JV talks, sort of

[DirtyWorks]

Exactly.

Anti-doping has always and will always be a pragmatic battle. Show guys they can win clean and they happily will, no risk. Show the opposite, and it'll be full doping again, at least until the risk becomes too high.

This model is wildly optimistic. Inga Thompson's interview is very insightful in this regard: http://www.theouterline.com/perspectives-on-doping-in-pro-cycling-2-inga-thompson-5/

Are there some that are at least sane enough to fit your model? Absolutely.
We know there are some that do not think twice about doping, do what they can and that's that.
We know there are others that break the model, are challenged by finding ways around the rules.
We know the federation is not a fair dealer on doping cases too.

I applaud your optimism. I hope it's making a difference. Really.

Just try to avoid personally attacking opinions that don't agree with yours.

 

[thehog]

In retrospect, I overshot that one a bit. But the theme of what i was saying I stand by, which was "it's getting better for guys who do want to race clean"....and I do believe 2005 was much better than 1996.

That's because the French federation introduced longitude testing of its riders (the first passport of its kind), held public hearings into doping, criminalised doping by way of law, CONI decided to chase down its own riders and some Spanish ones and a German and the Spanish Police had wire taps on Fuentes. You also had guys like Madiot prepared pay good salaries for guys not to dope and not win.

Meanwhile the Anglos/Belgians it was a free for all with UCI approval well into 2014.

So yes some things got better but it actually got worse because it gestated "peloton à deux vitesses".

You got your go by befriending ASO. Not a bad move. What did Lance say about Prudhomme? Doesn't know his breakaway from his baguette

 

[stutue]

Meanwhile the Anglos/Belgians it was a free for all with UCI approval well into 2014.

Yeah...thank god they never caught Landis. There would have been hell to pay.

I've just had a look in here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

2006 onwards. Not a single Spaniard or Belgian busted. No siree. All too scared to even think about doping because of just how tough their feds were, just like Hoggie says.

(Not)

 

[Benotti69]

Exactly.

Anti-doping has always and will always be a pragmatic battle. Show guys they can win clean and they happily will, no risk. Show the opposite, and it'll be full doping again, at least until the risk becomes too high. These are skinny type A warriors that were picked on in high school and want to go get some revenge on the world.

Not many of these guys come from/married into wealthy families like some of the aforementioned moral heroes above in this thread. Most are scrappy *******s from blue collar and broken backgrounds. A whole lot easier to step away from being a professional athlete when the financial consequences are low to none. Now try those high ideals when your option is unemployment or digging latrines.

If anti-doping authorities want to win, they need to understand the sociology of professional athletes. These are not people choosing between Yale and Brown.

They are kids that can be easily influenced, one way or the other.

But money talks and BS walks, so if you want to win at anti-doping, better show that the money follows an anti-doping ethos. Better base their paycheck, implicit and explicit, on living up to that ethos. No double talk of "we need to be clean, BUT, we really need to win"...Then you just gave them a double message and permission to dope. Winning is a joyous thing that happens when all goes right, not a job to get done because sponsors expect it.

That's a tough line to hold in managing a team, but there's no other way. Why? Because, pragmatically, the business of cycling will fail, my business will fail, if that ethos is not practiced every minute of every day. If you don't win, well, that could cause failure too, but it's only a possibility. Continued degradation of cycling via doping is guaranteed failure. It's really pretty simple.

The battle has to be kept on a pragmatic level. High ideals are nice, but if you want the job done here, make it real. Otherwise you will fail.

When i think of all those guys who run teams and the DS who made a good living winning on dope where in the hell did they get a conscious to tell these young guys, 'dont do it kid, it aint worth it' ?

Look at Servais Knaven, DS at Sky who won Paris Roubaix where Domo swept the podium, he is going to look a young kid in the eye and say 'dont dope kid, it aint worth a Roubaix' and that kid will be looking at Twitter and Boonen's ferrari thinking 'yeah sure it aint, right, ol Tommeke is going to regret that dope, yeah right'!

How many guys in recent times have had their lives ruined due to doping and getting caught? Not many........

Reality with doping is making the testing independent, fully funded, often, bans longer and financial penalities.

Hey JV ever feel guilty over the money you earned from doping?

Ever think when you were riding and Bassons wasn't that you were stealing from guys like him?

You dont want to talk about high ideals but if we dont aim high we will always hit low!

 

[More Strides than Rides]

When i think of all those guys who run teams and the DS who made a good living winning on dope where in the hell did they get a conscious to tell these young guys, 'dont do it kid, it aint worth it' ?

Look at Servais Knaven, DS at Sky who won Paris Roubaix where Domo swept the podium, he is going to look a young kid in the eye and say 'dont dope kid, it aint worth a Roubaix' and that kid will be looking at Twitter and Boonen's ferrari thinking 'yeah sure it aint, right, ol Tommeke is going to regret that dope, yeah right'!

How many guys in recent times have had their lives ruined due to doping and getting caught? Not many........

Reality with doping is making the testing independent, fully funded, often, bans longer and financial penalities.

Hey JV ever feel guilty over the money you earned from doping?

Ever think when you were riding and Bassons wasn't that you were stealing from guys like him?

You dont want to talk about high ideals but if we dont aim high we will always hit low!

Agreed.

In short, I don't agree with you that the disincentives outweigh the incentives to dope, on a big enough scale to keep dopers in the extreme minority. I agree with what you (JV) imply, that a successful anti doping force is not about catching people but being thurough and precise enough to ward off dopers, and that we see some gains in that direction in the last 2 decades.

Further, I buy what you're saying about more opportunities for clean riders, and that there are more clean riders now than before. To balance what I have said so far, the increasing disincentive to dope has warded off many would-dopers.

I still sense some apathy, though. I understand that as a cycling fan, my focus is on the top end, and that coaches and athletes in the sport have a lens focused very differently. You're definition of "the sport" is so different than mine, fair enough. But thats what I get worked up about, is that you seem okay with problems still aparrant at the top end of things because the rest is on the right track. I don't know what I expect from you, but it is disheartening to see the only personality with what seems like enough influence where it matters, uninterested in acknowleding problems that persist.

Thats all I have to say. I'm not going to convince you to picket the uci hq, I don't know what I expect you to do. But understand that thats where many of us are coming from.

 

[hmpower]

Think problem is with cycling we all want the right ends of no doping, but we get lost in the process. In various stages of what makes up cycling. Public is with business like it is now, you will have teams protect its IP and secrets so we will never get full understand of what goes on.That think is here connection is broken with as fans and its harder for cycling to present itself to the general public and why alot people follow other sports because connection to make to fans at home is easier to present. Doping because heavily associated with cycling further pushes people away I feel if doping was removed we have better sport and more profitable sport.

 

[hmpower]

Exactly.

Anti-doping has always and will always be a pragmatic battle. Show guys they can win clean and they happily will, no risk. Show the opposite, and it'll be full doping again, at least until the risk becomes too high. These are skinny type A warriors that were picked on in high school and want to go get some revenge on the world.

Not many of these guys come from/married into wealthy families like some of the aforementioned moral heroes above in this thread. Most are scrappy *******s from blue collar and broken backgrounds. A whole lot easier to step away from being a professional athlete when the financial consequences are low to none. Now try those high ideals when your option is unemployment or digging latrines.

If anti-doping authorities want to win, they need to understand the sociology of professional athletes. These are not people choosing between Yale and Brown. They are kids that can be easily influenced, one way or the other. But money talks and BS walks, so if you want to win at anti-doping, better show that the money follows an anti-doping ethos. Better base their paycheck, implicit and explicit, on living up to that ethos. No double talk of "we need to be clean, BUT, we really need to win"...Then you just gave them a double message and permission to dope. Winning is a joyous thing that happens when all goes right, not a job to get done because sponsors expect it.

That's a tough line to hold in managing a team, but there's no other way. Why? Because, pragmatically, the business of cycling will fail, my business will fail, if that ethos is not practiced every minute of every day. If you don't win, well, that could cause failure too, but it's only a possibility. Continued degradation of cycling via doping is guaranteed failure. It's really pretty simple.

The battle has to be kept on a pragmatic level. High ideals are nice, but if you want the job done here, make it real. Otherwise you will fail.

Think what call the classic clash of business and ethics, going in with what call real world sociology factors. They are all interlinked in one shape or form. Question is for as cycling fans is to what degree are the trade off we going to make so we can get a clear sport, profitable sport for team owners and sport we enjoy watching at home or by roadside?

 

[sniper]

the stuff i read from JV in the kreuziger thread, that's amazing.
new generations supposedly 'getting angry' at those who continue doping. you gotta be kidding me.
that just defies everything we're able to observe in procycling in recent years, very much also within team Garmin.
-the continuing presence of dodgy docs & mightily dodgy DSs/managers
-caught dopers being welcomed back
-vocal support for armstrong up until the very last moment from 'new-generation' riders
-people who cannot possibly know (e.g. millar, jv) vouching for sky instead of being skeptic in light of the continued lies and contradictions coming from that team
-non-confessions
-non-confession confessions
the list goes on. sorry, not buying it.

 

[hrotha]

new generations supposedly 'getting angry' at those who continue doping

That's not what he said. He said people who stopped doping would get angry at those who continued.

 

[sniper]

That's not what he said. He said people who stopped doping would get angry at those who continued.

fine, but do tell me how that is relevant to the points i make.

 

[proffate]

[...]

If anti-doping authorities want to win, they need to understand the sociology of professional athletes.

[...]

I agree with this post; to beat doping teams need to drop the "win at all costs" mentality. But the anti-doping authorities have little to no influence over the attitudes of team owners and directors, so even talking about them seems out of place.

There is a continuous sponsorship crisis in pro cycling, which may be due to a lot of things, but one oft-cited reason is the threat of doping scandal. On the other hand I've never heard of a sponsor dropping out because a team didn't win enough. Someone like Jens Voigt or Tommy Voeckler wins rarely but still gets plenty of airtime. (Of course, they may be doping, but it's the tilting at windmills that wins fans.) So when teams realize that sponsorship follows from reputation more than results is when we'll get clean cycling.

But that also presupposes that sponsorship is the end goal, but most team directors seem to be motivated by ego (their own desire to win) more than sponsorship (as long as they can scrape by they get to keep playing the game). Team directors and owners need more culpability. If your riders are caught for doping, you should get a ban as well, doesn't matter if it can't be proven you knew about it.

 

[pmcg76]

I agree with this post; to beat doping teams need to drop the "win at all costs" mentality. But the anti-doping authorities have little to no influence over the attitudes of team owners and directors, so even talking about them seems out of place.

There is a continuous sponsorship crisis in pro cycling, which may be due to a lot of things, but one oft-cited reason is the threat of doping scandal. On the other hand I've never heard of a sponsor dropping out because a team didn't win enough. Someone like Jens Voigt or Tommy Voeckler wins rarely but still gets plenty of airtime. (Of course, they may be doping, but it's the tilting at windmills that wins fans.) So when teams realize that sponsorship follows from reputation more than results is when we'll get clean cycling.

But that also presupposes that sponsorship is the end goal, but most team directors seem to be motivated by ego (their own desire to win) more than sponsorship (as long as they can scrape by they get to keep playing the game). Team directors and owners need more culpability. If your riders are caught for doping, you should get a ban as well, doesn't matter if it can't be proven you knew about it.

Funny but the longest surviving sponsors in the sport are Fdjeux, Cofidis & AG2R I think. The first two are in the sport since 97 and I guess are considered as two of the cleaner teams nowadays despite have very shady histories. AG2R would be similar having taking over from Casino,

 

[DirtyWorks]

I agree with this post; to beat doping teams need to drop the "win at all costs" mentality. But the anti-doping authorities have little to no influence over the attitudes of team owners and directors, so even talking about them seems out of place.

For the newer reader, when the phrase "anti doping authorities" is used, they don't mean WADA or NADOs. They mean either race organizers or cycling federations. Which, then makes JV1973's original comment invalid, bordering on nonsense. It sure sounds good though.

NADO's and WADA have almost zero authority to do anything. They act at the direction of anti-doping authorities or advise anti-doping authorities. Meanwhile, the UCI is full of ex-riders who know very well the psychology of the athletes.

Again, bio-passport mostly serves as a tool to keep the rest of the sport in line. To be fair, it probably does prevent death from doping. Hein didn't lift a finger when EPO was killing kids. That's progress!

 

[Benotti69]

When Dave Millar gets a job in UCI next year, i would watch out Garmin

 

[Ferminal]

You really have to feel for Saint Dave after taking the honourable decision to stop doping a couple of years ago.

Mmm nah not really. Lifers who give it up in their mid-30s and try and get another 2-3 years are nothing to the sport.

 

[sniper]

dear jv1973,
since it is clear to everybody with half a brain that froome is doping, you and your team must be pretty friggin furious.

having dedicated your life to antidoping, it must be difficult to keep your bloodpressure under control seeing sky and froome insult our intelligence like that.

 

[Benotti69]

Might be a good topic to ask JV about next time he's around - how aware riders are of their own biological passport etc.

JV,

Can you tell us how aware riders are about their own BP?


How often do Garmin riders have their Bloods checked?


Can riders do it themselves, like say diabetics?


Do you still do internal testing, for what and how often?


Do you know how often other teams check their riders bloods?


Do other teams (which ones) have internal testing programs?

TIA.

 

[Energy Starr]

and JV...NOW do you believe Froome is a doper?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So I take it that puts the Garmin "clean" stamp on Brad Wiggins then?

Vaughters talks to former Tour de France champion

The old saying is that you should never go back but Cyclingnews can reveal that Bradley Wiggins and his former team manager at Garmin, Jonathan Vaughters, have held informal conversations about the possibility of reuniting next season

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/could-bradley-wiggins-return-to-garmin

 

[Benotti69]

So I take it that puts the Garmin "clean" stamp on Brad Wiggins then?

'Never tested positive'......

I think Wiggins would generate publicity (not necessarily postive publicity) for Garmin just by being Wiggins and that is also part of the business.

 

[the sceptic]

'Never tested positive'......

I think Wiggins would generate publicity (not necessarily postive publicity) for Garmin just by being Wiggins and that is also part of the business.

his passport is a clean profile of a clean rider. What more can you ask for?

Maybe JV can sign Horner too.

 

[DirtyWorks]

JV,

Can you tell us how aware riders are about their own BP?

My understanding is the values are reported to the rider in some kind of ADAMS page. Apparently team management can and do have access to the same data.

My own question for JV1973:

Is Hein still involved in federation business that you have recently seen/experienced?

 

[thehog]

and JV...NOW do you believe Froome is a doper?

Crazy Adaptive Interview.

 

[Tinman]

So I take it that puts the Garmin "clean" stamp on Brad Wiggins then?

Must do.

Why JV? So much promising new blood, so much anti doping example to set, and so much future clean sport to build. And then this shady bloke. Makes no sense. Even the news today on this was damaging.

If you have to go old forgotten heroes, publicity, etc, bring back Floyd or the Chicken but not this winker. The Garmin brand has been so carefully built, more liability than upside on this one. Quite aside from the cost. And the rotten team dynamics as a result.

Unless of course it's "win at all cost", back to the old days, "if you can't beat them, join them". And with the BC connection favored, that may just be the way to go eh?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Unless of course it's "win at all cost", back to the old days, "if you can't beat them, join them". And with the BC connection favored, that may just be the way to go eh?

Ahh, but remember JV1973's admission ASO and the UCI are directly involved in selecting riders for teams.

Maybe ASO signaled they would be pleased with seeing Sir Brad at their events in 2015? If I were at ASO selecting riders, then there's no question I'd want Sir Brad racing ASO events. Can you imagine an easier way to ensure invites to the biggest races on the calendar for 2015?