• 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 33 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dr. Maserati said:
You acknowledge "a deep and wide culture of doping" - yet admonish those who partake in that culture.
I'm probably not being clear. This kind of strategic confession sets up a scenario that doping remains in the peloton. Do your time, exit and then wait until the statute of limitations kicks in and confess. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. I'm not say it will happen. But, this might set up the potential for another version of greenwashing.


Dr. Maserati said:
I would not call those who decided not to dope losers, they have their integrity.
Cold comfort. More honorable, but meaningless within competitive sports.

Dr. Maserati said:
...he arrived at a point and had a decision to make, he made the wrong choice (IMO) and would eventually regret it.

There are no consequences to his cheating. He's been rewarded many times over for the dishonesty. Moreover, there's a faction perfectly willing to forgive and forget which sets off another virtuous loop of almost no consequences to doping. Perhaps it is too early in the honeymoon for this observation though..

The best case scenario is Race Radio's. This confession is an example of how it is safe to provide information even publicly, and hopefully in great detail to the local WADA/law enforcement organization for action.

I'm not going to pursue these points any more as it isn't very rewarding.
 
Digger said:
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.

Elsewhere "AC" had been used for Antonio Colóm and for Ángel Casero, so there was some contention from Contador's people that it might not have been, however there are some docs where it's all a list of Liberty youngsters and so on... similarly Alejandro Valverde's people tried to palm off the AV references because elsewhere Ángel Vicioso was mentioned.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
I'm probably not being clear. This kind of strategic confession sets up a scenario that doping remains in the peloton. Do your time, exit and then wait until the statute of limitations kicks in and confess. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. I'm not say it will happen. But, this might set up the potential for another version of greenwashing.
At least he confessed, lets see when the rest of these:

2. Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Casino 42.7
3. Wladimir Belli (Ita) Festina-Lotus 43.8
4. Joseba Beloki Dorronsoro (Spa) Euskatel-Euskadi 51.84
5. Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service 1.01.2
6. Kevin Livingston (USA) US Postal Service 1.25.5
7. David Moncoutie (Fra) Cofidis 1.40.6
8. Unaï Osa (Spa) Banesto 2.01.1
9. Tyler Hamilton (USA) US Postal Service 2.18.1
10. Roberto Laiseka Jaio (Spa) Euskatel-Euskadi 2.18.2
11. Txema Del Olmo Zendegi (Spa) Euskatel-Euskadi 2.45.4
12. Kurt van de Wouwer (Bel) Lotto-Mobistar 2.53.1
13. Frédéric Gabrel (Fra) Home Market-Charleroi 3.13.7
14. Gilles Bouvard (Fra) Home Market-Charleroi 3.17.5
15. Dominique Rault (Fra) Big Mat-Auber 93 3.35.4
16. Ivan Ramiro Parra Pinto (Col) Vitalicio Seguros 4.02.7
17. César Solaun (Spa) Banesto 4.03.4
18. Christophe Oriol (Fra) Casino 4.09.5
19. Benoît Salmon (Fra) Casino 4.11.3

will confess.

Nice picture:

1267174025VAUGHTERSJonathan.jpg



JV, how do you feel upon guys like Moncoutie? You know, he is supposed to be a clean rider. At Cofidis of course...
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
I'm probably not being clear. This kind of strategic confession sets up a scenario that doping remains in the peloton. Do your time, exit and then wait until the statute of limitations kicks in and confess. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. I'm not say it will happen. But, this might set up the potential for another version of greenwashing.
Again - you make little sense.
Doping remains in the peloton when people don't get caught.

When was he supposed to admit? Or is your preference that he didn't?

DirtyWorks said:
Cold comfort. More honorable, but meaningless within competitive sports.



There are no consequences to his cheating. He's been rewarded many times over for the dishonesty. Moreover, there's a faction perfectly willing to forgive and forget which sets off another virtuous loop of almost no consequences to doping. Perhaps it is too early in the honeymoon for this observation though..

The best case scenario is Race Radio's. This confession is an example of how it is safe to provide information even publicly, and hopefully in great detail to the local WADA/law enforcement organization for action.

I'm not going to pursue these points any more as it isn't very rewarding.
I noticed you conveniently snipped out where I asked how did he benefit and where I said he would have benefited more by staying in the game. That alone is telling.

There are always consequences for doping - and no-one has forgiven him nor shall we forget, but you appear to mix up people being appreciative of someone acknowledging their mistakes or past to somehow condoning it.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
+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?

The response? 9th most downloaded article of Sunday Times, which is big for an op-ed. 2300 responses on twitter. All but 15 or so were very positive.

Honestly, beyond the hard core fan blog-o-sphere, the general reaction has been way better than i would have predicted. Hell, Janet Evans (who i don't even know) sent me a very nice note. The article went outside the normal confines of cycling.

The hard core fans have been mostly been positive or "tell me something new" with a few cynics busting my balls, just like on here. But that's OK, it's not like I'm announcing a new baby or something!

I'm fine, personally. I've never denied doping to anyone who's asked me, on a personal level, for a good many years now, so this was just a formalization. The important part is now doing something with the good mojo. It's useless if it isn't used to help move the ball on this issue.

JV
 
Dr. Maserati said:
There are always consequences for doping - and no-one has forgiven him nor shall we forget...

Personally I don't really care that JV doped. It all seems so minor compared to everything else that went on during that time.

The context he gave today helps make what he said in the past more understandable and less duplicitous. Interesting how giving more information can do that...
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Personally I don't really care that JV doped. It all seems so minor compared to everything else that went on during that time.
Pretty much feel the same - so I should add that he doesn't get my forgiveness because he hasn't done anything that shocks or surprises me.

BroDeal said:
The context he gave today helps make what he said in the past more understandable and less duplicitous. Interesting how giving more information can do that...
I was the same in the now infamous race radio debate - while my preference was for no radios, I wasn't particularly passionate about it as some.

But when JV (& some riders) highlighted their concerns it helped me look at the issue and eventually saw that they had merit.
Discussion is always good.
 
JV1973 said:
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
Thanks for the reply.

You didn't see his blood values, but how come you didn't connect the dots, to use your contribution to pro cycling's jargon? Surely if you did, you knew there was very little chance he was clean. And if you didn't know then, you certainly know now - or you would be able to say you know if you weren't a DS.

That said, I think your second paragraph tells me all I wanted to know, unless I'm reading too much into it: a real talent who would still deliver the goods in a clean environment. But then it becomes an ethical issue, right? Dekker had to confess and talk to WADA. If the negotiations had got that far, Contador would have been signed without having to do that.

Anyway, I sincerely thank you for being more open than all other DS's involved in pro cycling combined.
 
hiero2 said:
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.

Well, everyone's talking in hindsight, because unfortunately that's the only ability we get. This is never a current issue, it's always an issue from years ago. Part of me is angry about it and holds those responsible who knew about it equally culpable as those who perpetrated it. I mean, if you know something is going on, and fail to report it until a period of time passes where it becomes less relevant to all involved, that's ridiculous, and smacks of self-interest, both financial and otherwise.
JV may have had a 'seen the light' moment, but it sure hasn't stopped him from making a tidy amount of money from both actively participating and then keeping quiet about it.
Compare that to the guys who refused to dope, and then lost their jobs because of it. For me there isn't a lot of grey area - you see something you know is wrong, you do something about it. The truth shall set you free and all that.

As for anyone who says 'why are you angry about it?': I have two kids, the eldest of which really enjoys riding a bike. I hope like hell that they don't display an aptitude for it at this point in time, because I see the same faces who I saw being complicit in this 12 years ago. The more things change...
 
And I should add here; for anyone who says it's easy for me to say you should step forward and say something when you have nothing on the line: To an extent, that's correct. I don't understand that situation as it was at that time. But last year I worked for a company in a sub-contractual position - good work, very well paid, just what we needed as my wife chose to spend her second year of maternity leave returning to study. I wound up having to leave that job when the guy heading it up said that I needed to invoice to him, and at a lower rate. I connected the dots on that - everyone else was invoicing to him, and he was taking a cut off their hourly rate.
I walked away from it, and reported it there and then rather than stay silent or take the (slightly) reduced amount. People may have lost their jobs as a result - but I didn't cause that. The guy doing the wrong thing did. But there hasn't been a lot of work since, which is why I'm returning to study. Reality is, you don't need a lot to live. Far less than most people think. Unless lives are directly at risk, for me, there's no excuse for not doing the right thing at the time. It may be because I don't understand a different mindset - but I struggle to deal with the concept of not being the voice that needs to be heard.
 
Questions for JV below. I know you've suggested PM, but you still seem to be dropping in so...

1. Can you describe the full range of tools that a modern DS has at their disposal to try to determine whether their riders are clean, whether it's blood/medical, power/performance numbers, other general non-analytic observations and safeguards, etc.?

2. Not saying that any of your riders is doping, but if they were determined to do so as a personal and private program, do you think they could still manage to slip it by your methods from 1. above?

3. Without naming any specific teams, do you have any sense of whether most other PT squads use this full range of tools and methods also? Are some not doing as much as they should, or else focusing their efforts more on avoiding positives rather than actually trying to be clean?

4. If you could add any more tools to your available methods for keeping your squad or the entire collection of PT teams clean, what would those be?

Thanks for playing along.
 
JV1973 said:
The response? 9th most downloaded article of Sunday Times, which is big for an op-ed. 2300 responses on twitter. All but 15 or so were very positive.

Honestly, beyond the hard core fan blog-o-sphere, the general reaction has been way better than i would have predicted. Hell, Janet Evans (who i don't even know) sent me a very nice note. The article went outside the normal confines of cycling.

The hard core fans have been mostly been positive or "tell me something new" with a few cynics busting my balls, just like on here. But that's OK, it's not like I'm announcing a new baby or something!

I'm fine, personally. I've never denied doping to anyone who's asked me, on a personal level, for a good many years now, so this was just a formalization. The important part is now doing something with the good mojo. It's useless if it isn't used to help move the ball on this issue.

JV

I'm not being funny but if you had ever tested positive you would never got a similar reaction. Because you're not a "bitter ex-doper" you could write such a piece. Others are not so fortunate. That have said much more and never got a pat on the back. They've been labelled for life. You're fortunate you "never tested positive". But I still think it was a well written and excellent body of work.

One final statement and I'll shut up:

If Garmin/Slipstream and all behind the scenes work was making such progress then how the hell did Lance ever comeback (with Catlin) and obvisously still dope his sorry a++ off? How did we let that happen all over again? In 2009? and still doping in 2010? Just how was that allowed? Not just by the UCI but why did all the teams just stand by and watch it happen? That's I find it hard to suggest that progress was being made when cycling just slipped back into its former self so easily.

That is all.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Funny little tidbit: One of the guys on twitter giving JV a hard time is @Censoredcyclist...who is the one and only BPC. He's banned from all of the forums on the internet, but twitter doesn't have mods, so he is left to troll there as his only outlet. Sad.
 
thehog said:
I
If Garmin/Slipstream and all behind the scenes work was making such progress then how the hell did Lance ever comeback (with Catlin) and obvisously still dope his sorry a++ off? How did we let that happen all over again? In 2009? and still doping in 2010? Just how was that allowed? Not just by the UCI but why did all the teams just stand by and watch it happen? That's I find it hard to suggest that progress was being made when cycling just slipped back into its former self so easily.

That shows just how fragile the anti-doping "revolution" is. It was not just that teams said and did nothing. The UCI and race organizers actively facilitated his return. The cycling media leapt at the chance to promote the myth anew. The sport gleefully embraced systemic corruption once again. All members decided, consciously or unconsciously, it was in the sport's and their own best interest to, at the very least, look the other way. If Armstrong was three years younger, he could still be racing today and everyone in cycling would be singing his praises.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Funny little tidbit: One of the guys on twitter giving JV a hard time is @Censoredcyclist...who is the one and only BPC. He's banned from all of the forums on the internet, but twitter doesn't have mods, so he is left to troll there as his only outlet. Sad.

Really?
Gad, I've seen him all over there....if so, his name is quite apropos!:D
 
hrotha said:
Thanks for the reply.

You didn't see his blood values, but how come you didn't connect the dots, to use your contribution to pro cycling's jargon? Surely if you did, you knew there was very little chance he was clean. And if you didn't know then, you certainly know now - or you would be able to say you know if you weren't a DS.

If you don't connect the dots on Contador circa 2007 then how could you ever do it on a GT winner circa 2012.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Visit site
JV1973 said:
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.

You've got stones now! Thank you for the 'internal' perspective.

It's sad that you have to preface, and add a multitude of modifiers, every sentence with..."Go easy here now boys, take it easy, but in my opinion, not stating anything here ok..." I think that is a reflection of the history of cycling more than anything.

My opinion on you(JV) posting here is ...don't give us too much too fast, we're not used to getting direct answers from anyone for months at a time, let alone an active Manager of a PT. A bit like watching "Game of Thrones" all in one night.

If you're anywhere near Toronto, beers on me.

PS: have you ever heard what Indurain, Bugno and Ulrich's VO2 Max's were? PSS: Did Livingstone ever confirm the "Jan's HCT was never more than 42" urban myth?
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
If you don't connect the dots on Contador circa 2007 then how could you ever do it on a GT winner circa 2012.


Let's be clear, when I look at blood values (which I never did w Contador) I don't look for "hey, you doped!"... Lots and lots of guys have doped in the past, and it shows in the blood records....

I look for: can this rider perform clean? Contador might have very well won the 2007 Tour doped, but my interest was could he win the Tour clean?

Same standard for any rider: Can you race at the top level clean? And will you choose to do so?

So, your implicit claim of either that I'm stupid or "looking the other way" is nearby neutered.

Next.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I'm not being funny but if you had ever tested positive you would never got a similar reaction. Because you're not a "bitter ex-doper" you could write such a piece. Others are not so fortunate. That have said much more and never got a pat on the back. They've been labelled for life. You're fortunate you "never tested positive". But I still think it was a well written and excellent body of work.

One final statement and I'll shut up:

If Garmin/Slipstream and all behind the scenes work was making such progress then how the hell did Lance ever comeback (with Catlin) and obvisously still dope his sorry a++ off? How did we let that happen all over again? In 2009? and still doping in 2010? Just how was that allowed? Not just by the UCI but why did all the teams just stand by and watch it happen? That's I find it hard to suggest that progress was being made when cycling just slipped back into its former self so easily.

That is all.

Catlin never tested him once, just to be clear..

But the broader answer to your question is that ASO and UCI, the two bodies who have created the system the runs cycling, as it is, welcomed him back, with open arms. ASO's management was completely housecleaned post 2008 Tour.

Go look up Patrice Clerq and Gilbert Ysern. They had balls, those two. Still friends with both of them. They got shown the door.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Visit site
JV, if you haven't answered this...what do you think about the future of Pat McQuaid? He's up for re-election in September 2013. Is there momentum within the sport to finally get rid of the McQuaid/Verbruggen hold on the UCI? I know it's tough to do, Verbruggen was able to basically rig the election for McQuaid the last time there was a serious challenger, in 2005.

The possibility of UCI showing favoritism to certain riders/teams undermines the public perception of the legitimacy of the biopassport, and the UCI jumping to Armstrong's defense again recently doesn't help that at all. I know you and the AIGCP have issues with the UCI that go beyond doping, but as far as doping goes it seems like new leadership at the UCI could lead to the full realization of the goals of the biopassport. What do you see as the fallout, if any, of what has gone on with the UCI strangely deciding to put their full weight behind Lance?
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I'm not being funny but if you had ever tested positive you would never got a similar reaction. Because you're not a "bitter ex-doper" you could write such a piece. Others are not so fortunate. That have said much more and never got a pat on the back. They've been labelled for life. You're fortunate you "never tested positive". But I still think it was a well written and excellent body of work.

One final statement and I'll shut up:

If Garmin/Slipstream and all behind the scenes work was making such progress then how the hell did Lance ever comeback (with Catlin) and obvisously still dope his sorry a++ off? How did we let that happen all over again? In 2009? and still doping in 2010? Just how was that allowed? Not just by the UCI but why did all the teams just stand by and watch it happen? That's I find it hard to suggest that progress was being made when cycling just slipped back into its former self so easily.

That is all.

But thanks for bringing up another fun filled moment of this current job I have. I should call it chapter 8 " The fall of '08....Living in fear, once again."
 
JV1973 said:
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.

For tdf agreed, but how has he managed to maintain such a superior level for so long - close to one year without one dip?
 

TRENDING THREADS