolve. But this whole idea, that we had to go through JV and people like him, that he was being "strategic" and was being "tactical" is why we find ourselves where we are.

The answers are very simple, and it always leads back to the Truth. It's obvious but people always find the need to argue that inarguable fact.

Lou Mannheim: Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss.

It was and always will be a character issue. JV is human, we all are. The problem arises because JV like LA think they are bigger than others and want to be in control of "outcomes."

We still see it with his need to "correct" people on here all the time. Yeah he's right on just about everything, but he was very wrong on the big picture.

And whether likes that or not it's the character issue.

 

[sniper]

Great piece by JV

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jo...e-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping

He hit it on the head. Remove the UCI from Anti-doping and fund it properly

JV wants it both ways. Cycling is much much cleaner, yet the testing system mus be radically changed. Which one is it?

More problematic: why is he taking so much heat off the UCI? Why isn't he calling them out? Of course "we" are all to blame. But it's as obvious as the light of day that the UCI need to assume responsibility for two decades of farcical cycling. JV fails deserately to point this out.

JV, could you give us some insight into what you have invested in the UCI?
Is it fear of retribution? Is there no life for Garmin without Pat?

And no mention of the hopelessly flawed blood passport in that piece. Didn'T we owe it to the passport that cycling is in such a healthy state at present?

 

[mastersracer]

Great piece by JV

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jo...e-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping

He hit it on the head. Remove the UCI from Anti-doping and fund it properly

That may be a good start, but anti-doping won't begin to be effective until cycling, or any other sport, changes the frame and confronts the problem in terms of structural incentives rather than as an individual, moral issue.

 

[Jeremiah]

You answer your own question...

JV wants it both ways. Cycling is much much cleaner, yet the testing system mus be radically changed. Which one is it?

More problematic: why is he taking so much heat off the UCI? Why isn't he calling them out? Of course "we" are all to blame. But it's as obvious as the light of day that the UCI need to assume responsibility for two decades of farcical cycling. JV fails deserately to point this out.

JV, could you give us some insight into what you have invested in the UCI?
Is it fear of retribution? Is there no life for Garmin without Pat?

And no mention of the hopelessly flawed blood passport in that piece. Didn'T we owe it to the passport that cycling is in such a healthy state at present?

The answer is also provided by JV's own words.

He was always very sensitive about being in the "cool kids" club. It takes precedence over doing the right thing.

So when push comes to shove, and it comes down to maintaining his status, or doing the right thing, he's most likely not going to.

This is why we see justfication upon justification, my staff, my family, my riders, whatever.

If those people are relying on you because of your lies, they are not worth much anyway....

As I noted, his routine is getting very tiresome.

 

[Jeremiah]

That may be a good start, but anti-doping won't begin to be effective until cycling, or any other sport, changes the frame and confronts the problem in terms of structural incentives rather than as an individual, moral issue.

C'est la vie. It always was and always will be a moral issue. Sorry.