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

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

    Thanks!

JV talks, sort of

Page 31 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
sashimono said:
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.

+1

If accepted unconditionally, it sets up a bad precedent essentially turning anti-doping into a marketing cause like the Clean Coal Coalition... Just admit it after the statute of limitations runs out and all is forgiven. Meanwhile the peloton is 'never tested positive' clean and riders will still be faced with a deep and wide culture of doping.

Let's talk losers for a minute. Losers are the guys that made it to that level then walked away because of the doping. JV stole something very valuable from those guys.

At his level, it's a business and he's very good at it. His success didn't happen being honest and fair. While I applaud the public effort to be clean, what's in the next act of contrition 10 years from now?
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
I actually don't know what you are asking me here.


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.


No problem - if you do not understand my points or position then just ask.
I meant as an answer to
I am on about people inside the sport, those who have to make the choices
JV was inside and didn't like what he was doing. So, we can deduct/extract he wasn't on the side that accepted doping was part of the game?

On my English, I read it very well, but my grammar lacks in speaking and writing, the English cynism is sometimes hard to read/understand coming from another country :)

I was also in the sport and saw some guys who were good in their youth struggle at pro level, and, 'suddenly' make a big improvement and become known pro's, stage winners in the Tour. Some were even 'laughable', blown out of the peloton on flat stages, before the 'change'. Glad I never had to make that choice.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
+1

If accepted unconditionally, it sets up a bad precedent essentially turning anti-doping into a marketing cause like the Clean Coal Coalition... Just admit it after the statute of limitations runs out and all is forgiven. Meanwhile the peloton is 'never tested positive' clean and riders will still be faced with a deep and wide culture of doping.

Let's talk losers for a minute. Losers are the guys that made it to that level then walked away because of the doping. JV stole something very valuable from those guys.

At his level, it's a business and he's very good at it. His success didn't happen being honest and fair. While I applaud the public effort to be clean, what's in the next act of contrition 10 years from now?

to the bold: you said something similar before and I fully agree. This shouldn'T become the new norm.

in the same context: look at the way riders at present are denying. The norm (still respected by a guy like Evans) used to be to simply not answer or cleverly evade doping questions, but since Armstrong the norm has shifted: at present guys like Contador and Wiggo go to such length as to swear on the graves of their family members. Whether it's Wiggo, Contador or Armstrong, it's an extreme type of denial/lying that is quite terrifying, and that has become the new norm.
 
DirtyWorks said:
+1

If accepted unconditionally, it sets up a bad precedent essentially turning anti-doping into a marketing cause like the Clean Coal Coalition... Just admit it after the statute of limitations runs out and all is forgiven. Meanwhile the peloton is 'never tested positive' clean and riders will still be faced with a deep and wide culture of doping.

Let's talk losers for a minute. Losers are the guys that made it to that level then walked away because of the doping. JV stole something very valuable from those guys.

At his level, it's a business and he's very good at it. His success didn't happen being honest and fair. While I applaud the public effort to be clean, what's in the next act of contrition 10 years from now?


I think some of the problem wasn’t the doping but enforcing for the English language press of USPS bring a clean team. For JV to dope is one thing but to come out with Doozies like this: (and no one mention the SCA deposition!).

These comments set back and enforced the Lance stronghold for years to come. It wasn’t smart nor bright.


"But this year was probably the cleanest Tour since the early '90s. It (doping) has decreased enormously since the '95-'96 period." Now, Vaughters estimated about "80-85 percent" of the field is clean.

"I was this skinny guy," he said this week. "I didn't want to end up being the girlfriend of some gendarme," he told Cyclingnews.

"I was thinking back (to that time) and I remember I could feel that we (USPS) were going to be real contenders for the Tour. So I called Johan (Bruyneel) and asked him if there was anything I should be worried about. He assured me and said, 'we're not going to be doing any of that (doping)'. Basically, he said there was none of that (in the team). There would be nothing to worry about."

Still, it was Vaughters himself who received a fright at the pre-Tour medical tests, as his hematocrit posted a 51 percent reading, above the UCI's limit of 50 percent, but still under his special dispensation of 52 percent. (Frequent testing had shown that Vaughters - like many good climbers - have naturally high hematocrit levels and they are granted dispensation from doctors.)
"I'd never tested (at a race) above 50 percent, except before the start of the '99 Tour," he said. "I told the team doctor 'don't worry, I've got a certificate, I've got a hall-pass for this'," he recalled. "But the doctor said it wasn't me they were worried about, it was that the whole team was very close (to the 50 percent limit)."

But that year, it is now widely accepted even by the UCI, according to Vaughters, that its testing apparatus was calibrated somewhat high. He said this is not that uncommon, given that the machines are carried from race-to-race, through baggage handling and screening, and while efforts are made to ensure they are accurately calibrated, "there is some slop room" for variations.

Ironically, Armstrong's privacy is not reflected in the recent allegations from the French newspaper, that Vaughters described as "bizarre" and "weird".

"It's bizarre to me that what was supposedly an experiment for research has become this story," he said of L'Equipe's headline-grabbing story this week that urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France have shown evidence of EPO use, and the only rider claimed to be the donor of those samples is seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong.

"He's not going to get suspended, they're not going to take his Tour wins away, or they're not going to test the A samples. It's just weird."

But there is the identity of the riders whose urine samples are also said to show EPO. "I'm not worried," he said, "I was never urine-tested in that Tour," he said. But Vaughters said that if the newspaper can claim they have the information to identify Armstrong, then what of other riders? "It's not really fair," he said, "and it seems like there's a bit of malice" in the selective reporting. "These other guys are getting off scot-free."

"But it's pretty significant. It makes the race look bad, makes the sport look bad. It does put a cloud over cycling," he said of the publicity.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I think some of the problem wasn’t the doping but enforcing for the English language press of USPS bring a clean team. For JV to dope is one thing but to come out with Doozies like this: (and no one mention the SCA deposition!).

These comments set back and enforced the Lance stronghold for years to come. It wasn’t smart nor bright.


"But this year was probably the cleanest Tour since the early '90s. It (doping) has decreased enormously since the '95-'96 period." Now, Vaughters estimated about "80-85 percent" of the field is clean.

"I was this skinny guy," he said this week. "I didn't want to end up being the girlfriend of some gendarme," he told Cyclingnews.

"I was thinking back (to that time) and I remember I could feel that we (USPS) were going to be real contenders for the Tour. So I called Johan (Bruyneel) and asked him if there was anything I should be worried about. He assured me and said, 'we're not going to be doing any of that (doping)'. Basically, he said there was none of that (in the team). There would be nothing to worry about."

Still, it was Vaughters himself who received a fright at the pre-Tour medical tests, as his hematocrit posted a 51 percent reading, above the UCI's limit of 50 percent, but still under his special dispensation of 52 percent. (Frequent testing had shown that Vaughters - like many good climbers - have naturally high hematocrit levels and they are granted dispensation from doctors.)
"I'd never tested (at a race) above 50 percent, except before the start of the '99 Tour," he said. "I told the team doctor 'don't worry, I've got a certificate, I've got a hall-pass for this'," he recalled. "But the doctor said it wasn't me they were worried about, it was that the whole team was very close (to the 50 percent limit)."

But that year, it is now widely accepted even by the UCI, according to Vaughters, that its testing apparatus was calibrated somewhat high. He said this is not that uncommon, given that the machines are carried from race-to-race, through baggage handling and screening, and while efforts are made to ensure they are accurately calibrated, "there is some slop room" for variations.

Ironically, Armstrong's privacy is not reflected in the recent allegations from the French newspaper, that Vaughters described as "bizarre" and "weird".

"It's bizarre to me that what was supposedly an experiment for research has become this story," he said of L'Equipe's headline-grabbing story this week that urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France have shown evidence of EPO use, and the only rider claimed to be the donor of those samples is seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong.

"He's not going to get suspended, they're not going to take his Tour wins away, or they're not going to test the A samples. It's just weird."

But there is the identity of the riders whose urine samples are also said to show EPO. "I'm not worried," he said, "I was never urine-tested in that Tour," he said. But Vaughters said that if the newspaper can claim they have the information to identify Armstrong, then what of other riders? "It's not really fair," he said, "and it seems like there's a bit of malice" in the selective reporting. "These other guys are getting off scot-free."

"But it's pretty significant. It makes the race look bad, makes the sport look bad. It does put a cloud over cycling," he said of the publicity.

agreed. JV selling USPS as the clean team doesn't make his current efforts look good.

the calibration-tale is shocking (in the context of LA-UCI nepotism). didn't know that one yet. belongs in the "most ridiculous doping excuses" thread.

if i may ask: what's with the SCA deposition? Did JV play some role in it?
 
Aug 7, 2012
18
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
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 know of two guys who faced that choice during the height of the EPO era in the 1990's. They like everyone else worked extremely hard to reach the elite level required in order to realize their dream. When they went to Continental Europe to sign professional contracts, it was made very clear to them that they had to use performance enhancing drugs in order to be competitive.
Without hesitation they both made an immediate decision not to sign those contracts, and booked the next available flight home.
 
Viking said:
Indeed, the whole garage door incident still seems suspicious to me.
To add to what hrotha said, there are much less contrived and less suspicious ways to fabricate an "accident" (especially with a professional cyclist on a training ride on mountain roads) than an elaborately concocted scale involving a door to a public garage at a place that wasn't even his home, in full view of a witness. The only way around that would be if Intxausti was in on the conspiracy, which could then implicate the rest of his training group, so Luís León Sánchez, Samuel Sánchez, José Joaquín Rojas, Carlos Barredo and Alejandro Valverde (I may have forgotten a couple) too. Guys of that stature and level are hardly going to be involved in the killing off of a personal friend based on the busting of a doping ring which was predominantly focused on amateurs and masters riders, and dumb enough to be soliciting its wares to the only Spanish male pro on BikePure at the time. The bigger question is more how Intxausti and Rojas are able to coexist given their respective political ideologies.

There was reference back to JV's "Join The Dots" article, which was quite illuminating and interesting, but also raised as many questions as it answered. If JV had "joined the dots" about Tondó's years with LA-MSS (and I do not necessarily blame him for doing so in light of everything that happened there), then why did he aggressively (at least in the media, may have been different behind closed doors) pursue Contador, with his Liberty Seguros past and potential Puerto taint? We've discussed people like Millar until the cows come home, but why could you find people like Heinrich Haussler and his years with Gerolsteiner at the squad, or the various ex-USPS/Discovery guys? Did Murilo Fischer's extraordinary 2005 with Naturino not create any dots? It appeared, and correct me if I'm wrong, like it was an interesting insight into how, no matter how embroiled in the sport you are, no matter how many facts and figures and statistics you have access to, there is still a role to be played by gut feeling and faith.

I hope that JV understands that for us, who don't have the access to all the facts and figures and statistics that he has, gut feeling and faith (where we are capable of it) plays a much bigger role. Too much gut feeling and you get pleas to emotion; but at the same time statistics and figures can cover up something that your gut feeling says you should have spotted.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Autobus said:
To those who feel like this I have to wonder why you bother to follow professional bicycle racing at all. With the IOC being the only oversight of UCI you shouldn't have any expectation that there will be fundamental change in the how the UCI does its business. Does the summer Olympics taking place in Qatter make anymore sense than the cycling world championships taking place in Qattar? The IOC may bounce Pat because his crazy antics have become a liability, but they will probably replace him with someone who is just as slimey, but a lot more polished. You may enjoy racing for the pure entertainment aspect, but then why get so worked up on the if Garmin is really clean or not? Arguing over whether JV is just laying on a thick layer of spin just seems pointless if there's no hope anyway. If you have no expectation that things will get better, why bother getting worked up over it. It isn't like this just happened yesterday and clean racing just disappeared.

There are certainly lots of reasons to be cynical, but come on. If you have no hope why don't you just stop following the sport and do something more constructive, like going for a ride of your own?

I have plenty of hope, it just does not reside in any of the individuals i currently see in the sport.

This is the Clinic. I dont come in here to discuss anything apart from the dirty side of cycling. You will get the head in the ground people over on the road subforum.

I can still appreciate the sport from a distance. I am not going to put money in any direction of any of the teams or their sponsors if i can help it. But i can still enjoy watching people racing their bikes.

I dont get worked up about anything in here.

I have made my position clear on JV.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
+1

If accepted unconditionally, it sets up a bad precedent essentially turning anti-doping into a marketing cause like the Clean Coal Coalition... Just admit it after the statute of limitations runs out and all is forgiven. Meanwhile the peloton is 'never tested positive' clean and riders will still be faced with a deep and wide culture of doping.
This post is exactly the sort of thing JV meant when he said some here are inconsistent and have unrealistic expectations.

You acknowledge "a deep and wide culture of doping" - yet admonish those who partake in that culture.

DirtyWorks said:
Let's talk losers for a minute. Losers are the guys that made it to that level then walked away because of the doping. JV stole something very valuable from those guys.
I would not call those who decided not to dope losers, they have their integrity.
But JVs NYT piece was nothing to do with that, he doped - nothing changes that, for him or for them - he cannot get the milk back in to the bottle.

DirtyWorks said:
At his level, it's a business and he's very good at it. His success didn't happen being honest and fair. While I applaud the public effort to be clean, what's in the next act of contrition 10 years from now?
You mention his "success didn't happen being honest and fair" - what success? And you do realize he left the sport, when he knew exactly how to be successful and prosper.

JV doped - which has personal consequences for him - but JV didn't ruin cycling, he didn't set the ball rolling.
Like Centurions post above - he arrived at a point and had a decision to make, he made the wrong choice (IMO) and would eventually regret it.
But the point is no-one should be in that position to have make that choice - which is what he is trying to set up.
 
sniper said:
agreed. JV selling USPS as the clean team doesn't make his current efforts look good.

the calibration-tale is shocking (in the context of LA-UCI nepotism). didn't know that one yet. belongs in the "most ridiculous doping excuses" thread.

if i may ask: what's with the SCA deposition? Did JV play some role in it?

SCA JV wrote a glowing review of Lance (In affidavit form) and dismissed the IM conversation as joking around.

Then there's this:

http://su13.us/this_just_in___/view/...sting_positive

"This was explained to me by Jonathan Vaughters who you should know if you know anything about pro cycling.* As he was my teammate on Prime Alliance I will tell you what he told me was the way to avoid testing positive for EPO.* I used EPO briefly but never tested positive.* But I was never tested for EPO while using it but if I was a constant I imagine Vaughters technique would have been the way Lance could have gotten away with it.* Please keep in mind they didn't have a test for many years, and Lance's samples that were frozen and saved, all of his B samples tested positive for EPO when later tested.* He got away with it, and if you look at the case of Kayle Leogrande, he had positive B samples, and an eye witness to him admitting his usage, well Lance did too.* Frankie Andreu and his wife in the hospital room.* The SCA Promotions Trial.* Lance had numerous B samples test positive.* Well Kayle got busted and Lance got off then.* Lance should have been sanctioned then if the system was fair.

Back to avoiding the positive test by Vaughters.* He told when you use EPO it produces a synthetic product in your blood and this is what is flagged.* But if you use EPO and put your body at altitude this will cause your body to replace those flags so you will not test positive for EPO.* So having an altitude chamber or living at altitude while using EPO you will not test positive for EPO.

That is from the highest secrets of the pro racers.* Consider with careful planning how Lance could have avoided testing positive.

Matt DeCanio"
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
thehog said:
SCA JV wrote a glowing review of Lance (In affidavit form) and dismissed the IM conversation as joking around.

JV had a choice, sign the affidavit or Wonderboy calls his sponsors and he has no team. Often the key to success is staying in the game
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I think some of the problem wasn’t the doping but enforcing for the English language press of USPS bring a clean team. For JV to dope is one thing but to come out with Doozies like this: (and no one mention the SCA deposition!).

These comments set back and enforced the Lance stronghold for years to come. It wasn’t smart nor bright.


"But this year was probably the cleanest Tour since the early '90s. It (doping) has decreased enormously since the '95-'96 period." Now, Vaughters estimated about "80-85 percent" of the field is clean.

"I was this skinny guy," he said t

. . .

said of the publicity.
(snipped for brevity)

Hog, you've put up quotes twice in the last couple hours with no attribution. Please link to sources. No sources = no good. The 2nd post has a link - but it is a bad link, no document there that supports your quotes.
 
hrotha said:
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.

Yes, this. I don't think we need to bring out ridiculous theory again.If you want to know how it happened you can always go to elcorreo.com
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Hog, thanks for the very interesting info's.

Benotti, this post is as brilliant as it is to the point.

Benotti69 said:
I have plenty of hope, it just does not reside in any of the individuals i currently see in the sport.

This is the Clinic. I dont come in here to discuss anything apart from the dirty side of cycling. You will get the head in the ground people over on the road subforum.

I can still appreciate the sport from a distance. I am not going to put money in any direction of any of the teams or their sponsors if i can help it. But i can still enjoy watching people racing their bikes.

I dont get worked up about anything in here.

I have made my position clear on JV.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
As the 2% figure has been misinterpreted JV popped into the comments section of Tilford's blog to correct the issue

JV here. Listen, of course 2% isn’t an accurate number for power output. More like 5-12%, depending on a person’s natural red cell count. But 2% is accurate for the time between 1st and 100th place in the Tour of a 9.8 vs 10 in 100m. I was demonstrating a point to a broader audience that isn’t going to be familiar with hemoglobin mass and it’s impact on o2 carrying.
I’m happy to talk exact power differences based on incremental increases in hemoglobin due to EPO use if you are interested. Funny enough, NYT was not interested.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
As the 2% figure has been misinterpreted JV popped into the comments section of Tilford's blog to correct the issue

It's 2% to 50th place at the Tour but I am sure fast and loose is JV's preferred style ;-)
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Hog,

I acknowledge those interviews. i don't like what I said, but they exist. Why? Because i was scared ****less and had been told that I better be scared. Lack of courage? Yep. absolutely. Confused? Conflicted? All the way. You got me.

I'll leave it at that.

Why don't you call up David Walsh and find out my perspective at that point in time. He spent 3-4 days visiting me in Colorado right around then. See what he has to say. It might illuminate you.

There's also an interesting article about Frankie in Sept 2006. You should look that up.

All too easy to sit back and search things I said on google and play "gotcha!"...

You quickly forget the environment in those times, because you didn't have to live through it.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Im also being inconsistent by posting.... said I wouldn't and I won't, but Hog's points are valid and should be addressed.

Read the SCA affidavit. It says I knew nothing about doping on the 2005 discovery team. That is a statement of fact. I didn't. I was so far removed from the pro side of the sport at that time.... I was over in france being a guest for a bike tour group, when an old friend of men starting spewing the stories coming from the peloton. I repeated to Frankie via IM. DoI think there could be truth to it? Sure, absolutely. But I couldn't verify it, and I sure as **** didn't know first, over even second hand. The affidavit reflects that.

In retrospect, should have had the stones just to not sign anything. I was a *****, what can I say?

2012 JV... The environment is way different now. And I'm not scared ****less anymore. If I knew about doping going on anywhere in the sport, I'd tell WADA about it immediately. That's what i would do.

JV
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
JV1973 said:
Hog,

I acknowledge those interviews. i don't like what I said, but they exist. Why? Because i was scared ****less and had been told that I better be scared. Lack of courage? Yep. absolutely. Confused? Conflicted? All the way. You got me.
.
Why excuse for that? The whole peloton peed in their pants for 'tha boss'. As they should, look at the former USPS later on testing positive after leaving 'tha mental patient': Heras, Landis, Hamilton. Petit possoins...
 
Even at rumor level?

And as for environment, you may have more goodwill and bigger sponsors, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on the environment as a whole.

Funny word, that, environment. I wouldn't be that confident that without Landis and Hamilton many people would have stood up for you had you taken a harder stance in a hypothetical SCA 2012 affidavit.