JV talks, sort of

[Ferminal]

People go to remote places to train...not because of the terrain, not for the weather, not for the medical staff to be found there.

They go to beat the anti-doping travel budgets for OOC testing.

Lance didn't go to Maui because of Haleakala. He went there because it costs a lot of money for USADA to send a guy to Hawaii to collect samples. Too much money to target one guy.

Hawaii has relatively few roads. Anyone that's been there knows that it is not a great place to train. A US based rider can always train in San Diego, Arizona, etc (depending on season).

Is there an authorised lab in Hawaii?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Is there an authorised lab in Hawaii?

Nope. Los Angeles, CA would be the closest one in the U.S. I'm too lazy to check the list and figure out if there's one geographically closer.

 

[RichWalk]

Just watched the JV YouTube speach and however hard I'd like to believe his statements, all I end up thinking is 'this guy was way ahead of his time in how to best market a pro-team & gain sponsors'. Sorry to say but he impresses me with his blue sky thinking (no pun intended) but not much else...............

 

[fastcyclist]

JV's confession: a pile of self-serving PR

here's another take on JV's confession:

http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/08/14/vaughters-is-no-victim/

 

[Autobus]

Geez, 20 pages ago lots of people were congratulating JV (including me) and now he's just a cynical manipulator who's just trying to fool the people who really care about doping in cycling (the Clinic 12). Bro even changed his avatar, but that was so two days ago.

Maybe, just maybe, back in 2003 JV didn't want any future he may have wanted have in cycling to be destroyed and that's why he didn't tell all then. Given his time as a Postie he may have seen first hand how vindictive LA could be. Not like the vindictiveness never bubbled up to the surface, or continues to bubble up, for all to see. Can't imagine a reason why someone might want to avoid that.

I can understand not giving Sky the benefit of the doubt, but I guess no one who came out of the 90s and early 2000s can ever gain the trust of the 12 unless they go down in a flaming mass of self destruction while telling all to world every single rider who ever doped, who supplied the dope, and the DS who supported it. Unfortunately, maybe it's only the 12 who will believe in that poor sap who then ends up living in a van, down by the river.

Why not heap scorn on George? Why didn't anybody scream that he is a worthless POS and only testified because he wanted to save his clothing company. Instead we got this from TheHog in June:

"George spoke outside the GJ so I'm thinking he has talked to USADA. If he didn't tell USADA the truth then he might be in a little trouble.

I see a sea change in George. I think his eyes started to open post 07. He realized that maybe things didn't always run the way he was lead to believe.

Of course the '09 chase down was the bitter end. Salt wound rub. Especially after the tip off he gave of the High Road left road split to isolate Contador.

I expect a statement post Tour to the public after he rides a few crits and cleans up. I think if GJ gives some form of confession to the public he'll be adorned even more".

Why doesn't JV get this benefit of the doubt. Is there no chance that JV's eyes started to open in 2003? It must have been that JV started his team of Colorado teenagers with the expectation of winning a Grand Tour. Telling the world (and prospective riders) that you're going to be clean and not allow any doping is the perfect strategy for success in those days. No one in the pro cycling power structure might have a problem with that. But then his team actually grows to a Pro Tour team that does win a grand tour. So yes, he too has something to save, but because his GT winner trains in Hawaii (OH NO!!!) instead of Boulder or San Diego or because he at one time had the current resident evil of the peloton and Dr. Evil #3 on the team's payroll he has a dirty team.

Yet who else other than JV came to the Clinic and explained those to all events, except RH in Hawaii--which, for those who don't follow geography much is under the purview of the USADA, not the Spanish federation.

Face it, as much as we all want it, this is not a black and white world. And while I would never say that we should not want better, who in the position of a Pro Tour team owner is doing anything more, is even pretending that the fight against doping matters to the extent that JV is? I certainly can't say for a fact no one on Garmin is dirty, but I have think the odds are better than 50/50 that the team is clean and I also think JV is serious. Call me naive, but whatever... I guess I just don't have what it takes to be part of the Clinic 12.

 

[hrotha]

If there ever was a Clinic 12, it was always split 6-6 on this issue. I just hope if JV comes back here he isn't discouraged by the last few pages and addresses some of the interesting questions that have been raised in this thread, which was shaping up to be one of the most informative ones in the Clinic.

 

[the big ring]

here's another take on JV's confession:

http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/08/14/vaughters-is-no-victim/

Great read.

And a great reminder that JV is hiring ex-dopers, as if they are better than every other new kid on the block that hasn't doped (ok or been caught doping yet) - giving a new rider the chance to make it.

I think the author missed a real opportunity with the following factoid:

For the start of the 2008 season, Slipstream became known as Garmin Slipstream, and Millar took on part ownership of the side, in order to foster their anti-doping stance.

Is it just me, or does this sound like Millar bought a Sysmex machine for Garmin?

 

[hrotha]

Great read.

And a great reminder that JV is hiring ex-dopers, as if they are better than every other new kid on the block that hasn't doped (ok or been caught doping yet) - giving a new rider the chance to make it.

I think the author missed a real opportunity with the following factoid:



Is it just me, or does this sound like Millar bought a Sysmex machine for Garmin?

Of course he hires ex-dopers, that's the whole point of Slipstream: taking riders away from the pressure to dope. It has been that way since the very beginning, and JV has talked about it rather openly.

Now, you're free to believe that's just PR (I'm still kind of on the fence), but there's no inconsistency between hiring those riders and Slipstream's mission statement.

 

[the big ring]

Of course he hires ex-dopers, that's the whole point of Slipstream: taking riders away from the pressure to dope. It has been that way since the very beginning, and JV has talked about it rather openly.

Now, you're free to believe that's just PR (I'm still kind of on the fence), but there's no inconsistency between hiring those riders and Slipstream's mission statement.

You make it sound almost like Rock Racing now?


My point being:

it's ok to dope as long as you eventually confess and promise to never do it again?

or: this guy never doped / was never caught doping, so we'll give him a chance instead.

There's only so many spots on a team and there's lots of promising young riders missing out on the spots taken up by an ex-doper.

An ex-doper that now owns part of the team. Thanks for $$$ buddy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You make it sound almost like Rock Racing now?


My point being:

it's ok to dope as long as you eventually confess and promise to never do it again?

or: this guy never doped / was never caught doping, so we'll give him a chance instead.

There's only so many spots on a team and there's lots of promising young riders missing out on the spots taken up by an ex-doper.

An ex-doper that now owns part of the team. Thanks for $$$ buddy.

An ex doper (JV) runs the team - would it not be the height of hypocrisy if he then turned around and refused to hire people because they doped?

 

[the big ring]

An ex doper (JV) runs the team - would it not be the height of hypocrisy if he then turned around and refused to hire people because they doped?

There's a difference between refusing to hire an ex-doper and instead hiring "clean" riders that have never been caught or are new enough that it's unlikely they earnt enough money to do so (I'm thinking Nathan Haas for example). Assuming you can vet riders, it's far better to have a team of people where noone knows how to dope vs a team of new riders keen to impress the boss and a couple of experts at doping, surely?

If Millar applied for the team and JV hired someone else instead, do you think Millar cries foul to the media? How else is it made public that JV is refusing to hire ex-dopers?

I also think your argument presupposes a level of knowledge that does not exist outside the clinic forums of the world. JV only officially became an ex-doper this week, so no, it would not APPEAR hypocritical, even if it was. And unless Millar's failed bid for employment hits the press, the appearance remains unhypocritical, even if behind the scenes it is.

 

[hrotha]

I thought the point of Rock Racing was "look at us, we're bad boys!" I don't think it compares.

Offering a chance for redemption is a very humane thing, especially if you made the same mistakes yourself in the past. People like Danielson are generally believed to have been screwed over at Discovery, forced to do stuff he wasn't comfortable with. It makes sense that JV would want to give him the opportunity to ride for a different kind of team. The experiences of those riders who doped are probably more useful to create a cultural transition than having a bunch of naïve youngsters who don't know both sides of the story.

Santa Clara was clean, and yet JV left and became a doper later on. Helvetia was big on cleanliness, but some of its riders later entered the Hall of Fame of egregious dopers. RMO cleaned up when Mottet arrived.

Maybe a lot can be achieved through redemption.

 

[the big ring]

I strongly agree that redemption and second chances are a right and good thing to do.

I do not think they are the best thing in this instance.

Let me put it this way: following this logic, you can actually dope on JV's team, get caught, confess, promise to never do it again, and (2 years later) re-join.

Sounds weird, right?

Or am I missing something fundamental here?

 

[Autobus]

Jack Bauer,
Nathan Haas,
Alex Howes,
Michel Kreder,
Raymond Kreder,
Ramunas Navardauskas,
Jacob Rathe,
Peter Stetina,
Andrew Talansky.

That's more than a third of the team that turned pro in 2010 or later. Gee, JV doesn't seem to give any young never dopers a chance. Certainly not that I can see.

 

[the big ring]

Every ex-doper on that team is stealing an opportunity from someone who never intends to and never will dope. That's my point.

 

[hrotha]

I strongly agree that redemption and second chances are a right and good thing to do.

I do not think they are the best thing in this instance.

Let me put it this way: following this logic, you can actually dope on JV's team, get caught, confess, promise to never do it again, and (2 years later) re-join.

Sounds weird, right?

Or am I missing something fundamental here?

I imagine the difference is that they are now at Slipstream, a team with a clear mission statement, and if they fail to uphold it it's not the same as doping at Discovery, Liberty or Rabobank, where doping was facilitated or encouraged. I wouldn't think it's the same, and I'd expect a Garmin rider who tested positive would never come back with JV.

 

[the big ring]

I just went to the website. What is their mission statement, and where can I see it?

I have

Team Garmin-Sharp-Barracuda

Teams »
News »
Sponsors »
Gallery »
Calendar »
Shop »
facebook-grey

BROWSE ARCHIVES BY: Category, Month, Tag or sift through the Full Archive
FIND & FOLLOW US: Twitter Facebook Flickr YouTube grab our RSS subscribe to our email Newsletter
KEY SECTIONS: Home | Team | Features | Photos | Videos | Calendar | Press Room | Shop | Just for Sponsors: Sponsor Portal
© All content Copyright Slipstream Sports LLC 4730 Walnut Street Suite 104, Boulder, Colorado 80301, USA, the World, the Universe

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There's a difference between refusing to hire an ex-doper and instead hiring "clean" riders that have never been caught or are new enough that it's unlikely they earnt enough money to do so (I'm thinking Nathan Haas for example). Assuming you can vet riders, it's far better to have a team of people where noone knows how to dope vs a team of new riders keen to impress the boss and a couple of experts at doping, surely?

And what is that difference?

Vet people who don't know how to dope? How would you do that -they would have to exclude anyone with an Internet connection.

To flip it - wouldn't it be as productive to have guys who doped share their negative experiences to new riders?

If Millar applied for the team and JV hired someone else instead, do you think Millar cries foul to the media? How else is it made public that JV is refusing to hire ex-dopers?

I have no idea what the above means.

I also think your argument presupposes a level of knowledge that does not exist outside the clinic forums of the world. JV only officially became an ex-doper this week, so no, it would not APPEAR hypocritical, even if it was. And unless Millar's failed bid for employment hits the press, the appearance remains unhypocritical, even if behind the scenes it is.

It does presuppose that - unless you believe that pro cyclists and the general cycling community get there cycling information from editorial in the NYT.

 

[Autobus]

Whether fair or not, somehow I think Trent Lowe and Matt White might think there is some substence behind JV's antidoping stance.

 

[hrotha]

I just went to the website. What is their mission statement, and where can I see it?

I have

You know what I mean.

 

[the big ring]

I searched the site using their site search for "mission statement" and it came up with 6 press releases.

The Garmin sponsorship extension to 2013 has the following:

The partnership, which will run through the end of 2013, will provide the team with the opportunity to continue its founding mission: building the next generation of cycling champions.

Searching further through the press release for "mission" provides the following:

Owned and managed by Slipstream Sports, Team Garmin-Slipstream is dedicated to promoting ethical sporting and developing the next generation of cycling champions. In 2007, Slipstream created the most progressive anti-doping system in the professional sports world and now works with Anti-Doping Research, Inc. (ADR) and ADSI (the Anti-Doping Sciences Institute) to continue its anti-doping mission.

Is that their mission?

 

[the big ring]

You know what I mean.

I was being sincere, I have never seen their mission statement.

 

[hrotha]

I searched the site using their site search for "mission statement" and it came up with 6 press releases.

The Garmin sponsorship extension to 2013 has the following:



Searching further through the press release for "mission" provides the following:



Is that their mission?

Quit the demagoguery. You know perfectly well what I meant and what JV believes his team's raison d'être is. If you don't like the expression "mission statement" because it makes it sound too official, feel free to substitute it with whatever you fancy.

 

[the big ring]

Whether fair or not, somehow I think Trent Lowe and Matt White might think there is some substence behind JV's antidoping stance.

Uh huh. There's a lot of unanswered questions from that episode.

JV also has a strong stance on not training with people not in his team.

 

[the big ring]

Quit the demagoguery. You know perfectly well what I meant and what JV believes his team's raison d'être is. If you don't like the expression "mission statement" because it makes it sound too official, feel free to substitute it with whatever you fancy.

I have to look that word up. I'm not trying to appeal to emotion / prejudice here. Sorry if it comes across that way. I am sincerely seeking information.

In the world of big business it's easy to let a perception or legend of good intent take shape. I believe JV has good intentions - I am simply asking if you can categorically state what they are, based on words the man himself has used, or if you are simply repeating what you believe to be true - an act of faith.