JV talks, sort of

[JV1973]

have to agree
realist, consensus builder, negotiator, politician, with a strong leaning to utilitarian + instrumental(ist) ends.

remind you of anyone?

hope and change you can believe in. or not.

i just Kant agree with Kant. that is true. Along with the rest.

but if im a politician, im a very poor one.

 

[JV1973]

Whew! ANY intellectual rigour? That may be a tall order for me...

JV should be disgusted because that's his argument for a "clean team". He publicly told his tale of feeling hollow victories while cranked. He has gone out of his way to market Garmin as clean, jumped on the no needle bandwagon, signed the MPCC agreement, etc...

If he's not disgusted with doping in cycling, then he's blowing a huge mother cloud of smoke up our collective poopers.

What is inherently bad about doping? It's cheating.

Why are you owed truth and transparency? Because for generations you've been lied to, and the head nuts haven't changed the narrative. They keep saying, "believe us" without proving anything. If they want us to believe, then they owe us transparency.

btw - jumped on the no needle bandwagon? how about indexed it.

along with being the index test case for wada concerning the abp. in 2006-2007.

you might want to look at actions and have knowledge of the history before determining my feelings for me.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

gotta agree w blackcat . youre accusing me of having a different emotion than i do, without basis or argument. i think ive written many a piece that demonstrates the reasons doping ruins the game and ruins the people in the game. just because i dont rant and accuse in a forum does not give you the right to assume my feelings.

i would never comment or assume yours.

Fair enough. Once again I'm guilty of retardedly high expectations, although I don't mean to personally beat on you with them. I just happen to...

You're a bit of a conundrum for me. You're the only guy who's really 'in the game' and visits here in the open. Believe it or not, that means quite a bit to me. It means so much that I end up putting my unrealistic expectations on you, because you are in the game and are publicly for clean cycling.

My personal history of having to leave the sport due to an unwillingness to cheat has left me very frustrated with how the same scene continues and continues and continues.

I appreciate what you're doing, and understand how diplomacy is necessary at your end.

My frustration just means that my expectations of you manifest themselves in an unrealistic wish for you to pull a "Terminator", roll up to Aigle, kick the doors in, and burn that mother to the ground.

That's not realistic, certainly not functional, and definitely not a benefit to anyone. Especially to someone in your shoes, and having the role in cycling that you do.

My frustration is why I'm a d*ck, and I understand that I'm unfair to you.

Apologies. Again...

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

btw - jumped on the no needle bandwagon? how about indexed it.

along with being the index test case for wada concerning the abp. in 2006-2007.

you might want to look at actions and have knowledge of the history before determining my feelings for me.

See previous post...

 

[JV1973]

Fair enough. Once again I'm guilty of retardedly high expectations, although I don't mean to personally beat on you with them. I just happen to...

You're a bit of a conundrum for me. You're the only guy who's really 'in the game' and visits here in the open. Believe it or not, that means quite a bit to me. It means so much that I end up putting my unrealistic expectations on you, because you are in the game and are publicly for clean cycling.

My personal history of having to leave the sport due to an unwillingness to cheat has left me very frustrated with how the same scene continues and continues and continues.

I appreciate what you're doing, and understand how diplomacy is necessary at your end.

My frustration just means that my expectations of you manifest themselves in an unrealistic wish for you to pull a "Terminator", roll up to Aigle, kick the doors in, and burn that mother to the ground.

That's not realistic, certainly not functional, and definitely not a benefit to anyone. Especially to someone in your shoes, and having the role in cycling that you do.

My frustration is why I'm a d*ck, and I understand that I'm unfair to you.

Apologies. Again...

I play the long game. The slow, uncool, uninspired and sometimes hated, long game.

Someday that story will be told in its entirety.

I wish, too, I could just hit the gates of Aigle with a bazooka. Trust me.

 

[martinvickers]

Not my point but I was unclear. Sportspeople are ridiculously taxed in this country (I think it's 50% of appearance fees and winnings, don't know if there are deals in place for the Giro and the Tour). Trust me GB will make a good amount of money of the 2014 Giro.

Tax is paid as a per diam proportion of annual earnings, as opposed to specific competition - so if you earn 5m in advertising, and compete here two weeks - in theory you get taxed for 2/52 x 5m x whatever the tax rate that applies is - 0/20/40. Nat insuracne is a bit harder to work out, since many sportsmen aren't employees.

Don't worry about 'this' country, by the way - I'm qualified in both jurisdictions - joys of the mutual recognition regimes of dublin, belfast and London. And I live in the middle one, more's the pity.

I'd put money on nearly every rider in the giro being regarded as 'resident' in the Republic for the duration of the Giro start, regardless of where the race actually travels - You get taxed per day you compete in the country, not per hour - and UK and HMRC will then have no jurisdiction. Otherwise, Real madrid would be paying uk tax for playing old trafford - and I'm pretty sure they aren't. So if Nadal comes for a fortnight; yeah, he's taxed. But the Giro? not really.

And if it were otherwise? yes, they'll cut deals - they've done so with olympics, commonwealth games, world athletics - it's damn close to standard practice.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I play the long game. The slow, uncool, uninspired and sometimes hated, long game.

Someday that story will be told in its entirety.

I wish, too, I could just hit the gates of Aigle with a bazooka. Trust me.

Yeah, but the long game tends to win...

My approach - making assumptions, flinging epithets, being idealistic, and throwing molatov cocktails - typically ends in one being killed, vilified, jailed, or just plainly ignored.

You're probably better off ignoring my ilk and sticking to that uncool long game...

 

[Athame]

I play the long game. The slow, uncool, uninspired and sometimes hated, long game.

___________________________________ Kasparov.

I wish, too, I could just hit the gates of Aigle with a bazooka. Trust me.

___________________________________ Fischer.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

___________________________________ Kasparov.






___________________________________ Fischer.

Haven't liked any of your previous posts, but that one's high quality.

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

I think JV is human. He is prone to getting frustrated like we all are. Sure he's not perfect and there are a lot of things he could say that I know the environment now does not permit him to say. When he can't do that and people question him, it's natural her gets a bit perturbed.

Take his last posts the other day. He's not sitting at a PC or laptop. Clearly typing on a smart phone or some iPad or similar derivative. He's mobile, on the go and still left a reply. I think as we understand JV ain't the devil or even his advocate, that cycling could do a lot worse and also the hand he can play here is limited, then understanding his view is easier. Maybe not entirely accurate, but some of the blurry stuff comes into contrast.

On another note I don't expect him to ever say a word about any big name rider and their supposed doping or odd performances. He can't and I don't blame him for that. A person needs to be disconnected from the UCI and the teams, like Vayer or Ashenden, to be heard and taken seriously WITHOUT sabotaging their job and allies(JV's case his team). Or like Kimmage. They aren't connected in the same manner. The dependency on the system and these men playing ball with that system is not a prerequisite. As long as Garmin is there with JV, he can only do so much.

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

Well that certainly sheds light on everything. Test more, rather than lock em up and ship em away to the Gendarmerie for some and the others it could have meant there was something.

The part that people would like to know, I guess we never will. I will however say that with Menchov, I think the dodgier outlook was the reason he was a 9. I heard how many tests he said he had a few seasons back...can't remember whether it was 2010 or 2011 but he said 60 for the season. Was mumbled in the press after the HumanPlasma stuff started heating up and all the blather about owning doping equipment between Rabo and Gerolsteiner riders.

The rest? Well if Barredo just needed to be tested more that ain't his fault is it? You can't exactly pee in a cup if nobody is there to take it.

 

[Galic Ho]

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?

That's new. I don't recall hearing that. Was this in 2010 when the list was leaked?

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

Regarding 1: It doesn't matter really. You still are an academic are you not? That is your chosen career path? It's well known, well at least where I am from, that academics love to debate. But they like arguing better. You're really good at that part.

Regarding 2: I know that. You've made it abundantly clear time and again that you watch little cycling and have never swayed to the left or right on issues pertaining to any riders performance. You stay in the middle.

Regarding 3: So you professional expertise does not come with an opinion albeit a professional opinion? You've never been paid for your expertise by any sportsperson or sporting team/body for analysis of data? Or for testing? We're arguing semantics here...you might think that isn't an opinion, I on the other hand disagree. Point is, you've mentioned working with people before in your field who would have relied on your skills...that is all I was saying. I certainly don't expect you to do it for free.

 

[Galic Ho]

I thought "he" was a "she."

That would be one of the internet's greatest ironies. A woman who knows more than men in an area of expertise and knowledge considered to be a mans game.

If this were actual video gaming it would be even funnier.

 

[Galic Ho]

this is easy.

Wiggins WAS beating CE at Duphine. He won it twice.

Evans won TdF and accomplished career goal. and had a young son. wound it back

When did either Wiggins or Cadel win the Dauphine twice? They've both won it once, the same year they won the Tour. Cadel tried numerous times to win to no avail. It wasn't through lack of trying on his behalf. More likely that Valverde wasn't there to deny him AGAIN. Edit: my bad...I thought Evans won it in 2011. Your point stands Blackcat. But I was referring to the years before either won a GT. Pre 2011. But it doesn't matter.

Agree on the other part though. Doesn't need to go as hard as he did because of the family side. I think all of BMC had an easy 2012, but more so because of team orders stemming from USADA's work. They had funded Floyd for years hadn't they? Is BMC's team license in the States or Europe?

 

[Galic Ho]

but it still is fundamentally flawed.

jamie burrow holds the record of plateau de beille beating a pantani record in ronde l'izard circa 99. he also beat the reigning u23 chrono champ thor hushovd in same race.

point, we dont know these riders' baselines. (clean)

we know doping and the rounding error metaphor of D-Q.

rounding errors on a comprehensive burrow/pantani program surpass any cumulative marginal gains.

and there are too many scientific variables to quantify the power on these individual stages GH wants.

CANT
HAPPEN.


what we know: we know the rounding error metaphor is sound.

we know it is anathema to science.

this tension, inviting sports scientists into the tent, to quantify things (power) without being able to ascertain the dope % improvement.

Cos you need to know the baseline.

reconcile this tension (contradiction)
cant be done.


wont matter how much MIT or CalTech put their best minds to it. Cant be done folks.

Statistically, you only need a framework. You need the parcours, the time, a rough idea of the weather conditions (wind) and then you can calculate anything for any given weight. Sure there is an error of margin, that's granted but you can do a framework.

It's about more and more data. Looking at everything. What do Garmin make? Go look at their product lineup. GPS trackers. Stick one of those on every bike, you can get all the data you need. Then if a rider sticks in their own HR, blood values and what not you get MORE data. It's not about it being super duper 100% fool proof. It's about having a framework to add to. It's about the PATTERNS. Aka it's about that crucial life skill, pattern recognition. Being able to decipher them.

Then you can get a better understanding of how hard some stages really were ridden. A guy who wasn't suspect before, all of a sudden is because he's been doing gigantic wattages over back to back days, but because he was in a break (like Vockler does now or like Pellizotti did in 2009) it doesn't raise concern among the general populace.

Need to know the baseline? Dude that isn't going to happen unless the governing body forces it when testing blood when riders get their license. That ain't gonna change. A rider would need a darn good explanation to explain why they were groupetto form one year and front line contender the next if this happened. It would be opened to peer review, but of course it would be the academic community, not the UCI determining that.

Put it this way. They do figures for one Tour every 2-3 years from 91 onwards. 2006 would be interesting because you'd get to stage 17 and we now know a lot about what happened that day and the days before. We'd know Rasmussen, who dragged Menchov through the stage had no blood bags. He had epo, but no blood bags. So we know what the strongest racer in 2007 could do only on epo, or micro doses versus what the strongest guy in 2006 did do on everything. See what I'm getting at? It's about the general patterns. Yes add in the error of margin, but the patterns are there. We've already seen it with our eyes on the road, the numbers just show more. Yes, not everything, but if done right, they'd cover every contenders weight and all the missing bits with reasonable accuracy.

My point was having patterns emerge in quantifiable data. Stuff that you can add to with the BioPassport. I am not advocating doing a rushed job. No thorough, but accurate. If there is conflicting variables THEN COVER THEM ALL. It's what a smart person does.

Will such a measuring gauge detect small doping? Probably not. But big swings, like your top dawg Froome wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The patterns would show what is and what is not. Think about it like statistical analysis. The population, not the person is what I was suggesting.

 

[JV1973]

When did either Wiggins or Cadel win the Dauphine twice? They've both won it once, the same year they won the Tour. Cadel tried numerous times to win to no avail. It wasn't through lack of trying on his behalf. More likely that Valverde wasn't there to deny him AGAIN. Edit: my bad...I thought Evans won it in 2011. Your point stands Blackcat. But I was referring to the years before either won a GT. Pre 2011. But it doesn't matter.

Agree on the other part though. Doesn't need to go as hard as he did because of the family side. I think all of BMC had an easy 2012, but more so because of team orders stemming from USADA's work. They had funded Floyd for years hadn't they? Is BMC's team license in the States or Europe?

ahhhh....Phonak... home of "I didn't know he was transfusing himself during the Tour...while I was directing/managing."

If I ever say "I didn't know!" please, look up my address and come and shoot me. I will make sure legal repercussions are minimized.

Thanks, JV

 

[the asian]

BMC has an American license. Agree with Ho. riders were told to take it easy in 2012, Hincapie surely would have told them when he confessed.

 

[blackcat]

Statistically, you only need a framework. You need the parcours, the time, a rough idea of the weather conditions (wind) and then you can calculate anything for any given weight. Sure there is an error of margin, that's granted but you can do a framework.

It's about more and more data. Looking at everything. What do Garmin make? Go look at their product lineup. GPS trackers. Stick one of those on every bike, you can get all the data you need. Then if a rider sticks in their own HR, blood values and what not you get MORE data. It's not about it being super duper 100% fool proof. It's about having a framework to add to. It's about the PATTERNS. Aka it's about that crucial life skill, pattern recognition. Being able to decipher them.

Then you can get a better understanding of how hard some stages really were ridden. A guy who wasn't suspect before, all of a sudden is because he's been doing gigantic wattages over back to back days, but because he was in a break (like Vockler does now or like Pellizotti did in 2009) it doesn't raise concern among the general populace.

Need to know the baseline? Dude that isn't going to happen unless the governing body forces it when testing blood when riders get their license. That ain't gonna change. A rider would need a darn good explanation to explain why they were groupetto form one year and front line contender the next if this happened. It would be opened to peer review, but of course it would be the academic community, not the UCI determining that.

Put it this way. They do figures for one Tour every 2-3 years from 91 onwards. 2006 would be interesting because you'd get to stage 17 and we now know a lot about what happened that day and the days before. We'd know Rasmussen, who dragged Menchov through the stage had no blood bags. He had epo, but no blood bags. So we know what the strongest racer in 2007 could do only on epo, or micro doses versus what the strongest guy in 2006 did do on everything. See what I'm getting at? It's about the general patterns. Yes add in the error of margin, but the patterns are there. We've already seen it with our eyes on the road, the numbers just show more. Yes, not everything, but if done right, they'd cover every contenders weight and all the missing bits with reasonable accuracy.

My point was having patterns emerge in quantifiable data. Stuff that you can add to with the BioPassport. I am not advocating doing a rushed job. No thorough, but accurate. If there is conflicting variables THEN COVER THEM ALL. It's what a smart person does.

Will such a measuring gauge detect small doping? Probably not. But big swings, like your top dawg Froome wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The patterns would show what is and what is not.

2 obvious flaws amongst others.

you still have not accounted for the doping input to setting these records.

you have not baselined an individual athlete in question.

re: science. this is still too fuzzy for actual boffins. (not me).

too many variables. I appreciate if you give an estimate, then throw in all riders, knowing that this will even itself out in the long run. this is my theory on the aspect of head growth. dont worry about contador. take the entire peloton in 2010. compare it to an entire peloton in 1980. if the heads are bigger (and they are) you need to make a case to me, that head size is an indicator of cycling talent now, when it was not 3 decades before. and, reverse engineering this theory, please lay it out that the endogenous growth factors that are making heads grow now, are merely a symptom of the natural hormones that determine good riders from mediocre riders that cant make the grade. so, dont have to indict one individual rider, when his fanbois will be up in arms.

another element cannot be factored in, which riders are au bloc, and who are soft pedalling for future goals in the race, or following stages domestique duties.

GH, nice try. but major and significant flaws = a fail.

 

[blackcat]

i just Kant agree with Kant. that is true. Along with the rest.

but if im a politician, im a very poor one.

kant tho. lower case.

i could make a case for that.

 

[blackcat]

What is inherently bad about doping? It's cheating.

not according to the peloton's norms.

Why are you owed truth and transparency? Because for generations you've been lied to, and the head nuts haven't changed the narrative. They keep saying, "believe us" without proving anything. If they want us to believe, then they owe us transparency.

Ullrich.

everyone has their eyes and ears. Your brain and sentient being should be good to discern this.

this alternate narrative that is the peloton's public refrain, maybe distorted. and not reality. but there is a truth in this conduct has given the sport its ability to navigate wider society. this IS cycling.

 

[blackcat]

More like he wanted to avoid destroying the beauty of Chiara, with which I whole heartedly agree. La bella.

when I said twas immaculate, perhaps you could find a place to insert another T them. lower case. t.

 

[frenchfry]

ahhhh....Phonak... home of "I didn't know he was transfusing himself during the Tour...while I was directing/managing."

If I ever say "I didn't know!" please, look up my address and come and shoot me. I will make sure legal repercussions are minimized.

Thanks, JV

ahhhh....Phonak... home of "I didn't know he was transfusing himself during the Tour...while I was directing/managing."

This is why I remain cynical!

I am against violence, if we catch you pleading ignorance I will personally come and empty your wine cellar as punishment.

 

[ElChingon]

ahhhh....Phonak... home of "I didn't know he was transfusing himself during the Tour...while I was directing/managing."

This is why I remain cynical!

I am against violence, if we catch you pleading ignorance I will personally come and empty your wine cellar as punishment.

That from the

ahhhh.... .....home of "I didn't know my DS sent my rider to a known doper doctor, because no one on my team would do such a thing because we have team rules."

Looks like everyone is headed to his house now

 

[hrotha]

That's new. I don't recall hearing that. Was this in 2010 when the list was leaked?

Yes, this was in the text that accompanied the list as it was originally published in L'Equipe.

The post I made after that one seems to have gone unnoticed, but I think it raises important concerns:

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?