JV talks, sort of

[GJB123]

Weird. I care at least.

Back to Vaughters. He could either be saying:

1 I get treated too harshly, or
2 Other teams (e.g. Belkin) get treated too leniently.

If it's 1 then, sorry JV, got no sympathy. If it's 2 then fair enough.

In much less words and much more eloquently the point I was trying to make. Thanks mate.

 

[sniper]

Weird. I care at least.
.

who doesn't care? link please.
as i said, if all dopers would lose, it would be evidence that doping doesn't pay off.
i'd settle for that.
weird that you wouldn't.

 

[Ferminal]

Is Dekker a super-responder?

Pretty sure he was charging heavily right from the start, whether or not he was one of those mythical "responders", who knows.

 

[sniper]

Back to Vaughters. He could either be saying:

1 I get treated too harshly, or
2 Other teams (e.g. Belkin) get treated too leniently.

If it's 1 then, sorry JV, got no sympathy. If it's 2 then fair enough.

yes, good point.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So much for losing 4kg and gaining absolute power this year though. JV's prediction didn't quite pan out.

 

[sniper]

Well personally I don't want anyone doping, whether they win or not. They're making a career out of the sport, possibly at the expense of someone more honest. I don't grade cheats.

i never said anything differently, but if you want to patentize this opinion, cool.

 

[pastronef]

That's bs pastronef. Astana gets called out on here all the time. To claim they are left alone is very below the belt.

ok ok, I put it this way: Astana does not get the aggression JV and Garmin or Sky get.

 

[JimmyFingers]

who doesn't care? link please.
as i said, if all dopers would lose, it would be evidence that doping doesn't pay off.
i'd settle for that.
weird that you wouldn't.

But you believe everyone that wins dopes right?

And if not how can clean riders win against dopers?

 

[pastronef]

Weird. I care at least.

Back to Vaughters. He could either be saying:

1 I get treated too harshly, or
2 Other teams (e.g. Belkin) get treated too leniently.

If it's 1 then, sorry JV, got no sympathy. If it's 2 then fair enough.

that's what I mean

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Pretty sure he was charging heavily right from the start, whether or not he was one of those mythical "responders", who knows.

Leinders gotta operate with a baseline cocktail which probably requires tweaking depending on the response. I'm thinkink Dekker's body liked the composition from get go. Chicken talked about "optimizing" his medical intake. According to him it took a few years to get things right.

Danielson, VdV and Hesjedal never stopped doping in key races imo.

 

[sniper]

But you believe everyone that wins dopes right?

stop putting words in my mouth thanks.

And if not how can clean riders win against dopers?

generally that's a valid question.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I didn't, hence the question mark, and then the follow up question, note the 'and if not'.

But since it's a valid question, I'm wondering where this utopia of clean winners and juiced losers is.

To win clean presumably you need the majority of riders to be riding clean, otherwise you'll have to dope to win. Which means for a clean sport you need to go after all dopers equally and aggressively, whether they win a race or not.

 

[sniper]

I didn't, hence the question mark, and then the follow up question, note the 'and if not'.

But since it's a valid question, I'm wondering where this utopia of clean winners and juiced losers is.

To win clean presumably you need the majority of riders to be riding clean, otherwise you'll have to dope to win. Which means for a clean sport you need to go after all dopers equally and aggressively, whether they win a race or not.

i'm not sure, anyway we agree it's utopia.

and my point remains: The more you win, the more questions you'll have to answer, the more transparency you'll be required to provide, etc.
that's not double standard. it's the price of winning, and a fair price, jv should understand.

 

[Ferminal]

For the record the actions of the team don't really figure in my view, I look to see if there are personnel who may help explain things, but being a member of the MPCC is irrelevant. Teams are free to carry out their own anti-doping PR as they see fit and it really shouldn't bear heavily on one's stance regarding riders doping or otherwise. Whether or not someone rides under the Sky, GreenEdge or Slipstream style PR shouldn't really influence considerations of doping. There are problems with Hesjedal/Vande Velde (amongst others) which far outweigh the PR. If Rabo/Blanco had taken up a Slipstream style PR would it change one's opinion about LLS' performances at the team? Of course not, he's a doper regardless what his team does or says. (Usual Disclaimer: I do not believe any team runs top-down doping).

The "team" may not take much heat because there aren't really any performances which warrant it.

Vanmarcke - Well I'm sure he was clean when he won Het Nieuwsblad
Boom - Who knows, quiet achiever
Bos - Neither sprinters nor track riders dope
Breschel - Underperformed dramatically relative to Riis/Cecchini
Mollema - Clean newgen along with others like Pinot/Henao/Martin/Van Garderen who we're not allowed to talk about
Gesink - Probably doped in earlier but would seemingly be doing less (or none) of it now, not much to say until he improves significantly
Ten Dam - Pretty much defined by views on how much it has "cleaned up".

So aside from Gesink, whose early career may be worth a discussion, there's not much to say (the others can be explained away by generic arguments). That is for me anyway, I'd rather not discuss individuals unless I have a high degree of confidence.

 

[JimmyFingers]

i'm not sure, anyway we agree it's utopia.

and my point remains: The more you win, the more questions you'll have to answer, the more transparency you'll be required to provide, etc.
that's not double standard. it's the price of winning, and a fair price, jv should understand.

Actually you said you didn't care what Team X did if they didn't win. Above a distinct refinement of that, but one I would agree with in principle. But equally just because you're not winning Grand Tours doesn't mean the team shouldn't come under scrutiny.

 

[sniper]

Actually you said you didn't care what Team X did if they didn't win. Above a distinct refinement of that, but one I would agree with in principle. But equally just because you're not winning Grand Tours doesn't mean the team shouldn't come under scrutiny.

we're obviously talking about a scale here. (I never said i didn't care at all, just not too much, in this case meaning less. everything else was you and matthgh puting words into my mouth.)
the more you win, the more questions.
the less you win, fewer the questions.
fair game, me thinks, and JV is taking an awful long time to understand.

Ferminal nails it here:

For the record the actions of the team don't really figure in my view, I look to see if there are personnel who may help explain things, but being a member of the MPCC is irrelevant. Teams are free to carry out their own anti-doping PR as they see fit and it really shouldn't bear heavily on one's stance regarding riders doping or otherwise. Whether or not someone rides under the Sky, GreenEdge or Slipstream style PR shouldn't really influence considerations of doping. There are problems with Hesjedal/Vande Velde (amongst others) which far outweigh the PR. If Rabo/Blanco had taken up a Slipstream style PR would it change one's opinion about LLS' performances at the team? Of course not, he's a doper regardless what his team does or says. (Usual Disclaimer: I do not believe any team runs top-down doping).

The "team" may not take much heat because there aren't really any performances which warrant it.

Vanmarcke - Well I'm sure he was clean when he won Het Nieuwsblad
Boom - Who knows, quiet achiever
Bos - Neither sprinters nor track riders dope
Breschel - Underperformed dramatically relative to Riis/Cecchini
Mollema - Clean newgen along with others like Pinot/Henao/Martin/Van Garderen who we're not allowed to talk about
Gesink - Probably doped in earlier but would seemingly be doing less (or none) of it now, not much to say until he improves significantly
Ten Dam - Pretty much defined by views on how much it has "cleaned up".

So aside from Gesink, whose early career may be worth a discussion, there's not much to say (the others can be explained away by generic arguments). That is for me anyway, I'd rather not discuss individuals unless I have a high degree of confidence.

 

[roundabout]

ok ok, I put it this way: Astana does not get the aggression JV and Garmin or Sky get.

the astana thread was about 80 posts long in june

so, no.

 

[sniper]

the astana thread was about 80 posts long in june

so, no.

What agression? Could u give examples?

perhaps what u see as agresssion is the endless post exchanges that occur when fanboys chime in to derail threads and deflect away from the fair questionong of remarkable performances.

indeed that didnt happen with astana. Seems as if they simply dont have that many fanboys.

edit: its more in reply to pastonrefs post, by the way.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

the astana thread was about 80 posts long in june

so, no.

Yeah, but they don't even try to profess cleanliness.

F*ck me, it's Astana...

 

[blackcat]

Yeah, but they don't even try to profess cleanliness.

F*ck me, it's Astana...

you're right. your writing.

cleanliness, clean, anti-doping, is all about PR, marketing and perception. but not spin. That is for ergo trainers.

Descartes got it wrong with his aphorism.

It is really a JV aphorism, or is it really JV's quote:
I am clean, therefore i say i am clean.

It is all in what you say, and how you say it. How Astana could learn.

 

[the sceptic]

I must say I am a bit disappointed that JV has not said anything about Froome by now. If the culture has changed, why is he still omerta?

 

[Franklin]

I must say I am a bit disappointed that JV has not said anything about Froome by now. If the culture has changed, why is he still omerta?

Sorry, but what do you expect him to say?

"Froome is clean" And then he gets popped and JV looks like a fool and a pariah...
"Froome is dirty" And then he never gets popped andJV looks like a fool and a pariah...

What does he even know about Froome's supposed doping (or not) regime?

Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't heard Greg Lemond comment much on Sky either.. and probably for much the same reason. They can only speak about what they know. Becoming the boy who cried wolf (even if there are wolves) is not helping anybody.

Note that what I wrote down above would stay the same if JV is dirty or if JV is clean.

 

[fmk_RoI]

JV has talked about Froome. Talked about nearly signing him. Talked about the nick they have for him.

Defending him? Why should one team help another solve its own PR problems? JV is no longer AIGCP, so he no longer has to speak for others. Sky's PR problems are a weakness to be exploited by other teams.

 

[del1962]

JV has talked about Froome. Talked about nearly signing him. Talked about the nick they have for him.

Defending him? Why should one team help another solve its own PR problems? JV is no longer AIGCP, so he no longer has to speak for others. Sky's PR problems are a weakness to be exploited by other teams.

Not sure how other teams can exploit Sky's PR problems (which are probably exageratted and are cycling's general PR problems not specific to Sky),

I would be interested to know (since you mentioned it) which teams do you think are in a position to do this? Not a team with Valverde, or Riis, or Vino, or Ekimov, or Frank Schleck, or Ryder, or a team that dismissed Ras's accusations about certain employees as nothing to see here

 

[Samson777]

. Sky's PR problems are a weakness to be exploited by other teams.

Honestly I don't really see it. As mentioned,other teams have PR "weaknesses" of their own. And in the end, should SKY get busted tomorrow, and then close the team. Would that really leave the sport, or more precisely the other teams, in a better position than today? I'm not so sure. But of course you can argue, that it would mean the other teams would have a chance to win the tour, which is not the case at this point.

I just imagine, it would be such a big blow for Cycling PR wise, should SKY go down already. That it would do more bad than good, for the rest of the teams.

As for JV, should SKY go down, his whole story about a new era would be proved as BS. Which would give him problems with his own PR strategy.