JV talks, sort of

[frenchfry]

.....

Ultimately it's about marketing perception over reality. Realists are often called cynics. They rarely get conned and don't believe in fairy tales. That would be the essence of the Clinic 12. The fantasists believe in fairy tales, they buy into carefully spun perception pieces. They react on feel. Emotion. Note the default emotion they get when the fairy tale is questioned...ANGER and HATE. These people are the ones marketers love. They're the type who if they were eskimos, the myth spinners and perpetrators of lies and distorting basic perception, would be able to sell ice cubes to. The type of people whom I could steal and lie to easily. They are sadly the majority. The realists aren't the villains they are made out to be. What they are asking for is the truth because they know it sets people free.

This is right on. I may not have an MBA (although a few of my good friends do) but my cynical realism has virtually never failed me when it comes to figuring out who is doping - or more accurately who is pushing the envelope. Yes, the level of doping is reduced compared to the crazy mid-90's to mid 00's and some credit must be given to the passport for this. However I don't believe for an instant that the doping culture has been sidelined. Maybe knocked down but certainly not out. I believe that it is possible for clean riders to win, but not so much the big races that really count to the masses.

The one thing I don't understand about JV is why he seems so concerned that we buy into the "cycling is clean" perception. We are proven cynics/realists so this is an unrealistic goal, at least short term. I am fine with his point of view and share some of it, but not all. So what. In the end, the debate on doping found on these forums is a healthy exercise, and the more extreme points of view (on both sides) are almost necessary to keep it real.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

indeed, Boardman's best IP form (and world record) came off getting a kicking through the '96 Tour where he was at least attempting to ride for overall...only 4 weeks after it finished...mind you, looking at that leaderboard knowing what we know now....

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger!

Recall that Obree was selected for the Atlanta IP, which came shortly after the Tour finished. There was a lively debate at the time as to whether Boardman would be able to adapt to the IP in time, but I guess as Obree was World Champ at the time, he was a safe selection. Obree has a shocker if memory serves.

 

[JV1973]

The idea regards chaperones is spot on. Make sure they are well paid and operate in teams to prevent payoffs.

I suggested this in a conference w aso, wada, and uci in 2007. Was told it was unworkable.

 

[Netserk]

What do you think is the bigger problem currently in cycling. Doping or corruption? I think most of us that post in the clinic think it is the latter.

 

[The Hitch]

He did say compete to win or place highly. If Wiggins did place highly you would have a point but he didn't.

I know wiggins didnt place highly in that giro but the point is it was so so very close to the olympics. If he can ride a gt (and that giro was a damn hard one) just before he goes for gold at the olympics then i do not see why he cant try to place highly in one that takes place more than a year before, or even 2 years before.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

JV, what is you understanding of the suspicion index scores that were released a few years back (http://inrng.com/2011/05/lequipe-publishes-uci-suspicion-index/)? Do you know how they came up with this score, what criteria is is based on, etc?

 

[python]

Lets stay fair;

my comment was NOT about sassi's big heart or fairness when he admitted ricco, BUT about him and his testing center (with a load of all sorts of tests) being used as an anti-doping guardia when he did not discharge (wheather missed or something else makes no difference) a pernicious blood doper who by all accounts never stopped.

that was my point.

 

[JV1973]

JV, what is you understanding of the suspicion index scores that were released a few years back (http://inrng.com/2011/05/lequipe-publishes-uci-suspicion-index/)? Do you know how they came up with this score, what criteria is is based on, etc?

it was based on the pre tour test result, combined with the frequency of recent tests. Barredo, who got a 10, had not been tested by bio pass in over 4 months and had some suspicious values. The 10 meant "test a lot, as this one needs it"

You could get a high number as the result of lack of recent testing or an odd blood result. Who was what? I dont know.

 

[JV1973]

What do you think is the bigger problem currently in cycling. Doping or corruption? I think most of us that post in the clinic think it is the latter.

neither. incompetence is the number one issue.

 

[hrotha]

it was based on the pre tour test result, combined with the frequency of recent tests. Barredo, who got a 10, had not been tested by bio pass in over 4 months and had some suspicious values. The 10 meant "test a lot, as this one needs it"

You could get a high number as the result of lack of recent testing or an odd blood result. Who was what? I dont know.

The French paper that published it included quoted commentary (from informed people, I imagine) to the effect that scores over 5 or 6 belonged to riders with so many or so significant irregularities that the possibility of doping was almost certain. Was that bull?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

it was based on the pre tour test result, combined with the frequency of recent tests. Barredo, who got a 10, had not been tested by bio pass in over 4 months and had some suspicious values. The 10 meant "test a lot, as this one needs it"

You could get a high number as the result of lack of recent testing or an odd blood result. Who was what? I dont know.

I only ask because it is posted on here quite often that 5 indicates strong chance of doping (That being the case 10 must mean you walk around with a drip). My understanding is that there were a few more variables involved and as you say, a higher number might mean they need to be targeted due to suspicious values or perhaps placing much higher in races but with less of a Blood Passport history.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

neither. incompetence is the number one issue.

Is incompetence code for Pat McQuaid/UCI. You don't need to answer that one.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

my comment was NOT about sassi's big heart or fairness when he admitted ricco, BUT about him and his testing center (with a load of all sorts of tests) being used as an anti-doping guardia when he did not discharge (wheather missed or something else makes no difference) a pernicious blood doper who by all accounts never stopped.

that was my point.

Okay, but, on the other hand, when a rider stays in the 'realm of humanly possible' physicians do not see them as doping or can prove they are doping given the believable numbers.

 

[hrotha]

In fact, IIRC L'Equipe said the list was compiled taking only blood data into account, with other parties suggesting other factors were involved afterwards, possibly to be able to water down the ugly inferences regarding specific riders.

Oddly enough, the French teams and riders got, by far, the lowest scores. This was before 2011's Europcar festival, and before some other worrying signals coming from France. If lack of recent testing was such a big factor, wouldn't you expect high scores to be distributed more evenly? Or does this mean the French were tested more often than anybody else in 2010, despite their being largely a non-factor, therefore lowering their scores?

 

[Pentacycle]

it was based on the pre tour test result, combined with the frequency of recent tests. Barredo, who got a 10, had not been tested by bio pass in over 4 months and had some suspicious values. The 10 meant "test a lot, as this one needs it"

You could get a high number as the result of lack of recent testing or an odd blood result. Who was what? I dont know.

Wasn't it was based on rumours too? For example if you rode well in the 2008 or 2009 Giro you had a high suspicion. Seeldraeyers, Van den Broeck, Menchov, Rogers all had high ratings after riding well there.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

In fact, IIRC L'Equipe said the list was compiled taking only blood data into account, with other parties suggesting other factors were involved afterwards, possibly to be able to water down the ugly inferences regarding specific riders.

I could well be mixing the two. That is why I was wondering how it was explained to the teams.

 

[python]

Okay, but, on the other hand, when a rider stays in the 'realm of humanly possible' physicians do not see them as doping or can prove they are doping given the believable numbers.

no.

i think you again missed the point (not being dismissive or derogatory). some here have been beating and puffing out their 'scientific chests' that sassi's sophisticated testing center - a center that went allegedly beyond just the physio test and tested a combination of watts per kilo, blood profiles and THE TOTAL HAEMOGLOBIN etc etc - would serve as a guarantee of the clean image sassi's athletes enjoyed.

it turned out to be a complete joke when we recall ricco's reality - a guy who did not use a sophisticated method of blood doping (THAT could put him in the 'plausible' category), but used a crude, home-derived and stored blood units.

his example makes the clean cycling defense by abusing the good old man's name and reputation rather pathetic.

 

[Benotti69]

one: i give you guys a lot more detail than any of my peer, advisors, etc are comfortable with. come on. be fair. and i do not treat you withe contempt, unless im getting needlessly harassed.

<snip>

i dont know what to tell you, but if we cant find a way to clean things up without driving away the people who actually care, its pretty lost. i do my best, but im rarely greeted with open arms and im just one guy.

help me out here . it would be apprecaited.

Do a RaceRadio.

Sign up here anonymously and give out information that hinders those who wont change.

Clinic is read by nearly all involved in the sport in some manner, of course it is, everyone involved in the sport wants to know what the fans know about the doping.

The Sky thread is the current soap opera for the sport.

Before Sky it was Armstrong.

 

[Benotti69]

I think that is ultimately it. The Clinic 12 affiliates and the guys called cynics and naysayers in here have listed time and again what we want to see happen. A lot of us wanted a truth and reconciliation last year. So the peloton could actually come clean, admit what they'd done and be welcomed back greatfully. Instead what did we get? Guys like Levi telling half truths to USADA. Were we really supposed to buy that Lance was doping on his comeback, Levi and Horner were at his side and they didn't touch a drop of ANYTHING?

That's taking the metaphorical P1SS. But as I said cycling gets what it deserves. Krebs misunderstands a lot of the guys here. We actually do want what I said. ALL THE DATA AND NUMBERS. We want to know what a Lemond or a Hinault could do in the first week of a GT, in the second week and finally in the third week. We want to know how fatigue plays in. We don't want vague estimates and guesswork. We want to understand the whole microcosm of the physiology. Even Krebs doesn't know that. But the doping gurus do. The enablers. The hard hitters.

What we've got is a clear idea of the standard that needs to be met. It isn't being met. That's not our fault. We're not in charge of that. Nor do we have to buy the filler work Krebs mentions. Yes what I mentioned regarding the groupetto's relative level over the years would be an estimate but the nature behind why a rider is in the groupetto does not change even with doping. You're there because you CANNOT go harder. Anyone who has exercised at a high level understands the physiological parameters. We just need to know what the averages were once upon a time and what the limits are now.

We need to be able to look at a GT in the mid naughties and figure out what a pack fodder rider was roughly doing and then look at now and if he's a front runner get an estimate of what has changed. I'm saying take the guess work out. It can most certainly be done. We've got great mapping technology today, so terrain and distances will be there for specific routes and we know the race times or at worst, they can be researched on older footage. Heck we can even examine the meta race tactics and fathom whether the peloton was going easy or hard early on in a stage. Every extra piece of data gives a wider scope and tells us more. But it just seems like that level of scrutiny is being sidestepped. We should all be demanding more.

I'll put it this way. It's not a matter of the stuff the Clinic wants to see, to show transparency, not being available or unfeasible. On the contrary the absence of such things is down to a select few being unwilling to give them over. But they then demand everyone to accept their word. They are demanding respect. Doesn't work like that with a history like cyclings. The peloton and the guys running the sport need to earn respect.

Ultimately it's about marketing perception over reality. Realists are often called cynics. They rarely get conned and don't believe in fairy tales. That would be the essence of the Clinic 12. The fantasists believe in fairy tales, they buy into carefully spun perception pieces. They react on feel. Emotion. Note the default emotion they get when the fairy tale is questioned...ANGER and HATE. These people are the ones marketers love. They're the type who if they were eskimos, the myth spinners and perpetrators of lies and distorting basic perception, would be able to sell ice cubes to. The type of people whom I could steal and lie to easily. They are sadly the majority. The realists aren't the villains they are made out to be. What they are asking for is the truth because they know it sets people free.

Great reply and worth posting again.

Thanks GH.

 

[acoggan]

Then explain why Wiggins in his first Tour got dropped first mountain stage by the groupetto. You won't.

Explain why in his example JV stated contract info about Porte? Granville's response was spot on. JV says a lot but leaves a ton out. Not because he doesn't know but because he simply does not want to. By his own admission he is too candid given his placement in cycling. He alleged people here think Porte was crap palmares wise. That's a load of hogswash. Nobody has said that about Porte. The opposite has been said that of the big Sky 4 last year, he was the least suspicious. So why didn't he mention Froome and how good his market value was when he was arguably looking for a team pre 2011 Vuelta?

Why? The same darn reason he deflected on Wiggins months back. Said he barely spoke to him whilst he was at Garmin. JV does not talk about the really dicey issues and i'ts obvious why. He'd have to cut to the hard truth and yes, people in the pro peloton and are associated with it would find out he was blabbing too much. When you or Coggan or any of your money leaching ilk who are in a career path historically used to help perpetuate lies (aka Sports Scientists like your boy Kerrison or Coggans mate Coyle) can give us these numbers from earlier on in these guys careers and explain why two Sky riders alone are beating guys like Evans where as in 2007 and 2009 they weren't, then and only then will the Clinic 12 believe you. You haven't proven crap. You've made excuses. Honestly you and Coggan should be asking for a cheque from some of these teams. You deserve some coin for your efforts.

Nobody here has said cycling isn't cleanER, that the watts aren't down (relative to what year though?), the point has been that negative outliers, guys who were once crap have gone through the roof. You've never ever given any proof that they haven't improved leaps and bounds. Groupetto fodder has never been GC material clean. Ever. A lot of them ride for one team. Historically when riders leap up the ranks at an older age, rather than young, the obvious is found to be the truth. They didn't do it naturally. You can't prove they are clean. JV said Sky would never get Ashenden to run their numbers (and yes people believe him not you, how does that make you feel), he also likely won't ever comment on why only Sky went to meet the ASO before last years Tour, hence you ain't gonna convince anyone with an IQ in the triple figures to believe your stance. But thanks for trying.

Got a problem with it? How about grabbing some students doing their doctorate and getting them to to a complete mathematical run down on climbing in GTs from 91 to now? To get the closest and most in depth model ever. Surely you can do that? Or an honours thesis? I'll be the first to admit the numbers tell everything, but the funny things with academics is they love to rattle their sabers and preach about their one sided approach and attack the other side of thinking for being 'blind' or 'naive' aka in the wrong. It's an ego thing and goes with the territory. "Listen to my talk about NOW, but I'll never give you the full low down on the past."

Comparing guys to Pantani ain't good enough. We need to see the details in full from Indurain to Pantani to LA to Floyd to Contador to Sastre to Menchov and DiLuca in 2009 then to Basso in 2010 to Evans and then to Wiggins and Froome. Plus we need to know what the average peloton groupetto rider was doing at the same time. Then your fantasy weaving will have some substance. Because it will back up the blood changes. The things JV has said are shown in the profiles and ABP. It will also give us an idea of how plausible guys like Froome really are. Because estimates, can still tell a ton about a particular subject given two levels of performance. Till then, you're just saber rattling. I don't blame you for doing it, you're an academic, it's what they do but it'd be best to leave to academic intelligentsia wannabe meetings. Numbers reveal it all, but you've gotta give them all. You haven't. Nor has Coggan and he's been getting spanked this week over this very issue.

As I said. JV has indicated that will never happen with team Sky. We're never gonna get the data freely. So transparency is irrelevant. It was a convenient lie to hoodwink the gullible. Hence it's a psychological tell. And anyone with a brain and knowledge of cycling has seen that ploy before. It's called bluffing. They know nobody will really push them on it. Just look at the cycling media. The only guy to ask a big question to Hayman about Leinders was Daniel Benson. Omerta runs really deep. Really deep. Too many fearful guys who won't do what's right. Cycling gets what it deserves.

And JV is right. If he left, the real slim would take a stranglehold AGAIN. Cycling has improved, it just hasn't done enough. Worse, the guys who want to be seen as clean attack the fans all too often. I could prattle on with tons of business theories destroying their views and explaining why cycling is the way it is. But that'd be pointless. Nobody cares. Just don't think people here don't want numbers. We do. But we want them all so your professional interpretation is valid and non biased.

You seem terribly confused, Ho:

1. I don't teach.

2. I have never made any claims one way or the other about either individual athletes or the peleton being more or less "clean".

3. My opinions are not for sale, and never have been.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Clinic is read by nearly all involved in the sport in some manner, of course it is, everyone involved in the sport wants to know what the fans know about the doping.

I am sure that is the case...

Peter Sagan: Not now ladies I just can't wait to find out what Ryo got banned for this time!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

no.

i think you again missed the point (not being dismissive or derogatory). some here have been beating and puffing out their 'scientific chests' that sassi's sophisticated testing center - a center that went allegedly beyond just the physio test and tested a combination of watts per kilo, blood profiles and THE TOTAL HAEMOGLOBIN etc etc - would serve as a guarantee of the clean image sassi's athletes enjoyed.

it turned out to be a complete joke when we recall ricco's reality - a guy who did not use a sophisticated method of blood doping (THAT could put him in the 'plausible' category), but used a crude, home-derived and stored blood units.

his example makes the clean cycling defense by abusing the good old man's name and reputation rather pathetic.

Good point. On the other hand, if he didnt have had his 'bad bag', would he have been caught?

I do not know the exact timeline when Sassi went to work with Ricco but this quote is telling to me:

''Ricco [Ricardo] would be one of the strongest. Unfortunately he did to many mistakes and now it’s too late to recover from that.''
september 2010

I agree on the Mapei centre, or it is a scam or it is misused for PR, see:
http://road.cc/content/news/71233-mapei-centre-says-its-no-longer-working-lampre

I always had to laugh when Squinzi was rambling on anti - doping while sponsoring Lefevre.



I liked the long post by Vaughters, not agreeing, I would like his view on financial doping. How about making ProTour teams having a youth squad, mandatory?

 

[martinvickers]

Good point. On the other hand, if he didnt have had his 'bad bag', would he have been caught?

I do not know the exact timeline when Sassi went to work with Ricco but this quote is telling to me:

''Ricco [Ricardo] would be one of the strongest. Unfortunately he did to many mistakes and now it’s too late to recover from that.''
september 2010

I agree on the Mapei centre, or it is a scam or it is misused for PR, see:
http://road.cc/content/news/71233-mapei-centre-says-its-no-longer-working-lampre

I always had to laugh when Squinzi was rambling on anti - doping while sponsoring Lefevre.



I liked the long post by Vaughters, not agreeing, I would like his view on financial doping. How about making ProTour teams having a youth squad, mandatory?

I'd rather make them have a women's squad mandatory - continental teams/national squads can take care of 'youth' - but the women need it, and deserve it. Truth is you might need a salary 'cap' to make that work, to give sponsors certainty of expenditure.

There's no reason classics can't have a women's race same day, or same weekend, would actually add to 'festival' atmosphere of the races

Women GT's more difficult, but it would be good to see UCI put some thought into it

 

[xcleigh]

Clinic is read by nearly all involved in the sport in some manner, of course it is, everyone involved in the sport wants to know what the fans know about the doping.

And you know this how? Some kind of Sixth sense?

 

[peace in middle east]

...
If the sport is satisfied with cleanER we might aswell forget it.

my thoughts exactly.
jonathan vaughters says he's happy with how it is now, even though there is a chance his racers get beaten by suttle microdopers.
that stance is difficult to understand if he's really dedicated to anti-doping and if his riders are really clean. perhaps he'd be more credible if he'd stop saying he's dedicated to anti-doping, but rather dedicated to scandal- and healthrisk-free cycling.

What do you think is the bigger problem currently in cycling. Doping or corruption? I think most of us that post in the clinic think it is the latter.

neither. incompetence is the number one issue.

As in: the lack of competence to smoothly cover up the other two issues?