JV talks, sort of

Page 252 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ralphbert said:
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.
JV did not say this. Simple.
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
JV did not say this. Simple.
Huh? What does this statement mean then:
"Vaughters said he has seen riders drop well below their pre-EPO baseline abilities, and claims the effect last years in some cases."

I genuinely don't understand your point.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ralphbert said:
Huh? What does this statement mean then:
"Vaughters said he has seen riders drop well below their pre-EPO baseline abilities, and claims the effect last years in some cases."

I genuinely don't understand your point.
It means exactly what is says.
I genuinely have no idea how you can get it to mean more than it says.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
ralphbert said:
Huh? What does this statement mean then:
"Vaughters said he has seen riders drop well below their pre-EPO baseline abilities, and claims the effect last years in some cases."

I genuinely don't understand your point.
Some posters are incapable of seeing what is actually being said, or hinted at, or extrapolate from what was said.

They can only see the verbatim quote, and nothing more. No pattern or implication is visible to them, nothing.

If you do not quote the exact words, they will call you on it.

Trying to have a meaningful discussion, based on the result of what was said, or the implication thereof, will fail, spectacularly, every time.

As you attempt to explain what you are saying, they will continue to pick apart what you are writing, because its foundation is based on what you believe is being implied, as reliable and obvious to you and everyone else as that may be, the pedant, who sees a mistake in your quote, will argue, ad in finitum, that you are wrong.

You will then have a go at them for doing the same thing, and thus, the vortex is born.

If you persist, as you seem to be doing, the vortex only grows in power, until entire threads are rent asunder, laid waste by the power unleashed by the indomitable will of the pedant, safe and secure in his righteous anger that you did not quote the original source verbatim. For the pedant is oblivious to the true nature of communication where things unsaid or the way things are said impart as much or more information than the original quote. Something you - and most everyone else - pick up subconsciously. And you are truly bamboozled how the pedant fails to see what is being said.

But it is what it is.

Pay heed, fearless poster, for only madness and destruction and probably bans lie that way.
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
When the question is asked: Is there a long term gain in performance from using EPO training at an elevated level then stopping EPO and the answer is: No in fact they perform at lower level than before they took EPO and it can stay that way for years. I take it to mean they are at a disadvantage to riders who never took EPO. That doesn't seem like broken logic to me?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Some posters are incapable of seeing what is actually being said, or hinted at, or extrapolate from what was said.

They can only see the verbatim quote, and nothing more. No pattern or implication is visible to them, nothing.

If you do not quote the exact words, they will call you on it.
Trying to have a meaningful discussion, based on the result of what was said, or the implication thereof, will fail, spectacularly, every time.

As you attempt to explain what you are saying, they will continue to pick apart what you are writing, because its foundation is based on what you believe is being implied, as reliable and obvious to you and everyone else as that may be, the pedant, who sees a mistake in your quote, will argue, ad in finitum, that you are wrong.

You will then have a go at them for doing the same thing, and thus, the vortex is born.

If you persist, as you seem to be doing, the vortex only grows in power, until entire threads are rent asunder, laid waste by the power unleashed by the indomitable will of the pedant, safe and secure in his righteous anger that you did not quote the original source verbatim. For the pedant is oblivious to the true nature of communication where things unsaid or the way things are said impart as much or more information than the original quote. Something you - and most everyone else - pick up subconsciously. And you are truly bamboozled how the pedant fails to see what is being said.

But it is what it is.

Pay heed, fearless poster, for only madness and destruction and probably bans lie that way.
That is disgraceful.

I am more than capable of extrapolating from what JV said. Nor am I only basing that on JVs quotes - he says quite clearly that much of it is dependent on how much EPO was taken over the riders career.
Which IMO is not even remotely controversial.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
JV once told a TED talk that 6 hours of 15W saving is worth 1000 calories. It's actually only worth 324. He failed to mention that that 15W saving is only available at 48km/hr, solo, vs embedded within a group until the final 20 minutes. Noone batted an eyelid, however. Most people think JV is a genius. How simple it was for him to turn around and admit, "I made a mistake". But the implication in that is astounding, given it was the reason for having his rider wear a skinsuit all race in the first place...

The 1000 calorie saving sounds far better when it comes to explaining how his clean as pure snow rider managed to win Paris Roubaix.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Some posters are incapable of seeing what is actually being said, or hinted at, or extrapolate from what was said.

They can only see the verbatim quote, and nothing more. No pattern or implication is visible to them, nothing.

If you do not quote the exact words, they will call you on it.

Trying to have a meaningful discussion, based on the result of what was said, or the implication thereof, will fail, spectacularly, every time.

As you attempt to explain what you are saying, they will continue to pick apart what you are writing, because its foundation is based on what you believe is being implied, as reliable and obvious to you and everyone else as that may be, the pedant, who sees a mistake in your quote, will argue, ad in finitum, that you are wrong.

You will then have a go at them for doing the same thing, and thus, the vortex is born.

If you persist, as you seem to be doing, the vortex only grows in power, until entire threads are rent asunder, laid waste by the power unleashed by the indomitable will of the pedant, safe and secure in his righteous anger that you did not quote the original source verbatim. For the pedant is oblivious to the true nature of communication where things unsaid or the way things are said impart as much or more information than the original quote. Something you - and most everyone else - pick up subconsciously. And you are truly bamboozled how the pedant fails to see what is being said.

But it is what it is.

Pay heed, fearless poster, for only madness and destruction and probably bans lie that way.
Lying is your thing isn't it?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Whether it's true or not, anything that can be used to support the narrative that "the peloton is cleaner" will be used, at any available opportunity.

It's good for business.

The fact that it doesn't actually make logical sense doesn't matter to the average fan, coz they don't follow that closely, nor do they know the history.

If so and so says it, it must be true.

eg: JV once told a TED talk that 6 hours of 15W saving is worth 1000 calories. It's actually only worth 324. He failed to mention that that 15W saving is only available at 48km/hr, solo, vs embedded within a group until the final 20 minutes. Noone batted an eyelid, however. Most people think JV is a genius. How simple it was for him to turn around and admit, "I made a mistake". But the implication in that is astounding, given it was the reason for having his rider wear a skinsuit all race in the first place...

The 1000 calorie saving sounds far better when it comes to explaining how his clean as pure snow rider managed to win Paris Roubaix.

You have to be very careful expressing outrage at the ridiculous claims made also - people get very offended if you aren't polite towards their heroes / forum "royalty".
You can attempt to lie all you wish about JV - when you do, I will correct it.

However, the highlighted is untrue and you know it.
I could get a mod to sort this out - but right now, I am not sure they are taking requests from me.

So, if you ever lie about me again, I will mod you.... and it won't be pretty.
You will be smacking the report button more than you smack your own dick, screaming for a mod to come and rescue you- and any ban I get, I will insist you get double.
Wanna play?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Race Radio said:
Lying is your thing isn't it?
Are you trying to pick a fight with me?
Guidelines for Posting
Post, not the poster. If you don't like what a post says, counter the post. Do not attack the poster. Personal comments, such as "Your mother wears army boots", are considered personal attacks, and thus fall under the "looking for a fight" rule. If you are using the word "you", you are probably engaging in a personal attack.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=20
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Are you trying to pick a fight with me?
Just pointing out the obvious. You posts are filled with intentional distortions designed to cause conflict. Even you can see twisting what Dr. Mas wrote is a lie designed to attack the poster. Just like your lie about my PM. You invented something in an attempt to cause a fight. You should read the rules.

We should give it a nickname. Since Vortex is already taking how about pinocchiotex?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Race Radio said:
Just pointing out the obvious. You posts are filled with intentional distortions designed to cause conflict.

We should give it a nickname. Since Vortex is already taking how about pinocchiotex?

Are you still trying to pick a fight with me?
Guidelines for Posting
Post, not the poster. If you don't like what a post says, counter the post. Do not attack the poster. Personal comments, such as "Your mother wears army boots", are considered personal attacks, and thus fall under the "looking for a fight" rule. If you are using the word "you", you are probably engaging in a personal attack.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=20
 
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'.
ralphbert said:
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.
Dr. Maserati said:
JV did not say this. Simple.
ralphbert said:
Huh? What does this statement mean then:
"Vaughters said he has seen riders drop well below their pre-EPO baseline abilities, and claims the effect last years in some cases."

I genuinely don't understand your point.
Dr. Maserati said:
It means exactly what is says.
I genuinely have no idea how you can get it to mean more than it says.
I genuinely find this whole exchange to be more than a little surreal. So JV said that riders who stopped using EPO suffered from a shut down in their body's ability to produce red blood cells but this does not put them at a disadvantage when it comes to racing? And here I thought more red blood cells was what made the cycling world go round.:rolleyes:
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Are you still trying to pick a fight with me?
Point out the obvious is not picking a fight. Lying to provoke a conflict is picking a fight.....and is against the rules.

You should stop
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Race Radio said:
Point out the obvious is not picking a fight. Lying to provoke a conflict is picking a fight.....and is against the rules.

You should stop

Are you trying to pick a fight with me?
Guidelines for Posting
Post, not the poster. If you don't like what a post says, counter the post. Do not attack the poster. Personal comments, such as "Your mother wears army boots", are considered personal attacks, and thus fall under the "looking for a fight" rule. If you are using the word "you", you are probably engaging in a personal attack.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=20
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Race Radio said:
Look out folks, it is the Pinocchiotex

Are you trying to pick a fight with me?
Guidelines for Posting
Post, not the poster. If you don't like what a post says, counter the post. Do not attack the poster. Personal comments, such as "Your mother wears army boots", are considered personal attacks, and thus fall under the "looking for a fight" rule. If you are using the word "you", you are probably engaging in a personal attack.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/announcement.php?f=20
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Are you trying to pick a fight with me?
This would be an example of somebody picking a fight

Dear Wiggo said:
You will then have a go at them for doing the same thing, and thus, the vortex is born.

If you persist, as you seem to be doing, the vortex only grows in power, until entire threads are rent asunder, laid waste by the power unleashed by the indomitable will of the pedant, safe and secure in his righteous anger that you did not quote the original source verbatim. For the pedant is oblivious to the true nature of communication where things unsaid or the way things are said impart as much or more information than the original quote. Something you - and most everyone else - pick up subconsciously. And you are truly bamboozled how the pedant fails to see what is being said.
Deliberately lying about a PM, that would be picking a fight

You might want to read the rules instead of trying disrupt yet another thread
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Hugh Januss said:
I genuinely find this whole exchange to be more than a little surreal. So JV said that riders who stopped using EPO suffered from a shut down in their body's ability to produce red blood cells but this does not put them at a disadvantage when it comes to racing? And here I thought more red blood cells was what made the cycling world go round.:rolleyes:
Hugh,
As you know, I respect you so, if if I have errored I will accept your view.
In the piece I read JV states that when you cease taking EPO there is a backlash, and that your body stops producing for "a while".

Now. If JV said it stopped completely it would sound complete BS, but he does not say that. He even says he say that the consequences more from riders of the pre 50% HCT limit.
I cannot see how that gets extended here to mean that riders who stopped in 2006 should not be able to reproduce by now. (2014, although it feels like 2009)
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
While I do think that long term doping does have it's benefits there have been cases where dopers are far worse off as their body stops making what it was being suplimented with

Jose Canseco

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/jose-canseco-denies-banned-substance-play-mexican-league-article-1.1035364

I went to a specialist at UCLA, and he said because I used steroids for such a long period of time, my own system doesn't produce testosterone anymore,"
Pantani has similar issues with his Hct. After using EPO for so many years his body struggle to make RBC without EPO. It took several months for his body to get back to normal
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Dear Wiggo said:
For those wondering what's going on, Hugh Januss summarises it, with quotes, nicely here:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1400895&postcount=6036

Some people cannot make the leap from "suppressed red blood cell production" to "disadvantaged", some can. Hugh Januss can. I can. ralphbert can.

Can you?
Lying again?
Where in the exchange you posted does it use the words "suppressed red blood cell production" or "disadvantaged" - again, this is you taking liberties with what JV says.
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
What burns me is this is classic JV.

On one hand he says: My guys have no advantage from historical doping, in fact they are at a disadvantage. You can let them back after a 6 month ban, everything is fair and even.

Then on the other hand he says: My guys can compete just fine now they are clean because doping doesn't make that much difference anyway, the sport is cleanER and they have recovered just fine, no long term damage from EPO.
 
Merckx index said:
But the psychological factors are more important, and not addressed at all by Connor.
While I agree athletics attracts addictive personalities, but, that's not the main point of the article. The article goes to great lengths to minimize the consequences of doping and somehow make doping okay. As a result, 2014 might be another ridiculous season.

You guys need to be careful with the quotes used. Writers can misplace "on the record" statements intentionally or uninentionally and change their meaning. It's another PR exercise for JV. You guys can squabble all you want but he was on message for 60 seconds then got back to whatever he was doing. And I'm assuming the writer called JV to okay the quote and didn't lift it from another article.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
42x16ss The Clinic 8

ASK THE COMMUNITY