JV talks, sort of

[87'Start]

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.

Bold part shows the problem with your argument and many of the others on here. As the late great Christopher Hitchens said "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Having a suspicion based on the sordid history of the sport is one thing but this far from makes it obvious that Wiggins doped. More intellectual rigour required...

 

[sniper]

Bold part shows the problem with your argument and many of the others on here. As the late great Christopher Hitchens said "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Having a suspicion based on the sordid history of the sport is one thing but this far from makes it obvious that Wiggins doped. More intellectual rigour required...

I disagree. In the clinic it is perfectly allowed to argue things based on gutfeeling and common sense in the absence of concrete evidence. (And my point was that as a DS JV cannot afford to engage in such discussions.) If we were allowed to only discuss evidence-based doping cases, the regular media discussion boards would have sufficed.

 

[Neworld]

+ 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*. ...We all are.

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

JV, thank you for even showing up here. Try to stay or check in from time to time if you can.

IMHO, I think some of the posters here what ideals to come to fruition...ain't gonna happen. They are hoping for a "NEWORLD" (carving myself up here) for cycling and want it tomorrow.

Not yet, but I hope it comes quickly too. Some things never come fast enough.

Keep at it Jon. Good luck.

 

[Mr Pumpy]

I disagree. In the clinic it is perfectly allowed to argue things based on gutfeeling and common sense in the absence of concrete evidence.

And there, in a nutshell, is why so much of what is posted here is of no value. Common sense, by the way, is always based on evidence.

 

[87'Start]

I disagree. In the clinic it is perfectly allowed to argue things based on gutfeeling and common sense in the absence of concrete evidence. (And my point was that as a DS JV cannot afford to engage in such discussions.) If we were allowed to only discuss evidence-based doping cases, the regular media discussion boards would have sufficed.

I applaud the CN for the Clinic and think it great that it allows the free discussion that other outlets don't. I take your point that JV hands are slightly tied (I do wonder what his 'non-tied' opinion is on the plausibility of Team Sky's success).

My point though is about the strength (or lack of) of certain arguments. Personally I can't take anything as obvious without evidence... Many arguments would be stronger and opinions more easy to respect if there was a lesser degree of certainty attached to them, when certainty is not possible.

Kodos to JV for his admission though and i realise this is digressing slightly from the subject.

 

[Race Radio]

Imagine if Lefevre, LeLangue, Bruyneel, etc. visited the clinic?

Their response would be very Sgt. Schultz like

 

[D-Queued]

Imagine if Lefevre, LeLangue, Bruyneel, etc. visited the clinic?

Their response would be very Sgt. Schultz like

JB would assure us his eyeball test is infallible.

Dave.

 

[Mr.38%]

Maybe stating: "I told everything I know to WADA/USADA. Full disclosure." would have saved everyone from this ridicoulous soap opera.

I love JVs writing style, though and want to believe in him. It's just really hard sometimes as it leaves so much room for interpretation.

 

[hiero2]

And there, in a nutshell, is why so much of what is posted here is of no value. Common sense, by the way, is always based on evidence.

Neh. That definition is too easily misinterpreted - way too limiting. Common sense may be based on experience, it may be based on passed down learning, it may be quite intuitive, and not absolutely based on presentable evidence. Intuition, while based on experience, is extrapolative, and thus not exactly evidentiary.

Now, as for stuff being posted of no value. I wouldn't say that either, but I will guarantee you that I weigh the value of a poster's opinion based on my experiences and the evidence I know of. So, I certainly regard some of what is posted as having no value. Other people might feel differently about the same post. The POSTER obviously thinks what they had to say had SOME value, eh? So long as it is on topic, and not flaming, it is hard to say any post is completely valueless.

 

[hiero2]

Bold part shows the problem with your argument and many of the others on here. As the late great Christopher Hitchens said "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Having a suspicion based on the sordid history of the sport is one thing but this far from makes it obvious that Wiggins doped. More intellectual rigour required...

I disagree. In the clinic it is perfectly allowed to argue things based on gutfeeling and common sense in the absence of concrete evidence. (And my point was that as a DS JV cannot afford to engage in such discussions.) If we were allowed to only discuss evidence-based doping cases, the regular media discussion boards would have sufficed.

Lovely discussion! Thank you. This is a good addition to my comment about common sense. 87'Start does not say you can't argue things here without evidence! He does say another person can dismiss your arguments (that have no evidence) without any evidence of their own. They might not persuade anyone else to their viewpoint - but an argument without evidence is less likely to persuade a listener, either.

All that said, I totally agree - this is a place where you can express your feelings and doubts based on emotional response. This place is about discussion, we are not writing a text book!

I also agree with Start's comment about Wiggin's doping being "obvious". The performances may be suspicious - and perhaps that is enough for one person - but that does not make doping "obvious". You could say "obviously suspicious", and you shouldn't get any blowback. See the difference?

 

[Centurion]

Choosing to dope at the onset of a sporting career, or at any stage of his or her career, is for the weak minded, immature, irresponsible, immoral, and unethical. Those who choose to cheat cannot abide by the moral and ethical principles upon which sport is founded upon. They have a choice. Their greed, lies and cheating show weak character. They are stupid enough to put everything at risk, including their own health in the pursuit of fame and fortune. Money and glory earned by the means of cheating cannot buy character, which is greater than any amount of wealth. Money earned by the means of cheating is useless, when one falls ill due to the side effects of performance enhancing drugs.

For all those athletes who were, and are intelligent enough to say no to doping. I commend You. For You are the real winners in every way. Even if that means finishing in last place. You have kept Your integrity. You have earned Your victories honestly.

 

[hiero2]

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.

45+ Elderly???? Meh, fail on that, friend. If you said 60+ - which still fits me, I could agree a little more. But not 45. I wasn't elderly at 45, and I don't think most 45 yo fit that bill.

But a little more serious (not much)! I like JV's description for two reasons: it is concise, and it comes from a "name" source. I've said the same thing many many times. It doesn't seem to get a whole lot of traction. I'm not a name. We can certainly find more detailed and more accurate descriptions because they are more detailed, but for 25 words or less, this is good. I agree with your thinking on effectiveness, but JV is also pretty much correct, and I think you would have to agree with that. Other than O2 vector, the rest of the stuff doesn't generally change the big picture. It is useful, but you can be up there without it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Great post - it also should be acknowledged that any mearde JV is getting is from a handful of people (at most 5) and that they find doping in every instance and comment. They are entitled to their views - indeed such cynicism should be welcomed- but it is not representative of opinion.

The highlighted is it though -as you rightly point out the only people he needed to be honest with are the people in his personal life.

He didn't owe anyone here anything. However, he did choose to come back in to the sport with a strong anti-doping view. The reason JV gets questioned so much isn't because people don't believe him - it's because they want to believe.
And part of that was addressing his own past.

Actually, if JV merely wanted to placate the fans, then an admission in some cycling site would have been sufficient - no-one outside our bubble would have known or cared. But doing so in the NYT suggests a real desire to move things forward in a progressive way.
I also believe (could well be wrong) that his past has weighed heavily on him - so, on a personal level, I hope it liberates him from his past.

 

[sashimono]

JV comes out in NY Times. Its called vanity. He admits to nothing specific and just paints himself as a pathetic victim in an attempt to cull sympathy. In reality, he has profited a lot more than most from his doping. He came here to call attention to himself.

 

[Viking]

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...

Indeed, the whole garage door incident still seems suspicious to me.

 

[hiero2]

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 only once it was right for him to do so. There was no personal risk, no business risk, . . . Had JV spoken up when he stopped riding, the entire world would have sat up and taken notice there and then.
. . . 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.

Well, this is something like Tilford's take. And another article linked to as well. Being a person who has usually not been as physically courageous as I wish I were, I can understand some possibilities about why JV put off the confrontations. And, I don't think putting them off makes him as crass as some here believe him to be.

When Landis went public, I applauded, but I also noted that very very few other ppl did so. He was generally castigated or treated as an outcast. If you also applauded, I think we were in a very small minority. The same with Tyler. If these guys, and Vaughters, had come out when Landis finally went public it would probably have been a bombshell. I don't see that it would have had the beneficial impact you propose. Remember, most of the listening public doesn't know the details WE know. And doesn't care. The top echelon would have found some way to close ranks and paint Vaughters as dirty, and the best that would have come out of it would have been a major controversy where nobody won, but the top echelon still collected paychecks. Think Wall Street 2001-2008. Think the Party of Thieves and Crooks. The top is still there!

I think Vaughters could have been more courageous when Landis went public. But you know what? I'm 2nd guessing, talking in hindsight. And even hindsight is not 20/20. We are moving forward. This gives me confidence that this time it will happen.

References: The Tilford blogpost, originally linked by icebreaker: http://stevetilford.co/?p=21198#
and this blogpost, linked by somebody else before me, but I lost who: http://www.roadcycling.com/articles/Vaughters-Doping-Confession_005058.shtml

 

[the big ring]

Indeed, the whole garage door incident still seems suspicious to me.

+1

Such tragically ironic timing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Choosing to dope at the onset of a sporting career, or at any stage of his or her career, is for the weak minded, immature, irresponsible, immoral, and unethical. Those who choose to cheat cannot abide by the moral and ethical principles upon which sport is founded upon. They have a choice. Their greed, lies and cheating show weak character. They are stupid enough to put everything at risk, including their own health in the pursuit of fame and fortune. Money and glory earned by the means of cheating cannot buy character, which is greater than any amount of wealth. Money earned by the means of cheating is useless, when one falls ill due to the side effects of performance enhancing drugs.

For all those athletes who were, and are intelligent enough to say no to doping. I commend You. For You are the real winners in every way. Even if that means finishing in last place. You have kept Your integrity. You have earned Your victories honestly.

That all sounds wonderful, but its an idealism and based on individual choices, when the reality is that doping in sports is a systematic and accepted reality.

I have never doped - but at times I have been "weak minded, immature, irresponsible, immoral, and unethical" because they are human qualities.

 

[hiero2]

Indeed, the whole garage door incident still seems suspicious to me.

OMFG. I never connected those dots. If he were Russian, not many of my compatriots would have any doubt as to this "accident".

Links for those who don't know.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tondo-tips-off-police-in-girona-doping-investigation

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/xavier-tondo-dies-in-domestic-accident

Why this topic is connected to this thread:

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.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

That all sounds wonderful, but its an idealism and based on individual choices, when the reality is that doping in sports is a systematic and accepted reality.

You seem to mistake the fact people know it is a reality but it is not accepted as such. Thats why people say to some overdone performances 'get outta here, this is spiked'. And not to forget, doping is still illegal drug trafficking, just like coke.

Scary stuff about Tondo, when I saw the link to him being a whistleblower I thought the same thing. In Belgium people get murdered over cattle - dope so, hell, why not over EPO, it is all organised crime.

 

[hrotha]

That was discussed in the Tondo thread. It's nonsense - he busted a small doping ring which didn't even supply any pros, and he died in a freak accident, with a witness (Beñat Intxausti). It's also off-topic.

 

[sniper]

...
The highlighted is it though -as you rightly point out the only people he needed to be honest with are the people in his personal life.

luckily, nobody has yet stated anything differently.

He didn't owe anyone here anything.

see the above. this has never been questioned. it's obvious.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You seem to mistake the fact people know it is a reality but it is not accepted as such. Thats why people say to some overdone performances 'get outta here, this is spiked'. And not to forget, doping is still illegal drug trafficking, just like coke.

Scary stuff about Tondo, when I saw the link to him being a whistleblower I thought the same thing. In Belgium people get murdered over cattle - dope so, hell, why not over EPO, it is all organised crime.

Ah - it took a second read before I got your point.

Apologies, I was not clear enough - I am on about people inside the sport, those who have to make the choices - not the "people say" types who sit in the grandstands or in front of a computer.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ah - it took a second read before I got your point.

Apologies, I was not clear enough - I am on about people inside the sport, those who have to make the choices - not the "people say" types who sit in the grandstands or in front of a computer.

Reading JV's article = still the topic = he quit cycling because he didn't like cheating, so what are you on?

And, please, don't come with the armchaircyclistfan in front of a computer line, I am a sportsman too, soccer and cycling. [was] Quite good at it too. Watching cycling, doing cycling, buying cycling gear/bikes, or are those people not entitled to an opinion?

My grammar isn't the best, I know, I am not American/English, sorry.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Reading JV's article = still the topic = he quit cycling because he didn't like cheating, so what are you on?

I actually don't know what you are asking me here.

And, please, don't come with the armchaircyclistfan in front of a computer line, I am a sportsman too, soccer and cycling. [was] Quite good at it too. Watching cycling, doing cycling, buying cycling gear/bikes, or are those people not entitled to an opinion?

I never dismissed anyone for having an opinion (quite the opposite) - however, ones moral outrage is exactly just that. Ones personal outrage.

But there is a distinction from us on the outside and who were not subject to having to make a choice and those on the inside who are - that was my only point.

My grammar isn't the best, I know, I am not American/English, sorry.

No problem - if you do not understand my points or position then just ask.