JV talks, sort of

[Alpe d'Huez]

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".

However, I do understand why people wanted him to be honest about his own past and I have been critical of him on that.

Again, to me it doesn't matter what he says here, or in the NYT, what matters is that he tells the whole truth as he knows it to USADA. If he fails to do that, unleash the hounds. But until we know that, I'm going to thank him for at least saying something, as so many refuse to do even that.

 

[roundabout]

"Burn the village to save the village"?

Really?

Or maybe the testing hasn't caught up to the cheaters so that for them to be caught things need to be taken up by police.

Pozzato would have been racing right now for example, had everyone taken the Vaughters approach of changing cycling from within. It sure wasn't the UCI or WADA who intercepted his phone calls.

 

[sniper]

Did I suggest otherwise anywhere?

no, but it's one of the issues JV leaves unaddressed.
And it nicely shows the hypocricy:
- Why does JV support wiggo? because wiggo has to be clean in order for JV's claim that cycling is growing cleaner to hold true and of course because clean wiggo rode for JV in 2009. All makes perfect sense.
- Why doesn't JV support the true whistleblowers? (I'm not talking about hiring them! A nice twitt "Go Jörg" would have done it). Because they're bad news for his sponsors.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

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!

The argument he puts forward can be summarised as follows:

1) During the height of the EPO era, it was essentially impossible to compete at the very top while clean and indeed it was essentially impossible for the less talented to keep up as pros at all.

2) Current anti-doping practices (and in particular the combination of EPO testing and the biopassport) have greatly reduced the ability of riders to take enough of the hot sauce to produce truly superhuman performances. This can be demonstrated through power outputs, which are no longer beyond those anticipated by sports scientists.

3) This doesn't mean that everyone is clean or anything similar. But it does mean that a highly talented clean rider can compete and win. Just as, for instance, a clean rider could do so before the EPO era when many were doped but dope was mostly itself the stuff of marginal gains. (As an aside, I strongly suspect that many of the substances taken in the old days were more the stuff of marginal losses).

4) The more effective anti-doping becomes, the less of an advantage doping gives you, the more the risk reward calculation on the part of cyclists and teams changes.

There are objections which can be raised to this argument, but it is reasonable and internally consistent. And it's also consistent with clean riders having the potential to win bigger races now than they did at other stages.

 

[roundabout]

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.



Did I suggest otherwise anywhere?

Why should he be a hassle? Because he committed the cardinal sin of going public? Apart from that he is no worse than Garmin's fearless leader.

And people do like to mention Garmin riders testifying quite a lot. Especially as a counter-argument to the team not willing to acknowledge people going public.

And no, you didn't suggest otherwise. But of all people in cycling you would normally expect the team that professes to be clean to at least raise the question of why that rider is not employed.

 

[Benotti69]

If Landis got a contract with Garmin back we went to Armstrong looking for one, why would he have been a hassle? He was never hassle when he road for USPS or Phonak till he got caught.

Maybe JV can illuminate us!

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Why should he be a hassle? Because he committed the cardinal sin of going public?

I presume that these are rhetorical questions?

Landis would bring hassle to any team (including any squeaky clean team) because he's an out spoken loose cannon who has the undying enmity of just about every powerful figure in the sport and who has been the focus of an unending torrent of media vilification. I am not suggesting that's fair for a second. I'm saying that it's true. And if you are honest, I think you know it's true as well.

 

[Benotti69]

I presume that these are rhetorical questions?

Landis would bring hassle to any team (including any squeaky clean team) because he's an out spoken loose cannon who has the undying enmity of just about every powerful figure in the sport and who has been the focus of an unending torrent of media vilification. I am not suggesting that's fair for a second. I'm saying that it's true. And if you are honest, I think you know it's true as well.

Landis became an outspoken cannon when the omerta turned on him. If he got a contract to ride, he might have been as quite as that nice Dekker Boy

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Again, to me it doesn't matter what he says here, or in the NYT, what matters is that he tells the whole truth as he knows it to USADA. If he fails to do that, unleash the hounds. But until we know that, I'm going to thank him for at least saying something, as so many refuse to do even that.

Again, yes & no.
I would agree that the important place to make admissions is with USADA.

On a personal basis JVs admission is neither extraordinary or new - but on a sporting level, as much as the sports needs dopers to be caught and punished it also needs personalities that the sport can give some hope.
Its a process, and part of that is acknowledging their own past and role - which is why i was appreciative that it has finally been addressed.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

"Burn the village to save the village"?

Really?

Yes, really.

As I've already said to you, I agree that scandals have been a very important engine for change. But I don't think it's that surprising that people who are dependent on the sport for their livelihoods will tend to prefer other methods even if they are sincerely anti-doping.

 

[thehog]

If Landis got a contract with Garmin back we went to Armstrong looking for one, why would he have been a hassle? He was never hassle when he road for USPS or Phonak till he got caught.

Maybe JV can illuminate us!

Because at the time he was having cocktails with ASO to get his team into the Tour. Slipstream wasn’t ProTour back then (or whatever it was called) and JV’s “in” was via ASO. The UCI and ASO were still in meltdown mode so you could get an invite via ASO rather than the UCI. Once he got the Tour invite under the guise of “anti-doping” the UCI begrudgingly began to accept Slipstream.

ASO said no to Floyd and I can only imagine later on McQuaid said the same.

btw/ The once touted “internal testing” program has now gone also.

JV will do what’s good for JV not for the sport/anti-doping.

 

[hrotha]

Landis became an outspoken cannon when the omerta turned on him. If he got a contract to ride, he might have been as quite as that nice Dekker Boy

Would he have been kosher before his outburst? I don't remember him admitting to his own doping until he let loose da bomb in 2010. In fact, he fought a long legal battle against the antidoping authorities, using less than legitimate means.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Landis became an outspoken cannon when the omerta turned on him.

So presumably you think that decision to hire him or not at that point was simply a matter of business and sporting decisions about the composition of the team? After all, hiring him, from your point of view, wouldn't then have involved standing up to omerta.

 

[Oldman]

The argument he puts forward can be summarised as follows:

1) During the height of the EPO era, it was essentially impossible to compete at the very top while clean and indeed it was essentially impossible for the less talented to keep up as pros at all. [color="RedJV lived this life, for sure.
2) Current anti-doping practices (and in particular the combination of EPO testing and the biopassport) have greatly reduced the ability of riders to take enough of the hot sauce to produce truly superhuman performances. This can be demonstrated through power outputs, which are no longer beyond those anticipated by sports scientists. [color="red"]Not sure this is true nor how JV would, other than his own riders. In that case the proof is that they could not.[/color]

3) This doesn't mean that everyone is clean or anything similar. But it does mean that a highly talented clean rider can compete and win. Just as, for instance, a clean rider could do so before the EPO era when many were doped but dope was mostly itself the stuff of marginal gains. (As an aside, I strongly suspect that many of the substances taken in the old days were more the stuff of marginal losses). Totally agree on the real Old School gear.

4) The more effective anti-doping becomes, the less of an advantage doping gives you, the more the risk reward calculation on the part of cyclists and teams changes. This could be true if there were solid, enforceable financial penalties and retroactive testing by someone independent of UCI. JV and the riders should just say they need a separation as the UCI victimizes and "prosecutes" unevenly.

There are objections which can be raised to this argument, but it is reasonable and internally consistent. And it's also consistent with clean riders having the potential to win bigger races now than they did at other stages.

Skeptics remain and the cleansing from within is not likely to alleviate that skepticism. JV and other DSs may not care.

Still want to know he fully disclosed to USADA whether it plays out or not.

 

[roundabout]

I presume that these are rhetorical questions?

Landis would bring hassle to any team (including any squeaky clean team) because he's an out spoken loose cannon who has the undying enmity of just about every powerful figure in the sport and who has been the focus of an unending torrent of media vilification. I am not suggesting that's fair for a second. I'm saying that it's true. And if you are honest, I think you know it's true as well.

No these are not rhetorical questions.

"We won't touch Floyd with a 30 foot pole, but we will happily use him to show the world how clean and cooperative we are".

Floyd may seem like a wacko, but again I don't see why he should be a pariah.

And of course without Floyd, it would be a lot harder to remove the easily offended people at the UCI. But maybe changing the culture of cycling from within isn't about that?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Floyd may seem like a wacko, but again I don't see why he should be a pariah.

You are confusing multiple issues here.

Landis' actions may well have been beneficial to everyone in the sport who is anti-doping, whether they realise it or not. But that's not the same issue as to whether or not he'd bring enormous hassle to even a squeaky clean team that hired him.

You are essentially arguing that Garmin should hire Floyd out of moral obligation, even though there's no apparent business case for hiring him and a strong business case for not doing so.

 

[roundabout]

Yes, really.

As I've already said to you, I agree that scandals have been a very important engine for change. But I don't think it's that surprising that people who are dependent on the sport for their livelihoods will tend to prefer other methods even if they are sincerely anti-doping.

Then they shouldn't write anything pseudo-sentimental if they are only prepared to take it really slowly and when methods within the sport are insufficient.

How many people would have to cheat then until tangible change is made? It's a lot better now, but Pozzato is one of the more obvious examples of a top rider who may still be doing something illegal, but wasn't caught.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Vaughters approach is in keeping with his long stated views. Understanding that doesn't entail agreeing with his views.

On this point we disagree because I think there's quite a bit of strategic morality at play here amounting to an anti-hero inside Pro cycling that enables the cheating anyway and making some more money as a DS along the way. We can agree to disagree and I could be wrong. It would be nice if I was wrong.

I got the facts wrong on my example. The point being key staff is sending riders off to doping doctors on a team supposedly infused with an anti-doping strategy. That's what I get for responding too quickly.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

S Not sure this is true nor how JV would, other than his own riders. In that case the proof is that they could not.

There's no shortage of people capable of doing reasonably close estimates. And you can have even better estimates when you have the recorded outputs and times of your own riders in the same races to use as a baseline.

Using the same calculation methods, it's pretty clear that outputs are seriously down at the moment. That's not proof of a clean peloton. But it's evidence that completely superhuman efforts, above and beyond the capacity of a very strong clean rider to compete with, are no longer the norm.

 

[roundabout]

You are confusing multiple issues here.

Landis' actions may well have been beneficial to everyone in the sport who is anti-doping, whether they realise it or not. But that's not the same issue as to whether or not he'd bring enormous hassle to even a squeaky clean team that hired him.

You are essentially arguing that Garmin should hire Floyd out of moral obligation, even though there's no apparent business case for hiring him and a strong business case for not doing so.

I am not arguing that Garmin should hire him. Nor that they have a moral obligation to do so.

I am arguing that Garmin is prepared to follow and not lead on the macro level.

I am arguing that without people like Floyd, Garmin would have been cleanly finishing top 30.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I am arguing that without people like Floyd, Garmin would have been cleanly finishing top 30.

That's not really in dispute between us. As I've said repeatedly, scandals have been good for anti-doping.

 

[Benotti69]

Would he have been kosher before his outburst? I don't remember him admitting to his own doping until he let loose da bomb in 2010. In fact, he fought a long legal battle against the antidoping authorities, using less than legitimate means.

Dont remember JV either admitting till t'other day, you name them with a few exceptions, Landis is part of a very large group.

But i guess Hog answered it best. JV wanted the TdF which he wouldn't have got with Landis.

JV looking after JV.

 

[Benotti69]

So presumably you think that decision to hire him or not at that point was simply a matter of business and sporting decisions about the composition of the team? After all, hiring him, from your point of view, wouldn't then have involved standing up to omerta.

JV likes to pretend he is not part of the omerta. He is there on its outer ring but still in there.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Dont remember JV either admitting till t'other day, you name them with a few exceptions, Landis is part of a very large group.

But i guess Hog answered it best. JV wanted the TdF which he wouldn't have got with Landis.

JV looking after JV.

I personally am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find the head of a business looking after the interests of that business.

(No really, I am. I'm Irish and I'm more used to business people gambling everything on property bubble roulette.)

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

JV likes to pretend he is not part of the omerta. He is there on its outer ring but still in there.

Nice sidestep.