JV talks, sort of

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Nope. never saw it. Conditional on me actually signing a contract, but never got to that point. Just telephone calls.

The question then should be, who gave you his testing numbers?

 

[sniper]

It's sad enough that JV pretends to be unaware of all the eyebroweraising stuff. My BS barometer is peaking.

 

[blackcat]

JV is wearing a nice argyle flat cap there.

oh, that not JV.

oh, thats not a flatcap, thats a newsboy cap.

oh, thats not argyle, thats tartan

 

[Catwhoorg]

Thanks JV.

 

[sniper]

No. It's just what i believe at the moment. And the science backs me up. That doesn't mean we have fundamental and permanent change. It means, in early 2013, you can do damn well in top level professional cycling, clean. That was so far from reality in 1996, 2000, 2003, whatever... So far. So, why would I not say that when it's best thing I've seen in 20 years? That's not marking, it's happiness.

Now, does this mean it's clean? No necessarily. But it does mean that whatever doping is being employed, is not nearly as effective as it was. So, its either close to being clean or the doses are so small that it is not having a meaningful impact on the racing. The answer to which? I don't know.

I'd prefer a painting over a statue.

i bet your bankaccount gives you plenty of reason for happiness. sponsors not running away. all eyes on lance, etc.

meanwhile your riders are loosing races against possibly doped up riders and you're happy? you were happy also in 2009, when your rider lost a podium place against a doped up lance. All the hard team work for nothing, yet you were happy.
tomorrow you'll come in here again telling us how difficult it has all been.

 

[JV1973]

JV, you've mentioned before that the current state of antidoping, where clean riders can perform at the highest level, is by no means assured to last, that culture and science have met at a certain point to create this window, and that this is the time to apply further structural and cultural changes so that the situation isn't reversed. I like that you don't have a linear approach to doping: neither "things can never change and doping will always be widespread" nor "history is constant betterment and progress".

Your stated position allows for the possibility of regression. What would it take for you to think (or say openly) that regression may be taking place? As you know, many of us aren't convinced by "physiologically possible watt numbers" alone.

I don't think regression is taking place, now. But imagine you get a Gewiss 1994 type situation in the peloton with some new, undetectable, drug. You think Sky look good now? Go look at Gewiss in Flèche Wallone in 1994. They not only road tempo, but they kept riding to the line to finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd...

Anyhow, if that type of event happened again in cycling (while many used EPO pre Gewiss, I see that event as the milestone from individuals using it to entire teams using it. It's the change from Andy Hampsten getting 8th in LeTour in 1993, beaten by individuals on EPO, to him getting 53rd in the 1995 Giro, whole teams using EPO. Use went to "obligatory" if you want to be competitive in 1994)...So, if that happened again, with a totally undetectable substance that was easily used and massively effective, then I don't see the structure changes in place that would prevent it. I see a lot of guys (most) that I parade around as being clean, today, being drawn into the arms race and doping.

If you look at Pat's quotes from yesterday, "look at Mark Cavendish and Brad Wiggins..." Now, these riders may be clean. I think they are. But, as president of the UCI, he should show ZERO bias towards any rider. He doesn't know and I can sure as **** tell you he can't make nuanced scientific arguments like I do. He has no clue, yet he holds these individuals up because he likes them and they are anglo. That, to me, says that if we had Gewiss 2.0, he'd hold them up as well. He shouldn't disparage the sport, he should say nothing about any individual. So, to my point, this shows me the structure does not exist to prevent the whole thing from happening again.

BUT... I think we've got a nice period of clean (hopefully) racing, right now. Enjoy.

And pray that structural changes come into place that have a hope of keeping it that way.

 

[JV1973]

i bet your bankaccount gives you plenty of reason for happiness. sponsors not running away. all eyes on lance, etc.

meanwhile your riders are loosing races against possibly doped up riders and you're happy? you were happy also in 2009, when your rider lost a podium place against a doped up lance. All the hard team work for nothing, yet you were happy.
tomorrow you'll come in here again telling us how difficult it has all been.

hey man, I'll take 4th place over 104th. That's the progress I see for clean riders. in 1996, my team would be fighting for best looking in the guy to miss the time cut.

 

[JV1973]

tall tho, what is he, 6'1"? weighs about Andy Schleck now, 145 lbs. not ideal for descending.

Brailsford tested him circa 09 and his numbers were at TDF winner level.

I'm a big fan of Froome.

The Clinic 12 think he is a fraud and a donkey. I point them to Levi.

well then, we agree on something, for once.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

BUT... I think we've got a nice period of clean (hopefully) racing, right now. Enjoy.

And pray that structural changes come into place that have a hope of keeping it that way.

We are back to 1999. Just you wait!

 

[JimmyFingers]

hey man, I'll take 4th place over 104th. That's the progress I see for clean riders. in 1996, my team would be fighting for best looking in the guy to miss the time cut.

Who would win? I'll go for Millar with his 'Chariots of Fire' haircut

 

[will10]

Yeah, in 2011 i wanted to sign Froome. I gave him an offer a few days before the Vuelta. I knew he produced massive numbers in testing, but wasn't converting it onto the road because he has poor bike handling and because he had major issues with recovery due to some parasite issues he's struggled with. Anyhow, he asked me to wait a few days, as he wanted to make sure that Sky wasn't going to give him an offer (at this point Sky wasn't going to give him a contract, Brailsford "had no budget left").....and in a few days he was leading the Vuelta. So, I guess dave found a few million Euro under the couch and my offer was discarded.

Annoying, that.

But, yes, Ive known Froome was talented for a while. Just very rough. he still is. Not terribly smooth in the peloton, still has relapses of the parasite issue. But he's a massive motor.

*This is not defending him from all the doping accusations* I'm just being factual regarding my opinions/knowledge on the topic.

Appreciate the response, thanks.

 

[Parrulo]

I don't think regression is taking place, now. But imagine you get a Gewiss 1994 type situation in the peloton with some new, undetectable, drug. You think Sky look good now? Go look at Gewiss in Flèche Wallone in 1994. They not only road tempo, but they kept riding to the line to finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd...

the thing is:

Paris - Nice, General classification

Rank Rider Team Time CQ
1. WIGGINS Bradley SKY 28h12'16" 240
2. WESTRA Lieuwe VCD 08" 180
3. VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro MOV 01'10" 145
4. SPILAK Simon KAT 01'24" 132
5. VAN GARDEREN Tejay BMC 01'54" 120
6. JEANNESSON Arnold FDJ 02'13" 108
7. MONFORT Maxime RNT 02'21" 96
8. CHAVANEL Sylvain OPQ 02'42" 85
9. KISERLOVSKI Robert AST 03'30" 74
10. VICIOSO ARCOS Angel KAT 03'59" 63

Tour de Romandie, General classification:

1. WIGGINS Bradley SKY 18h05'40" 240
2. TALANSKY Andrew GRS 12" 180
3. COSTA Rui Alberto Faria MOV 36" 145
4. PORTE Richie SKY 45" 132
5. ROGERS Michael SKY 50" 120
6. KREUZIGER Roman AST 59" 108
7. SZMYD Sylwester LIQ 01'03" 96
8. SPILAK Simon KAT 01'13" 85
9. BRAJKOVIC Janez AST 01'14" 74
10. SANCHEZ GIL Luis Leon RAB 01'15" 63


Critérium du Dauphiné, General classification:

1. WIGGINS Bradley SKY 26h40'46" 240
2. ROGERS Michael SKY 01'17" 180
3. EVANS Cadel BMC 01'26" 145
4. FROOME Chris SKY 01'45" 132
5. VAN DEN BROECK Jurgen LTB 02'12" 120
6. KIRYIENKA Vasil MOV 02'58" 108
7. BRAJKOVIC Janez AST 03'07" 96
8. KELDERMAN Wilco RAB 03'25" 85
9. PORTE Richie SKY 03'34" 74
10. ZUBELDIA AGIRRE Haimar RNT 03'50" 63

Tour de France, General classification:

1. WIGGINS Bradley SKY 87h34'47" 600
2. FROOME Chris SKY 03'21" 460
3. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 06'19" 380
4. VAN DEN BROECK Jurgen LTB 10'15" 320
5. VAN GARDEREN Tejay BMC 11'04" 290
6. ZUBELDIA AGIRRE Haimar RNT 15'41" 260
7. EVANS Cadel BMC 15'49" 230
8. ROLLAND Pierre EUC 16'26" 200
9. BRAJKOVIC Janez AST 16'33" 180
10. PINOT Thibaut FDJ 17'17" 160

Not exactly gewiss material, but not that bad either. Are we supposed to simply blindly accept this kind of domination with asking any questions? And it's not like sky isn't giving us more and more reasons to ask questions almost each day. . .

 

[JV1973]

You know, maybe the reason i get you guys in a huff about being so positive about racing now, isn't that I think it's perfect, it's that i lived through a time that was so much worse. 1995-1996 were ludicrous.

Try this on for size, in early 1996 I was tested at University of Pamplona. Vo2 max was 91ml/kg, threshold was 6w/kg, max power was 7.5 w/kg... i should have been kicking ***, right? I went to Vuelta Pays Basque that year. If I made a selection of 60 guys on a 2nd category climb, I was ecstatic! I would sit on 80th wheel, all day, and just suffer. I didn't even know what was going on in the race, I was just a spectator on wheels, with my heart rate at 180. It was ridiculous.

Maybe our misunderstanding is that I've experienced things, first hand, when they were really bad. Really, really, really bad. So, to me, now is such a stark contrast, I can't help but be a bit giddy (to your annoyance)...

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

JV, were you as annoyed as many of us at seeing team Sky cheat Talansky at Paris-Nice?

 

[sublimit]

I hope this puts the Froome 'came from nowhere' BS to bed. Like the usual club rider to Pro GC contender stuff that we usually see here.

 

[JV1973]

the thing is:

Paris - Nice, General classification

Rank Rider Team Time CQ
1. WIGGINS Bradley SKY 28h12'16" 240
2. WESTRA Lieuwe VCD 08" 180
3. VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro MOV 01'10" 145
4. SPILAK Simon KAT 01'24" 132
5. VAN GARDEREN Tejay BMC 01'54" 120
6. JEANNESSON Arnold FDJ 02'13" 108
7. MONFORT Maxime RNT 02'21" 96
8. CHAVANEL Sylvain OPQ 02'42" 85
9. KISERLOVSKI Robert AST 03'30" 74
10. VICIOSO ARCOS Angel KAT 03'59" 63

Tour de Romandie, General classification:

1. WIGGINS Bradley SKY 18h05'40" 240
2. TALANSKY Andrew GRS 12" 180
3. COSTA Rui Alberto Faria MOV 36" 145
4. PORTE Richie SKY 45" 132
5. ROGERS Michael SKY 50" 120
6. KREUZIGER Roman AST 59" 108
7. SZMYD Sylwester LIQ 01'03" 96
8. SPILAK Simon KAT 01'13" 85
9. BRAJKOVIC Janez AST 01'14" 74
10. SANCHEZ GIL Luis Leon RAB 01'15" 63


Critérium du Dauphiné, General classification:

1. WIGGINS Bradley SKY 26h40'46" 240
2. ROGERS Michael SKY 01'17" 180
3. EVANS Cadel BMC 01'26" 145
4. FROOME Chris SKY 01'45" 132
5. VAN DEN BROECK Jurgen LTB 02'12" 120
6. KIRYIENKA Vasil MOV 02'58" 108
7. BRAJKOVIC Janez AST 03'07" 96
8. KELDERMAN Wilco RAB 03'25" 85
9. PORTE Richie SKY 03'34" 74
10. ZUBELDIA AGIRRE Haimar RNT 03'50" 63

Tour de France, General classification:

1. WIGGINS Bradley SKY 87h34'47" 600
2. FROOME Chris SKY 03'21" 460
3. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 06'19" 380
4. VAN DEN BROECK Jurgen LTB 10'15" 320
5. VAN GARDEREN Tejay BMC 11'04" 290
6. ZUBELDIA AGIRRE Haimar RNT 15'41" 260
7. EVANS Cadel BMC 15'49" 230
8. ROLLAND Pierre EUC 16'26" 200
9. BRAJKOVIC Janez AST 16'33" 180
10. PINOT Thibaut FDJ 17'17" 160

Not exactly gewiss material, but not that bad either.

I see your point. I guess the reason I differentiate is that I deal with Sky on the rider transfer/talent identification market. They have twice my budget (no exaggeration) so, they are very successful in talent recruitment. But they are smart with their talent recruitment, as they look into what a rider can do, as opposed to what they have done.

Anyhow, Gewiss was an OK, but not massive budget. It was the classic donkeys into race horses. i just don't see many donkeys on Sky. I just see a massive payroll and smart talent identification.

BUT... I COULD BE WRONG.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

You know, maybe the reason i get you guys in a huff about being so positive about racing now, isn't that I think it's perfect, it's that i lived through a time that was so much worse. 1995-1996 were ludicrous.

Try this on for size, in early 1996 I was tested at University of Pamplona. Vo2 max was 91ml/kg, threshold was 6w/kg, max power was 7.5 w/kg... i should have been kicking ***, right? I went to Vuelta Pays Basque that year. If I made a selection of 60 guys on a 2nd category climb, I was ecstatic! I would sit on 80th wheel, all day, and just suffer. I didn't even know what was going on in the race, I was just a spectator on wheels, with my heart rate at 180. It was ridiculous.

Maybe our misunderstanding is that I've experienced things, first hand, when they were really bad. Really, really, really bad. So, to me, now is such a stark contrast, I can't help but be a bit giddy (to your annoyance)...

JV, I don't think many of us have experienced anything close to what you said there, though I've had the same feeling hugging 50th wheel at the Cat 3 Tour of the Gila .

However, many cycling fans aren't satisfied knowing that cheating is less prevalent today. What we are seeing still has farcical elements. Sky are a joke, and although you defend Wiggins, cycling fans know what the guy really is.

 

[sniper]

hey man, I'll take 4th place over 104th. That's the progress I see for clean riders. in 1996, my team would be fighting for best looking in the guy to miss the time cut.

You once said the young Contador was (one of) the best rider(s) you had ever seen tested.
Wouldn't a clean peloton predict Contador to be even more dominant than he was in 2007?
(By the way, was he clean in '09? Ow, and '10?)

 

[peloton]

BUT... I think we've got a nice period of clean (hopefully) racing, right now. Enjoy.

Sorry, but there's nothing enjoyable watching the Sky train motoring up the climbs, dropping GT winners. It looks ridiculous and far from clean.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

But they are smart with their talent recruitment, as they look into what a rider can do, as opposed to what they have done.
I just don't see many donkeys on Sky. I just see a massive payroll and smart talent identification.

BUT... I COULD BE WRONG.

Talent identification? Like Froome? The guy was zig-zagging up hills before Sky. That's not talent identification. That's "talent" creation. Wiggins' victory at the Tour is just a larger version of Hincapie winning at Pla d'Adet. Seriously, now. This stuff is a farce.

Let's take it the other way. Where is Rogers now? You know, the same guy who was thrashing people up the mountains at the Tour? Leaves Sky and, bam.

And Leinders? Was he part of the talent identification program?

 

[blackcat]

well then, we agree on something, for once.

the Clinic 12 also disagree on his debut in the TdF with Barlo in 2008. great debut.

in 2008 think he rode the Pro Worlds tt, and if he rode the u23 chrono, (which I think he was qualified for, and Malori won in Varesi) he might have won. Which would have changed opinions. Wiggins really never won any chronos for his first 10 years on the road, and he got by with a misperception he was a Cancellara killer, when he had a dearth of chrono palmares.

 

[sniper]

I see your point. I guess the reason I differentiate is that I deal with Sky on the rider transfer/talent identification market. They have twice my budget (no exaggeration) so, they are very successful in talent recruitment. But they are smart with their talent recruitment, as they look into what a rider can do, as opposed to what they have done.

Anyhow, Gewiss was an OK, but not massive budget. It was the classic donkeys into race horses. i just don't see many donkeys on Sky. I just see a massive payroll and smart talent identification.

BUT... I COULD BE WRONG.

the JV disclaimer after spouting what you know is BS.
What did they need Leinders for? You're really asking us to list all the dodgy stuff, results, staff-members, evasive answers, etc.? To pretend Sky doesn't stink. Wow. So it's all down to the budget, clever recruitment, marginal gains? A couple of Brits with hardly any tradition in cycling re-inventing the wheel? Head in the sand stuff.

 

[JV1973]

You once said the young Contador was (one of) the best rider(s) you had ever seen tested.
Wouldn't a clean peloton predict Contador to be even more dominant than he was in 2007?
(By the way, was he clean in '09? Ow, and '10?)

We need to wait for the Tour to see what he will be. He's a bit older now and won't pop into form like in 2007. But, your point is valid.

I have no idea re Contador in 2009-2010. I don't have enough baseline information to say one way or another.

With Wiggo, I have baseline info, so I can argue. But I can't do that with Contador.

 

[horsinabout]

Agree.

If you look at Pat's quotes from yesterday, "look at Mark Cavendish and Brad Wiggins..." Now, these riders may be clean. I think they are. But, as president of the UCI, he should show ZERO bias towards any rider. He doesn't know and I can sure as **** tell you he can't make nuanced scientific arguments like I do. He has no clue, yet he holds these individuals up because he likes them and they are anglo. That, to me, says that if we had Gewiss 2.0, he'd hold them up as well. He shouldn't disparage the sport, he should say nothing about any individual. So, to my point, this shows me the structure does not exist to prevent the whole thing from happening again.

Find this one hard to swallow.

BUT... I think we've got a nice period of clean (hopefully) racing, right now. Enjoy.

And pray that structural changes come into place that have a hope of keeping it that way.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

You know, maybe the reason i get you guys in a huff about being so positive about racing now, isn't that I think it's perfect, it's that i lived through a time that was so much worse. 1995-1996 were ludicrous.

Try this on for size, in early 1996 I was tested at University of Pamplona. Vo2 max was 91ml/kg, threshold was 6w/kg, max power was 7.5 w/kg... i should have been kicking ***, right? I went to Vuelta Pays Basque that year. If I made a selection of 60 guys on a 2nd category climb, I was ecstatic! I would sit on 80th wheel, all day, and just suffer. I didn't even know what was going on in the race, I was just a spectator on wheels, with my heart rate at 180. It was ridiculous.

Maybe our misunderstanding is that I've experienced things, first hand, when they were really bad. Really, really, really bad. So, to me, now is such a stark contrast, I can't help but be a bit giddy (to your annoyance)...

You should talk to Michael Boogerd man, you could establish a support group. Do you know what Edwig van Hooydonk was capable of? He was quite the one of a generation.

I hope this puts the Froome 'came from nowhere' BS to bed. Like the usual club rider to Pro GC contender stuff that we usually see here.

It should, the clean cycling guru told us

Where did JV get Chris numbers from?

ou once said the young Contador was (one of) the best rider(s) you had ever seen tested.
Wouldn't a clean peloton predict Contador to be even more dominant than he was in 2007?

Oh lala, that is a nice question.

Guess Conti just got lazy.