JV talks, sort of

[hrotha]

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

Not to mention Froome, Rogers and Porte stepping up, all at the same time.

By the way, JV, Éric Boyer questioned Wiggins's weight loss story, saying he was already at 5% body fat when he weighed 77-78 kg at Cofidis. I think he was at 71-72 kg when he was with you in 2009, and was said to be at 4% body fat, a figure that he acknowledged wasn't healthy and that he couldn't keep it up for long. How do you reconcile all of this with his time-trialing improvement since 2009 and his 2012 season, when he's been reasonably close to his top form all year long?

It's been mentioned before in this thread that, now that the boost you can get away with using blood manipulation is capped, weight loss drugs might be one of the ways to get an edge. Would you agree this is a reasonable concern?

Incidentally, the London 2012 website had Wiggo at 77 kg, but I still have no idea how they got that figure.

 

[JV1973]

Not to mention Froome, Rogers and Porte stepping up, all at the same time.

By the way, JV, Éric Boyer questioned Wiggins's weight loss story, saying he was already at 5% body fat when he weighed 77-78 kg at Cofidis. I think he was at 71-72 kg when he was with you in 2009, and was said to be at 4% body fat, a figure that he acknowledged wasn't healthy and that he couldn't keep it up for long. How do you reconcile all of this with his time-trialing improvement since 2009 and his 2012 season, when he's been reasonably close to his top form all year long?

It's been mentioned before in this thread that, now that the boost you can get away with using blood manipulation is capped, weight loss drugs might be one of the ways to get an edge. Would you agree this is a reasonable concern?

Incidentally, the London 2012 website had Wiggo at 77 kg, but I still have no idea how they got that figure.

He lost muscle too. But just b/c you lose muscle doesn't mean you'll lose power at threshold type intensities. Sure, you won't be as good at team pursuit, but that's not longer the objective.

 

[JV1973]

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?

Dude, I can't touch this one. Good question, but it will have to remain unanswered.

 

[mewmewmew13]

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.

This is a very pertinent point that many don't begin to acknowledge...your perspective ...
I'm glad you wrote this as it clarifies a bigger picture.

We all need to step back sometimes and lose our tunnel vision.

 

[JV1973]

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.

Let me make this answer very short and not quite answer it, as I need to actually work:

The amount of money put into anti-doping, relative to the amount of money in cycling now is ridiculous. 120,000 euro from each team??! ASO pays like 300,000 euro in total. That's just silly. A top 10 in World level rider start at 2M euro...so, we can't even manage 10% of the salary of one top guy per team? ASO spends less than 1% of it's net profit on ant-doping!!!?? This has to change.

But it won't change, because why would I, as a team owner, pay the UCI, an organization that actively tries to diminish the value of teams as opposed to helping our business model, any more money for anything??

First step: Get the governance of this sport in order, and protect the teams businesses a little bit!

Second step: increase the amount of $$$ going into anti-doping, which is, in the end the only way to stop it. More testing more research.

 

[hrotha]

He lost muscle too. But just b/c you lose muscle doesn't mean you'll lose power at threshold type intensities. Sure, you won't be as good at team pursuit, but that's not longer the objective.

I suppose that answers Éric Boyer's concerns about body fat figures. I'm still skeptic, however, about Wiggins losing some 5-6 kg of muscle and going from a pretty good ITT specialist in 2008-2009 to an unbeaten world-class time-trialist in 2012. When I see Geraint Thomas this year, for example, I see a guy who focused on the track and subsequently put out his best ITT performances yet, but couldn't climb a bridge anymore. You'll understand it's hard to believe, especially when Armstrong came out with a weight loss story that turned out to be completely bogus, and when Wiggo talks the way he does about him.

Then I look at Froome and see an incredibly lean rider. And you keep hearing about stuff like AICAR. It makes you wonder.

 

[JV1973]

I suppose that answers Éric Boyer's concerns about body fat figures. I'm still skeptic, however, about Wiggins losing some 5-6 kg of muscle and going from a pretty good ITT specialist in 2008-2009 to an unbeaten world-class time-trialist in 2012. When I see Geraint Thomas this year, for example, I see a guy who focused on the track and subsequently put out his best ITT performances yet, but couldn't climb a bridge anymore. You'll understand it's hard to believe, especially when Armstrong came out with a weight loss story that turned out to be completely bogus, and when Wiggo talks the way he does about him.

Then I look at Froome and see an incredibly lean rider. And you keep hearing about stuff like AICAR. It makes you wonder.

Well, we'll find out. In the end, I'm being an optimist here, as I've been many times before. I hope I don't get burned...

I've gotten a lot of interest from various exec head hunters over the years. So, I don't need to be doing this cycling thing if all it's ever going to be is heartache. I hope that won't be the case.

As for a solution, look to my answers above. It aint rocket science. Cycling should be spending double, if not triple, on this issue.

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is a very pertinent point that many don't begin to acknowledge...your perspective ...
I'm glad you wrote this as it clarifies a bigger picture.

We all need to step back sometimes and lose our tunnel vision.

Wouldn't the question then be: can you and will you be able to afford to pay him 2 time (at the time) winner (probably while doped) salary, to see if he can win again while clean?
There is a lot of downside to this business model.

 

[Red Lobster]

JV,

Credit for aiming to create a team where young guys won't have to face the same dilemma you faced.

So how is this received by your target audience? Do you have guys saying hey, I want to ride for you for this reason more than any other? Do you ever get the impression that some guys you pursue avoid the team for the same reason (i.e., you might just make it tougher for them to do what it takes to succeed)? Has this evolved over the years you've been running the team?

Thanks!
RL

 

[JV1973]

Wouldn't the question then be: can you and will you be able to afford to pay him 2 time (at the time) winner (probably while doped) salary, to see if he can win again while clean?
There is a lot of downside to this business model.

Indeed. But I tend to be a risk taker.

 

[JV1973]

I suppose that answers Éric Boyer's concerns about body fat figures. I'm still skeptic, however, about Wiggins losing some 5-6 kg of muscle and going from a pretty good ITT specialist in 2008-2009 to an unbeaten world-class time-trialist in 2012. When I see Geraint Thomas this year, for example, I see a guy who focused on the track and subsequently put out his best ITT performances yet, but couldn't climb a bridge anymore. You'll understand it's hard to believe, especially when Armstrong came out with a weight loss story that turned out to be completely bogus, and when Wiggo talks the way he does about him.

Then I look at Froome and see an incredibly lean rider. And you keep hearing about stuff like AICAR. It makes you wonder.

Don't forget that when you lose muscle weight, most of it will come from inactive muscle groups. The body is smart that way.

 

[JV1973]

OK...I have dinner waiting. And I really need to stop doing this!

But I'm happy you guys drew me back in.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Let me make this answer very short and not quite answer it, as I need to actually work:

The amount of money put into anti-doping, relative to the amount of money in cycling now is ridiculous. 120,000 euro from each team??! ASO pays like 300,000 euro in total. That's just silly. A top 10 in World level rider start at 2M euro...so, we can't even manage 10% of the salary of one top guy per team? ASO spends less than 1% of it's net profit on ant-doping!!!?? This has to change.

But it won't change, because why would I, as a team owner, pay the UCI, an organization that actively tries to diminish the value of teams as opposed to helping our business model, any more money for anything??

First step: Get the governance of this sport in order, and protect the teams businesses a little bit!

Second step: increase the amount of $$$ going into anti-doping, which is, in the end the only way to stop it. More testing more research.

Fair enough - maybe more detail in the future at the right time.

Sticking with the track you've established, if you were helping to decide how that hypothetical additional anti-doping funding would get used, what would you do it? More of same tests being done now? Different tests?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Indeed. But I tend to be a risk taker.

Lol...I was just going to say that this highlights the reason many go into a business...no?

adrenaline?

 

[D-Queued]

...

As for a solution, look to my answers above. It aint rocket science. Cycling should be spending double, if not triple, on this issue.

Agreed. But, that is the second step that you articulated.

The first step is a big one.

Thanks for the additional insights.

Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

If it hasnt been posted already, here is an alternate, more Machiavellian and very comical and entertaining view

(sent to me by poster Dave in Zambia)

http://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/heeeeeres-johnny/

 

[BroDeal]

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."

A lot of cycling's anti-doping credibility went up in smoke when the ASO laid down arms and jumped into bed with the UCI. That is when I lost whatever optimism I had. It is nice to hear that insiders were upset.

 

[Galic Ho]

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?

I'm obviously not Zinoviev. But I have thought about this.

Matt White isn't one of the truly dangerous guys in cycling. But it's pretty clear Garmin has their own code of conduct. Del Moral has been smacked down by USADA via the testimony of JV and Garmin riders. Lets not kid ourselves on this one. Vande Velde, Zabriskie and maybe even Danielson talked to USADA. These guys all rode for Postal. They know EXACTLY what has gone on in cycling and Del Moral is a big no no. You touch that, it's like handling plutonium. You're contaminated. White crossed a line anyone with a smidgen of knowledge on the whole scene would have known not to do. He was asking to be fired. It's just plain idiocy. I'm guessing White thought it would be fine, given some of the dodgy riders Garmin has had ride. It sucks, but you know the deal. I wouldn't be surprised if White did what he did knowing guys had done similar things in the past (Wiggins is who I am talking about).

I also think JV knows certain riders on his team were dodgy. No doubt about that. Current political situation in cycling doesn't allow him to say this. He's limited to a degree with what he can explain. Talk and annoy the UCI, team Sky (who have more money) and destroy a lot of your teams reputation. Not everyone knows as much about cycling collectively as the Clinic contributors know. Many on here haven't liked this approach by JV and have expressed their discontent in this thread. I understand why...but their explanations are just one of a few logical considerations that may be the truth. I think Garmin have already discarded a few riders whose figures were well over the obvious allowances the BioPassport provides. Wiggins is one. Hushovd? Similar to the other BMC big acquisition from 2011, Gilbert. There in 2011, completely absent in 2012.

Most in the Clinic will make a strong argument for Wiggins being on the juice at Garmin in 2009. Note JV isn't even defending him on here. He doesn't have to...plays out one of three ways. JV is pulling our legs. Proving without a doubt he's untrustworthy and he's playing the 'marketing clean cycling card.' I don't buy that one, despite some here thinking that. Second notion is that JV hoped Wiggins was clean, didn't have a great deal to do with his development at Garmin (he has suggested this during this thread and on twitter) and only made a case for Wiggins whilst Garmin's name was at stake. I can buy this one. Means now, he doesn't have to defend Wiggins. But politically, he can't come out and accuse him. If Sky and Garmin riders are graiting and bickering with one another (Millar aside of course) then this would support such an idea. Finally, JV always believed Wiggins was clean...yeah, that's just laughable.

So yeah, I think Garmin have had dodgy riders under the BioPassport. I also note all the riders I could make a case for doping performance wise...they've all left the team. I'm talking the guys with amazing form for a specific period. Hushovd and Wiggins IMO are the two anomalies. Way above normal performances during their short time at Garmin.

Was the manner which Lowe was dismissed and the salary issue nice? Hell no. But it's quite clear JV has a very large number of people to concern himself with. Nobody in his position could come out and do a Floyd. I figured Slipstream hired 50-60 people. Seems 120 is a better estimate. Imagine opening your mouth and the sponsorship almost dries up over night. Want that on your conscience? 120 paid salaries gone. JV has made promises to many people. Is he compromised. No doubt. But he's not the villain. Not the most ideal situation to be in...but I'm confident he's doing the best he can with what he has. Doing everything people here envision someone to be able to given JV's whole dynamic in cycling, past and present, isn't realistic. He was never going to play the same card as Floyd Landis.

One last thing. JV posted about steriods and testosterone. Make no mistake, they are effective. Very effective. They are recovery options. They help repair your body. So you can push a higher tempo day in, day out, than you can clean. It was explained in depth in 'LA to Landis.' Lance took steroids to help his legs recover so he could come back the next day on a massive blood vector assistance program and do mammoth wattages without a decrease in power. It helped with the pain. You still get pain, you still feel it, but it mitigates the depth you feel. Short story, it lowers the cumulative effect of pain over an entire GT. Ask Joe Papp how effective they are guys. He posts on here. Ask Big Boat.

My problem with JV's statements is that he doesn't fill in all the blanks. He says enough, but it is still bland and generic. More details and context is needed. When he does this it opens the door for people to assume he is hiding something. You know, like the idea that saying testosterone and steroids aren't that great is simply his way of diverting attention to them...which begs the question, why is that? The way people here in the Clinic think, with his language, it's possible that Garmin abhors blood vector doping, but the minor recovery stuff is ok. Which, most of us know, has been floated as an idea about Garmin in the past.

Not saying I agree with the above bit...I'm unsure. Need more info to be sure. Need a lot more to change in the fabric of cycling's make up. Floyd stated the big 5 doping products. Testosterone and steriods were on that list. There is a reason. I don't know what JV's reasoning for suggesting they aren't a big deal is. But yeah...it could be suspicious. People need more transparency...JV being here is nice, but big numbers are needed. Can't gauge it all on ones eyesight forever.

Note: discard the hypothetical in the middle. The rest of it stays. Absolutley no way Wiggins and team Sky are clean. Would JV state he thinks any of riders are suspicious on a public forum? I don't think any DS would...nor should that be held against them. Their position really doesn't allow them that liberty. Giving a generic answer however...well that is on the cards.

 

[python]

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.

i first wanted to snip the top part which is not bolded but then left the entire post intact b/c it makes several excellent points with regard to both jv's admission timing and the usada investigation hurdles...

to the bolded...the uci did say more than one word - it explicitly ridiculed usada in one of its letters for allowing witness riders into the tour (read - threatened usada witnesses implicitly). it is a fact.

besides, i am aware of one current pro rider - formerly a dedicated teammate of armstrong - saying that the peloton was buzzing with romour that the uci will go after the usada witnesses.

btw, this thread turned out to be one of the best in the history of the clinic and i thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

 

[the big ring]

Galic Ho:

1. JV defended Brad's "cleanliness" from 2009 upthread somewhere - statement level defence, not opinion.
2. JV probably made good bank from the Wiggins transfer. Given Brad wanted to go, I see it totally different to your claim of

I think Garmin have already discarded a few riders whose figures were well over the obvious allowances the BioPassport provides. Wiggins is one.

Here's what Sky paid for transfers:
http://inrng.com/2012/08/team-sky-budget-accounts/

That's 2.14M GB pounds.
ETA: Clarification: this is from 2011, not necessarily 2010 buy out of Wiggins. But big bucks are involved regardless.

Here's what JV said in the press:

The decision to settle, he added, was “based on the fact that I did not feel that going into a protracted legal battle was good for the team and the athletes I should be concentrating on and supporting,” he said. “My energy is better spent on something else than a legal battle with James Murdoch.”

4th in the Tour with a "squeaky clean rider" vs dopers is worth mega bucks - JV wanted him but could not afford him.

 

[hrotha]

Well, we'll find out. In the end, I'm being an optimist here, as I've been many times before. I hope I don't get burned...

I've gotten a lot of interest from various exec head hunters over the years. So, I don't need to be doing this cycling thing if all it's ever going to be is heartache. I hope that won't be the case.

As for a solution, look to my answers above. It aint rocket science. Cycling should be spending double, if not triple, on this issue.

Thanks for your frank reply, JV. I too hope we won't get burned.

Spending a lot more on antidoping is key, agreed. Especially since I thought teams were actually demanded to pay relatively high amounts of money to get the biological passport program running. The other aspect of the solution (police action aside) has to do with the governing body, but you've already suggested you can't talk freely about it.

I'm aware my questions here have been pretty delicate, to put it mildly, so I commend you for a) replying, and b) not losing your temper.

If it helps, I'm much closer to getting off the fence on your side than I was before you popped up here.

 

[roundabout]

Funnily enough, it's more of an opposite for me. Especially in light of the more recent posts.

I do wonder if I am one of the ball busting cynics? Would be nice to know for sure.

 

[Galic Ho]

Galic Ho:

1. JV defended Brad's "cleanliness" from 2009 upthread somewhere - statement level defence, not opinion.
2. JV probably made good bank from the Wiggins transfer. Given Brad wanted to go, I see it totally different to your claim of


Here's what Sky paid for transfers:
http://inrng.com/2012/08/team-sky-budget-accounts/

That's 2.14M GB pounds.
ETA: Clarification: this is from 2011, not necessarily 2010 buy out of Wiggins. But big bucks are involved regardless.

Here's what JV said in the press:


4th in the Tour with a "squeaky clean rider" vs dopers is worth mega bucks - JV wanted him but could not afford him.

I read from the last post I was at. That was 3-4 days ago. When I read the post I quoted JV had said he was no longer returning. I had another 20 pages to read through before JV's new posts came up. I reply when I read it. I don't wait 20 pages to say something.

I'll go back and edit my post with an ammendment.

The ammendment will be that I call BS on Wiggins racing clean. It's been clear for a while now what Wiggins has been up to. I'll buy JV's statement that he thinks Wiggins is clean. With that I will also state I think he is of the opinion that he could be wrong, that Wiggins wasn't completely under his thumb and could easily have gotten outside assistance. I am well aware Garmin made significant money getting rid of particular riders. That was my point. That taking money for someone who isn't a correct and 100% bankable fit for the teams publically stated ideology is a SMART move. I'd do the same.

Because think about it this way. Why would JV state on twitter and other sources these past few weeks that Wiggins will never let anyone see his figures? That to let Ashenden look at them is waiting for hell to freeze over? JV say what he wants, for whatever purpose, but he has doubt. He implicitly implied it in the next few posts he made. Why else state you hope to not be burnt? Then he waived off the weight loss issue. Again, another half-truth. It is exceptionally hard to shift weight when near your bodies ideal natural weight. Let alone 10kg. One cannot just pick a body region and boom, it's gone. Let alone in a very short time period. Seriously, go into your local gym and ask them how to do it, you'll be scoffed at if you suggest what he did. Why do that? Because it links back to Garmin. That's the role he has to play and that isn't something he can change. Hence why I believe he is being generic...he knows that there is more to most things in cycling and is keeping out of it. The big names hold grudges and keep black lists. JV suggested as much...came up in his 'environment' talk post.

See my point about JV being generic? He says one thing, but leaves SOO much info out. thehogs idea about a website would be helpfull.

Also regarding Wiggins. Antoine Vayer says BS too. Especially the figures for power outputs this year. He said Thomas Voeckler and Valverde's wins were doping. The numbers suggest as much. Way too high still. The context is people are comparing them to LA. That's nice, but still not clean. Get JV to discuss the 80s numbers LeMond put out or someone trying to play the clean image of cycling in 2012...they won't. Can't do it. The Tour riders near the pointy end were still going much faster than him and we all know they haven't anywhere near his natural talent...except Contador. Which is ironic. JV has a source who thinks he's the most gifted ever (I buy that) but we know what Ashenden said about him.

Short story...it still doesn't add up and presents the idea JV is not being wholly forthcoming. Till JV states Wiggins couldn't go behind his back and that he saw everything he did (he's stated the opposite) then Wiggins doping is 100% still on the cards IMO. Note I'm not calling JV a liar. But I do think he shifts iffy riders to other teams, makes a profit and cannot afford to blatantly come out and state as much. Not that I care, as I said, he made a lot of money off of troublesome personalites who have suspicious performances...good on him. That's business smarts coming to the forefront. It's also not going to change the fact that I think most of the Garmin riders performances with their current roster are those of guys just keeping. Difference is that I think if the WHOLE peloton were clean overnight, one rider in particular would do a lot better on their squad. But I don't think the peloton is clean or even close to it.

Actually the next few months and USADA's work will be very telling for the future of cycling. Also the outcome of the Vuelta and Froome in particular. The nonesense he does keeps up, the whole doping issue will explode within the peloton. Like it did with 99 and LA.

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

Funny thing i there are certain laws in place people should not mess with. A certain book has many examples of these. Swearing on someone is not the mark of a wise person. Propethic words are spoken. Issoisso was taken to task for saying as much about Fignon and his statements about not caring if he died before 50 when he doped. He died at 49.

Andy Schleck said that on his mother's head, Frank would never dope. The way I grew up, that's just mocking God. You're asking for trouble. I hear someone swear on anyone's life, it says enough for me about their character. You're not to be trusted. I think it is one of the most foolish and arrogant things a person can ever do.

 

[RichWalk]

Great to see JV posting again, and quite possibly as close to the mark as he can legally go! Pity us Brits were in bed at the time.

Race Radio's post is very relevant and hints at what factions are shaping up to potentially battle over the future (and indeed past) of pro cycling.