JV talks, sort of

Page 251 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
JV still selling a cleanER sport.

B*LL*XS!

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/02/training-center/an-analysis-of-the-long-term-effects-of-performance-enhancing-drugs_317590

Proponents of lifetime bans are quick to counter with the fact that many cyclists, such as Zabriskie, Vande Velde, and Levi Leipheimer, enjoyed their best results after they claimed to have stopped doping. “It shouldn’t add up that these riders, who improved with doping, would continue to perform at a much higher level after doping,”........


.......Jonathan Vaughters, Garmin-Sharp team manager and an admitted former user of PEDs, attributes those performance increases to the sport cleaning itself up.
Levi won because he was clean! Hahahahahaha Levi and Horner making all the others look like Cat5s on Mt Baldy was clean racing? Hahahahahahahaha

So I conclude CVV and DZ never stopped doping either, they just got better at beating tests.

DZ points to Allen Lim for one reason of cleanER cycling.....hohohohoho

There weren’t guys like [physiologist] Allen Lim out there measuring lactate, figuring out inflammatory diets, with rice cakes and special electrolyte drinks,” he said.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
I still don't get why people buy into JV's bullshlt and I still don't understand why a former doper is allowed to have anything to do with cycling.
 
BYOP88 said:
I still don't get why people buy into JV's bullshlt and I still don't understand why a former doper is allowed to have anything to do with cycling.
Maybe because there is a belief by some people in better the devil you know.

Why should the likes of Madiot, Lavenu, Bernaudeau, Boyer be allowed to have a team any more than JV.

Bob Stapelton who ran HTC/High Road had no real connection with cycling but how many people believe HTC/High Road were clean.

Likewise Gerard Vroomen is viewed as an anti-doping advocate but for years his company backed Riis and then their own Cervelo team. Were they clean teams??
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Well now we know BroDeal's real name: Trevor Connor. :eek:

Because that article is the best trolling effort I've come across since the recent Hincapie ruckus. I really thought Velonews had already peaked in performance stupidity. Boy was I wrong.

Our celebrities have meltdowns...
Politicians sleep with interns...
athletes cheat on their wives...

In cycling, however, forgiveness is a foreign concept.
Oh boo f'cking hoo. Nice analogies there, Trevor. Even better, he out does himself only a few lines later.
If Toyota can build cars with life-endangering flaws, then apologize, offer a factory recall, and be forgiven, how hard is it, really, to excuse a few pro cyclists?
Wow. I haven't the words. Just f'cking WOW.


Lately, even our heroes are rewarded for their grand tour victories with cries of “not normal” and demands for power files and blood profiles.
"Our 'heroes'" LOL. Who the f'ck considers any of the guys "heroes"? Velonews is now sub-contracting to 10-year-olds?

“That is the most ridiculous thing,” said Christian Vande Velde (Garmin-Sharp) when asked if the effects of doping were permanent.
No, Christian, would you like to know what the most ridiculous thing is? Oh, never mind...
“I didn’t dope that much. It was just a few times. It didn’t even help that much …
Now that is trolling at its finest!

But Zabriskie manages even one better:
now it’s about adhering to legitimate training science.
There weren’t guys like [physiologist] Allen Lim out there measuring lactate, figuring out inflammatory diets, with rice cakes and special electrolyte drinks,” he said.
HAHAHAHA! Take that, Vande Velde! Dave Z. was always much funnier than CVV, but to pull out the RICE CAKES card?!?! Genius!

In his book The Secret Race, Tyler Hamilton wrote about how he was finishing in the third group on the road before he started doping. He also implied that doping ruined his career.
I must've missed that chapter. And I read the book twice.

But perhaps what’s most important is the lasting effect on the sport itself. In the study on why cyclists doped, a key reason was because of pressure put on them by the elder statesmen of the sport
The only thing missing from that is the account of George quivering at the sight of EPO in Frankie's fridge! Damn. What a missed opportunity.

If they can make that the true lasting effect of their doping, perhaps we can find it a little easier to forgive.
Forgive? Just to be clear: We're talking about people who get paid to ride bicycles, right? Forgive? Who f'cking cares? It's when they try to insult my intelligence that I get riled up. Not because they dope. They're professional athletes. I'm supposed to look up to them for some reason? :rolleyes:

ComedyNews never lets me down!
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
the elder statesman is obviously Armstrong. Pushing the entire peloton to dope, except his own teammates who only had to dope a few times.
 
Benotti69 said:
It's VeloNewt American voice of the UCI. I expect nothing less than full-blown propaganda. You should too.

I love how the author tries to pretend doping is almost natural, just taking a few extra naturally occurring hormones to bring an athlete back into balance. Don't talk about how some doping products super-charge cancer cells. It's all perfectly natural getting back into balance..

Cyclists who have doped with testosterone have done so with far lower doses than power lifters.

Oh really? Source please. Those T-users don't want to trip the T/E ratio test.

Just like all things in the body, epigenetic changes can be reversed. This is very new science.
Hmm. New biologic science and your 100% convinced it's reversed just as easily as it was created.

I know for a fact I read that same closing paragraph after Festina controversy ended.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Granville57 said:
Well now we know BroDeal's real name: Trevor Connor. :eek:

Because that article is the best trolling effort I've come across since . . .
DirtyWorks said:
Probably this guy: . . .

Uh, hey. Guys? You do remember that "outing" a poster's RLID is so far on the dark side that it can get you an instant ban? I mean faster than ramen noodles quick, right? Now, I'm recognizing that you are attempting humor - ok - but this is a bad idea for humor. Very bad.

Granville57 said:
. . .
Because that article is the best trolling effort I've come across since the recent Hincapie ruckus. I really thought Velonews had already peaked in performance stupidity. Boy was I wrong.

Oh boo f'cking hoo. Nice analogies there, Trevor. Even better, he out does himself only a few lines later.
Wow. I haven't the words. Just f'cking WOW.


"Our 'heroes'" LOL. Who the f'ck considers any of the guys "heroes"? Velonews is now sub-contracting to 10-year-olds?

No, Christian, would you like to know what the most ridiculous thing is? Oh, never mind...
Now that is trolling at its finest!

But Zabriskie manages even one better:
HAHAHAHA! Take that, Vande Velde! Dave Z. was always much funnier than CVV, but to pull out the RICE CAKES card?!?! Genius!

I must've missed that chapter. And I read the book twice.

The only thing missing from that is the account of George quivering at the sight of EPO in Frankie's fridge! Damn. What a missed opportunity.

Forgive? Just to be clear: We're talking about people who get paid to ride bicycles, right? Forgive? Who f'cking cares? It's when they try to insult my intelligence that I get riled up. Not because they dope. They're professional athletes. I'm supposed to look up to them for some reason? :rolleyes:

ComedyNews never lets me down!
Uh, not a little emotionally invested here, are we?
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
I asked this question directly of JV on twitter about 6 months ago and he gave me the same response, your performance goes below pre doped levels when you come off. Well sorry that makes no sense. Why then are all the dopers who stopped in 2006 yet the results are pretty much the same as when they doped. Imagine if they never doped, they would win everything.

Either there is residual gains from the years of enhanced training or they haven't stopped doping. But that doesn't fit the narrative does it.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
hiero2 said:
Uh, hey. Guys? You do remember that "outing" a poster's RLID is so far on the dark side that it can get you an instant ban? I mean faster than ramen noodles quick, right? Now, I'm recognizing that you are attempting humor - ok - but this is a bad idea for humor. Very bad.
Oh f'ckin hell. You can not be serious, can you???????


I was really, really, REALLY hoping that I wouldn't have to drop in the disclaimer that:

BRODEAL'S REAL NAME IS NOT TREVOR CONNOR!
TREVOR CONNOR IS NOT BRODEAL!
THIS IS A JOKE REFERENCE! :rolleyes:
I DON'T KNOW BRODEAL'S REAL NAME, AND IF I DID, I WOULD NEVER REVEAL IT TO ANYONE HERE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER!
(Has anyone been following the Lance thread lately?)

Funny thing is, heiro, I actually had you in mind. But then I remembered that you weren't a mod anymore, so I didn't think I would have to take that precaution.

But hey, if taking the fun out of CN is still a hobby, don't let me intervene.


hiero2 said:
Uh, not a little emotionally invested here, are we?
Actually, no. Please try to keep up. It's all entertainment.
 
Granville57 said:
Well now we know BroDeal's real name: Trevor Connor. :eek:

Because that article is the best trolling effort I've come across since the recent Hincapie ruckus. I really thought Velonews had already peaked in performance stupidity. Boy was I wrong.

Oh boo f'cking hoo. Nice analogies there, Trevor. Even better, he out does himself only a few lines later.
Wow. I haven't the words. Just f'cking WOW.


"Our 'heroes'" LOL. Who the f'ck considers any of the guys "heroes"? Velonews is now sub-contracting to 10-year-olds?

No, Christian, would you like to know what the most ridiculous thing is? Oh, never mind...
Now that is trolling at its finest!

But Zabriskie manages even one better:
HAHAHAHA! Take that, Vande Velde! Dave Z. was always much funnier than CVV, but to pull out the RICE CAKES card?!?! Genius!

I must've missed that chapter. And I read the book twice.

The only thing missing from that is the account of George quivering at the sight of EPO in Frankie's fridge! Damn. What a missed opportunity.

Forgive? Just to be clear: We're talking about people who get paid to ride bicycles, right? Forgive? Who f'cking cares? It's when they try to insult my intelligence that I get riled up. Not because they dope. They're professional athletes. I'm supposed to look up to them for some reason? :rolleyes:

ComedyNews never lets me down!

Good post man. Cheers for summarizing it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ralphbert said:
I asked this question directly of JV on twitter about 6 months ago and he gave me the same response, your performance goes below pre doped levels when you come off. Well sorry that makes no sense. Why then are all the dopers who stopped in 2006 yet the results are pretty much the same as when they doped. Imagine if they never doped, they would win everything.

Either there is residual gains from the years of enhanced training or they haven't stopped doping. But that doesn't fit the narrative does it.
You should read what he actually said - he did not say those negative effects would last, and that it was dependent on how much EPO the athlete took.

"But I have also noticed that when you cease taking the drug, there is a sort of backlash — since your bone marrow receptors have been over-occupied with erythropoietin, your body basically shuts down red blood cell production for a while and the bone marrow isn’t as receptive to natural erythropoietin.”

Vaughters said he has seen riders drop well below their pre-EPO baseline abilities, and claims the effect last years in some cases.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
ralphbert said:
I asked this question directly of JV on twitter about 6 months ago and he gave me the same response, your performance goes below pre doped levels when you come off. Well sorry that makes no sense. Why then are all the dopers who stopped in 2006 yet the results are pretty much the same as when they doped. Imagine if they never doped, they would win everything.
If you take exogenous (testosterone, HgH, EPO), as an example, your body seeks equilibrium with "normal" levels, and will stop producing endogenous substances to do so.

If you stop doping - cold turkey - your body's endogenous production is still suppressed, and will take some time - days or even weeks - to recover.

So in a very clever way, he is correct. You can go worse. Once the exogenous input has worn off and before the endogenous restart happens, you will probably be worse than your pre-doped levels.

Very importantly: if you continue to train and race, you won't lose all the gains you made while on the dope. All your new heart muscle, blood vessels, enhanced enzyme production, etc, is more than likely at a better level now than it was pre-doped. Not as good as being on the dope, but better than you were before.

All this is explaining better performances post-doping, assuming no doping is taking place. Now add in a little bit of recovery here and there, an occasional blood boost with some EPO to match the retic suppression and whammo - GT win kthxbi.
 
Connor's article was interesting, but he completely overlooked an obvious corollary of his homeostasis theory. If the body resists changes brought about by doping (or training), and has to be pushed into reaching a new balance, then the body also resists detraining. IOW, once you have begun doping, not only are you psychologically addicted to the better performance possible, but your body is physically resistant to quitting the doping program. This would be an additional factor in making it difficult for athletes to give up doping--and also in making it more likely that having quit for a while, they may resume at a later point.

But the psychological factors are more important, and not addressed at all by Connor. Those familiar with drug addiction research understand that even more important than physical addiction or tolerance, during the detraining process, is craving. This may continue for years, indeed, indefinitely, which is why even those who have successfully stopped taking some drug are at risk of a relapse for their entire lives. As they say in the twelve step program, there are no ex-addictsor cured addicts, only recovering addicts.

One of the most important factors affecting craving is setting. Addicts are always urged to give up relationships with people and places associated with taking drugs, because they constitute an environment that is part of the drug-taking process. Translating this to doping, obviously as long as an athlete is still active--a rider is in the peloton--the setting doesn't change, which means the craving never ceases.

So I would take Connor's analysis with a large grain of salt. Just because the physical effects of (some) drugs may disappear in a relatively short time after an athlete becomes clean does not mean that the desire to take them also disappears. And let me be very clear here. The desire at this point is not simply the original desire of performance enhancement that motivated doping in the first place. It's a craving based in psychological changes that developed only after the doping began.

This IMO is where the real war against doping will have to be waged.
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
You should read what he actually said - he did not say those negative effects would last, and that it was dependent on how much EPO the athlete took.
I understand what he said. The point is I was asking in the context of being a long term unfair advantage for dirty old dopers gone clean and JV trots out well when you come off you are worse than before. AKA nothing to see here move along. ie Not answering the intent of the question but trotting out something believable but irrelevant.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ralphbert said:
I understand what he said. The point is I was asking in the context of being a long term unfair advantage for dirty old dopers gone clean and JV trots out well when you come off you are worse than before. AKA nothing to see here move along. ie Not answering the intent of the question but trotting out something believable but irrelevant.
And JV addressed that in the pice I quoted - he said "your body basically shuts down red blood cell production for a while" and went even further to clarify that 'the effect last years in some cases'.
 
Merckx index said:
Connor's article was interesting, but he completely overlooked an obvious corollary of his homeostasis theory. If the body resists changes brought about by doping (or training), and has to be pushed into reaching a new balance, then the body also resists detraining. IOW, once you have begun doping, not only are you psychologically addicted to the better performance possible, but your body is physically resistant to quitting the doping program. This would be an additional factor in making it difficult for athletes to give up doping--and also in making it more likely that having quit for a while, they may resume at a later point.

But the psychological factors are more important, and not addressed at all by Connor. Those familiar with drug addiction research understand that even more important than physical addiction or tolerance, during the detraining process, is craving. This may continue for years, indeed, indefinitely, which is why even those who have successfully stopped taking some drug are at risk of a relapse for their entire lives. As they say in the twelve step program, there are no ex-addictsor cured addicts, only recovering addicts.

One of the most important factors affecting craving is setting. Addicts are always urged to give up relationships with people and places associated with taking drugs, because they constitute an environment that is part of the drug-taking process. Translating this to doping, obviously as long as an athlete is still active--a rider is in the peloton--the setting doesn't change, which means the craving never ceases.

So I would take Connor's analysis with a large grain of salt. Just because the physical effects of (some) drugs may disappear in a relatively short time after an athlete becomes clean does not mean that the desire to take them also disappears. And let me be very clear here. The desire at this point is not simply the original desire of performance enhancement that motivated doping in the first place. It's a craving based in psychological changes that developed only after the doping began.

This IMO is where the real war against doping will have to be waged.
Brilliant post there MI.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Merckx index said:
Connor's article was interesting, but he completely overlooked an obvious corollary of his homeostasis theory. If the body resists changes brought about by doping (or training), and has to be pushed into reaching a new balance, then the body also resists detraining. IOW, once you have begun doping, not only are you psychologically addicted to the better performance possible, but your body is physically resistant to quitting the doping program. This would be an additional factor in making it difficult for athletes to give up doping--and also in making it more likely that having quit for a while, they may resume at a later point.

But the psychological factors are more important, and not addressed at all by Connor. Those familiar with drug addiction research understand that even more important than physical addiction or tolerance, during the detraining process, is craving. This may continue for years, indeed, indefinitely, which is why even those who have successfully stopped taking some drug are at risk of a relapse for their entire lives. As they say in the twelve step program, there are no ex-addictsor cured addicts, only recovering addicts.

One of the most important factors affecting craving is setting. Addicts are always urged to give up relationships with people and places associated with taking drugs, because they constitute an environment that is part of the drug-taking process. Translating this to doping, obviously as long as an athlete is still active--a rider is in the peloton--the setting doesn't change, which means the craving never ceases.

So I would take Connor's analysis with a large grain of salt. Just because the physical effects of (some) drugs may disappear in a relatively short time after an athlete becomes clean does not mean that the desire to take them also disappears. And let me be very clear here. The desire at this point is not simply the original desire of performance enhancement that motivated doping in the first place. It's a craving based in psychological changes that developed only after the doping began.

This IMO is where the real war against doping will have to be waged.
Amphetamines, cocaine - sure.
You don't get addicted physiologically to EPO or blood transfusions.
I have read nearly every ex dopers stories, I do not recall a single one saying the kept a bag of blood in the fridge in case they couldn't get through the day.

You won't crave a blood bag - what you may crave is the benefits i.e. the adulation, the money, etc that is very different. Thats just risk v reward.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Merckx index said:
It's a craving based in psychological changes that developed only after the doping began.

This IMO is where the real war against doping will have to be waged.
I have not come across this angle—in terms of pure physical addiction—regarding the typical PEDs that where hear about being used in cycling anywhere before that I can remember. If true, it might help explain someone like Ricco who seemed to exhibit a more addictive behavior whereby excessively risky methods and/or procedures were able to override common sense (or at least methods that were more medically sound). Or maybe not. I couldn't possibly know.

But I have never heard from those who have been more transparent with the details of their doping—Floyd, JV, Tyler and Bernard Kohl come to mind immediately—ever mention a physical addiction, especially in terms of "cravings."

Can anyone site any examples of this from any dopers we are more or less "familiar" with?


[Edit]
Good lord. I've just looked up to realize that, once again, it's a race between Maserati and myself for the same post. :eek:
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Granville57 said:
Oh f'ckin hell. You can not be serious, can you???????


I was really, really, REALLY hoping that I wouldn't have to drop in the disclaimer that:

BRODEAL'S REAL NAME IS NOT TREVOR CONNOR!
TREVOR CONNOR IS NOT BRODEAL!
THIS IS A JOKE REFERENCE! :rolleyes:
I DON'T KNOW BRODEAL'S REAL NAME, AND IF I DID, I WOULD NEVER REVEAL IT TO ANYONE HERE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER!
(Has anyone been following the Lance thread lately?)

Funny thing is, heiro, I actually had you in mind. But then I remembered that you weren't a mod anymore, so I didn't think I would have to take that precaution.

But hey, if taking the fun out of CN is still a hobby, don't let me intervene.



Actually, no. Please try to keep up. It's all entertainment.
That's all good - do keep me in mind. I might get a chance to show my appreciation some day. Just think of me as "that totally humorless stupid guy who doesn't even get 'knights who say ni!' ----- and if you think that guy might misunderstand what you've said - that guy probably WILL misunderstand it.

Glad to see your disclaimer though. And since we are on the topic of humor, and BroDeal, you should enjoy this one:

http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2014/02/20
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
And JV addressed that in the pice I quoted - he said "your body basically shuts down red blood cell production for a while" and went even further to clarify that 'the effect last years in some cases'.
And in other cases lasts for weeks? I don't believe JV is being straight up in this case.

So if you agree with Vaughters that old dopers are in fact at a disadvantage how do you explain there results when the speeds have not gone down.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
42x16ss The Clinic 20

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS