JV talks, sort of

[Cavalier]

If he gets to Aus for the TDU next year I'll buy him some of the Barossa's finest. But I'd still ask a question or two.

 

[hrotha]

Yeah, I know. Sorry. that was too harsh.

I think your presence here does a lot for your credibility. I'm not going to lie, I'm still kind of on the fence regarding you and your team, but you have to keep in mind if people doubt you it's not because of you personally, or because of your team, but because of the history of the sport. It's hard to simply start believing that everything's more or less semi-half-fine and that you can make it in the big leagues without doping after nearly two decades of that not being the case at all. We were told after Festina that it was the dawn of a new era of clean cycling, and we all know how that worked out. So, give us time. The fact that you're here addressing some pretty pointed questions does help those of us who are cynics but not 100% cynical yet. That said, I imagine you realize that, if we got burned again because we wanted to believe you, that'd be the end of it - all hope would be lost forever. It's just that many people have already reached that point, but that doesn't have much to do with you or your team specifically. And honestly, I can't blame them - good apples aside, this is a rotten sport, from the very top.

So, I would ask you to stick around and keep answering the more rational and well thought-out questions as long as you have the time to do so, and skip the posts you don't think are worth replying to, without being too offended by them, because pro cycling is to blame for their cynicism. Many people here, supporters and skeptics alike, do appreciate your participation.

 

[BroDeal]

I hope you stick around, at least from time to time. It's not like there are any other people running teams who are willing to discuss these issues with random anonymous cycling fans on the internet. That said, I personally wouldn't have the ability to remain polite in the face of being called a dishonest weasel half a dozen times a day by people I'd never met. And I'm not all that thin-skinned.

Lack of trust will always be a problem for him because of his lack of transparency. That same approach has become the standard one used to deal with doping by cycling as a whole. While it is alluring to act in secret to prevent scandals from damaging the sport, it breeds suspicion. There will always be riders, staff, and officials saying something off message, especially with everyone using Twitter. It makes it easy to connect dots and see patterns, even if the patterns are imaginary. Failure to come clean about the past combined with a corrupt governing body makes almost anything seem possible, even probable.

 

[D-Queued]

I'll divide this up into pros and cons and hopefully they'll explain why I'm conflicted every time I see JV write something:

* Admitted to doping
* Is committing himself publicly to clean sport
* Encourages riders to go to authorities and answer questions about doping
* Converses with fans of the sport - something very few do

That last one is somewhat important I think. Despite the following:

* Admitted to doping only once it was right for him to do so. There was no personal risk, no business risk, the events of over twelve years ago well gone from the vast majority of public consciousness. I struggle to balance this with really meaning anything significant. Floyd has sacrificed absolutely everything, with zero chance of getting it back. Had JV spoken up when he stopped riding, the entire world would have sat up and taken notice there and then.
* Despite conversing with fans of the sport, every time JV writes something about doping, it's non-specific. Made it clear in the past he only expects riders to answer honestly to authorities - immensely frustrating to both converse with fans of the sport and at the same time display lack of specificity.
* I still can't reconcile how riders were treated when it was announced they were leaving his team. ****ty points system or not, Garmin weren't at risk of losing license - especially young riders who weren't given chance.

I appreciate Jon that you have the welfare of all those you employ as your primary concern. But there's a greater evil at play here, and it concerns the welfare of every single person in the sport. You not paying them doesn't make that welfare less of a responsibility. Get these idiots out from running the sport. Clear public statements about the reality of what's going on won't result in a loss of license. There has never been a better time to speak loudly about the UCI.

The comparison with Floyd arguably does neither justice.

Floyd finally saw the light. Some may argue that he saw the light after he had exhausted all other possibilities - including some pretty incredible truth stretching. But now he has all the fervor of a reformed smoker. I wish he had kicked the habit earlier.

Jonathan never went to either extreme.

Even by posting here, Jonathan is completely different than Floyd. Floyd's participation on that other forum (accompanied by Will) was a high profile part of a highly orchestrated deception campaign. 'Hey look, you can chat with Floyd...'.

If Jonathan had similar motives here, he is doing a poor job of it (no offense to Jonathan intended).

It is unfortunate, perhaps, that there aren't more Jonathans in the peloton -- see question posed up-thread. Maybe that would make it more acceptable for all of us. Are Jonathan and Frankie the only true pros with enough of a conscience to leave the culture and come clean about themselves?

I hope there are others.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

OK...I am done here. You guys are ridiculous and inconsistent. Keep talking to each other. I'm sure it will do some good.

There's no marketing effort here. Sorry, but I have never had one sponsor ever say "gee, the guys on the clinic aren't happy"..or "We sure do look good in the clinic forum!!"

Thank you to those of you that exhibit logic and thought. Sorry I can't answer more of your questions, as they are meaningful, and my intention in writing in was for those of you that do have real questions that make sense!!

Anyhow, I'm out. This is just too lame.

Seriously what are you doing here? Seeking retribution? Validation? What do you want from this forum? Why do you keep coming back posting a little then mocking us?

I think your confession was great. But it doesn't automate pats on the back and accolades. Ever since the story was released you've been doing the rounds on Twitter & here garnishing feedback.

Slow down my friend. This is not a popularity contest. You don't get prizes for confessions. It's a time for reflection & pause. Sit back a little. It hasn't even been a week and beating up on people.

Something to remember:

It's now 2012 and we're still trying to untie the mess from USPS 12 years ago which you were a part of. In 2002 etc. you were reinforcing the belief that the peloton was clean with media statements to the English press even though you were doping yourself. There's still probably a good 18 months left in USADA/CAS or whatever to go. That's a massive amount of crap we all have endure to get to the bottom of this mess.

Your piece was excellent but enough is enough. Stay away from twitter and just stop talking about it. Manage your team and show us what clean cycling is but appreciation will come from action not by looking for congratulations.

Even if Lance confessed tomorrow it doesn't change anything. There's still a great deal matter to get through before we can begin to understand what went on and how the sport got itself into that position in the first place.

And to be honest I don't see anything lame about people wanting to know the truth or being fed up with having their fingers burnt 900 times.

Over to you.


(PS if you really want kudos then stick your neck out and call out Sky. You know as well as I do with what you saw was total BS. You don't need a power meter to tell you that!)

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It is interesting to me that JV is taking such sh*t here...I don't see Patrick Lefevere here answering questions, I don't see Bruyneel here answering questions, I don't see Alberto Volpi here answering questions, I don't see John Lelangue here answering questions, I don't see Dave Brailsford here answering questions. I don't see any of them discussing ANYTHING about what they REALLY KNOW about doping ANYWHERE. And all of those guys know just as much, and in reality probably MORE than does JV about doping.

JV does not speak for cycling. He speaks for him and his team. He speaks about his own perceptions and past. He has been more honest about doping than any other DS in cycling, and nobody can suggest otherwise. Asking legitimate questions about Lim, Wiggins, and others is fine. But some of you are really taking this thing too personally. JV didn't owe an admission to anyone but the people in his personal life that he had been dishonest or hidden this from. Period. That he chose to do so publicly was a positive for cycling and for a cleaner sport. He moved the needle in the right direction (the right kind of needle). I think some of you need to realize that "attack" is not the only way to address doping in cycling. "Support" of the right people can also have an effect.

 

[lean mean &green]

Actually, that was a bit too judgmental. Sorry. Some of you are being too emotional and inconsistent. Many of you are debating in a good sense. I appreciate that, which is why I write in at times.

You guys just need a sanity screen or something. Some of the arguments I read on here amount to "because I said so!!!"

That just grates.

Anyhow, just PM me if you have a question that's really weighing on you.I will answer.

Oh, and why was the op-ed less than detailed? Because it's a 1000 word op-ed for a broad audience. Duh. I'm not writing about subcutaneous vs IV or reticulocytes to the NYT. Not that hard to figure out.

Actually, it is hard to figure out. You don't have to explain every wrinkle of the passport but in a thousand words you could easily dispell one or two of the most common misconceptions the broader audience has concerning anti-doping. You could have picked whatever issue you thought to be most salient and here's a hint, it isn't your own doping over a decade ago.

If I were in your position I would be telling anyone who will listen how I think we can make an apparently cleaner sport cleaner still. Just a thought but I imagine doing so would help make my "clean team" more competitive and that would be quite good for my 120 employees, no? There's no need to name names or start a controversy either, just some innocent suggestions on antidoping policy from an "expert". Instead we get a piece from you that is, well.... emotional and inconsistent are actually pretty apt.

 

[Race Radio]

It is interesting to me that JV is taking such sh*t here...I don't see Patrick Lefevere here answering questions, I don't see Bruyneel here answering questions, I don't see Alberto Volpi here answering questions, I don't see John Lelangue here answering questions, I don't see Dave Brailsford here answering questions. I don't see any of them discussing ANYTHING about what they REALLY KNOW about doping ANYWHERE. And all of those guys know just as much, and in reality probably MORE than does JV about doping.

JV does not speak for cycling. He speaks for him and his team. He speaks about his own perceptions and past. He has been more honest about doping than any other DS in cycling, and nobody can suggest otherwise. Asking legitimate questions about Lim, Wiggins, and others is fine. But some of you are really taking this thing too personally. JV didn't owe an admission to anyone but the people in his personal life that he had been dishonest or hidden this from. Period. That he chose to do so publicly was a positive for cycling and for a cleaner sport. He moved the needle in the right direction (the right kind of needle). I think some of you need to realize that "attack" is not the only way to address doping in cycling. "Support" of the right people can also have an effect.

Exactly.

Would love to see LeLangue in here.

10 years from now the question will be did JV have a positive effect on the sport? Most will say yes.....and then say something silly about his sideburns and sartorial choices

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think your presence here does a lot for your credibility. I'm not going to lie, I'm still kind of on the fence regarding you and your team, but you have to keep in mind if people doubt you it's not because of you personally, or because of your team, but because of the history of the sport. It's hard to simply start believing that everything's more or less semi-half-fine and that you can make it in the big leagues without doping after nearly two decades of that not being the case at all. We were told after Festina that it was the dawn of a new era of clean cycling, and we all know how that worked out. So, give us time. The fact that you're here addressing some pretty pointed questions does help those of us who are cynics but not 100% cynical yet. That said, I imagine you realize that, if we got burned again because we wanted to believe you, that'd be the end of it - all hope would be lost forever. It's just that many people have already reached that point, but that doesn't have much to do with you or your team specifically. And honestly, I can't blame them - good apples aside, this is a rotten sport, from the very top.

So, I would ask you to stick around and keep answering the more rational and well thought-out questions as long as you have the time to do so, and skip the posts you don't think are worth replying to, without being too offended by them, because pro cycling is to blame for their cynicism. Many people here, supporters and skeptics alike, do appreciate your participation.

That is basically what I would say if I took the time to parse it all out rather than making another stupid joke. But who has that time? Thanks hrotha.

 

[BroDeal]

The comparison with Floyd arguably does neither justice.

Floyd finally saw the light. Some may argue that he saw the light after he had exhausted all other possibilities - including some pretty incredible truth stretching. But now he has all the fervor of a reformed smoker. I wish he had kicked the habit earlier.

Jonathan never went to either extreme.

Even by posting here, Jonathan is completely different than Floyd. Floyd's participation on that other forum (accompanied by Will) was a high profile part of a highly orchestrated deception campaign. 'Hey look, you can chat with Floyd...'.

If Jonathan had similar motives here, he is doing a poor job of it (no offense to Jonathan intended).

It is unfortunate, perhaps, that there aren't more Jonathans in the peloton -- see question posed up-thread. Maybe that would make it more acceptable for all of us. Are Jonathan and Frankie the only true pros with enough of a conscience to leave the culture and come clean about themselves?

This reminds me of a Seinfeld episode.

Elaine: Here's one. I borrowed Puddy's car and all the presets on his radio were Christian rock stations.
George Costanza: I like Christian rock. It's very positive. It's not like those real musicians who think they're so cool and hip.
Elaine: So you think Puddy actually believes in something?
Jerry: It's a used car, he probably never changed the presets.
Elaine: Yes, he is lazy.
Jerry: Plus, he probably doesn't know how to program the buttons.
Elaine: Yes, he is dumb.
Jerry: So you prefer dumb and lazy to religious?
Elaine: Dumb and lazy, I understand.

Landis I can understand. The altruists and those who want us to trust them to work for the betterment of the sport while hidden in the shadows, not so much or at least I cannot trust the long term viability of their approach.

I won't say that JV is cycling's Willie Stark, but the potential is there for anyone in a position of power and a disdain for the public's right to know. We really do not need a new McQuaid with an IQ twenty points higher.

 

[Deagol]

I hope you stick around, ....

+1 here. As I have said prior, I admire you for doing what no one else in your position has done.
Edit: nothing in the editorial would prevent JV, if he so chooses, to expand upon what he has said/written at a later date, correct?

 

[AntiGravityCycling]

+ another one, JV.

I think some of the emotion comes from the fact that there is all of this pent up need to understand *why*. Then here YOU come along, and you start spilling. A little at a time. But they want to know it all. NOW would be good. Or last year sometime.

They lose sight of the fact that you are the only one really talking, at least the only one who hasn't wrecked his own credibility beyond repair. And they are frustrated at the pace, and it is because they are emotionally wrapped up in this sport.

We all are.

So thanks, JV. We really do hope there is more to come.

 

[Maxiton]

I can't help being impressed by JV's consistent desire to engage with us here. His doing that is unique, that's for sure, and refreshing. His getting angry and frustrated at some of the more strident resistance he's meeting - that, to me, is a sign of his earnestness, and not one of cynicism. I'm still on the fence, but what you're doing here, JV, is pretty compelling.

 

[the big ring]

It's hardly a secret that Vaughter's bottom line is cooperation with the anti-doping authorities, not whether someone sings to the media. He has said that repeatedly, so it's hardly some revelation to point it out. Indeed he's been fairly open about not thinking that running to the media and naming names is a good idea. And that's hardly surprising given that the latter approach creates scandals and scares off sponsors which is directly contrary to the interests of every team in the peloton, clean or dirty.

You seem to have a good handle on JV and his internal logic - which seems somewhat grey whereas I tend towards the black and white.

Based on what you believe this JV logic is, do you think JV would sack a rider if he knew they were doping, but staying within the ABP limits?

I realise he sacked M White, but that was for sending a rider to a doping doctor. I'm talking specifically about a rider going there of their own volition.

And how do you reconcile the scandal that erupted from M White's sacking vs what you have written above?

 

[the big ring]

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.

Which in my estimate is worth $2 given neither of them test athletes where they train or race. UCI holds all the testing cards, and has done for some time.

 

[the big ring]

Nathan Haas rode with a mate of mine last year in the orange army and he was head and shoulders above anything else here in the NRS in Oz. Scientifically, how do you go about increasing his power output in todays climate? How do you increase his numbers legally? By scientifically I mean what type or changes to diet / supplements / training / races etc. And please don't go down the "Marginal Gains" route...

He won the Herald Sun Tour and Japan cup vs real pros - not NRS riders. His power is pretty much what he needs to perform. Get a bit more endurance and recovery and he will be good to go imo.

 

[Spider1964]

He won the Herald Sun Tour and Japan cup vs real pros - not NRS riders. His power is pretty much what he needs to perform. Get a bit more endurance and recovery and he will be good to go imo.

Apologies, maybe I could have worded my question better? To save your confusion I'm well aware of what he did on the local scene last year.

My question is mainly in regards to what the Pro Tour teams do in the way of sports science, to improve on already impressive numbers? If it was just a case of telling your rider to go off and ride 8 hours a day everyday then everyone would be doing it? Or is it just that simple?

 

[the big ring]

Apologies, maybe I could have worded my question better? To save your confusion I'm well aware of what he did on the local scene last year.

My question is mainly in regards to what the Pro Tour teams do in the way of sports science, to improve on already impressive numbers? If it was just a case of telling your rider to go off and ride 8 hours a day everyday then everyone would be doing it? Or is it just that simple?

I can't say for sure - clearly I am no pro at anything, but know from experience my power at VO2 went up 5% after racing track for only a week.

I also know motorpacing is very effective in improving.

So at a guess, just racing the big races will improve you - look at the comments from first-timers out of the Tour. Structured training around that (wasn't Nathan working at the same time?) without having to worry about earning a crust would give him that 5% to go places.

I honestly do not think there's much sports science beyond that. Happy to be corrected, of course.

 

[sniper]

I think this article by JV is a good example of supporting true whistleblowers. There's more to it than that, but I think it's a good piece and definitely relevant here.

thanks Viking!

great indeed that JV shows himself in here. No arguing with that. As maxiton said, that is compelling, and as hrotha said, it does a lot of good to his credibility.

It is obviously difficult to reconcile his job as DS with posting in the clinic (though I'm happy he tries!). The clinic and its posters have no censorship in terms of spelling out the obvious, e.g. that wiggo dopes and that he doped also in 2009, or that it is somewhat unlikely that hesjedal won the Giro clean, etc., whereas JV can of course never speak out fully openly on those questions, regardless of what he truly thinks. It's obvious and understandable that he has to support and stay true to his (ex)riders at all costs as long as there is no evidence of doping. But that does create, I assume, some sort of a conflict of interest:
- the clinic's interest being to expose as many dopers as possible and to be as critical as possible (with accusations based more often on gutfeeling and common sense than on tangible evidence);
- JV's interest being to spread the view that cycling is (rapidly?) growing cleaner and hence fairer, allowing for clean riders to emerge on top.

Regardless, I fully share the feelings of great respect for JV's appearing on here, hope he hangs around, and apologize if some of my posts have been too judgmental.

 

[spalco]

I think this article by JV is a good example of supporting true whistleblowers. There's more to it than that, but I think it's a good piece and definitely relevant here.

Thanks, I remember reading this at the time, but didn't think much more of it.
What a sad story, especially in view of what happened three months later...

 

[Mr Pumpy]

It is interesting to me that JV is taking such sh*t here...I don't see Patrick Lefevere here answering questions, I don't see Bruyneel here answering questions, I don't see Alberto Volpi here answering questions, I don't see John Lelangue here answering questions, I don't see Dave Brailsford here answering questions. I don't see any of them discussing ANYTHING about what they REALLY KNOW about doping ANYWHERE.

There is a very simple reason why, and it is the same reason why JV has had enough here. Not one of them, whether they deserve it or not, would get a fair crack of the whip.

I still can't decide whether this sub-forum is a clever ploy by CN to keep all the loonies in one place. It's just a shame for those that have something reasoned to say. One thing is for sure, despite what the big post count people think about themselves (what was that adage about empty vessels?) what goes on here matters not one jot to anything outside of it. It's like farting in a cardboard tube.

 

[RichWalk]

I can't help being impressed by JV's consistent desire to engage with us here. His doing that is unique, that's for sure, and refreshing. His getting angry and frustrated at some of the more strident resistance he's meeting - that, to me, is a sign of his earnestness, and not one of cynicism. I'm still on the fence, but what you're doing here, JV, is pretty compelling.

+1, I seriously hope your sentiments prove correct! Regardless coming to this place and debating at an informed grass roots level takes a fair degree of balls! I still prescribe to my earlier view that even the proclaimed clean teams are a work in progress, there are some very well informed posters in here, I hope their considered replies are taken & used in the right context.

 

[hrotha]

Based on what you believe this JV logic is, do you think JV would sack a rider if he knew they were doping, but staying within the ABP limits?

I imagine there might be some legal trouble if he actually sacked him without proof of doping. But he might be sidelined or not get a contract extension. We've seen several Garmin riders getting that treatment, and the scenario you suggest might be one of the many possible explanations for it.

Now, if he actually had proof of doping, I think he would sack him. Much less open teams have done it in the past, alleging a generic breach of the team's internal code of conduct.

 

[the big ring]

A couple of other times that JV has talked...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/garmin-cervelo-dismisses-matt-white

Slipstream Sports has an explicit internal policy that all medical referrals are approved by our medical staff.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/to-live-and-be-alive

Craig’s persona was getting a bit large, so I figured he needed to know it wasn’t all about him. If you wanted to be a pro cyclist, you needed to be selfless, as well, and you needed to respect your boss. Letting him go on his own that day was a little message to him, and to the rest of the team: I don’t play favorites.

 

[Kretch]

There is a very simple reason why, and it is the same reason why JV has had enough here. Not one of them, whether they deserve it or not, would get a fair crack of the whip.

I still can't decide whether this sub-forum is a clever ploy by CN to keep all the loonies in one place. It's just a shame for those that have something reasoned to say. One thing is for sure, despite what the big post count people think about themselves (what was that adage about empty vessels?) what goes on here matters not one jot to anything outside of it. It's like farting in a cardboard tube.

In massive agreement with this post. It's the audience of ignorant fools that lap up Phil and Paul that matter - that's where the dollars are. This fact seems to be largely lost on the clinic regulars as they pontificate on what should or should not be done.