JV talks, sort of

[thehog]

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.

I am on your side believe it or not. I've defended you many a time on this forum as anti-doping and not anti-Lance.

I like what you're doing. Said it 1000 times.

I just feel that there are others who put their b**** big time on the line and got them mashed in the process.

I also agree back in the day NO ONE could go against UCI/LA - that would result in cycling obscurity. Forever.

It’s just my reverse way of giving kudos to the "bitter ex-teammates".

That is all. I’m a fan.

I am serious about the blog/website. I think you should have it built. Explaining how power works and blood testing etc. Even think about building a iPhone app. I think it will work wonders. If the common man can understand gridiron plays then the can learn about the intricacies of cycling. (go read up on test cricket and you’ll see the fans have a very deep understanding of the sport).

 

[JV1973]

no. not at rumor level. because the number of ridiculous rumors floating around now is insane. It's to be expected considering cycling's history, but it isn't reality.

At the hard information or very reliable source level.

 

[Race Radio]

There is another element that is missing from JV coming forward.

The next 6 months will be chaos. The UCI has made it very clear they are in Armstrong's camp. They will try to impede USADA's legitimate investigation in any way possible. This could include not recognizing any USADA plea deals and sanctioning any of the witnesses who talk.

If you are one of the guys who told the truth you are worried. You are worried that the UCI is going to screw you, the public is going to turn on you, that your career is finished.

JV just tested the waters for these guys. The UCI has not said a word and the public has largely embraced his honesty. While this will not completely eradicate the concerns of the witnesses have it will go a long way in reducing their fears.

 

[Mr.38%]

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

Aye aye, Sir!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hey JV, how about answering those PM questions?

No pressure at all.

 

[roundabout]

Would a rider going to a suspicious doctor qualify as hard information or rumor?

Or even better, a rider merely rumored to be visiting a suspicious doctor?

And I don't mean unauthorized referrals.

 

[Catwhoorg]

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

Kudos.

I wonder how many others in your position with a Proteam would do the same ?

I thing I can count it on the fingers of one foot.

 

[JV1973]

a rider rumored to be going to a doc that is rumored to be a doping doc? That's pretty tough to go into WADA with.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

a rider rumored to be going to a doc that is rumored to be a doping doc? That's pretty tough to go into WADA with.

How about a rider dropping 10 kiloos and finishing fourth in la Tour? When did he loose those kiloos?

 

[roundabout]

Okay, and what quailifies as hard information? Something that you know for sure, yet the authorities don't.

Would a rider admitting to you that he doped qualify? Or would he have to bring his doping schedule with him?

Hard information and very reliable sources seem quite generic. Merely words. Especially for a man who took a lot of time confessing about his doping to the public. Given the way you handle things, I can be forgiven for thinking that your hard information would already be known.

 

[hrotha]

Hey JV, could you please reply to this post? Maybe you just can't reply to it in your current position, but there's always the possibility that you simply missed it once this thread exploded, and, well, I've been nicer than the Hog.

 

[JV1973]

Re Contador:

I never got to see his blood values, so I have no idea. The negotiation with him was not quite as far as was rumored, and it had not gotten to the point of reviewing blood records. So, I don't know.

I know Inigo San Millan always told me that Contador was the most gifted cyclist ever tested, so I had reason to believe that he could do what he was doing, clean. There are, obviously, many reasons he might not have been clean. In the end: I don't know. I never got to see "behind the curtain"...

JV

 

[sniper]

no. not at rumor level. because the number of ridiculous rumors floating around now is insane. It's to be expected considering cycling's history, but it isn't reality.

Sky hired Leinders, refused to embed Kimmage, Wiggins has a pro-UCI attitude, and so on. Would you call the rumor that Sky is full-on doping ridiculous?

Wiggo 2009 was beaten by two proven dopers and he himself left two proven dopers behind him. Is the rumor that Wiggo doped in 2009 ridiculous?

 

[JV1973]

Okay, and what quailifies as hard information? Something that you know for sure, yet the authorities don't.

Would a rider admitting to you that he doped qualify? Or would he have to bring his doping schedule with him?

Hard information and very reliable sources seem quite generic. Merely words. Especially for a man who took a lot of time confessing about his doping to the public. Given the way you handle things, I can be forgiven for thinking that your hard information would already be known.

Hard informations would be: "i saw x,y,z getting a transfusion"...

I think an admission qualifies, sure.

 

[mewmewmew13]

JV,Your honesty is way appreciated.

I'm betting that many here who are intent on 'catching you out' or here to stir up conflict would not be able to maintain your civility and cordial tone....
for the record I appreciate your sense of humor and sense of the absurd in it all.

I'm sorry that you won't post here in the future, but I can understand where you are coming from.
Hope you will at least feel that you are much welcomed IF you change your mind....

Really we are all just slaves to cycling or most of us would not be here.

 

[roundabout]

I remember you arguing on twitter that Puerto AC wasn't Contador.

I think you even mentioned something about sources. I don't know if that was "I don't know" or something else.

 

[roundabout]

JV,Your honesty is way appreciated.

I'm betting that many here who are intent on 'catching you out' or here to stir up conflict would not be able to maintain your civility and cordial tone....
for the record I appreciate your sense of humor and sense of the absurd in it all.

I'm sorry that you won't post here in the future, but I can understand where you are coming from.
Hope you will at least feel that you are much welcomed IF you change your mind....

Really we are all just slaves to cycling or most of us would not be here.

At least for me, it's not an attempt to catch Vaughters out. I want to get a better idea where he stands.

 

[Autobus]

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.

OK, not worked up. How about vehement? It's a lot less subjective.

I know the point of the Clinic. That's why I come here too. And I don't have my head in the sand. But I was serious about lack of hope. Why should anyone have much hope for professional cycling? With the UCI and the IOC being rotten to the core, with the need for wins to stay in the Pro Tour and get invites to other races, with the need for wins/visibility (and in the U.S. the only thing that brings visibility is winning) to retain sponsors, and with the lack of efficacious dope testing I don't see much of a reason to be hopeful. Except maybe one thing. And funny how that might be something that JV seems to be integral to, the breakaway cycling tour. That is the one way to get out from under the IOC and UCI (if professional cycling is willing to be cut from the Olympics). Would that solve everything, probably not. Nonolympic professional sports in the U.S. are certainly not. But it would probably be a good start.

Sure, call JV on his hypocrisy (I wish Hog had asked JV about the 2005 interview with CN while he was still signed on), but I just see a lot bigger villains in this tragedy than JV. And I'm probably naive to even hope that Ryder won the Giro clean, but I'm not going to be putting any money on it.

The vehemence in this thread maybe because of the post tour, post Olympics, pre Vuelta lull or because its one of the few time the Clinic 12 have a fundamental disagreement. But it just seemed to me 75 or so pages is a lot given it all came from some tweets and then a mea culpa in the NY Times from JV.

Edit: Well I got my wish answered. Thanks for the reply JV.

 

[JV1973]

Sky hired Leinders, refused to embed Kimmage, Wiggins has a pro-UCI attitude, and so on. Would you call the rumor that Sky is full-on doping ridiculous?

Wiggo 2009 was beaten by two proven dopers and he himself left two proven dopers behind him. Is the rumor that Wiggo doped in 2009 ridiculous?

The Dr. Leinders thing is disturbing, for sure. Not knowing him, I can't comment on his current attitude towards things. I don't know.

2009? Wiggo did not dope. You can say I'm wrong, but I'll stick with my statement on this, that I've made over and over...

2012 Sky? My opinion (not statement) is that they are not doping, based on VAM, power values, and information we have from Wiggins in 2009. Brad didn't ride much faster in 2012 than 2009, he just was more mentally consistent, the parcours suited him more, and he did not have the same competitors.

Again: My Opinion.... I'm sure we will all find out if it's right or wrong with time. As of today, i am just saying this is what I think. It may be proven wrong.

 

[Digger]

I remember you arguing on twitter that Puerto AC wasn't Contador.

I think you even mentioned something about sources. I don't know if that was "I don't know" or something else.

It was me he was 'arguing' with. He said some people believe AC was Antonio Colom. I thought that unlikely considering the initials AC were in the middle of other Liberty Sigueros riders such as J.J. on that file.

 

[red_flanders]

I think it's great that you engage with the posters here JV! I appreciate the insight and information.

 

[sniper]

The Dr. Leinders thing is disturbing, for sure. Not knowing him, I can't comment on his current attitude towards things. I don't know.

2009? Wiggo did not dope. You can say I'm wrong, but I'll stick with my statement on this, that I've made over and over...

2012 Sky? My opinion (not statement) is that they are not doping, based on VAM, power values, and information we have from Wiggins in 2009. Brad didn't ride much faster in 2012 than 2009, he just was more mentally consistent, the parcours suited him more, and he did not have the same competitors.

Again: My Opinion.... I'm sure we will all find out if it's right or wrong with time. As of today, i am just saying this is what I think. It may be proven wrong.

Much appreciated, JV, sincerely.

(I'm slightly skeptical, though, about the "finding out with time" part. Any exposure of malpractices at Sky would shed dark light not only on Sky but on all British olympic results in 2012.)

 

[roundabout]

Hard informations would be: "i saw x,y,z getting a transfusion"...

I think an admission qualifies, sure.

Uff, 2 major questions come to mind, but I won't ask them.

Firstly, because there's a 99% likelihood that you won't answer them for reasons I absolutely understand.

And secondly, as sad as it seems, I suspect that I know the answer and I won't like it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think it's great that you engage with the posters here JV! I appreciate the insight and information.

+1 to that.

JV - if you can, how has the reception been since the article came out?

I know it was not necessarily news to those within cycling, so I guess I am wondering how the general public reaction has been.

Also, how are you on a personal level?

 

[roundabout]

It was me he was 'arguing' with. He said some people believe AC was Antonio Colom. I thought that unlikely considering the initials AC were in the middle of other Liberty Sigueros riders such as J.J. on that file.

Thanks for the context. Being cynical I don't think that Vaughters would post "what some people believe" just for the sake of it.