JV talks, sort of

[Dr. Maserati]

to the underscored: why is he not in a position to criticize Phat? He was in a position to threaten with starting a breakaway league together with our friend Johan.

I am pretty sure he has been mildly critical of Pat - but even if he hasn't his actual real life job title (not his twitter profile) is that of GM of a company that employs approx 80 people.
McQiad is corrupt, powerful and vindictive - which is why he should go - but its also why JV cannot afford to cross him, publicly.

And if he had started a breakaway league - guess what, he would have broken away from Pat.That problem is then solved.

to the bold: didn't I say lukewarm?

You did - and its still wrong.

JV said clearly it was wrong to go after PK, that anin't lukewarm.

independent testing is the issue, but it had been spelled out already by CCN. Not as if it's JV's idea. And as I said, he proposes it at a time when it is least controversial and most beneficial for his mainstream image as doping fighter.

So, JV can only come up with new ideas? Seriously?

CCN were not the first to mention independent testing, i have been saying it here for years. Its not all that new or even revolutionary, just common sense.

btw, did you read the rest of that opinion piece? Indeed, it's fluff.
I'm not sure why you feel a need to stand up for fluff, rather than just calling it fluff.

What opinion piece?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

bottom line: with his current positions, claims, statements, etc., I think JV frustrates change, rather than triggering it.
as MJM said: reactive rather than proactive
(and that's my point also with his call for independent testing: reactive, and at a PR-strategically smart moment. Not proactive).

He was doing independent testing years ago. Before the Bio Passport.

He was actually doing what you accuse him of only reacting to.

And to remind you - this is what started tonights preceding when you wrote:
look how frankly he talks before the topic comes to doping. then, bam, stutter stutter, empty semantics.
That should be your sig about you.

 

[sniper]

I am pretty sure he has been mildly critical of Pat - but even if he hasn't his actual real life job title (not his twitter profile) is that of GM of a company that employs approx 80 people.
McQiad is corrupt, powerful and vindictive - which is why he should go - but its also why JV cannot afford to cross him, publicly.

And if he had started a breakaway league - guess what, he would have broken away from Pat.That problem is then solved.


You did - and its still wrong.

JV said clearly it was wrong to go after PK, that anin't lukewarm.



So, JV can only come up with new ideas? Seriously?

CCN were not the first to mention independent testing, i have been saying it here for years. Its not all that new or even revolutionary, just common sense.

What opinion piece?

Of course, you have some good points and I read you.
My beef is with statements like these: "these young lads they're so lucky to be riding now"...(JV on TourChat)
Excuse me?
Rumors have just surfaced that Sky might be doping genetically. Great times indeed.
And even if it's only conventional doping what Sky and the Spanish/Italian/Belgian/Dutch/Australian boys are doing, I don't see how any clean young rider can compete in this field.

It also depends on what you make of guys like Wiggo 2009, and Hesjedal and Talansky. You perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt. (Do you?) I have serious doubts about at least Wiggo 2009 and Hesjedal 2012. If it would turn out that one of them (or both) were doping, it would shed very uncomfortable light on basically all of JV's claims and statements.

 

[webvan]

Of course, you have some good points and I read you.
My beef is with statements like these: "these young lads they're so lucky to be riding now"...(JV on TourChat)
Excuse me?
Rumors have just surfaced that Sky might be doping genetically. Great times indeed.
And even if it's only conventional doping what Sky and the Spanish/Italian/Belgian/Dutch/Australian boys are doing, I don't see how any clean young rider can compete in this field.

It also depends on what you make of guys like Hesjedal and Talansky. You perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt. (Do you?) I prefer to consider them dopers until I've seen some evidence to the contrary.

Dude, you need to go and get a brain, this is getting seriously ridiculous...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You would have good points if, and only if, JV wouldn't be saying things like: "these young lads they're so lucky to be riding now"...
excuse me?

You do understand what JV went through with Santa Claria right through to CA? right?

Even on the massive anti-doping team SC his boss eventually buckled and said the riders could start 're-balancing'?

If his team are not putting their riders under pressure to dope, then he is correct saying they are lucky. 100% correct.

[B]Rumors have just surfaced that Sky might be doping genetically.[/B] But even if it's conventional doping what Sky and the Spanish/Italian/Belgian/Dutch/Australian boys are doing, I don't see how any clean young rider can compete in this field.

I am going to be polite and ignore the blue - even if it was true, this (ridiculous) story only appeared yesterday. How was JV supposed to know about it?

Quick question for you - was Bassons doping, yes or no?

It also depends on what you make of guys like Wiggo 2009, and Hesjedal and Talansky. You perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt. (Do you?) I have serious doubts about at least Wiggo 2009 and Hesjedal 2012. If it would turn out that one of them (or both) were doping, it would shed very uncomfortable light on basically all of JV's claims and statements.

Duh - if the people JV says he thinks are clean are not clean then yes,it makes it very uncomfortable for him.

Wiggo 09 could have been doping behind JVs back. I don't know.

 

[sniper]

your JV cup is clearly half full (or completely full?), mine is half empty (tending towards completely empty). And really, there are moments when I'm anxious to give him the benefit of the doubt, but when I see the Sky train, I can't help but think JV's been keeping us for fools.

How was JV supposed to know about it?

ehm, 20 years of cycling doesn't suffice for a little sense of realism?
he's supposed to know that top athletes will look for advantages in doping, especially if the remuneration is as good as it is, and the testing as bad as it is. he shouldn't be pretending otherwise, but he often is. I think that's misleading.

on the topic of testing: JV has defended the passport even after we had learned how the UCI has fully corrupted it as well as used it to give Lance a pass. I think that too is misleading.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

your JV cup is clearly half full (or completely full?), mine is half empty (tending towards completely empty). And really, there are moments when I'm anxious to give him the benefit of the doubt, but when I see the Sky train, I can't help but think JV's been keeping us for fools.

I don't even know what that means?
Don't worry, I get that its some juvenile thing that I support JV.
I don't, I am very open minded on the guy - but every single thing you bring up I take apart (every single thing) because you usually make up stuff and when I ask a question you ignore it.

Then you have the temerity to start saying JV goes all 'ho-hum' on stuff.

ehm, 20 years of cycling doesn't suffice for a little sense of realism?
he's supposed to know that top athletes will look for advantages in doping, especially if the remuneration is as good as it is, and the testing as bad as it is. he shouldn't be pretending otherwise, but he constantly is.

JV was one of those people - he has forgotten more than you would ever know.

But you rumour, is just that. Not worthy of comment.

on the topic of testing: more hypocricy from JV: he's defended the passport even after we had learned how the UCI has fully corrupted it as well as used it to give Lance a pass.

You do realize that the Passport is officially independent of the UCI since then right (its ok, don't answer)

However, the BP difficulty is that well funded riders could out spend the UCI if action was taken against them. For me it works reasonably well for most riders but a lot of room for the top guys still.

 

[sniper]

I don't even know what that means?
Don't worry, I get that its some juvenile thing that I support JV.
I don't, I am very open minded on the guy - but every single thing you bring up I take apart (every single thing) because you usually make up stuff and when I ask a question you ignore it.

Then you have the temerity to start saying JV goes all 'ho-hum' on stuff.



JV was one of those people - he has forgotten more than you would ever know.

But you rumour, is just that. Not worthy of comment.

You do realize that the Passport is officially independent of the UCI since then right (its ok, don't answer)

However, the BP difficulty is that well funded riders could out spend the UCI if action was taken against them. For me it works reasonably well for most riders but a lot of room for the top guys still.

Not sure what you took apart.
But my issues with JV are still my issues with JV.
JV reactive, not proactive.
JV frustrating change, not triggering it.
If you see how he's triggered change, let me know.
If you see where he's been proactive, let me know.

It's all understandable from a DS point of view, sure.
But dare I expect a bit more from a guy screaming off the rooftops that he's dedicated his life to anti-doping?

You stress the part about JV that is understandable (his business orientation, and his tasks as a DS). I stress the disappointing part about him.
In that sense we are complementary.

Anyway, it's past my bedtime. Will be back with a vengeance tomorrow

 

[goggalor]

You do understand what JV went through with Santa Claria right through to CA? right?

From what I've read there was an little bit of an anti-doping culture at CA, but Vaughters basically ignored it and kept charging.

I do think riders today are lucky they weren't young pros ten years ago, but I don't think it was bad luck that made Vaughters, Floyd, Armstrong and the others posties dopers. To be honest, I think that's just another bull**** excuse. Many, many talented riders refused to dope, because cheating wasn't in their DNA. Those who "gave in" were different. Even in a cleaner peloton, if given the chance, I bet most of them would cheat simply to get an edge, or to help them become the rider they felt entitled to be.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not sure what you took apart.
But my issues with JV are still my issues with JV.
JV reactive, not proactive.
JV frustrating change, not triggering it.
If you see how he's triggered change, let me know.
If you see where he's been proactive, let me know.

It's all understandable from a DS point of view, sure.
But dare I expect a bit more from a guy screaming off the rooftops that he's dedicated his life to anti-doping?

You stress the part about JV that is understandable (his business orientation, and his tasks as a DS). I stress the disappointing part about him.
In that sense we are complementary.

Anyway, it's past my bedtime. Will be back with a vengeance tomorrow

I will give you another crack at this.
What exactly do you want of JV and or expect him to do? Be clear. And remember he is a GM of a team, that's it.

And to answer your above - I know you're ignoring it in favor of something catchy, but introducing internal testing before the passport was very proactive.
I assume the frustrating change is not going on twitter calling out Sky for using genetically modified whateveritswas.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

From what I've read there was an little bit of an anti-doping culture at CA, but Vaughters basically ignored it and kept charging.

Not through it all - but yes.
Leagy wanted them clean, but was also feeling the pressure to do well from the sponsors.

I do think riders today are lucky they weren't young pros ten years ago, but I don't think it was bad luck that made Vaughters, Floyd, Armstrong and the others posties dopers. To be honest, I think that's just another bull**** excuse. Many, many talented riders refused to dope, because cheating wasn't in their DNA. Those who "gave in" were different. Even in a cleaner peloton, if given the chance, I bet most of them would cheat simply to get an edge, or to help them become the rider they felt entitled to be.

You make some fair points, but he DNa argument is ridiculous.
There will always be people willing to dope - but at various points it was nearly impossible to stay unless you doped. But the ones who went home or didn't dope are indeed the ones who deserve full respect.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Hey, Sniper and Mas;

I would guarantee that JV is anti dope. As much as I could guarantee anything. You know why? Because HE is anti dope. Personally. Himself.

He can't talk about Sky, or Ryder, or Talansky, or anyone else. Even his whole team.

We know there are many f*ckers that are going to charge. Many. Even if it's not covertly part of the team structure.

His stance is a heap more than any other ex-rider or DS has done or said. Even before the cache of LA.

Sure, he may not be as hardcore as some would like (myself included), but it's not a bad thing having him in the sport.

It beats the hell out of Riis et al...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Even in a cleaner peloton, if given the chance, I bet most of them would cheat simply to get an edge, or to help them become the rider they felt entitled to be.

As the sport is run today, this is absolutely true.

If the federation tried to go legitimate and just let WADA run anti-doping, then I think the smarter riders would be discouraged from doping. Not because of some change in their internal moral life, but because the risk of being caught is too great.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Hey, Sniper and Mas;

I would guarantee that JV is anti dope. As much as I could guarantee anything. You know why? Because HE is anti dope. Personally. Himself.

How do you know this? He doped at CA when told not to.

Without the USP of "an antidoping team", how else could he convince Doug Ellis to start a pro team? That's their unique selling proposition: team clean.

Take that away and it's just another professional cycling team. They certainly weren't going to win anything.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

How do you know this? He doped at CA when told not to.

Without the USP of "an antidoping team", how else could he convince Doug Ellis to start a pro team? That's their unique selling proposition: team clean.

Take that away and it's just another professional cycling team. They certainly weren't going to win anything.

Strictly based on his coming clean before he ever 'had' to. That's not the action of someone complicit in the lie. No extended period of crying and denying, no p*ssing at media about how they have it wrong in cycling, no eating a short off-season ban to get back in the action, none of the 'normal' bullsh*t.

Contrast that with everyone else implicated in doping.

I am certainly not trying to defend the 'clean team', or even the 'no needles' screen.

I was just pointing out that, by all accounts, JV is PERSONALLY anti dope. And that's ALL we can give him credit for.

The rest is PR...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How do you know this? He doped at CA when told not to.

Without the USP of "an antidoping team", how else could he convince Doug Ellis to start a pro team? That's their unique selling proposition: team clean.

Take that away and it's just another professional cycling team. They certainly weren't going to win anything.

He had a conti team set up before Ellis arrived.

Then why not just be like "another professional cycling team"? Surely thats a lot easier than saying running a clean team? You think Ellis is the only person with money?

 

[Tinman]

What makes JV different from the rest is that he sees the future quicker than most. He figured early that doping was going to become the central theme in (the) sport and that CLEAN is the only way forward. So that became his dogma.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

Hey, Sniper and Mas;

I would guarantee that JV is anti dope. As much as I could guarantee anything. You know why? Because HE is anti dope. Personally. Himself.

He can't talk about Sky, or Ryder, or Talansky, or anyone else. Even his whole team.

We know there are many f*ckers that are going to charge. Many. Even if it's not covertly part of the team structure.

His stance is a heap more than any other ex-rider or DS has done or said. Even before the cache of LA.

Sure, he may not be as hardcore as some would like (myself included), but it's not a bad thing having him in the sport.

It beats the hell out of Riis et al...

This post made sense before ending in ludicrous irony.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

This post made sense before ending in ludicrous irony.

Easy, buddy! Ludicrous irony is the only leg I have to stand on...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Easy, buddy! Ludicrous irony is the only leg I have to stand on...

Good post, JMB.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

Easy, buddy! Ludicrous irony is the only leg I have to stand on...

Hopefully you realise what I'm referring to then...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What makes JV different from the rest is that he sees the future quicker than most. He figured early that doping was going to become the central theme in (the) sport and that CLEAN is the only way forward. So that became his dogma.

It sounds lovely, but that isn't it either.

JV left the sport in Europe in 2002, he came back from riding there to doing a small bit of racing again in the US. It was probably the first time he just enjoyed racing (and the scene) in a long time.
And he was also looking at the genuine talent there, all wanting to go to Europe and be the next lance.

And he was looking at it like a returning vet after a hard fought war.

 

[JV1973]

He had a conti team set up before Ellis arrived.

Then why not just be like "another professional cycling team"? Surely thats a lot easier than saying running a clean team? You think Ellis is the only person with money?

Just a point of clarification: Ellis convinced me to do a pro team. I told him it was a bad idea. He found me, not vis-a-versa. In retrospect, he was right.

Reactive vs Proactive: Someday the full story will be divulged. It will change your opinion, Sniper (or whoever)... but in the interim, I cannot be as "hardcore" as you folks would like, as I actually hold a position in the structures you discuss. My grievances have to be aired via appropriate channels - Ones that have actual power and ability to change things. As wonderful as Aschenden et al are in their unwavering positions, they can't actually impart ANY change without some weasely *******s like myself on the interior doing the politicking of moving things forward on their behalf. Put more simply, neither here, on a forum, nor in the press, can I take a position which would make me untenable by those with more moderate views, because they are needed to do the less glorious work of actual progress.

but I have patience that that with time my role will be better understood.

In the interim, could we just quit this thread? It's hurtful to me.

Moderators? Please?

Thanks, JV

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just a point of clarification: Ellis convinced me to do a pro team. I told him it was a bad idea. He found me, not vis-a-versa. In retrospect, he was right.

Reactive vs Proactive: Someday the full story will be divulged. It will change your opinion, Sniper (or whoever)... but in the interim, I cannot be as "hardcore" as you folks would like, as I actually hold a position in the structures you discuss. My grievances have to be aired via appropriate channels - Ones that have actual power and ability to change things. As wonderful as Aschenden et al are in their unwavering positions, they can't actually impart ANY change without some weasely *******s like myself on the interior doing the politicking of moving things forward on their behalf. Put more simply, neither here, on a forum, nor in the press, can I take a position which would make me untenable by those with more moderate views, because they are needed to do the less glorious work of actual progress.

but I have patience that that with time my role will be better understood.

In the interim, could we just quit this thread? It's hurtful to me.

Moderators? Please?

Thanks, JV

Can I ask, why is it hurtful to you?

Because quite frankly, it is easy to see that the 2 or 3 detractors here have no coherent point. They need to look through some tweet you sent to some person who asked some random question to misquote you.
I think they are only getting their rocks off by winding up a 'DS'.


And for what its worth - I did a quick read on Doug, and see that he was the one who reached out to you - and you went along with the plan because in part David Walsh said bout the juniors ""What do they have to go on to?"

 

[JV1973]

Can I ask, why is it hurtful to you?

Because quite frankly, it is easy to see that the 2 or 3 detractors here have no coherent point. They need to look through some tweet you sent to some person who asked some random question to misquote you.
I think they are only getting their rocks off by winding up a 'DS'.


And for what its worth - I did a quick read on Doug, and see that he was the one who reached out to you - and you went along with the plan because in part David Walsh said bout the juniors ""What do they have to go on to?"

Maybe I'm just being a sensitive wuss?!