Hi JV,
I sincerely appreciated all the time you spent on one of your recent posts.
That post was designed as a conversation yet did not utilize specific questions from other forum participants. It was self-dialog.
Hopefully you don't consider this as hostile, as you suggested about another response, but I have taken the time to provide a response to your response.
The motivation here being to offer a conversation on those points that you selected.
JV1973 said:
Just got to thinking, maybe this is the best way to construct my thoughts:
Clinic argument one: The peloton is not any better off, in terms of doping, that it was in previous years!
My argument: While I am fully aware cycling has a long way to go, my observations, which include: rider behavior, rumors, power outputs, speeds, tactical changes, blood values, testing regimes, and general insider discussion on the matter, would lead me to believe that currently the issue of doping is far less than when I was a professional cyclist.
Counter: You may not fully appreciate how much we appreciate your comments here.
However, fundamental culture has not changed.
Doping remains widespread in amateur and masters ranks. Moreover, as you have pointed out, the tainted leadership remains. Even if, as you suggest, their influence has been trimmed, the optics are clear and unavoidable.
JV1973 said:
Clinic argument: OK, but you are financially incentivized to say that!
My retort: When I stopped racing in europe, 2002, leaving a 315,000 Euro contract unpaid in 2003, I started a real estate company. Through sheer luck and my bubbly personality, by the end of 2004, we had 3 full time employees and annual commissions of $800,000(while I didn't get close to all of this, it was more than I made in cycling). This company was the original sponsor of the team, via our ads through 5280 magazine. Currently, I am in enrolled (and accepted) in a top 100 ranked International MBA program, in addition to running the team. My point, rather than comes across as a braggart, is this: while I love bike racing and would love to continue working in professional cycling, it is hardly the only nor the most lucrative option I have on the table. I can take it or leave it. Therefore, I do not think there is merit in the "yeah, but he gets paid to spew this crap!" argument.
Counter: Some of us may have walked from lesser or more lucrative situations because we didn’t like the ethics.
In so doing, some of us may have also recognized that while many may be motivated by greed, greed alone doesn’t account for the breadth of negative or perverse motivation.
Lance, obviously, was not motivated by greed. While he profited greatly, it wasn’t about the bike and it wasn’t even about the money. For people like Lance, it is about the choads. For people like Pat, it is the power and sense of self-importance.
Fundamentally, you have created a straw argument which you could then easily shatter.
Others among us may also have attended top university programs, possibly even top ten or top five ranked. Others among us may also have great responsibilities. Yet those among us are still motivated and still find the time to lend our voice to not let cycling regress to a repeat of the Armstrong era.
JV1973 said:
Clinic argument 3: Sky is dirty, why don't you just say it!
My retort: While I have little love for team SKY, as I feel they have twisted the transfer market in a way that makes it difficult for smaller teams, such as myself, survive, my observations of them do not lead me to the absolute conclusion that Sky is doping. They may be, but my observations don't make me think it's a certainty. These observations include limited, but still significant, knowledge of their athletes individual physiological parameters. Large knowledge of the pay scale and desirability of their athletes on the transfer market (If Richie Porte is such a donkey, then how come other teams bid 800,000Euro on his contract?). Limited, but significant, knowledge of the vast resources they are able to spend on training camps, additional staffing, testing, and material. Additionally, my observations include their on road and observable data, such as climbing speed.
Counter:
1. SKY’s anti-doping policies are fundamentally unsupportable
2. Please refer to gaps between share valuations and stock fundamentals in your capital markets classes. See also bubble economies. See also greater fool theory.
JV1973 said:
Clinic retort: OK, but you want Sky's big money in the sport, it lines your pockets!
Me: I don't care and no it doesn't. Although, i do respect the fact that bSkyb is willing to pour resources into cycling. They are not a "hobby" sponsorship. It's real marketing with purpose. Their marketing plan does not fall apart if they are a less winning team, it does fall apart if they have a doping scandal.
Counter: None.
JV1973 said:
Clinic: How can you say things are better with Pat McQuaid still in charge?
My retort: While Pat has good and bad points, the events of recent years have neutered him of power over many items in cycling. I feel that the sport would be better suited with a new face in charge of the sport, but Pat doesn't worry me too much. My observations are that much of the more dictatorial control that the UCI presidency was originally allowed, has been removed.
Counter: See above. He is still there. He and Hein broke the rules in allowing him to become the head of the UCI. He has lied openly and frequently. And, he still does. Whether you or the Clinic 12 like it or not, he IS the face of cycling.
JV1973 said:
Clinic: The bio passport doesn't work.
My retort: While it is far from perfect, has conflicts of interest, and is underfunded, my observation is that it has been an effective deterrent and has been effective at targeting athletes. This has lead to a reduction in speeds/power outputs, on the median, in events, such as mountain top finishes, that require o2 based energy. This reduction, while not symbolizing the end of doping and the "foolproof" nature of the bio passport, it does signify the reduced efficacy of o2 vector doping. And, for me, in the end if the doping has very reduced efficacy, enough to allow clean riders to win, then I will call it real and tangible progress. That is my opinion based on limited, but significant, observations.
Counter: The biopassport cannot eliminate doping. It can only moderate it.
JV1973 said:
Clinic: OK, but you have incentive to say that!
Me: see above.
Counter: Irrelevant.
JV1973 said:
Clinic: We know better than you!
Me: I'm giving you my opinion based on the observations I've made over the past 15 years. Those observations come from being a professional cyclist, running a small teams, running a large team, sitting on the Anti-Doping Funding Committee, being President of the teams' union (AIGCP), and sitting on the Professional Cycling Council, which serves as the board of directors for professional cycling. All of these positions I have recently let go, as I need to focus on my MBA studies. And arguing in the clinic.
Counter: We, individually, don’t know better than you. None of us knows what you know as well as you know it. Please consider, however, the title of the book about the Enron scandal. Skilling may have been the smartest guy in the room. But, he was not smarter than the room. This point will be reinforced in your case-method classes.
Also, please note that some of us can help with your MBA studies. Some of us may even have participated in some of the case studies you will be assigned.
JV1973 said:
Clinic: But you lie and sometimes your arguments don't make sense!
Me: I don't lie here and I am not being deceitful. I have absolutely no reason to do that here. I do not always have perfect arguments, I know. But that's probably one reason I come here. It makes me think about where my arguments are flawed, and if that flaw should make me change my opinion or just change my argument. I am not a greatly detail oriented person, by nature, so sometimes I brush over issues that need to be explored in greater detail. I am aware of that. But don't call it lying or being deceitful. I don't have any motive to do that and lying has proven to be a poor decision from every observation I've made in my life.
Counter: You have stretched the truth about not knowing anyone on this forum in real life. Haven’t you and I conversed ‘in real life’? Did we then or now even know one another outside of this forum?
However, many of your arguments do make sense. Excellent sense. That they do helps fuel our hope.
Even where they do, however, the reality is that culture and practice are not changed overnight. While your arguments are reassuring, even a passing observation of the Fuentes trial reminds us how entrenched the culture is. We can avoid D’Oprah completely and still not be able to hide from the reality.
JV1973 said:
Clinic: How can the sport get cleaned up with all these ex-dopers running around?
Me: Thats a tough one. I know my actions and intentions have been noble, but I have no absolute way of proving that. My father, an attorney, used to say to me "how do you prove a man isn't beating his wife?".... There are ways to prove he is beating his wife, but prove he isn't? it's a more complex thing.
I can't speak for every ex-doper, but my opinion is, for the most part, the ones that get caught or admit, are much less dangerous than the ones that never did. And those of us that did get caught or admit keep a pretty close eye on those that never did.
JV
Counter: You are not alone in keeping a close eye on those dopers that never did get caught.
Dave.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram