JV talks, sort of

[dbrower]

Anyone know why Floyd and Frankie aren't working in cycling? Maybe they don't want to?

Frankie's work for Kenda/5 hour is buried enough in retaliation by LA through Medalist (in my opinion) it's telling folks don't know of it.

Floyd is still radioactive, a tad antagonistic to many parties, and not through all his own complications. I for one am looking forward to him being in a better place with this stuff in the past rather than the ever-present.

Maybe after JV's sabbatical there can be a place at Slipstream.

-dB

 

[hrotha]

What's more amazing is if you take average times of top 30 guys up any key climb, note the % slowdown, adjust for bikes being a little lighter, etc, you can track it almost exactly to the hemoglobin mass decreasing in the overall peloton data.

Doesn't this pretty much imply those top 30 guys at any given time are doping (with the odd exception)? Where does that put the current top guys, when most of them were already top guys before the introduction of the biological passport, which, from what I've seen, was the turning point of ridiculous hemogoblin mass levels?

Do you believe those riders would change their habits through that kind of external pressure (i.e. not anything related to morals or ethics, but sheer antidoping efforts)? Wouldn't they simply adjust their programs? And therefore, wouldn't "cleaner" only apply to the performance boost you can get away with, not with the number of riders who are cheating? But if that's the case, can we really speak of a culture shift in the peloton?

Sure, with increased risk of being caught and lessened performance boost, the incentive to dope is smaller, and thus the number of dopers (theoretically), but still. If you could trace the impact of antidoping measures on the performance of the top riders so clearly, it must have been nearly universal, in 2006-2007 just like in 1998, at least among the top guys. And their domestiques, probably.

But then, how on earth could you believe any source telling you Contador was clean and kosher for Slipstream? The guy rode for Bruyneel, was said to be involved in Puerto although nothing definitive came out, sprinted up those mountains with Rasmussen in the days of silly hemogoblin levels, put out enough wattage to put another Curiosity on Mars, associated with Pepe Martí.

I'd appreciate as much of an honest answer as you can provide without bringing about a media apocalypse: did you really believe he was clean, or just that he would still be a top gun riding under the restrictions Slipstream would put on him - and that he'd be willing to do so?

 

[JA.Tri]

Snip.....

After those hard hitting questions, can you shed some light on your clean team....

.....

You must think ....

A more amenable tone may result in reasonable responses. Yes, I too am interested in JV's thoughts on these matters.

 

[ExRower]

Allan Lim: It pains me to defend this guy. I am not a fan. Nor a friend. However, you guys should ask Floyd as to what his exact involvement was with him on the medical level. I did, after Floyd tested positive. Floyd said "listen, he didn't have a part in that stuff with me, you should hire him full time, so he doesn't get wrapped up in my downfall" (paraphrasing)... So, since I knew Allan, and knew he was a very smart guy, I went with it. I'm a big one on guys not getting railroaded, unfairly. During his time with us, he was a huge proponent of clean racing. When we implemented the no needles policy in 2008, he was the most in favor (even more than Prentice!).. He argued that from a strictly scientific standpoint, there was no need for injectable recovery. He rebuilt his reputation with our team. I think he forgets that...

When Radio Shack came with big money, he left without any hesitation. I have not spoken to him since.

JV

Thanks for addressing one of the burning questions. But shouldnt it be ALLEN LIM, not ALLAN LIM?

You have my support, as always.

 

[Berzin]

He (Lim) argued that from a strictly scientific standpoint, there was no need for injectable recovery.JV

For Lim to say something like that is ludicrous, but it's one of many ridiculous statements he's made while trying to explain away suspicious performances he's been closely affiliated with.

When Radio Shack came with big money, he left without any hesitation. I have not spoken to him since.

JV

As for Landis, it's all well and good that he defended Lim, but no way is it possible that he didn't know what Floyd was up to, or that he wasn't remotely involved even on a peripheral level.

Lim got paid big money to work for Radio Shack for a reason. For anyone to assume there weren't needles involved with RS, and that Lim didn't have experience with administering a doping program before he got there, they are kidding themselves.

So even making the stretch that Lim believed his own BS, while at Radio Shack he went right back to doing whatever he was doing with Phonak.

I will give him credit for the ice vests...

...and the Normatec pump. Now that's sports science at work.

 

[Epicycle]

As for Landis, it's all well and good that he defended Lim, but no way is it possible that he didn't know what Floyd was up to, or that he wasn't remotely involved even on a peripheral level.

If you read the full interview Floyd did with Kimmage, he mentions Lim when talking about who he told the apocryphal Postal blood bag down the drain story. So yeah, even if Lim was not involved in the actual doping, he likely knew what was going on.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you read the full interview Floyd did with Kimmage, he mentions Lim when talking about who he told the apocryphal Postal blood bag down the drain story. So yeah, even if Lim was not involved in the actual doping, he likely knew what was going on.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

Of course he knew what was going on - Floyd clearly states that he looked after logistics.
But Lim was not his needle man or the Doc, as he was paying Del Moral for that.
And I doubt he was the needle man at Radio Shack either.

 

[Epicycle]

I tend to focus on the mean or median, as opposed to saying "yeah, but what about this guy or that guy!!"... But I have more access to information than most, so perhaps that's why? Even though the trend was towards less and less doping from 1997>>> 2006, sadly, I'd say that the reaction of doping only made those still willing to risk even more efficacious. But the overall was getting cleaner. The numbers prove that (and again, i apologize I can't show you the numbers..Not sure why UCI doesn't just release them??)

Thanks for the NY Times piece and thanks again for talking to us here.

You know we are cynical when it comes to the UCI playing favorites. As long as McQuaid/Verbruggen are still in charge there's still the specter of them finding a way to let somebody slip through the biopassport cracks on purpose. It undermines the public perception of the biopassport, and the UCI jumping to the defense of Armstrong in the last couple of weeks has only strengthened that.

So...can you tell us what you see or would like to see in the future? Pat will be up for election again next September, if he survives this Armstrong fiasco. Is there any movement inside the sport towards breaking the Verbruggen/McQuaid stranglehold on the UCI presidency? It was tried in 2005 but Hein was basically able to rig the election for Pat. Obviously you and the AIGCP have issues with the UCI that go well beyond doping so those have to weigh heavily. But, as far as doping goes, it seems like the goals of the current framework could could be fully realized with just a little reform. That was one thing I worried about with a professional cycling league...you mentioned the US pro sports leagues at one point and we all know how they have very conflicting interests when it comes to actually dealing with PED use.

 

[the big ring]

Not sure who I'm supposed to reply to. You guys get going pretty fast...

Anyhow, thanks for the support. For those of you less supportive, not really sure what to say? I guess wait 5 yrs and see how it all comes out?

As for those with specific questions:

Me, in the past, saying the sport was cleaner (2006)... Yes, it was. 2006 was cleaner than 2002... 2002 was cleaner than 2000...1997 was cleaner than 1996... 1996 was errr... pretty much the peak. Sorry if I couldn't convey that at the time. The overall blood data I have seen as a UCI anti-doping funding committee board member shows the overall trend quite clearly. I know that data is not public. Sorry, I can't leak it to the clinic. What's more amazing is if you take average times of top 30 guys up any key climb, note the % slowdown, adjust for bikes being a little lighter, etc, you can track it almost exactly to the hemoglobin mass decreasing in the overall peloton data. Of course, exceptions exist, but the mean is quite convincing.

I tend to focus on the mean or median, as opposed to saying "yeah, but what about this guy or that guy!!"... But I have more access to information than most, so perhaps that's why? Even though the trend was towards less and less doping from 1997>>> 2006, sadly, I'd say that the reaction of doping only made those still willing to risk even more efficacious. But the overall was getting cleaner. The numbers prove that (and again, i apologize I can't show you the numbers..Not sure why UCI doesn't just release them??)

Because I am so cynical, this response is telling. JV, it's 2012. To reiterate and stress that 1997-2006 was less doping, when you are still in the sport, 6 years later, still (probably) able to see the ABP data, etc, seems almost dishonest.

The bolded is speaking in the past tense, but obfuscated just enough that we can't tell if you're writing from the context of your 2006 statement or if something has been happening post-2006.

You're clearly an intelligent man, and for some reason seem to be circumspect in what you are saying and how, but I want to reiterate my question, and hope that you see it this time:

Can you guarantee your Tour de France team was clean in 2009?

 

[Galic Ho]

JV may have many reasons for "coming clean" now. In addition there may well be many anticipated and unexpected benefits and outcomes resulting.

To the positive, being honest is good for JV and the sport. He could have said more, but may have judged the timing as premature.

Pat has indicated that JV is no politician...well thank goodness. Most of thetime the label "politician" has negative connotations for me. However, JV may well be far more astute and capable than Pat gives him credit for.
Communication skills: tick. Pat?... Fail
Transparency: improving. Pat?...Fail
Consulting: yes. Pat?...no....seems to act unilaterally
Poise: yes. Pat? ...no
Prudence: yes. Pat? acts impulsively...without consideration of long term consequences.

Pat and LA seem to share more than a few attributes...one implies he is a politician the other has/had aspirations.

JV seems to have "soft skills" far exceeding Pat and LA. He, JV would likely do a better job than Pat of managing the UCI.

Which gets me back on track...

JV's past/current/future actions may well facilitate change within the Cycling world/UCI:

Including demise of Pat?
JV heads up UCI?
UCI lives up to its stated articles?
UCI has seperate regulatory authority?
Independent Super Tour?
Independent Testing truly?

Previously flagged
SEE: http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/how-do-we-fix-the-uci/

Now depending on your view of JV you could accuse him of being truly Machiavellian, a saint...or my view... a decent person seeking a sport better than he entered it.

Plausible. It's been known for a few years now that many teams, managers and riders wanted more control of how cycling was run. The rumours of a breakaway league always had JV mentioned. More than once as one of the leading forces. Didn't help at times that some nefarious names were mentioned.

Isn't JV of the school of thought that race radios are needed? If yes, that's my only problem with him. I didn't like some of the riders employed at Garmin. Given the open and careful comments he has listed here the past few days, I've gained more insight into how he thinks and the level of control he really has had at Garmin. Most importantly over Wiggins. Basically, he had next to no control. No shock there given the manner Wiggins has portrayed himself the past two years.

Prior talk about Garmin on this forum it was mentioned that JV was only commenting within a particular scope...that more info was needed. People had leeway at Garmin...teeter over the line and you might not be kocher anymore. Short story, they can't control everything, but can choose to not resign your next contract. Or couldn't talk about suspect actions/behaviour because the managers don't control everyone and everything.

Which for me is the telling thing. All the guys I had issues with at Garmin. All of them, note, not just one, all of them are gone. And JV has been open about most of them. White...on the spot dismissal for Del Moral and Trent Lowe incident. Not an exception. Now how would the same deal have played out at Sky? Brailsford would make an excuse. Lim? One season, gone the next. Wiggins...same deal. Cash in on his 'improvement.' I can handle that. Money is a nice deal. The comments from Pate are interesting. I wonder how well Garmin and Sky really get along? I always fell into two camps of thinking regarding Hushovd leaving Garmin...unhappy no doubt, but why? Financial rewards or doping assistance? Probably money, 2011 was clearly a superior season performance wise. All the riders I didn't think were crystal clean, they left Garmin.

One thing I would like to find out some time is whether there is an understanding amongst the pro-teams that clean/cleaner riders can do better in certain races? In other words, is there a reason Garmin had Hesjedal peaking for the Giro rather than the Tour, other than the parcours? Are the RCS and CONI more stringent than the ASO and the AFLD are (not that the AFLD is allowed to do as much at the Tour as they did previously) at their respective home GT? I ask because the Giro looked like a totally different bike race compared to the Tour this year.

Anyway it is nice to hear JV going into more detail than he has in the past. Albeit even if it isn't thorough, it was revealing in many ways most won't appreciate. Perspective is needed. Can't knock whoever gives it, just as long as it is accurate. I also understand everyone has their own cards to play. JV isn't Floyd or Tyler. His hand differs from theirs and also from the other riders involved in the USADA affair who have been very silent for some time. We all know who they are. Nobody is giving them hell here. I've been operating under the assumption that most involved couldn't talk because it plays into the LA mobs hands. I've also been assuming we'll hear more when the time arises. Not the time to play that card from JV, nor is it necessary to meet the expectations of the Clinic. We're not a collective group. Just individuals with many different takes and perspectives. But thanks for saying something.

totally. I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog.... I mean, i don't trust me to walk my own dog.

As long as it is a 'real' dog, not one of those midget imposters masquerading as a dog, then all is good. Too many people operate under the guise that their dog is a dog, when truthfully it can fit into a hand bag. Real dogs are big. Real dogs have superior VO2 max's than any human. People who own wimpy little throw rugs should not be trusted. Period.

 

[the big ring]

One thing I would like to find out some time is whether there is an understanding amongst the pro-teams that clean/cleaner riders can do better in certain races? In other words, is there a reason Garmin had Hesjedal peaking for the Giro rather than the Tour, other than the parcours? Are the RCS and CONI more stringent than the ASO and the AFLD are (not that the AFLD is allowed to do as much at the Tour as they did previously) at their respective home GT? I ask because the Giro looked like a totally different bike race compared to the Tour this year.

That stood out to me like rottweiler's balls: Ryder clearly has ability, and was left out of the Tour, where Garmin performed about as well as a domestic team.

Maybe the teams know in advance who is going to win the Tour (like Phat did July 11) and send their best riders elsewhere to capitalise on opportunities not already bought.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Now depending on your view of JV you could accuse him of being truly Machiavellian, a saint...or my view... a decent person seeking a sport better than he entered it.

Except this is people we're talking about and JV in particular was okay with the cheating. So, hardly a strong moral compass. Generally too, the list of organizations all the way up to nations that had some sort of peaceful change in power that in very little time resembles the organization they replaced is long.

You've still got the IOC passively supporting safe doping and who knows how ASO will adjust to what's coming. Between those two factions, the money-end of cycling doesn't have much room to get clean.

It's a good story to get out there, but.... This is Pro Cycling with the "cleanest peloton ever."

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Glad he again had the guts to pop in here and post, and respond to a few quips. All I can do is repeat that I hope he's also had the integrity to tell the absolute truth to USADA.

He has been talking to USADA for over 5 years

I don't doubt that. I just hope he's telling them everything he knows, answers every possible question they may have, or assists on every issue they need help with to help clean up this sport.

As to Lim. No person with a brain could possibly think he knew next to nothing about doping when at Phonak, or RS. That's just asinine.

 

[Galic Ho]

That stood out to me like rottweiler's balls: Ryder clearly has ability, and was left out of the Tour, where Garmin performed about as well as a domestic team.

Maybe the teams know in advance who is going to win the Tour (like Phat did July 11) and send their best riders elsewhere to capitalise on opportunities not already bought.

That's why I asked the question. Garmin's 2011 Tour compared to their 2012 one...no comparison. Heck the whole 2011 Tour looked much better performance wise from all the top riders than the 2012 edition. By top riders I mean consistent long term performers. Not sudden juggernauts with career best season long performances like Rogers, Porte and Wiggins. Add in Froome who is at the opposite end of performance...horribly sick/ill then world beater a month or two later.

It's not a nice scenario when there is talk about a team meeting with the biggest race of the seasons organisers before hand along with the UCI to talk about BioPassport data. After I heard that I knew enough. Sky IMO knew just like LA and crew did in 1999 they had the win in the bag. The numbers were there. Why else meet up with the two most important bodies who have to sell your win to the public? Worse, the preceeding GT looks like a completely different race by comparison. I hope this is the case...Giro is the best GT. I don't think I could stomach Sky turning up there with Porte smashing everyone. Or Froome. Wouldn't be nice.

BTW the blood data JV mentioned, whilst not released by the UCI officially there have been posts about it on this forum. Not from 1996 to the present but from 2001 onwards to 2010-11. Showed the impact the EPO test had on blood data and characteristics within the pro peloton as a larger statistical sample. There were two major shifts, the EPO test then the BioPassport introductions. People still doping, but a shift none the less. JV asked why the UCI doesn't release the data. Simple, it doesn't paint a nice picture about the 1999-2005 period when their poster boy won a record 7 TdF titles. Raises a lot of questions. But that in itself is kind of obvious.

 

[Maxiton]

This expresses my feelings perfectly. Probably most subjects of Clinic discussions lurk here, and a few may post anonymously. Whatever one thinks of JV and his confession, his willingness to identify himself is refreshing.

And he doesn’t just show up, but spars gracefully. I find his posts here neither overly aggressive nor overly defensive. He’s not afraid to admit mistakes—and I don’t mean just doping—but neither does he just roll over and suck up to anyone here who criticizes him. He seems very real to me.

JV, I have a question for you. You know that many on this forum don’t buy Wiggins’ claims to be racing clean. The Clinic case against him is not based on any positive tests nor suspicious passports, but primarily on what seems a too-good-to-be-true increase in performance, going from a track star who couldn’t climb to winner of this year’s TDF. Do you think this kind of criticism, made public, is fair?

Another example you may be aware of was provided at the Olympics, when John Leonard, a U.S. Olympic official, called into question the performance of Ye Shiwen, a 16 year old Chinese swimmer who won the women’s 400 IM with a final freestyle leg faster than Ryan Lochte’s. Leonard emphasized that he was not criticizing the entire Chinese program—he contrasted Ye with Sun Yang, a record-smashing male swimmer whose performances he had no problem with—but based his remarks solely on the fact that Ye did not exhibit a “normal progression” in her athletic accomplishments. This is basically the same criticism the Clinic is making of Wiggins.

Do you support this kind of criticism, or do you think an athlete has to be considered clean (publicly, regardless of one’s personal reservations) until testing positive? For example, would you become suspicious of one of your own riders—and convey those suspicions to him—if (despite passing all your internal team tests) he pulled off a performance that seemed to you far better than what you could have predicted? Like a Chris Froome, for example?

And expanding on this, do you think that eventually the science of athletic performance may become so sophisticated that we can indeed determine beyond any reasonable doubt that someone had to dope in order to achieve a certain performance? That just as the passport is based on the notion that certain fluctuations in physiological parameters can’t be purely natural or endogenous, so a new science may be based on the notion that certain fluctuations in external, behavioral performance can’t be purely natural?

Doesn't this pretty much imply those top 30 guys at any given time are doping (with the odd exception)? Where does that put the current top guys, when most of them were already top guys before the introduction of the biological passport, which, from what I've seen, was the turning point of ridiculous hemogoblin mass levels?

Do you believe those riders would change their habits through that kind of external pressure (i.e. not anything related to morals or ethics, but sheer antidoping efforts)? Wouldn't they simply adjust their programs? And therefore, wouldn't "cleaner" only apply to the performance boost you can get away with, not with the number of riders who are cheating? But if that's the case, can we really speak of a culture shift in the peloton?

Sure, with increased risk of being caught and lessened performance boost, the incentive to dope is smaller, and thus the number of dopers (theoretically), but still. If you could trace the impact of antidoping measures on the performance of the top riders so clearly, it must have been nearly universal, in 2006-2007 just like in 1998, at least among the top guys. And their domestiques, probably.

But then, how on earth could you believe any source telling you Contador was clean and kosher for Slipstream? The guy rode for Bruyneel, was said to be involved in Puerto although nothing definitive came out, sprinted up those mountains with Rasmussen in the days of silly hemogoblin levels, put out enough wattage to put another Curiosity on Mars, associated with Pepe Martí.

I'd appreciate as much of an honest answer as you can provide without bringing about a media apocalypse: did you really believe he was clean, or just that he would still be a top gun riding under the restrictions Slipstream would put on him - and that he'd be willing to do so?

Excellent questions, JV . . . .

For Lim to say something like that is ludicrous, but it's one of many ridiculous statements he's made while trying to explain away suspicious performances he's been closely affiliated with.

As for Landis, it's all well and good that he defended Lim, but no way is it possible that he didn't know what Floyd was up to, or that he wasn't remotely involved even on a peripheral level.

Lim got paid big money to work for Radio Shack for a reason. For anyone to assume there weren't needles involved with RS, and that Lim didn't have experience with administering a doping program before he got there, they are kidding themselves.

So even making the stretch that Lim believed his own BS, while at Radio Shack he went right back to doing whatever he was doing with Phonak.

I will give him credit for the ice vests...

...and the Normatec pump. Now that's sports science at work.

You forgot the salient innovation, rice cakes. Anyway, clearly Allen Lim was not using anything to enhance his own performance, when reporters asked him about the Landis bombshell.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1686393384001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAB9cZG8~,VsmvaF3_bYDedNqkpR7gMGQyInJKsvED&bctid=1699200602001

It was pretty obvious, to me, anyway, that Armstrong hired Lim away from Garmin not so much because he wanted Lim the Media Natural, but because he wanted to needle Vaughters (er . . . so to speak).

Lim had been portrayed as a vital part of Team Clean - what could be better, therefore, than hiring Dr. Clean to work for Team Dirty? Well? What could be better is having Dr. Clean jump at the chance, without so much as a fare-thee-well. By hiring Lim from Garmin, LA was implicitly pointing out that Team Clean had all along been employing an unscrupulous, dirty sports physiologist. LA was thus calling into question the credentials and integrity of the entire Garmin project.

 

[sniper]

I found this striking:

The overall blood data I have seen as a UCI anti-doping funding committee board member shows the overall trend quite clearly. I know that data is not public.

Makes one wonder which DSs have access?
Sort of reminds one of LA/Bruyneel's privileges back in the days. As we've come to know, they were also contributing to UCI's anti-doping fight.

At any rate, I don't believe the Giro can be won clean yet.
If Hesjedal won it clean, well, that would be downright revolutionary. In fact, it would mean the Clinic can start packing and move on.

 

[Maxiton]

I found this striking:



Makes one wonder which DSs have access?
Sort of reminds one of LA/Bruyneel's privileges back in the days. As we've come to know, they were also contributing to UCI's anti-doping fight.

At any rate, I don't believe the Giro can be won clean yet.
If Hesjedal won it clean, well, that would be downright revolutionary. In fact, it would mean the Clinic can start packing and move on.

Afraid I tend to agree.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Allan Lim: It pains me to defend this guy. I am not a fan. Nor a friend. However, you guys should ask Floyd as to what his exact involvement was with him on the medical level. I did, after Floyd tested positive. Floyd said "listen, he didn't have a part in that stuff with me, you should hire him full time, so he doesn't get wrapped up in my downfall" (paraphrasing)... So, since I knew Allan, and knew he was a very smart guy, I went with it. I'm a big one on guys not getting railroaded, unfairly. During his time with us, he was a huge proponent of clean racing. When we implemented the no needles policy in 2008, he was the most in favor (even more than Prentice!).. He argued that from a strictly scientific standpoint, there was no need for injectable recovery. He rebuilt his reputation with our team. I think he forgets that...

When Radio Shack came with big money, he left without any hesitation. I have not spoken to him since.

JV

Not saying Lim wasn't pro - clean cycling at Garmin but isn't it a bit strange in hindsight you start a pro - cycling team advocating clean cycling and bring in a doctor/physician who was at one of the dirtiest teams of the last decade [Phonak]? I don't want to make the comparison Leinders/Sky but you must admit it is kinda a contradiction...

Nevertheless thanks for clearing that up. Says enough Lim went for 'the Shack - call' imho.

Last question, did Wiggins loose his weight at your team or did he do this inbetween his contract at High Road and yours?

At any rate, I don't believe the Giro can be won clean yet.
If Hesjedal won it clean, well, that would be downright revolutionary. In fact, it would mean the Clinic can start packing and move on.

I must say I found it a very strange Giro. For example Rodriguez able to hang on on the highest clims, as he is more of a puncheur [maybe the best there is out there] than a climber. The performances looked human to me.

 

[sniper]

Not sure why some justified critical comments by tyler's twin have been removed from the thread (at least I can't seem to find them anymore), to which JV responded with something like "you self-righteous bucklehead".
For a sec I thought I heard wiggins talking there.
Anyway, both posts have mysteriously vanished.

 

[RedheadDane]

I have to admit that I kinda stopped caring about the old rider admits to doping in the 1990'es/early 2000'es scenario a while ago. I don't even care if the everybody did it argument is even true, I just think it's so long time ago that people should move forward.
And, yes! I do realize that only by being honest about the past is it truly possible to move forward, I just don't think it needs to be made into some great news story...

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I have to admit that I kinda stopped caring about the old rider admits to doping in the 1990'es/early 2000'es scenario a while ago. I don't even care if the everybody did it argument is even true, I just think it's so long time ago that people should move forward.
And, yes! I do realize that only by being honest about the past is it truly possible to move forward, I just don't think it needs to be made into some great news story...

Yeah but to us old folks born in the early 70s, what happened in the late 90s/early 2000s doesn't seem that long ago. Especially when you consider that many of the same people are still involved in the sport at the highest level. It's history, but recent and relevant history.

 

[JPM London]

...
The numbers prove that (and again, i apologize I can't show you the numbers..Not sure why UCI doesn't just release them??)
...

JV

Quite clearly publishing data that shows the doping and effect through the last couple of decades will give Pat nowhere to hide when the questions about the past are fielded. It will also create new headlines - and although headlines are unavoidable - he'll no doubt prefer to live in "eyes closed, hiding under the table hoping it goes away" land...

If nobody sees the data, nobody can ask questions about it - publicly...

Thanks a million for the piece - really great and well written. Admitting to the past while purely looking to the future. See, it can be done - there are other people who could learn from that

And thanks for the words on Lim as well - one has to feel a bit sorry for him. Getting himself caught in the middle of something he's not big enough to handle - repeatedly.

 

[roundabout]

I don't feel sorry for Lim. Being "involved with logistics" of Floyd's doping and then releasing the wattages from his breakaway claiming that there's nothing suspect about them says it all about his character.

 

[the big ring]

I don't feel sorry for Lim. Being "involved with logistics" of Floyd's doping and then releasing the wattages from his breakaway claiming that there's nothing suspect about them says it all about his character.

And perhaps says a bit about the character of other "doctors" that defend riders doing extraordinary things? As has been seen here, it's very difficult to argue with a "doctor".

I'll google it, but do you have links to Lim's defense of Landis?

 

[roundabout]

I can't find the original, but here is a copy

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/383257/landis-stage-17-explained-by-dr-allen-lim