• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

JV talks, sort of

Page 27 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
JV1973 said:
I think it's very hard to quantify the differences things like cortisone and testosterone make. Both were available and used in the 1980's, but yet i don't think were overly effective. Even if they did help, it wasn't to the degree that a clean rider could not win, which is what happens with o2 vector doping.

With both test and cortisone, it probably varies from athlete to athlete. Am athlete with low natural testosterone would probably benefit quite a bit from supplemental. Conversely, someone with high test probably would not. Using it to the point of actually gaining muscle mass is a mixed bag too. More muscle, more weight.

Cortisone, same thing. It's anti-inflammatory properties can help you "feel" fast, but it's a catabolic hormone, and that has big downsides on performance too.

I am over simplifying, but these doping agents are not that effective. It's still cheating and I'm sure there are some performance gains to be had, but it's not game changing, like o2 vector stuff. With this stuff, "just say no" is totally viable, and winning races clean viable as well.

With 15% increases in hemoglobin? forget about it...

Interesting indeed, thanks!

On a critical note: you're saying test and cortisone provide, if any, only marginal gains. So you seem to be implying that marginal gains are not decisive in determining the outcome of a GT, correct?
According to Sky, marginal gains ARE decisive, allowing them to be way ahead of the field.
 
Benotti69 said:
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.
JV can confirm it himself, but the story goes he did admit it years before, to USADA. Compare to Landis, who was hacking French lab computers.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Zinoviev Letter said:
This is what's known as making the perfect the enemy of the good. Reducing the effectiveness of doping isn't anyone's end goal. But it is one of the most important advances.

Leave Vaughters and Garmin out of this for a moment. Let's say you start Team Benotti. Let's say that you are sincerely, 100% anti-doping. And let's say you are about to take on a promising, highly talented, neo-pro. Which of these situations is better?

1) If you talk honestly to the kid, you'll have to tell him that even with his ability he's going to be pack fodder at the very best. If he really develops into one of the most talented around, he might even one day finish his career with a single stage victory in the Dauphine Libere. If he doesn't develop very well, he probably won't even be able to hold down a pro contract. Unless of course he gets on the hot sauce.

2) If you talk honestly to the kid, you can tell him that there are still plenty of people out there cheating, but the degree to which they can get away with turbocharging is limited. He will have to be more talented than the dopers to consistently beat them, but if he works hard enough and if he has enough ability he might some day contend for a Grand Tour. And unlike those trying a shortcut, he won't run a better than even chance of taking a very embarrassing two year unpaid holiday.

Option (2) does not mean that doping has been eradicated or that it is on the verge of being eradicated. It doesn't even necessarily mean that it's less common that it was in the 70s or 80s. But like those periods, it means that the clean can compete in a way that they couldn't in more recent periods.

Team Benotti would not wear argyle, ever:D

It is not possible in today's pro cycling environment to be clean as a team.

If the neo pro had half a brain he would be asking himself all these questions and would know the answer before becoming a 1st year pro. I would love to see someone ride all season proving they are clean. Lets see a team nominate their most talented 1st, 2nd or 3rd year pro and give us as much info so we can see he can ride well clean!

I wouldn't run a team in the current pro peloton. The talk of change from with in is BS. The bio passport has been a joke. It has been used to cherry pick and choose and probably worse, blackmail.

The sport cant be clean while we have the UCI in its current guise. It cant be clean while we have DS's who are part of the old school of doping. Even the new DS who were not part of the old school are turning old school. Hello Brailsford.

Do you believe Hesjedal won the Giro on bread and water?

I dont.
 
hrotha said:
Indeed. Was USADA sitting on their arses for, what, 6-7 years? What did they do with that info?

Stuff like this makes a good argument for going straight to the media instead of through official avenues.

If it was not for Landis being shut out of a job and deciding to get medieval on cycling's ass then all this talking in secret would have amounted to nothing more than a way for someone to salve their conscience, and without personal consequences I might add.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
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 :rolleyes:
Nice score.

That's how pro cycling handles 'tell nothings', hell he even got buddy Lim a job on Garmin.

And to be clear, Dekker had **** numbers but he hasn't named anyone and now is back in 'tha belly'. So, what did JV's sponsors have to say about Landis?
JV1973 said:
Sport may not perfectly clean, but it is clean enough that the talented athlete can win.
And call the cynics cynics?

'He boys, just stay within the bandwith of the Bio and you are clean.'

It's just like the 50% 1997 farce, thanx for the 'revelation'.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
Indeed. Was USADA sitting on their arses for, what, 6-7 years? What did they do with that info?
I suspect that you think the info relates to Armstrong.
I would doubt that, as JV was not in their clique. Did he know what they were up to, sure - could he prove it, no. Not unless others are willing to corroborate what he says - and when there was an opportunity, both Floyd and Tyler chose to fight their cases.

hrotha said:
Stuff like this makes a good argument for going straight to the media instead of through official avenues.
At first I was going to agree with this, but actually no, and certainly not in this case.
If JV came out with anything before he would have been crushed by the mob and everyone after would have stayed silent.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
I suspect that you think the info relates to Armstrong.
I would doubt that, as JV was not in their clique. Did he know what they were up to, sure - could he prove it, no. Not unless others are willing to corroborate what he says - and when there was an opportunity, both Floyd and Tyler chose to fight their cases.


At first I was going to agree with this, but actually no, and certainly not in this case.
If JV came out with anything before he would have been crushed by the mob and everyone after would have stayed silent.
I imagine his info relates to Armstrong even if it's only indirectly (the official story is he only doped when he rode for US Postal), but that's pretty irrelevant and I wasn't thinking about him when I wrote that. No matter who it was about, it doesn't seem like they did much with the info. Some would say a detailed account of doping at US Postal (and I wouldn't expect any less) should be enough to trigger an investigation to see if there's any truth to it. You know, like when Landis talked.

The thing is, it would seem that without Landis's whistleblowing JV's info would have come to naught, making his confession to USADA irrelevant. I don't blame JV, because I imagine he thought USADA would do their job, but when the authorities are lazy, inefficient or corrupt you have to bypass them.
 
Jun 16, 2009
60
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
That's silly. You’re being silly.

It was Puerto that busted the whole thing wide open and brought blood doping to the fore. Before then he general public was still believing in high cadence!

Think about it.

I strongly disagree. Puerto was just a repeat of the Festina affair. Only the insiders paid any attention.

Two things that Floyd did were monumental. He, as an insider, implicated LA, with vivid details, and he suggested a coordinated cover up by the top organizers. But, Floyd was brash AND alone, so many wrote him off.

It wasn't until Novitsky opened an investigation, leaked that George had rolled and Tyler went on 60 minutes that the general public really started paying attention and any real hope of change started building momentum.

Floyd made it possible for Tyler, a guy who showed his pain and internal conflict, not his rage, to come forward and Floyd gave Novitsky the ammo for a potential fraud case. He's the one that pulled the last Jinga block.

M
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Nice score.

That's how pro cycling handles 'tell nothings', hell he even got buddy Lim a job on Garmin.

And to be clear, Dekker had **** numbers but he hasn't named anyone and now is back in 'tha belly'.

Dekker told WADA a lot about the doping at Rabobank
 
eyemgh said:
I strongly disagree. Puerto was just a repeat of the Festina affair. Only the insiders paid any attention.

Two things that Floyd did were monumental. He, as an insider, implicated LA, with vivid details, and he suggested a coordinated cover up by the top organizers. But, Floyd was brash AND alone, so many wrote him off.

It wasn't until Novitsky opened an investigation, leaked that George had rolled and Tyler went on 60 minutes that the general public really started paying attention and any real hope of change started building momentum.

Floyd made it possible for Tyler, a guy who showed his pain and internal conflict, not his rage, to come forward and Floyd gave Novitsky the ammo for a potential fraud case. He's the one that pulled the last Jinga block.

M

What are you talking about? We’re talking about Slipstream hiring Floyd not about the 2010 confession. Keep up.
 
hrotha said:
Indeed. Was USADA sitting on their arses for, what, 6-7 years? What did they do with that info?

Stuff like this makes a good argument for going straight to the media instead of through official avenues.

Gosh, you just don't get it.

The UCI knows what is best for the sport.

Who do you Clinic people think you are? Who does JV think he is? Who do you think let his team win the Giro?

You don't know how hard it is to run something as complicated as a sport governing body.

We know what is best for you, and strongly recommend that you accept the truth and stop your foolishness once and for all. If you don't we will sue all of you.

Dave.
 
BroDeal said:
If it was not for Landis being shut out of a job and deciding to get medieval on cycling's ass then all this talking in secret would have amounted to nothing more than a way for someone to salve their conscience, and without personal consequences I might add.

I'll be blunt. I hope that in case the meeting happened Slipstream wasn't used as leverage for Vaughters to avoid personal sanction.
 
hiero2 said:
We need to post a permanent link to this. A concise view and explanation of the effectiveness of various doping regimes. I'm putting it in my notes for reference in future discussions.

If you were to rely on JV's quote then the concise answer is, "it probably varies from athlete to athlete." There is enough anecdotal data confirming this. The o2 vector mention is true, but even then, there are a range of responses.

With doping, it is about maximizing the response finding the right combination of a variety of PED's. This is hardly a secret.

TheHog wrote it better than I ever could, I get the feeling JV is cultivating anti-doping as a marketing message rather than an actual ideal/pricipal/etc. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=984443&postcount=614 It's all so strategic and CYA in nature it seems similar to greenwashing and other pseudo-cause support in business marketing.

I hope I'm wrong. Again, I would be glad to be wrong.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Dekker told WADA a lot about the doping at Rabobank
I sincearly doubt this - saw a nice docu on him last month in where it was quite clear he had info but hadn't spilled any beans - but if you are right we are going to have a lot of fun in the clinic. And yes, his 'numbers' were terrible, according to Adrie van Diemen of course.
 
Jun 16, 2009
60
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
What are you talking about? We’re talking about Slipstream hiring Floyd not about the 2010 confession. Keep up.

Hog, your response was directly to this JV quote:

"Without Floyd (starting with his positive test, not just his later revelations) none of the current movements towards improving the sport would be possible. That is absolutely true. Without Floyd, the Giro win would not have happened, because the pressure to change and implement things like bio-passport would not have been there. Puerto too. That was a huge impetus as well."
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Dekker told WADA a lot about the doping at Rabobank

I guess that is why Garmin hired him, the Rabobank bit not the WADA.;)

Sky went directly for Leinders instead of inside rider info. The don't care about the obvious. JV was trying to camouflage it in argyle :D
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
I imagine his info relates to Armstrong even if it's only indirectly (the official story is he only doped when he rode for US Postal), but that's pretty irrelevant and I wasn't thinking about him when I wrote that. No matter who it was about, it doesn't seem like they did much with the info. Some would say a detailed account of doping at US Postal (and I wouldn't expect any less) should be enough to trigger an investigation to see if there's any truth to it. You know, like when Landis talked.

The thing is, it would seem that without Landis's whistleblowing JV's info would have come to naught, making his confession to USADA irrelevant. I don't blame JV, because I imagine he thought USADA would do their job, but when the authorities are lazy, inefficient or corrupt you have to bypass them.

I pretty much agree with you - however it wasn't just what Landis said per se, that brought everything out - he would have been dismissed as bitter, angry, drunk.
What changed things was the Feds were involved (or got involved).

I would assume that most of what JV said to USADA & WADA years ago was about what was being used, how it was being used and the whens and how to catch them.