JV talks, sort of

[Dazed and Confused]

Backdated TUEs
Backdated confessions
Secret confessions
Invisible suspensions

Game on.

 

[D-Queued]

Good news! I'm glad he's sorry. And that he only admitted only after being backed into a corner.

So all good. Thanks JV!

I vomited a little bit in my mouth at this:

"The WADA Code has a statute of limitations of eight years...

Not sure that the SOL is much of an issue here.

Ryder did win a silver at the World MTB championships, but that was over eight years ago.

Since that, and prior to the 2012 Giro, he had one TT* win at the Giro in 2008 and another in the Tour in 2011 along with a Stage win in the Vuelta in 2009 - all well after his 'known' doping career.

Dave.

*Edited to correct mistake as per Netserk's observations.

 

[Netserk]

Small typo there Dave TTT instead of ITT.

But thanks a lot for the insight!

 

[D-Queued]

Small typo there Dave TTT instead of ITT.

But thanks a lot for the insight!

Sharp eyes. Thanks for catching that.

Dave.

 

[mb2612]

Hi JV,

Do you mind confirming that Ryder talked to the authorities when he joined, and not just this year?

And that he stopped doping before 2006?

I'll take you at your word, but none of the press releases have said as much, but I would assume they have to be true for him not to be suspended.

Thanks

 

[pmcg76]

Hi JV,

Do you mind confirming that Ryder talked to the authorities when he joined, and not just this year?

And that he stopped doping before 2006?

I'll take you at your word, but none of the press releases have said as much, but I would assume they have to be true for him not to be suspended.

Thanks

I would think he only talked this year when requested to testify.

JV never had a policy of requiring guys to talk to authorities when they joined Slipstream. The policy was if anybody were ever called by authorities, they were obliged to attend and tell the truth which so far seems to have happened.

Right from the off, JV acknowledged that there would be guys at Slipstream who had dodgy past's. Don't think he ever tried to hide that fact.

The one thing I don't get either is why no ban has been handed out as of yet. Sure it will be 6 months as well.

 

[Netserk]

I would think he only talked this year when requested to testify.

JV never had a policy of requiring guys to talk to authorities when they joined Slipstream. The policy was if anybody were ever called by authorities, they were obliged to attend and tell the truth which so far seems to have happened.

Right from the off, JV acknowledged that there would be guys at Slipstream who had dodgy past's. Don't think he ever tried to hide that fact.

The one thing I don't get either is why no ban has been handed out as of yet. Sure it will be 6 months as well.

He has only admitted to things outside of SOL.

 

[neineinei]

I would think he only talked this year when requested to testify.

JV never had a policy of requiring guys to talk to authorities when they joined Slipstream. The policy was if anybody were ever called by authorities, they were obliged to attend and tell the truth which so far seems to have happened.

Right from the off, JV acknowledged that there would be guys at Slipstream who had dodgy past's. Don't think he ever tried to hide that fact.

The one thing I don't get either is why no ban has been handed out as of yet. Sure it will be 6 months as well.

If what he's done (and admitted to) was outside SOL there will be no ban. Just like there was no ban for JV or Riis or Zabel or Julich or O'Grady or whatever their names are.

 

[pmcg76]

He has only admitted to things outside of SOL.

Oh yeah, keep forgetting SOL.

 

[mb2612]

I would think he only talked this year when requested to testify.

JV never had a policy of requiring guys to talk to authorities when they joined Slipstream. The policy was if anybody were ever called by authorities, they were obliged to attend and tell the truth which so far seems to have happened.

Right from the off, JV acknowledged that there would be guys at Slipstream who had dodgy past's. Don't think he ever tried to hide that fact.

The one thing I don't get either is why no ban has been handed out as of yet. Sure it will be 6 months as well.

JV was asked whether he would sign someone who got away with it, but wouldn't talk to WADA:

Would you sign a doper who had not been caught, said as much to you but was unwilling to go to WADA?

His answer;

Answer to number 1: No

Hence why I'm worried that Ryder appears to have only talked to the doping authorities this year.

 

[pmcg76]

JV was asked whether he would sign someone who got away with it, but wouldn't talk to WADA:




His answer;


Hence why I'm worried that Ryder appears to have only talked to the doping authorities this year.

That doesn't contradict what I wrote. If called by WADA, they were obliged to attend which is what happened. The key phrase is unwilling to talk to WADA

Why would JV sign guys but require them to admit immediately to doping when that would possibly result in them receiving bans, thus making them of no use to the team if they received 2 years bans for example. That would be shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Digger]

Why is Vaughters happy to stand by a guy who gave a confession today which wasn't accurate? Ryder said it was 2003.
SOL...and JV, Garmin, USADA all pretending it's a truthful confession with all facts is sickening.

 

[mb2612]

That doesn't contradict what I wrote. If called by WADA, they were obliged to attend which is what happened. The key phrase is unwilling to talk to WADA

Why would JV sign guys but require them to admit immediately to doping when that would possibly result in them receiving bans, thus making them of no use to the team if they received 2 years bans for example. That would be shooting yourself in the foot.

Just above that:

Would you sign a rider you knew or strongly suspected to be an ex-doper (if not currently a doper) if he wasn't willing to confess both to you and to WADA?

No. And our publicly stated policy would prevent that as well.

Also, I think John Murphy's question is clear meant to imply proactive admissions by the riders

 

[skidmark]

JV was asked whether he would sign someone who got away with it, but wouldn't talk to WADA:




His answer;


Hence why I'm worried that Ryder appears to have only talked to the doping authorities this year.

I'm not sure how that contradicts his stance. I seem to recall him saying (and it's been said in the last 15 posts) that he wouldn't hire a rider if they didn't agree to cooperate truthfully with authorities when asked. And that what seems to have happened in this case*

*huge asterisk re: 'cooperate TRUTHFULLY' - there's obviously still some shadiness to shed light on... putting the pieces together, we have good suspicion that Ryder's doping continued onto USPS and Phonak (Dave's info plus just logic), a period of time that bled over the SOL. His 'more than ten years ago' could either be clever, dissembling wording (ie. identifying his 'mistake' as when he STARTED, and identifying a 'short period' when it carried on as, oh, a couple of years) or a direct lie. Either way, not the most inspiring of faith in his whole word or character. But he's a public figure whose career is still very much happening so I can see why he wants to minimize fallout, even if I think it sucks. The other option is that he told all to USADA and the Canadian equivalent, and they opted not to suspend him even if he did admit to violations in the last 8 years, in which case, hmmm let's look at those authorities a bit closer. Either way, I don't think your observation shows anything contradictory in Vaughters' actions.

edit: I see it was addressed while I was writing my reply, but you still take issue with it. What I mean is that Vaughters said the rider should confess to the authorities when asked, but wouldn't expect it before that necessarily. That seems to be pretty clear to me.

 

[sniper]

Why is Vaughters happy to stand by a guy who gave a confession today which wasn't accurate? Ryder said it was 2003.
SOL...and JV, Garmin, USADA all pretending it's a truthful confession with all facts is sickening.

Indeed, one wonders about usada,s role. They,ve accepted alot of bs affidavits.

 

[pmcg76]

Just above that:




Also, I think John Murphy's question is clear meant to imply proactive admissions by the riders

That still doesn't change anything. If someone says to me would I be be willing to talk to a newspaper about my private life, I could say yes but that doesn't mean I am going to talk to them without being asked first. There is a subtle difference.

If you wanted to join Slipstream, you had to be willing to talk to the authorities if requested.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Indeed, one wonders about usada,s role. They,ve accepted alot of bs affidavits.

GIFSoup

 

[mb2612]

That still doesn't change anything. If someone says to me would I be be willing to talk to a newspaper about my private life, I could say yes but that doesn't mean I am going to talk to them without being asked first. There is a subtle difference.

If you wanted to join Slipstream, you had to be willing to talk to the authorities if requested.

"Would you sign a doper who had not been caught, said as much to you but was unwilling to go to WADA?"

I think the "go to WADA" implies proactivity, but JV isn't absolutely clear in his response. Maybe he can clarify if he comes back here.

 

[pmcg76]

Indeed, one wonders about usada,s role. They,ve accepted alot of bs affidavits.

This is why you guys will never be happy. Don't trust the UCI, don't trust WADA, someone once mentioned the police but then it was pointed out that they are not an exemplary force either.

The thing is, there will never be a 100% full-proof organisation that will satisfy you guys. If you could point to some organisation in any walk of life that is 100% above board, that would be great but human nature will always dictate that there will be dishonesty yet you guys are still seeking this totally full-proof organisation that are going to solve all the ills of cycling. Not going to happen.

 

[Samson777]

This is why you guys will never be happy. Don't trust the UCI, don't trust WADA, someone once mentioned the police but then it was pointed out that they are not an exemplary force either.

The thing is, there will never be a 100% full-proof organisation that will satisfy you guys. If you could point to some organisation in any walk of life that is 100% above board, that would be great but human nature will always dictate that there will be dishonesty yet you guys are still seeking this totally full-proof organisation that are going to solve all the ills of cycling. Not going to happen.

I tend to agree with your point about human nature, no one is perferct etc.

But I need to ask: Have you trusted UCI the last decade? And if so, did it make you happy?

 

[pmcg76]

"Would you sign a doper who had not been caught, said as much to you but was unwilling to go to WADA?"

I think the "go to WADA" implies proactivity, but JV isn't absolutely clear in his response. Maybe he can clarify if he comes back here.

I think JV has been clear enough about this but you don't seem to get it.

Again why would JV sign a rider, then require them to immediately go to WADA to confess doping which could then result in a sanction of 2 years. Makes no sense does it??

 

[pmcg76]

I tend to agree with your point about human nature, no one is perferct etc.

But I need to ask: Have you trusted UCI, the last decade? And if so, did it make you happy?

No I didn't trust the UCI at all but then again I am not the one constantly whining about doping and seeking this perfect fix-it-all 100% honest organisation that will never exist.

 

[mb2612]

I think JV has been clear enough about this but you don't seem to get it.

Again why would JV sign a rider, then require them to immediately go to WADA to confess doping which could then result in a sanction of 2 years. Makes no sense does it??

Except that, demonstrably, those who have confessed have not been banned for two years.

 

[pmcg76]

Except that, demonstrably, those who have confessed have not been banned for two years.

Yes but that was only because they were involved in a larger case and were clearly offered a deal. If you went on your own free will without being offered a deal first, there might have been no 6 month winter ban. It might have been the whole 2 years.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"Would you sign a doper who had not been caught, said as much to you but was unwilling to go to WADA?"

I think the "go to WADA" implies proactivity, but JV isn't absolutely clear in his response. Maybe he can clarify if he comes back here.

I have highlighted the key word - "unwilling".
Very clear (and logical) that you don't sign riders expecting them to run off to an ADA.

And as JV replied to one of the above posts, he said it was their written policy - linked here:

We expect anyone in our organization who is contacted by any cycling, anti-doping, or government authority will be open and honest with that authority. In that context, we expect nothing short of 100% truthfulness – whatever that truth is – to the questions they are asked. As long as they express the truth about the past to the appropriate parties, they will continue to have a place in our organization and we will support them for living up to the promise we gave the world when we founded Slipstream Sports.