JV talks, sort of

[Benotti69]

It's likely he simply thought to himself, "Oh christ, before I know it, Benson will splash that all over the CN homepage (again). I don't need the aggravation that might come from this. I should go back and post an addendum."


The only problem with that statement, of course, is that it isn't true.

Here's a simple exercise that anyone playing along at home can try for themselves:

From The Clinic main page, click on the "Replies" column that corresponds to this thread.

Fortunately, as of this posting, JV's name is at the top of the list (which make him very easy to find). It's only appropriate that that is the case, I suppose.

Click on his name to see all of his posts in this thread.

Read them. Read every, single one of them.

Amongst those post are bits of information that, prior to his posting here, were not available to anyone else who posts here. PERIOD.

Some have since become common knowledge, so in retrospect it can be very easy to dismiss them as not being all that significant. That would be a mistake.

Other bits of info that he has provided are perhaps not as unique, but are certainly beyond what most contributors here are capability of.

He has actually participated at the very highest level of the sport.
He has actually made a personal study of human physiology as it applies to cycling.
He has actually doped, successfully, within the ranks of the pro peloton.
He has willingly volunteered information about those exploits.

IS THERE SOME LONG LIST OF OTHERS WHO FIT THAT SAME BILL WHO ARE POSTING HERE?

FFS. You don't have to believe or buy into everything he says here, or elsewhere for that matter. But would it be such grave sacrifice for some of you to just STFU and let the man express himself in whichever way he is most comfortable with?

Try that exercise. I dare you. Go back and read every, single one of JV's posts in this thread. Some of them contain nuggets well worth considering. Read between the lines. Use common sense. Let your imagination wander. Whatever it takes. Since you can't possibly know which questions or answers will lead to such nuggets, the very least you could do would be to encourage a civil dialogue.



Unless you expect Johan to join in here. And what, be more cooperative?

Jeez Granny, i gave you more cred than this.

JV gets little abuse in here. For a guy who shat on the sport as a doper he gets less abuse than Kimmage who has done lots to try and open the fans eyes about the truth, yet JV cries about abuse and his thin skin. No one in the highest echelons of sport management has a thin skin! Also if JV had a thin skin then he would be changing his life direction and not getting an MBA to get deeper into the world where those with thin skins drown.

Dont believe the hype.

I am with DearWiggo, if JV posts or not doesn't add or lessen the clinic for me.

If JV doesn't want to be questioned by fans then don't come into a forum. Too many forget how this sport has treated its fans.

JV comes in here to scratch an itch.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Before I respond, Granville, I want to make it clear I respect your position and post, despite disagreeing with it - it's fair minded and communicates clearly.

I just see JV in a completely different light is all.

He has actually made a personal study of human physiology as it applies to cycling.

He has certainly told you that. But I'm not buying it.

...
JV has offered plenty of scientific analysis of doping,
...

When I asked JV about the increase in retics for Ryder on the last day of the 2012 Giro, he said it may have been because Ryder finished on the MTF the day before. He then said maybe it was the hypoxia from the ~30 minute TT Ryder had completed 2 hours earlier.

Then excused these responses with, "I just don't know", as if it makes it ok to offer such patently ridiculous explanations.

Curiously, JV uses the relative stability of retics readings in the peloton as evidence of its cleanliness.

I have other examples but I am not trying to bash JV - just provide an example to support my disagreement that JV knows anything about doping beyond how to avoid detection in the 90s.

JV often says, "I have seen lots of blood profiles, I know when people are clean". But the only way he can do that is
1. if he sees a profile and knows the rider is doping to contrast it with a clean rider OR
2. if he sees a profile and was with a rider 24 x 7 to know they did not take any doping products

#2 is out - JV ain't got time fo dat and despite just winning the Giro was not aware of when Ryder's TT was on or anything.

#1 is a very curious state of affairs: JV knows the rider is doping and gets to see their blood profile. How often does that happen? Noone on his team dopes. He is not on the CADF anti-doping experts panel. So how is he seeing these doped blood profiles, and why are these riders not being pinged for doping? And how does he know the rider is doped?

 

[Wallace]

Jeez Granny, i gave you more cred than this.

JV gets little abuse in here. For a guy who shat on the sport as a doper he gets less abuse than Kimmage who has done lots to try and open the fans eyes about the truth, yet JV cries about abuse and his thin skin. No one in the highest echelons of sport management has a thin skin! Also if JV had a thin skin then he would be changing his life direction and not getting an MBA to get deeper into the world where those with thin skins drown.

Dont believe the hype.

I am with DearWiggo, if JV posts or not doesn't add or lessen the clinic for me.

If JV doesn't want to be questioned by fans then don't come into a forum. Too many forget how this sport has treated its fans.

JV comes in here to scratch an itch.

Who else from "the highest echelons of sport management" posts here? Betsy (an insider but not management) and JV. His posts (and RRs, and Merckx Index and a few others) are the reason I think many people like me lurk around these forums. Without JV this thread would just be another echo-chamber of teen-agers laughing at each others' jokes. When I followed Grenville's suggestion and read all of JVs posts, what I saw over and over is someone who keeps trying to remind people that in the adult world things are complicated, that science of doping, and the history of doping in the sport, makes for a lot of gray areas in assessing who is or isn't doing what, that in the adult world things are complicated. You can only say "focusing on the small details can detract from the greater truth" when your words have no real-world consequences.


How do you know JV's motivations? Maybe he comes here because this is the only place where you can find serious discussions about doping in bike racing by people who know (or kind of know) the science and the numbers. If it's for PR then it's not working, is it? Especially given kind of reflexive hostility he receives here and the way his words and positions are twisted, as when a poster ridicules the idea that JV has "dedicated his life to anti doping"--something he's never said--and then other posters pile on the testicle jokes. Jesus guys, grow up.

 

[D-Queued]

...


I couldn't agree more, but JV gets trolled harder than others who actually contribute nothing to this forum.

...

Very true.

Then again, far less heavily than those who took a stand against Floyd and/or Lance.

We have two forum rules, one well established and one that has been recognized with Floyd though not for its universality:

1. If you post anything rational that counters PR BS of any pro cyclist, especially if that includes countering their arguments about professed innocence, you will get trolled, targeted, called a hater and worse.

2. If you are/were a pro cyclist and you actually try and tell the truth, you will get trolled.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

grimm bros fairytales and nightmares and bluestone bridges ogres would do a roaring trade in C21 with the haters and trolls

so so so unedifying the appellation. sort of felicitous when it is invoked. sandpit stuff

 

[Benotti69]

Who else from "the highest echelons of sport management" posts here? Betsy (an insider but not management) and JV. His posts (and RRs, and Merckx Index and a few others) are the reason I think many people like me lurk around these forums. Without JV this thread would just be another echo-chamber of teen-agers laughing at each others' jokes. When I followed Grenville's suggestion and read all of JVs posts, what I saw over and over is someone who keeps trying to remind people that in the adult world things are complicated, that science of doping, and the history of doping in the sport, makes for a lot of gray areas in assessing who is or isn't doing what, that in the adult world things are complicated. You can only say "focusing on the small details can detract from the greater truth" when your words have no real-world consequences.


How do you know JV's motivations? Maybe he comes here because this is the only place where you can find serious discussions about doping in bike racing by people who know (or kind of know) the science and the numbers. If it's for PR then it's not working, is it? Especially given kind of reflexive hostility he receives here and the way his words and positions are twisted, as when a poster ridicules the idea that JV has "dedicated his life to anti doping"--something he's never said--and then other posters pile on the testicle jokes. Jesus guys, grow up.

Have you not read JV's twitter where he says on it he has "dedicated his life to anti doping".....

Jonathan Vaughters
@Vaughters
I've dedicated my life to professional cycling, anti-doping, and aggravating people with no sense of humor.

Telling the clinic to grow up when JV posts so much immature humour here and on twitter again smacks of ar$e licking.

JV comes and goes as he pleases.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Without JV this thread would just be another echo-chamber of teen-agers laughing at each others' jokes.

And JV says he's being picked on and bullied. This ^^^^ is not a rare occurrence here or even in this thread.

as when a poster ridicules the idea that JV has "dedicated his life to anti doping"--something he's never said--and then other posters pile on the testicle jokes. Jesus guys, grow up.

Wrong.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Who else from "the highest echelons of sport management" posts here?

Noone. So what? What do we lose if he doesn't?

 

[sniper]

Read them. Read every, single one of them.

impossible because several of his posts were pulled out by moderators due to explicit language.
seriously, at some point the question was why he wasn't getting banned.
not that i wish he were banned, on the contrary, but on the whole i wouldnt say he's been treated unfairly in this forum.

the issue is he often chooses to answer questions with the (what tastes like a deliberate) intent to wrong-foot posters of the clinic. (see dearwiggo's latest post for a case in point)

yes, he should continue to post here. i agree his presence adds a dimension to the clinic. and yes, he should simply ignore questions that he cannot or does not want to answer, a tactic he's adopted already.

all imo of course.

 

[Beech Mtn]

impossible because several of his posts were pulled out by moderators due to explicit language.
seriously, at some point the question was why he wasn't getting banned.
not that i wish he were banned, on the contrary, but on the whole i wouldnt say he's been treated unfairly in this forum.

the issue is he often chooses to answer questions with the (what tastes like a deliberate) intent to wrong-foot posters of the clinic. (see dearwiggo's latest post for a case in point)

yes, he should continue to post here. i agree his presence adds a dimension to the clinic. and yes, he should simply ignore questions that he cannot or does not want to answer, a tactic he's adopted already.

all imo of course.

During his recent posts (within the last week or so), he used Digger's real name in three separate posts (first name only, as far as I saw). I assume Digger doesn't mind, but that sort of activity is supposed to be a serious offense of forum rules, IIRC.

 

[Benotti69]

During his recent posts (within the last week or so), he used Digger's real name in three separate posts. I assume Digger doesn't mind, but that sort of activity is supposed to be a serious offense of forum rules, IIRC.

And yet none of JV fans had a problem with it. Ok for JV to flaunt the rules.....kind of sums up the problems in the sport. Some rules for some........

 

[D-Queued]

And yet none of JV fans had a problem with it. Ok for JV to flaunt the rules.....kind of sums up the problems in the sport. Some rules for some........

Our job is not to moderate. Our job is simply to report it.

IIRC, attempting to moderate is also frowned upon.

Dave.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

In saying all that Froome is the most obvious doper I've seen in the history of the sport. Not seen anything worse than him.

If one goes by sustained absolute performance levels then surely Pantani must be the most obvious doper, as he was around 5 minutes faster up Alpe d'Huez than pre EPO and there's only three riders got within 3 minutes of his record ascent since Lance retired.

And as discussed in another thread, Indurain's transformation from fat boy in the autobus to the double double was maybe a little hard to believe, even in the more innocent days of the early 90s.

That's not to say Froome isn't clear suspicious, but he has some fine competition for the title of "Most Obvious Doper Ever In Cycling".

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

In saying all that Froome is the most obvious doper I've seen in the history of the sport. Not seen anything worse than him.

If one goes by sustained absolute performance levels then surely Pantani must be the most obvious doper, as he was around 5 minutes faster up Alpe d'Huez than pre EPO and there's only three riders got within 3 minutes of his record ascent since Lance retired the first time.

And as discussed in another thread, Indurain's transformation from fat boy in the autobus to the double double was maybe a little hard to believe, even in the more innocent days of the early 90s.

That's not to say Froome isn't clearly suspicious, but he has some fine competition for the title of "Most Obvious Doper Ever In Cycling".

 

[Granville57]

Some good discussion here, and I'd like to add a bit more of my own. We are all mostly familiar enough with each other that I don't feel the need to quote too many things specifically, but I will address this for starters:

During his recent posts (within the last week or so), he used Digger's real name in three separate posts (first name only, as far as I saw). I assume Digger doesn't mind, but that sort of activity is supposed to be a serious offense of forum rules, IIRC.

It's a valid point. Personally, I put the ongoing battle between JV and Digger in a separate box, of sorts, because they do have a bit of history between them that spans well outside of this forum. I don't agree with JV trying to use anyone's name in a bullying sense (and that's how it came across) for reasons I have stated in the past: Anonymity has no relevance on the validity of points being made. There are a handful of anonymous posters on here that would thoroughly school some of the most prominently public figures in the sport in a debate.

To further use Digger as an example, others have used his real name too, but in all the examples I've seen, it's always been used in a somewhat malicious way. Of course they would justify this because of Digger's generally antagonistic style, but it hardly increases the credibility of those who adopt this approach.

When JV's original post was deleted, I initially assumed that a mod had done so because of Digger's name being thrown in. By the next day though, it was apparent that JV had deleted it himself, but had continued to use Digger's name. I had some PM discussions regarding this, but by then enough time had passed that I assumed that Digger hadn't objected to it himself or hadn't reported it (but this part is pure speculation on my part).

 

[Granville57]

The other point I wanted to make is:

I don't feel I am on here to defend JV, rather I am defending the flow of information. If you don't agree with or believe in JV, that's fine. But in the immortal words Bing Crosby: Let it flow, let it flow, let it flow.

A perfect of example of why I feel this is important was perfectly illustrated within the past week. I asked JV a question about Allen Lim. In JV's inimitable style he didn't exactly address the question the way I had hoped. Was he obfuscating? Was he pressed for time, or in the middle of multitasking and didn't quite follow my questions exactly? Is that just the way he communicates in the digital realm? I really don't know. I often feel that many of my questions would be much better realized in a face-to-face conversation. But in the end, much of that is irrelevant.

Why? Because in the midst of all that, JV revealed something quite startling and, in my opinion, very significant. He revealed the fact that both the ASO and the UCI directly discouraged him from including Floyd in his team. When has such a fact ever been revealed before? This was proof that Floyd had been "officially" blacklisted (granted, that is my term only) by the very highest authorities in the sport. That is newsworthy to me.

Both myself and DirtyWorks have pressed this point, and yet it hasn't gained any traction...even around here.

In light of that, I couldn't care less about the way JV addressed my questions about Allen Lim. That tidbit about Floyd was hugely significant, and well worth further discussion.

To reiterate: That's my point. Let it flow, let it flow, let it flow.

 

[peloton]

The other point I wanted to make is:

I don't feel I am on here to defend JV, rather I am defending the flow of information. If you don't agree with or believe in JV, that's fine. But in the immortal words Bing Crosby: Let it flow, let it flow, let it flow.

A perfect of example of why I feel this is important was perfectly illustrated within the past week. I asked JV a question about Allen Lim. In JV's inimitable style he didn't exactly address the question the way I had hoped. Was he obfuscating? Was he pressed for time, or in the middle of multitasking and didn't quite follow my questions exactly? Is that just the way he communicates in the digital realm? I really don't know. I often feel that many of my questions would be much better realized in a face-to-face conversation. But in the end, much of that is irrelevant.

Why? Because in the midst of all that, JV revealed something quite startling and, in my opinion, very significant. He revealed the fact that both the ASO and the UCI directly discouraged him from including Floyd in his team. When has such a fact ever been revealed before? This was proof that Floyd had been "officially" blacklisted (granted, that is my term only) by the very highest authorities in the sport. That is newsworthy to me.

Both myself and DirtyWorks have pressed this point, and yet it hasn't gained any traction...even around here.

In light of that, I couldn't care less about the way JV addressed my questions about Allen Lim. That tidbit about Floyd was hugely significant, and well worth further discussion.

To reiterate: That's my point. Let it flow, let it flow, let it flow.

Would be interesting to hear more about Floyd's case, iirc Chicken Rasmussen said he was blacklisted by UCI too, after he had served his suspencion.

Good post GV.

 

[Scott SoCal]

The other point I wanted to make is:

I don't feel I am on here to defend JV, rather I am defending the flow of information. If you don't agree with or believe in JV, that's fine. But in the immortal words Bing Crosby: Let it flow, let it flow, let it flow.

A perfect of example of why I feel this is important was perfectly illustrated within the past week. I asked JV a question about Allen Lim. In JV's inimitable style he didn't exactly address the question the way I had hoped. Was he obfuscating? Was he pressed for time, or in the middle of multitasking and didn't quite follow my questions exactly? Is that just the way he communicates in the digital realm? I really don't know. I often feel that many of my questions would be much better realized in a face-to-face conversation. But in the end, much of that is irrelevant.

Why? Because in the midst of all that, JV revealed something quite startling and, in my opinion, very significant. He revealed the fact that both the ASO and the UCI directly discouraged him from including Floyd in his team. When has such a fact ever been revealed before? This was proof that Floyd had been "officially" blacklisted (granted, that is my term only) by the very highest authorities in the sport. That is newsworthy to me.

Both myself and DirtyWorks have pressed this point, and yet it hasn't gained any traction...even around here.

In light of that, I couldn't care less about the way JV addressed my questions about Allen Lim. That tidbit about Floyd was hugely significant, and well worth further discussion.

To reiterate: That's my point. Let it flow, let it flow, let it flow.

Saw that too. Interesting question, how closely aligned are the UCI and ASO?

If they discourage certain roster moves then do they promote others?

If they discouraged hiring Floyd then why not Basso, Millar et al? What was so radioactive (to them) about Floyd?

 

[Benotti69]

Saw that too. Interesting question, how closely aligned are the UCI and ASO?

If they discourage certain roster moves then do they promote others?

If they discouraged hiring Floyd then why not Basso, Millar et al? What was so radioactive (to them) about Floyd?

Armstrong's call most likely.

IMO it was Armstrong who got Floyd popped. No proof just that FLoyd became the new American TdF winner and looked likely to win a few more and that would have stolen Armstrong's limelight.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Armstrong's call most likely.

IMO it was Armstrong who got Floyd popped. No proof just that FLoyd became the new American TdF winner and looked likely to win a few more and that would have stolen Armstrong's limelight.

I don't think so. Remember Verbruggen and Monkeyface were actively trying to drive down the value of the TdF as they wanted to buy the race.

I don't think ASO was super happy with those escapades.

 

[pmcg76]

The other point I wanted to make is:



Why? Because in the midst of all that, JV revealed something quite startling and, in my opinion, very significant. He revealed the fact that both the ASO and the UCI directly discouraged him from including Floyd in his team. When has such a fact ever been revealed before? This was proof that Floyd had been "officially" blacklisted (granted, that is my term only) by the very highest authorities in the sport. That is newsworthy to me.

Snipped.........

In light of that, I couldn't care less about the way JV addressed my questions about Allen Lim. That tidbit about Floyd was hugely significant, and well worth further discussion.

To reiterate: That's my point. Let it flow, let it flow, let it flow.

Now maybe I am dreaming this but I thought JV had said something like this before or maybe it was inferred in JVs own style but I wasn't shocked to read it.

Maybe it was someone else the UCI discouraged him from signing but I am pretty sure he mentioned something about the UCI putting pressure on not to sign somebody at some point.

 

[Benotti69]

I don't think so. Remember Verbruggen and Monkeyface were actively trying to drive down the value of the TdF as they wanted to buy the race.

I don't think ASO was super happy with those escapades.

If you were actively trying to devalue the race the winner testing positive helps and Verbruggen could make it happen.

I think ASO dont give a fig about the racing as long as they race. The positives are also good as it generates publicity. ASO are a business.

 

[Netserk]

Now maybe I am dreaming this but I thought JV had said something like this before or maybe it was inferred in JVs own style but I wasn't shocked to read it.

Maybe it was someone else the UCI discouraged him from signing but I am pretty sure he mentioned something about the UCI putting pressure on not to sign somebody at some point.

In the Jörg Jaksche thread?

 

[pmcg76]

In the Jörg Jaksche thread?

Yeah, maybe it was Jaksche, I cannot remember who it was but definitely remember something about the UCI blacklisting guys.

 

[Energy Starr]

What really bothers me is that people throw out these times without specifying exactly what the climb was. It makes no sense to list times of other elite riders of the past unless there is a well-established starting point that everyone uses. In fact, no one seems to know where anyone started, except the riders themselves.


This is why I always thought STRAVA would be so cool if the pros actually used it (and no, I have no affiliation whatsoever except that I think its a novel concept). There would be no arguing about starting places, finishes, or times! Maybe this is precisely why they don't use it, so nothing can really be accurate.....