JV talks, sort of

[hiero2]

Any particular reason for this confidence? Because I believe that there is at least 1 rider on Garmin currently who may be able to get better results elsewhere. Or at the very least that rider has a very low chance of getting to the previous level relative to the opposition while at Garmin.

Is the sport cleaner to the point that gains from doping are balanced by better team structures, training etc so there's less incentive to cheat? Is the testing stringent enough that doping is unlikely to happen? Does the mumbo jumbo hypnosis about not doping again work? *wink-wink* about the last one.

The cynic in me however thinks that he is just running a bit scared because of recent developments that had little to do with people within cycling.

He is certainly a rider that I am following with interest as an indirect indicator of what is going on.

Wow - I missed a lot when I stopped reading this thread! Tons of great new posts!
JV - I have no questions for ya. Just keep doing what you are doing. I think it's going in the right direction.
Roundabout - it might be a bit picky - but the incentive does not decrease. The RISK INCREASES. This is an important difference. Well, wait a sec, I'm going to argue with myself here. I'm used to trying to put things into economic terms - like payoff and risk. The payoff - winning or doing well - will never decrease. However, incentives could include peer pressure to conform, like a team-mate telling you you had to do this or you wouldn't be long with the team. With an increase in risk, you will decrease the likelihood that team-mate would do that. And, you would simultaneously increase the likelihood that you could not conform and get away with it. All of which could come under "incentives".

Anyway, good conversations.

 

[hiero2]

I freely admit I am reading between the lines. Maybe too much so. But I was thinking of this quote:

Your first post referring to the JV post forced me to look for the post - and that is a lot of ground to cover. Thanks for putting up the link. Good on ya.

 

[roundabout]

Good point, hiero2.

I suppose it even counts as bit of facepalm moment from me as I should have known better.

In my defense, I've been thinking of incentive in terms of possible contract size for a hypothetical rider. Say, a clean rider can earn something like 1 million per year since he is very good, but not quite absolute top. The sport cleans up and that same rider can now earn 2.5 million as he is naturally more talented than those people who have been outearning him before and is now getting better results.

Or, a sport doesn't clean up, but he gets tired of being beaten and goes to a doctor to boost his performance to justify a higher salary.

A bit convoluted, but I hope you get the idea.

 

[sniper]

I freely admit I am reading between the lines. Maybe too much so. But I was thinking of this quote:

exactly the post i was referring to. thanks.
quite clear what JV is implying there.

 

[roundabout]

Vaughters seems rather supportive of Wiggins. In fact, it seems to me that he could have responded to the post without mentioning Wiggans physiology.

But he used it to once again affirm that Wiggins always had talent to be a stage racer.

 

[User Guide]

That's as may be, but that was a different time. It's not fair to judge Damiano Cunego today against Damiano Cunego in 2004, when he's all but flat out told us he was juiced to the eyeballs back then (see quotes like "there are general classifications, and there are life's classifications", or "the Damiano who won the Giro no longer exists"). When judging the two GT winning performances of 2012 and their plausibility of being clean, whether Ryder may or may not have done something six years ago is only anecdotal; I'm trying to judge solely on his performances for three weeks in May.

Maybe you have a chaque that Ryder was doping in May. That's ok. However, the contrast was in the manners of victory and how believable they are as clean performances. And really, this does come down to how we feel clean riders can or should be able to ride. Hesjedal's performances were much more in line with those, for me at least, than Wiggins'.

Really when did Wigans climb anywhere near Ryder's level on Alpi di Pampeago?
6.8 w/kg wasnt it,the very next day after JV had proudly tweeted mid 5's are the new mid 6's lol
I actually belive JV though for what its worth.In so much as he's still in cycling to earn a crust and unlike the peloton he knows clean racing= more money all round.

 

[Balabar]

Underrated or no, he dropped a doped-to-the-gills Floyd like a lead weight at the Dauphine just before Floyd's "unbelievable" Tour de France.

Dave.

WTF? Everybody dropped Landis at Dauphine 2006. Ryder hardly tore up the course himself. He finished 17th overall without having any stand out days.

 

[D-Queued]

WTF? Everybody dropped Landis at Dauphine 2006. Ryder hardly tore up the course himself. He finished 17th overall without having any stand out days.

Ummm... it was Ryder's first time on the Ventoux.

Nothing extraordinary in his debut. Nope, nothing extraordinary.
"Floyd made the decision, told me to go while Koos stayed with him... I had already spent energy, and we had lost the front group, so I had to play catch up, catching riders all during the rest of the climb. I caught up to George (Hincapie - Discovery) and I rode it in with him for the last 4 K. ... It was my first time on Ventoux, Col d'Izoard, Galibier, and doing 20 to 22 K climbs is a little different! So, I'm definitely happy to ride so well on the big mountains.

...

I've taken a big step up in the last two months, and I would say that I am ahead of where I hoped to be. Even on a bad day I was still there and able to be consistent at Dauphine. These were the two big races that I hoped would go well, and they did.

My time trialing is definitely improving. (David) Zabriskie (CSC) is time trialing in a different zone right now, but from second, third, fourth ... I'm only losing a minute and a half to George and Floyd. I can definitely improve."

Wonder how he all of the sudden made that big step in two months... like all of the sudden?

Not like teh performance at the Dauphine came just within a couple of weeks of a fourth overall in the Volta a Catalunya. Nope, nothing strange there.

And, what did he do after that? Went back to 'recover' in Girona, Spain of course.

Yes, that Girona, Spain.

Dave.

 

[babastooey]

I get what Vaughters is trying to do. He wants to see the sport cleaned up, which is admirable, however, I wonder on a few things...

He points the finger at himself but not at anyone else. Does this really accomplish anything? We all know he is in favor of getting rid of performance enhancing drugs, his admission doesn't really change that, other than to perhaps uncover a bit of his motivation.

Prior to this I knew Vaughters as the guy who dropped out of the Tour because he got a bee sting, and apparently the medicine would have caused him to test positive for something. I used to think this was all ridiculous, that someone should be allowed to have medicine for a bee sting of all things. Although, I remembered back to the "spirit of Desgrange" and figured that if a guy couldn't get around France without getting stung by a bee in his eye, or couldn't repair his front fork without the assistance of a boy on the bellows, then he didn't deserve to finish the Tour.

Anyhoo, it got me thinking. Vaughters had some nice accomplishments but nothing major, and yet he required PEDs just to get the career he had. In other words, he wouldn't have been good enough to be a Tour rider without them. If he hadn't been a Tour rider, he wouldn't be a director now.

In theory, he wouldn't be in the position he is in now if it wasn't for drugs. Kind of a paradox? Should he resign from his position and go take the job he would have now if he wasn't using drugs during his career? The point in going after cheaters from the past is to change the past to set things right. And yet, if he did quit, he wouldn't be in a position to clean up the sport.

If anyone is in a position to name names and clean up the sport, Vaughters is it. He is a director on a big team. And yet, he can only come out and point the finger at himself? Does he really care about cleaning up the sport, or not? Is he afraid of ruffling feathers? Is his hands tied by the omerta? Will his team suffer if he makes a real effort to clean up the sport? Why even bother admitting to anything if it doesn't accomplish anything?

Vaughters' admissions asks more questions than it answers.

 

[hiero2]

Good point, hiero2.
. . .
A bit convoluted, but I hope you get the idea.

Thanks, and I do get it!

One lesson I try to remember from econ is that the will to cheat will never go away. Unfortunately, in the days of steroids and EPO, doping did get to the point where the "do it because everybody does it" excuse became far more real. It is also obvious, due to recent conversations elsewhere (exemplified by NY Time recent opinion page http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/08/07/should-doping-be-allowed-in-sports/ ), first, that many people, even educated people, do not have a grasp of the basic reality of people and economics, and second, that we are well past the day when the line between "medicine" and "doping" became grey.

Events over the last two years have made me optimistic. The risk, at least in cycling, has been increased, and so the doping will have gone down. On the other hand, I am still suspicious - because Sky could be being completely honest, and still using some performance enhancing substance that is not yet listed by WADA. Or maybe not being honest, but having found a way to avoid the risk. Time will tell.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

exactly the post i was referring to. thanks.
quite clear what JV is implying there.

Great - what's he clearly implying then?

Ummm... it was Ryder's first time on the Ventoux.
.......

Wonder how he all of the sudden made that big step in two months... like all of the sudden?

Not like teh performance at the Dauphine came just within a couple of weeks of a fourth overall in the Volta a Catalunya. Nope, nothing strange there.

And, what did he do after that? Went back to 'recover' in Girona, Spain of course.

Yes, that Girona, Spain.

Dave.

No idea on Ryders past in 2006 - but a reason that he went back to Girona was because he lived there.
And to the big step up comment - well, it appears you are implying that he got on the juice (or seriously stepped up) even though he had been on USPS/Disco just before!?

 

[Balabar]

Ummm... it was Ryder's first time on the Ventoux.

Nothing extraordinary in his debut. Nope, nothing extraordinary.
"Floyd made the decision, told me to go while Koos stayed with him... I had already spent energy, and we had lost the front group, so I had to play catch up, catching riders all during the rest of the climb. I caught up to George (Hincapie - Discovery) and I rode it in with him for the last 4 K. ... It was my first time on Ventoux, Col d'Izoard, Galibier, and doing 20 to 22 K climbs is a little different! So, I'm definitely happy to ride so well on the big mountains.

...

I've taken a big step up in the last two months, and I would say that I am ahead of where I hoped to be. Even on a bad day I was still there and able to be consistent at Dauphine. These were the two big races that I hoped would go well, and they did.

My time trialing is definitely improving. (David) Zabriskie (CSC) is time trialing in a different zone right now, but from second, third, fourth ... I'm only losing a minute and a half to George and Floyd. I can definitely improve."

Wonder how he all of the sudden made that big step in two months... like all of the sudden?

Not like teh performance at the Dauphine came just within a couple of weeks of a fourth overall in the Volta a Catalunya. Nope, nothing strange there.

And, what did he do after that? Went back to 'recover' in Girona, Spain of course.

Yes, that Girona, Spain.

Dave.

Whatever.

I think you're reading a little to much into it. It was an extraordinary ride for Ryder personally on Ventoux, but nothing that really stands out as a super-charged ride when compared to any of the top riders.

Landis was having a crap day. Or was Koos Moerenhout another obvious dopper because he was able to match a dopped-to-the-gills Landis pedal-stroke to pedal-stroke that day?

 

[D-Queued]

Whatever.

I think you're reading a little to much into it. It was an extraordinary ride for Ryder personally on Ventoux, but nothing that really stands out as a super-charged ride when compared to any of the top riders.

Landis was having a crap day. Or was Koos Moerenhout another obvious dopper because he was able to match a dopped-to-the-gills Landis pedal-stroke to pedal-stroke that day?

Ok.

Dave.

 

[tsophoto]

Vaughters seems rather supportive of Wiggins. In fact, it seems to me that he could have responded to the post without mentioning Wiggans physiology.

But he used it to once again affirm that Wiggins always had talent to be a stage racer.

Um, there's what JV said and what he implied... I think you're missing the latter.

 

[hiero2]

I get what Vaughters is trying to do. He wants to see the sport cleaned up, which is admirable, however, I wonder on a few things...

He points the finger at himself but not at anyone else. Does this really accomplish anything? We all know he is in favor of getting rid of performance enhancing drugs, his admission doesn't really change that, other than to perhaps uncover a bit of his motivation.

Prior to this I knew Vaughters as the guy who dropped out of the Tour because he got a bee sting, and apparently the medicine would have caused him to test positive for something. I used to think this was all ridiculous, that someone should be allowed to have medicine for a bee sting of all things. Although, I remembered back to the "spirit of Desgrange" and figured that if a guy couldn't get around France without getting stung by a bee in his eye, or couldn't repair his front fork without the assistance of a boy on the bellows, then he didn't deserve to finish the Tour.

Anyhoo, it got me thinking. Vaughters had some nice accomplishments but nothing major, and yet he required PEDs just to get the career he had. In other words, he wouldn't have been good enough to be a Tour rider without them. If he hadn't been a Tour rider, he wouldn't be a director now. In theory, he wouldn't be in the position he is in now if it wasn't for drugs. Kind of a paradox? Should he resign from his position and go take the job he would have now if he wasn't using drugs during his career? . . .

A paradox? We don't know he would not have been a DS today without having been where he was. We can not make that assumption. I don't even think that is a "reasonable" assumption, it has, in my mind, the status of a possibility only.

The point in going after cheaters from the past is to change the past to set things right. And yet, if he did quit, he wouldn't be in a position to clean up the sport.

If anyone is in a position to name names and clean up the sport, Vaughters is it. He is a director on a big team. And yet, he can only come out and point the finger at himself? Does he really care about cleaning up the sport, or not? Is he afraid of ruffling feathers? Is his hands tied by the omerta? Will his team suffer if he makes a real effort to clean up the sport? Why even bother admitting to anything if it doesn't accomplish anything?

Vaughters' admissions asks more questions than it answers.

I think the point in going after the cheaters from the past is not to "set things right", but to simply reveal the truth. Once we have established, to a reasonable degree, what the truth is, then we can take that as a base level, and move on.

I think the point is to set things right today and in the future, to prevent our athletes from being forced to compromise their bodies in order to compete. What we had was a bit like the nightmare scenario proposed by Pistorius opponents: all runners who want to compete will chop off their feet and replace them with mechanical substitutes.

I don't care who they give LA's TdF wins to - most of them doped too, if not all. What matters is that we know, reasonably, what was done, and that it is common knowledge so that we can change what we do today to prevent it. The past can never truly be set right - the best you can do is try to prevent it happening again.

 

[sniper]

Great - what's he clearly implying then?

admitted, it's not that clear afterall.
I assume one could read into it that Wiggo wasn'T willing to jump on board JV's Ark of cleanliness.

No idea on Ryders past in 2006 - but a reason that he went back to Girona was because he lived there.
And to the big step up comment - well, it appears you are implying that he got on the juice (or seriously stepped up) even though he had been on USPS/Disco just before!?

big rolleyes to the bold face.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I get what Vaughters is trying to do. He wants to see the sport cleaned up, which is admirable, however, I wonder on a few things...

He points the finger at himself but not at anyone else. Does this really accomplish anything? We all know he is in favor of getting rid of performance enhancing drugs, his admission doesn't really change that, other than to perhaps uncover a bit of his motivation.

if it even just uncovers that, then that in itself goes to one of the big problems with doping and how it effects people.
Indeed, you seem to misunderstand its effects, but we will get to that.

Prior to this I knew Vaughters as the guy who dropped out of the Tour because he got a bee sting, and apparently the medicine would have caused him to test positive for something. I used to think this was all ridiculous, that someone should be allowed to have medicine for a bee sting of all things. Although, I remembered back to the "spirit of Desgrange" and figured that if a guy couldn't get around France without getting stung by a bee in his eye, or couldn't repair his front fork without the assistance of a boy on the bellows, then he didn't deserve to finish the Tour.

It wasnt just a bee sting. Unlike most - he had an allergic reaction to the bee sting.

Anyhoo, it got me thinking. Vaughters had some nice accomplishments but nothing major, and yet he required PEDs just to get the career he had. In other words, he wouldn't have been good enough to be a Tour rider without them. If he hadn't been a Tour rider, he wouldn't be a director now.

If he was the only one doping, you would have a point.
Also, JV was clean at Credit Agricole - he did very well in a drug fueled peloton.

In theory, he wouldn't be in the position he is in now if it wasn't for drugs. Kind of a paradox? Should he resign from his position and go take the job he would have now if he wasn't using drugs during his career? The point in going after cheaters from the past is to change the past to set things right. And yet, if he did quit, he wouldn't be in a position to clean up the sport.

If anyone is in a position to name names and clean up the sport, Vaughters is it. He is a director on a big team. And yet, he can only come out and point the finger at himself? Does he really care about cleaning up the sport, or not? Is he afraid of ruffling feathers? Is his hands tied by the omerta? Will his team suffer if he makes a real effort to clean up the sport? Why even bother admitting to anything if it doesn't accomplish anything?

Vaughters' admissions asks more questions than it answers.

It was his admission, about why he doped - not about others, and it's not like its his last will and testament.
It appears a lot will come out in the wash soon enough.

 

[tsophoto]

While I admire Brad as an athlete, I can tell you he was a nightmare to work with and certainly did not listen to much advice I gave him...beyond "wow, brad, most of your power produced in a 4 minute pursuit is via aerobic metabolism...that's unique...You could be a stage racer"

And that's where Brad and I stopped.

re: reading between the lines. emphasis mine.

I wonder where his huge aerobic capacity comes from, in a sport where most of your power would be generated via anaerobic pathways.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

admitted, it's not that clear afterall.
I assume one could read into it that Wiggo wasn'T willing to jump on board JV's Ark of cleanliness.

So, what's clear is your take on it, not JVs.
If you read up on Wiggins it is apparent that he is difficult to work with, I always took it that he is a guy who becomes more stroppy and curt when he is close to his limit.

big rolleyes to the bold face.

So, you expect Ryder to hop on a plane and return to Canada after every race - now that deserves roll eyes.

 

[Benotti69]

So, what's clear is your take on it, not JVs.
If you read up on Wiggins it is apparent that he is difficult to work with, I always took it that he is a guy who becomes more stroppy and curt when he is close to his limit.


So, you expect Ryder to hop on a plane and return to Canada after every race - now that deserves roll eyes.

I can think of a better 4 letter word to describe Wiggins

 

[RownhamHill]

Wait, you're saying that Bradley Wiggins is a cult?

I suppose there's a number of people slavishly obsessed by him on here at the moment.

 

[thehog]

Vaughters admittance was a step in the right direction, but upon further reflection I admire riders like Frankie Andreu who stepped up when it wasn't popular and faced the consequences of his actions. What would have happened if Vaughters had also stepped forward in California and come clean too? Perhaps this ongoing USADA, WADA, UCI alphabet soup of investigations would have been resolved, but I'm guessing in a manner that wouldn't have been good for JV.

In his article Vaughters says, "They were punished for following their moral compass and being left behind. How do they reconcile the loss of their dream? It was stolen from them."

"A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality," is how Ayn Rand describes morality. Vaughters' code of values was to cheat and leave behind his compass because he needed a level playing field.

But who is the "standard" that we can hold ourselves up too? Vaughters isn't saying that it's him and frankly who or what is the "standard" is a philosophical question way beyond my scope. We are all flawed to various degrees. For some athletes doping is a ways to a means. To others it's deplorable and they leave the sport. And between those two scenarios there are numerous shades of grey. This is not a black and white topic.

You only need to read the news to see that some people we trust are far from trustworthy. Why should sport be any different? We make morality choices every day - some small, others huge.

Vaughters has hired riders that have served a suspension for doping, but curiously Landis wasn't included. I asked Floyd and he told me, "I asked JV for a job and he told me he can't hire me."

Why couldn't he hire Landis? Probably it would have made entry into European races that much harder as Landis had been very vocal about corruption in the higher echelon of the sport. Remember, this was before Slipstream Sports (the company behind Garmin-Sharp) was a Grand Tour and classic winning squad and they were considered the underdogs. Vaughters did what he thought was best for himself and the team, didn't hire Landis and didn't mention his own doping.

http://www.roadcycling.com/articles/Vaughters-Doping-Confession_005058.shtml

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I get what Vaughters is trying to do. He wants to see the sport cleaned up, which is admirable, however, I wonder on a few things...

He points the finger at himself but not at anyone else. Does this really accomplish anything? We all know he is in favor of getting rid of performance enhancing drugs, his admission doesn't really change that, other than to perhaps uncover a bit of his motivation.

Prior to this I knew Vaughters as the guy who dropped out of the Tour because he got a bee sting, and apparently the medicine would have caused him to test positive for something. I used to think this was all ridiculous, that someone should be allowed to have medicine for a bee sting of all things. Although, I remembered back to the "spirit of Desgrange" and figured that if a guy couldn't get around France without getting stung by a bee in his eye, or couldn't repair his front fork without the assistance of a boy on the bellows, then he didn't deserve to finish the Tour.

Anyhoo, it got me thinking. Vaughters had some nice accomplishments but nothing major, and yet he required PEDs just to get the career he had. In other words, he wouldn't have been good enough to be a Tour rider without them. If he hadn't been a Tour rider, he wouldn't be a director now.

In theory, he wouldn't be in the position he is in now if it wasn't for drugs. Kind of a paradox? Should he resign from his position and go take the job he would have now if he wasn't using drugs during his career? The point in going after cheaters from the past is to change the past to set things right. And yet, if he did quit, he wouldn't be in a position to clean up the sport.

If anyone is in a position to name names and clean up the sport, Vaughters is it. He is a director on a big team. And yet, he can only come out and point the finger at himself? Does he really care about cleaning up the sport, or not? Is he afraid of ruffling feathers? Is his hands tied by the omerta? Will his team suffer if he makes a real effort to clean up the sport? Why even bother admitting to anything if it doesn't accomplish anything?

Vaughters' admissions asks more questions than it answers.

Politics. Hence my comments about his being an unenviable position.

How hard can he really push before getting entirely shafted.

Take what you can...

 

[will10]

Really when did Wigans climb anywhere near Ryder's level on Alpi di Pampeago?
6.8 w/kg wasnt it,the very next day after JV had proudly tweeted mid 5's are the new mid 6's lol
I actually belive JV though for what its worth.In so much as he's still in cycling to earn a crust and unlike the peloton he knows clean racing= more money all round.

I didn't think we'd seen anything that high in the Giro?

 

[D-Queued]

Vaughters admittance was a step in the right direction, but upon further reflection I admire riders like Frankie Andreu who stepped up when it wasn't popular and faced the consequences of his actions.

...<Snipped a very good commentary>...

Hi Hog,

Great minds and all that, I was just thinking about both Frankie and Jonathan.

Forgive me, but you may be splitting hairs here.

How many other riders than these two do we know that ultimately let their conscience be their guide on their own doping?

Sure Riis came forward... a decade or so later... but he didn't stop riding because of the personal morality complex, nor did he stop racing because of it.

I am not trying to put both on a pedestal, but I was dumbstruck when I tried to think of anyone else that I could put into this category.

Possibly David Millar? But, he was caught. Frankie and Jonathan gave it up without needing a suspension to wake them up.

Possibly some of the (ex?) bad boys on Garmin? In that case, was it so that they could keep their contract and ride for Jonathan or had they already decided to reform?

Dave.