JV talks, sort of

[Zinoviev Letter]

Apologies for the snip.

I would love to know why Dekker was hired, because he has been crap all season and he was supposed to have big numbers at pre-season training!!!!!!!

He was hired because he could produce the numbers under their supervision and testing, was willing to serve a probationary period on the Conti team, was willing to sign on at minimum wage or close to it and was willing to work as a domestique until and unless he shows the ability to do more.

It's difficult to disagree with Dr Maserati's central point. For some people here, if Garmin don't sign repentant dopers than they are hypocrites, if they don't sign every repentant doper than they have a double standard, and if they sign every repentant doper than they are an obstacle to new kids coming into the sport and are perpetuating the dominance of a damned generation. This is because some people have a starting point of assuming that either every team is doping or that they specifically are doping and facts are merely convenient sticks with which to beat them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Seriously?

Yes seriously, even though it makes no difference to the discussion.
I vaguely remember that he spoke to investigators but don't recall the details.

Maybe it wasn't widely reported because Sella is small fish and the media doesn't care about some no name Italian dealer, but that doesn't take anything away from Sella himself.

Furthermore, it took me about 5 seconds to find it, and when I saw the name I remembered it's been mentioned here before.

it's easy to find something when you know what you are looking for - seriously, if it is not such a secret then why not post a link?

 

[hrotha]

Yes seriously, even though it makes no difference to the discussion.
I vaguely remember that he spoke to investigators but don't recall the details.


it's easy to find something when you know what you are looking for - seriously, if it is not such a secret then why not post a link?

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=..._pw.r_qf.&fp=3c711fb061ac048&biw=1440&bih=694

I was looking for the name of Sella's supplier. It was pretty easy to think of a string.

 

[roundabout]

He was hired because he could produce the numbers under their supervision and testing, was willing to serve a probationary period on the Conti team, was willing to sign on at minimum wage or close to it and was willing to work as a domestique until and unless he shows the ability to do more.

It's difficult to disagree with Dr Maserati's central point. For some people here, if Garmin don't sign repentant dopers than they are hypocrites, if they don't sign every repentant doper than they have a double standard, and if they sign every repentant doper than they are an obstacle to new kids coming into the sport and are perpetuating the dominance of a damned generation. This is because some people have a starting point of assuming that either every team is doping or that they specifically are doping and facts are merely convenient sticks with which to beat them.

Once again, no.

The issue is about a possible difference of treatment between people who spoke of their doping and the doping environment around them publicly and people who were more circumspect and less is known about what they have said.

Thing is, I don't see why the first group should get the worse treatment than the second.

But of course it's easier to dumb it down into repentant dopers vs new kids or to generalize about assumptions and starting points.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Really, typing Emanuele Sella supplier into google means you need to search all day?

Of all the ways to play down his cooperation, this is one of the least creative and tells a lot more about you than his confession.

And as for Dekker, you have zero means of knowing whether or not he was more talented than say Jaksche.

And it's quite easy to to use the "talent" argument to blackball people who might have said too much in public.

The first page I got was a dead link - and many others linked Riccos supplier, not Sellas. I didn't think it was that much of a problem to you to link it.
When it was mentioned about Millars supplier, I posted the name straight away.

Thanks to Hrotha, I eventually found Sellas supplier - who appears to be Matteo Priamo.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

why are you ignoring Jaksche?
Jaksche did a couple of tell-alls on german tv and media.
he named Contador, he named Riis, he named his supplier (though the supplier was obviously already widely known).
In addition, and for what it's worth, Jaskche to me seems one of the more likeable (ex)members of the peloton. And he was craving to return to cycling.
Natural talent? I'd say plenty as well.
JV? nowhere to be seen.

To be honest, I wasn't really ignoring Jaksche - I was ignoring you.

Can you articulate clearly who Garmin should and should not hire - as its getting difficult to keep up with your points.

 

[roundabout]

The first page I got was a dead link - and many others linked Riccos supplier, not Sellas. I didn't think it was that much of a problem to you to link it.
When it was mentioned about Millars supplier, I posted the name straight away.

Thanks to Hrotha, I eventually found Sellas supplier - who appears to be Matteo Priamo.

"It makes no difference to the discussion", so please don't waste electrons admonishing me.

But I'll happily admit that I did it because you have an annoying habit of asking people for links and I correctly guessed that a name alone wouldn't have been enough for you. And of course when you mentioned Lelli without any links, let's just say that I became even less interested in doing leg work for somebody who doesn't do what he expects of others.

Any other person asking for a name would have got it, references and all.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

The issue is about a possible difference of treatment between people who spoke of their doping and the doping environment around them publicly and people who were more circumspect and less is known about what they have said.

It's hardly a secret that Vaughter's bottom line is cooperation with the anti-doping authorities, not whether someone sings to the media. He has said that repeatedly, so it's hardly some revelation to point it out. Indeed he's been fairly open about not thinking that running to the media and naming names is a good idea. And that's hardly surprising given that the latter approach creates scandals and scares off sponsors which is directly contrary to the interests of every team in the peloton, clean or dirty.

Garmin signing riders is a business decision. Dekker was a good signing from their point of view - at the very worst, once they stuck him through their testing, monitoring and probationary period, they get a solid domestique for peanuts.

Landis, well he's not a particularly good investment is he? What would they hire him to do? The only reason to hire him would be to make a public point about believing him, which may well be admirable but it's hardly good business. Bring in a guy who offers you little obvious assistance and a whole world of hassle? Garmin is ultimately a cycling team not an anti-Armstrong crusade on two wheels.

We are, as far as we can tell, about to find that Garmin contains a number of riders who made detailed statements to USADA. If that somehow turns out not to be the case, then you might have a point. But presumably you don't actually think that they've kept quiet, do you?

Garmin's approach (or perhaps more accurately Vaughters approach) isn't the approach most of us who post here would advocate, but it has an internal logic and so far, what they have done seems to be broadly consistent with what they advocate. They didn't promise to hire every repentant doper, or to hire everyone who spits in the soup. They just take the view that being a former doper doesn't disqualify you if they want you and if you are willing to try things their way.

 

[JV1973]

That is the most accurate and well thought out post I've seen. Damn. Thank you.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Garmin's approach (or perhaps more accurately Vaughters approach) isn't the approach most of us who post here would advocate, but it has an internal logic

Really? AFAICT it is to act as if it is a clean team. A highlight is the team sends a rider to a well known doping supplier/prescriber AND THEN fires the rider. I don't know the particulars, but those facts are damning.

The substance of the confession, "I never tested positive and the statute of limitations has passed, so now I can get this burden off my chests about making and keeping some decent money and a few palmares cheating." The fundamental problem is, what if this becomes the new normal?

I agree there are some extenuating circumstances given Team Wonderboy's seek and destroy all who threaten the myth. It's not 100% clear what was/is the right thing to do. But, I think unconditional acceptance is not it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"It makes no difference to the discussion", so please don't waste electrons admonishing me.

But I'll happily admit that I did it because you have an annoying habit of asking people for links and I correctly guessed that a name alone wouldn't have been enough for you. And of course when you mentioned Lelli without any links, let's just say that I became even less interested in doing leg work for somebody who doesn't do what he expects of others.

Any other person asking for a name would have got it, references and all.

Ah, so you were trolling.
I make no apologies for requesting links, none.
Nor have I problem linking stuff when requested to do so - which I normally do but with Lelli, I was going from memory off Millars book.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It's hardly a secret that Vaughter's bottom line is cooperation with the anti-doping authorities, not whether someone sings to the media.

This is why I have stated, several times in this very thread I believe, that I honestly don't care if he wants to post here or not, or write confessions to the NYT or not. All that matters is that he tells the absolute truth to USADA with as much detail as he knows, and assists them in any way he can to combat doping in the sport, coupled with running as clean of team as possible, both outwardly and internally.

It's a fairly simple line in the sand as I see it. Why someone expects something else, such as having him prove here in this forum or through some tweets, I don't understand.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Roundabout and Maserati, cool it with your private feud. Either drop it or take it to PMs.

JV is here now, ask him something instead of picking on one another.

Susan

 

[sniper]

Really? AFAICT it is to act as if it is a clean team. A highlight is the team sends a rider to a well known doping supplier/prescriber AND THEN fires the rider. I don't know the particulars, but those facts are damning.

The substance of the confession, "I never tested positive and the statute of limitations has passed, so now I can get this burden off my chests about making and keeping some decent money and a few palmares cheating." The fundamental problem is, what if this becomes the new normal?

I agree there are some extenuating circumstances given Team Wonderboy's seek and destroy all who threaten the myth. It's not 100% clear what was/is the right thing to do. But, I think unconditional acceptance is not it.

That is the most accurate and well thought out post I've seen.

All Zinoviev's post accomplished was to point out the hypocrisy behind the project.
Why does JV publicly support an obviously doped Wiggo? Because it serves his goals.
Why doesn't JV publicly support the true whistleblowers (and I'm not talking about hiring, a nice twitt would have done)? Because it doesn't serve his goals.
And this is not to say JV should do anything differently. He's doing what's best for him and should continue to.
It's just to point at the hypocricy behind it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Really? AFAICT it is to act as if it is a clean team. A highlight is the team sends a rider to a well known doping supplier/prescriber AND THEN fires the rider. I don't know the particulars, but those facts are damning.

The 'team' didn't send him - Matt White did, and he got fired for it.
Lowe was already gone and its obvious from their correspondence it was the first JV knew about that trip.

The substance of the confession, "I never tested positive and the statute of limitations has passed, so now I can get this burden off my chests about making and keeping some decent money and a few palmares cheating." The fundamental problem is, what if this becomes the new normal?

I agree there are some extenuating circumstances given Team Wonderboy's seek and destroy all who threaten the myth. It's not 100% clear what was/is the right thing to do. But, I think unconditional acceptance is not it.

The SoL was up approximately 4 years ago, so thats irrelevant.

JVs admission is unnecessary step - and I don't believe it will be his last word on the matter.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Really? AFAICT it is to act as if it is a clean team. A highlight is the team sends a rider to a well known doping supplier/prescriber AND THEN fires the rider. I don't know the particulars, but those facts are damning.

I don't want to seem like a pedant, but in my experience it's rarely a particularly good idea to admit to being unfamiliar with the particulars of a situation and yet still confidently proclaim that those particulars are damning. Familiarise yourself with the facts, then we can discuss them. The person who got ****canned over that visit wasn't the rider but the team official who referred the rider.

But, I think unconditional acceptance is not it.

Who said anything about "unconditional acceptance"? Vaughters approach is in keeping with his long stated views. Understanding that doesn't entail agreeing with his views.

 

[roundabout]

It's hardly a secret that Vaughter's bottom line is cooperation with the anti-doping authorities, not whether someone sings to the media. He has said that repeatedly, so it's hardly some revelation to point it out. Indeed he's been fairly open about not thinking that running to the media and naming names is a good idea. And that's hardly surprising given that the latter approach creates scandals and scares off sponsors which is directly contrary to the interests of every team in the peloton, clean or dirty.

Garmin signing riders is a business decision. Dekker was a good signing from their point of view - at the very worst, once they stuck him through their testing, monitoring and probationary period, they get a solid domestique for peanuts.

Landis, well he's not a particularly good investment is he? What would they hire him to do? The only reason to hire him would be to make a public point about believing him, which may well be admirable but it's hardly good business. Bring in a guy who offers you little obvious assistance and a whole world of hassle? Garmin is ultimately a cycling team not an anti-Armstrong crusade on two wheels.

We are, as far as we can tell, about to find that Garmin contains a number of riders who made detailed statements to USADA. If that somehow turns out not to be the case, then you might have a point. But presumably you don't actually think that they've kept quiet, do you?

Garmin's approach (or perhaps more accurately Vaughters approach) isn't the approach most of us who post here would advocate, but it has an internal logic and so far, what they have done seems to be broadly consistent with what they advocate. They didn't promise to hire every repentant doper, or to hire everyone who spits in the soup. They just take the view that being a former doper doesn't disqualify you if they want you and if you are willing to try things their way.

It's not a revelation. Nobody said that.

Of course the media is a perfect ally when marketing the "clean team" image and releasing information that the sport is cleaner (see JV wondering why UCI doesn't release certain information that is positive to the sport's image).

Maybe there's some internal logic to what Vaughters says and does. Maybe. But then again without Manzano's huge loogie into the cycling soup there wouldn't have been sufficient embarrassment to introduce the biological passport.

Maybe without Floyd we wouldn't have got further proof how UCI in it's current form is unfit to govern.

Point is, spitting in the soup may also bring changes. Spitting in the soup may help Vaughters. Both in making his team seem cleaner in contrast and by adding extra pressure to follow through with changes to make the sport more believable.


As for the USADA case, I suppose I should be thankful that they may have answered openly and truthfully. But again, with careers at stake and the boss who is looking out for a certain image, I very much doubt that they made the first move. That's right, I will openly state that I believe that it was a "soup spitter" who got the ball rolling. Of course the net result is that Vaughters and Garmin get credit for cooperating and not lying to the authorities. It would be an admission of how far cycling has fallen when we are seemingly prepared to put people on the pedestal when they merely tell the truth.

But your post makes it obvious. Landis is hassle and those guys at Garmin are heroes. Ok, maybe not heroes, but are doing their bit.

And finally, maybe it's not wise to air the dirty laundry in public, but a rider like Jaksche shouldn't have to retire because of lack of offers. He too followed the dream like Vaughters. He too made his choice. His problem is that he didn't want to suck it up when other people got away with what he did. His problem is that he didn't trust the authorities enough. But of course, his unhappiness with the sport "deserves" punishment. He is the bad guy for openly pointing things out, not the people in the sport who made it that way.

You said it yourself, it's business and the bottom line. That's why upon reflection Vaughter's sappy scribblings of not wanting to see a dream taken away from others seem hollow. He won't be able to "change the culture from within". It will be soup spitters and more critical people who would lead the way. But he will be among the ones benefitting.

 

[131313]

Let's wrap it up in one neat question, why of all dopers was Dekker approached for a job at Garmin on condition of cooperating with WADA while people in the past who have cooperated have not been, at least not to my knowledge?

This is the whole reason of this discussion.

Because Vaughters has a bit of an over-inflated view of his ability to judge talent, and he was on the Dekker bandwagon when he was doping. He didn't hire him because his numbers were dodgy, and he called him out on it. So, there was a history there. Ultimately, this is a relationship business as much as anything, and they already had an established relationship, and JV thought he was a project worth saving (personally, I don't see it. His results without dope the year prior to his suspension certainly show no indication). So, that's why he hired him on not some other cast-off doper. I think it really is as simple as that.

 

[roundabout]

Roundabout and Maserati, cool it with your private feud. Either drop it or take it to PMs.

JV is here now, ask him something instead of picking on one another.

Susan

Well, he is gone now.

But it's telling that JV himself can't really formulate his approach and relies on sympathetic posters to do it for him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is why I have stated, several times in this very thread I believe, that I honestly don't care if he wants to post here or not, or write confessions to the NYT or not. All that matters is that he tells the absolute truth to USADA with as much detail as he knows, and assists them in any way he can to combat doping in the sport, coupled with running as clean of team as possible, both outwardly and internally.

It's a fairly simple line in the sand as I see it. Why someone expects something else, such as having him prove here in this forum or through some tweets, I don't understand.

Yes and no.
I certainly don't understand how people can be critical that JV hires ex-dopers when we all knew his own past and when he signed Millar.

However, I do understand why people wanted him to be honest about his own past and I have been critical of him on that.
The reason there is simple - a lot of what cycling fans are asked to do is to trust people and systems.
Overall, people are quite forgiving and understanding, but it is difficult to trust people who remain secretive about what they did. So, in that light his opinion piece was welcome.

 

[roundabout]

Because Vaughters has a bit of an over-inflated view of his ability to judge talent, and he was on the Dekker bandwagon when he was doping. He didn't hire him because his numbers were dodgy, and he called him out on it. So, there was a history there. Ultimately, this is a relationship business as much as anything, and they already had an established relationship, and JV thought he was a project worth saving (personally, I don't see it. His results without dope the year prior to his suspension certainly show no indication). So, that's why he hired him on not some other cast-off doper. I think it really is as simple as that.

Ah. Thank you. I did think that there was something personal, but I thought it was via Van Diemen.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

That is the most accurate and well thought out post I've seen. Damn. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Just to be clear, I don't agree with your approach on every point (in particular I think that scandals have often been the engine of change), but the assumption some here make that anyone who disagrees with the "burn the village to save the village" approach must be a dishonest weasel irritates me.

The fact is that most of us here aren't dependent on a viable professional cycling circuit with paying sponsors and interested fans to pay our mortgages. But riders and team managers and other team employees are. And clean or dirty, devil or saint, few of them want to see professional cycling burnt to the ground. So I understand why, in fact, people who work within the sport and who are sincerely anti-doping will be drawn towards insider strategies to reform things rather than guerilla warfare in the media. And I don't think it makes them all liars and hypocrites.

The premise "If Vaughters were serious about anti-doping, he would do X, Y or Z" is usually best translated as "If Vaughters agreed with me about how to combat doping he would do X, Y or Z". But given the history of the sport the space for reasoned expressions of disagreement is narrow.

 

[sniper]

Yes and no.
I certainly don't understand how people can be critical that JV hires ex-dopers when we all knew his own past and when he signed Millar.

However, I do understand why people wanted him to be honest about his own past and I have been critical of him on that.
The reason there is simple - a lot of what cycling fans are asked to do is to trust people and systems.
Overall, people are quite forgiving and understanding, but it is difficult to trust people who remain secretive about what they did. So, in that light his opinion piece was welcome.

in fact, nobody criticizes that, afaia.

some are critical of other things (e.g. JV's claim of running a clean team, his supporting wiggo, his claim that cycling is getting cleaner, etc.), but I've seen nobody being critical of this exact point. The question was merely brought up why those and not others, and was brought up in the context of underlining some of the broader hypocricy underlying JV's clean team project.

 

[RichWalk]

You can look at all the points raised here and possibly conclude JV is making a real world judgement and if one wants to be more cynical, he's telling us he's making the best of a bad bunch, which he suggests is steadily improving.

Is this a 'work in progress' or is it a 'clean team'? If it was non profit, most wouldnt care or over scrutinise their actions however its a profit related, results driven set-up.

Publicising a team as clean but with the stated intention of having (and producing winners) confuses me ; if your pathos is 'clean' then to some extent that must imply doping still exists, if you are producing winners then how, unless you are recruiting supermen, does that sit with the above?

Of course if its all 'marginal gains' and only an old guard of dopers left floating around the peleton then we can all sleep easy at night! Tad irreverant I know, but thats me!

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Maybe there's some internal logic to what Vaughters says and does.

There is an internal logic to it. Unfortunately some here seem to think that acknowledging that logic is the same as agreeing with it or accepting its premises. I don't really agree with its premises.

Maybe. But then again without... ...Point is, spitting in the soup may also bring changes.

Yes, quite. As I said above, scandals have often been the engine of progress. On this, I tend to disagree with Vaughters. But disagreeing with his approach doesn't mean assuming this approach is a charade.

But your post makes it obvious. Landis is hassle and those guys at Garmin are heroes. Ok, maybe not heroes, but are doing their bit.

This bears no relationship to anything I've said. Landis is indeed a hassle from the point of view of a cycling team, including from the point of view of any squeaky clean cycling team. That doesn't make him a villain. And the consistency of Garmin's approach doesn't make their riders heroes either.

And finally, maybe it's not wise to air the dirty laundry in public, but a rider like Jaksche shouldn't have to retire because of lack of offers.

Did I suggest otherwise anywhere?