JV talks, sort of

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Vaughters being asked on Twitter by Kimmage does "Froome says he trained to be strong in the 3rd week, in an attempt to carry that from into Olympics" make sense?

Wait for Vaughters silence.....

Or a penis joke.


Sent from my parents basement, natch!

Maybe JV has hired some spin doctor.... :lol:

https://twitter.com/ClinicInsanity

oh the hurt that comes across..............

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

Vaughters being asked on Twitter by Kimmage does "Froome says he trained to be strong in the 3rd week, in an attempt to carry that from into Olympics" make sense?

Wait for Vaughters silence.....

Or a penis joke.


Sent from my parents basement, natch!

Maybe JV has hired some spin doctor.... :lol:

https://twitter.com/ClinicInsanity

oh the hurt that comes across..............

Well Froome is probably bored until he's allowed to hit the gas in week 3. So he set up a twitter account with JV1973 to make the days go faster.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Vaughters being asked on Twitter by Kimmage does "Froome says he trained to be strong in the 3rd week, in an attempt to carry that from into Olympics" make sense?

Wait for Vaughters silence.....

Or a penis joke.


Sent from my parents basement, natch!

Maybe JV has hired some spin doctor.... :lol:

https://twitter.com/ClinicInsanity

oh the hurt that comes across..............

Well Froome is probably bored until he's allowed to hit the gas in week 3. So he set up a twitter account with JV1973 to make the days go faster.

It does come across rather Michell'ish doesn't it. Slighty higher than JV's usual efforts.

 

[Benotti69]

Dedicated one's life to anti-doping, oh JV your silence about Sky tells us everything we need to know.

 

[Benotti69]

It must be ebarrassing to have riders tweet this shite!

Phil Gaimon ‏@philgaimon 1h1 hour ago
"Marginal gains" sounds better than "we have enough money to hire all the best guys." It doesn't mean they're doping.

that soap tattoo has other meanings, it must have, he cant be that stoopid, but then again

Edit: I have read other tweets of Gaimon's. The guy is that stoopid. Gaimon tweeted; " until they find a motor in the WorldTour I think it's BS". Wow!

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Gaimon's argument on motors isn't inherently stupid.

There is an inescapable vulnerability in motor based cheating schemes in the pro ranks that doesn't apply to the one young cross rider who we so far know with certainty to have been using a motor - the involvement of relatively low paid and ephemeral employees on the mechanical/technical side of the team. Sooner or later someone will have a falling out with the team or rider and will squeal. The same issue is part of what led to outsourced doping programmes, taking team staff out of the loop. Everyone in the know has to have serious skin in the game or there's too much of a chance that they will tell tales. If this is a widespread practice, it will not remain a long term secret.

There are also risk/reward calculations to take into account, with the risk being that not just of suspension for a rider but inevitable death for a team. A team could hardly claim that the rider did it on their own, bike companies could hardly sit still for scandals that directly hit not just riders but the image of their bikes, etc. Even very occasional and often inadequate checks would represent an enormous risk.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Gaimon's argument on motors isn't inherently stupid.

There is an inescapable vulnerability in motor based cheating schemes in the pro ranks that doesn't apply to the one young cross rider who we so far know with certainty to have been using a motor - the involvement of relatively low paid and ephemeral employees on the mechanical/technical side of the team. Sooner or later someone will have a falling out with the team or rider and will squeal. The same issue is part of what led to outsourced doping programmes, taking team staff out of the loop. Everyone in the know has to have serious skin in the game or there's too much of a chance that they will tell tales. If this is a widespread practice, it will not remain a long term secret.

There are also risk/reward calculations to take into account, with the risk being that not just of suspension for a rider but inevitable death for a team. A team could hardly claim that the rider did it on their own, bike companies could hardly sit still for scandals that directly hit not just riders but the image of their bikes, etc. Even very occasional and often inadequate checks would represent an enormous risk.

Gaimon's argument falls down flat when the UCI were caught tipping off the maker of said motors about upcoming scanning for them.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

Gaimon's argument on motors isn't inherently stupid.

There is an inescapable vulnerability in motor based cheating schemes in the pro ranks that doesn't apply to the one young cross rider who we so far know with certainty to have been using a motor - the involvement of relatively low paid and ephemeral employees on the mechanical/technical side of the team. Sooner or later someone will have a falling out with the team or rider and will squeal. The same issue is part of what led to outsourced doping programmes, taking team staff out of the loop. Everyone in the know has to have serious skin in the game or there's too much of a chance that they will tell tales. If this is a widespread practice, it will not remain a long term secret.

There are also risk/reward calculations to take into account, with the risk being that not just of suspension for a rider but inevitable death for a team. A team could hardly claim that the rider did it on their own, bike companies could hardly sit still for scandals that directly hit not just riders but the image of their bikes, etc. Even very occasional and often inadequate checks would represent an enormous risk.

Gaimon's argument falls down flat when the UCI were caught tipping off the maker of said motors about upcoming scanning for them.

Even taking that at face velue, it would knock down flat an argument that the UCI has an overwhelming and enthusiastic desire to catch people using motors. It does not knock down flat an argument that it is much harder to control risk in a motor cheating scheme than it is in a modern doping scheme. And if people really are rolling the dice, sooner or later the wrong numbers will come up.

In house doping schemes, which involve relatively large numbers of team staff having either direct involvement in or some knowledge of what's going on, had a built in vulnerability which over time led to disaster (most famously Emma O'Reilly opening her mouth). In fact there were two built in vulnerabilities - (1) centralised storing and transport of the substances and (2) people who didn't have an enormous amount resting on maintaining secrecy for the rest of their lives having unhelpful knowledge. Doping wasn't outsourced because it was more effective. It was done to remove these two vulnerabilities. Motor cheating reintroduces those vulnerabilities. The very vulnerabilities that ultimately brought in house doping schemes to disaster. Therefore, in the long run, if it is a widespread practice it will not remain secret.

A lot of the time in here assumptions are made only by looking at the benefits of a particular form of cheating, with no attention being paid to the management of risk. There are a lot of posters here who would, were they to turn to a life of professional criminality, make very successful bankrobbers for a brief period before spending a much longer time in prison.

 

[Benotti69]

The biggest threat to banks are not bankrobbers but employees. Same in shops, it is not the threat of shoplifters but employees stealing. Hence all the tills have cameras over them.

As for motors. Who tests for them? UCI. Who promotes the sport? UCI. Now do you think the UCI wants to find motors in bikes and tell the world that the sport uses motors? Don't think so!

So we have seen some weird wins in recent years. Cancellara riding for 50kms and more effortlessly from chasing riders and increasing the gap. Froome flying up mountains with high cadence and no movement on his heart rate. Weirdness that is easily explained by motors.

Gaimon is omerta. Shooting at LeMond for telling it how it is. Pathetic. LeMond has a decent history in calling out doping and cheating. Not always, but better than most.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re:

As for motors. Who tests for them? UCI. Who promotes the sport? UCI. Now do you think the UCI wants to find motors in bikes and tell the world that the sport uses motors? Don't think so!

I'm always entertained by people who ascribe near omnipotence to UCI bureaucrats, but only when it suits.

It is not in the UCI's interest to create doping scandals, yet many, many sources of information, some of them well beyond the control of the UCI, have revealed a great deal to us about the existence of doping in the peloton. Motor cheating has the same vulnerabilities to exposure as inhouse team doping schemes. It wasn't in the UCI's interest for the existence of those inhouse doping schemes to be exposed, but those vulnerabilities led to it happening anyway. If teams have returned to cheating using schemes with those vulnerabilities, the existence of those schemes will sooner or later be exposed.

This is not an argument that anyone cheating with a motor will inevitably be caught. It is an argument that the existence of motor cheating schemes in general will be exposed. That this hasn't happened yet means that either (a) the teams doing it have been lucky so far or (b) that it is not in fact a widespread practice in the pro peloton. Option (b) does not rely on high ethical standards but on a perception of risk flowing from team's understanding that in house doping schemes are too dangerous. Option (a) is currently possible, but it won't remain a viable explanation indefinitely.

 

[Benotti69]

We know of motor use from at least 3 separate sources.

Van den Driessche
Manufacturer of motors (name escapes me)LeMond bought one from the guy.
RAI showed a bike with a motor.

So i am going to go with UCI is allowing motors in some cases. Maybe just Sky or maybe those who can afford the 'motor tax'. Their tests for motors looks as useless as the blood and urine tests.

But, the Festina'98 Scandal. We find out that the sport is riddled with doping, who knew? The next year a Yank wins the 99 TdF after recovering from cancer. He then wins the next 6 in a row and doesn't get popped till 2012 and it was not the UCI who popped him, in fact they backed him till it was obvious to the deceased he was getting popped.

The sport has had multiple scandals. Kimmage outed the sport in 1989 and no one important stood up to back Kimmage. Who backed Voets in 98? Fuentes!

It is a matter of time before they are caught. Why? It happens. Because people in the sport are immoral when it comes to winning. We see that constantly. A motor is no biggie to them. Just another opportunity to win. So yep someone will be caught. Someone is going to get done over and go for their revenge.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re:

We know of motor use from at least 3 separate sources.

Van den Driessche
Manufacturer of motors (name escapes me)LeMond bought one from the guy.
RAI showed a bike with a motor.

These three sources show that bicycle motors exist. They do not show that the use of such motors is a widespread phenomenon in the pro peloton or even that such use exists at all. As I've already explained to you at some length, it is not good enough to look at the existence of potential benefits from a method of cheating, it is necessary to also look at the risks involved. Certainly any even slightly clever cheat will not forget to do the latter, even if doing so is a common way to approach things here.

The problem with motor cheating schemes is not that it's technologically impossible. Nor that it would bring no benefits. Nor that cycling teams are universally filled with sticklers for sporting ethics. The problem is the logistics of the necessary conspiracy. These reintroduce the very risks that brought disaster to in house doping schemes and led to their outsourcing as a matter of rudimentary precaution. And they are risks that anyone running a cycling team understands.

That does not mean that no team will take the risk anyway. The history of cycling is filled with people making choices of dubious wisdom. But if those choices are being made, the details will come out. This current all speculation / no information situation will not last, or rather if it does last it will gradually become evidence in itself that motor cheating is regarded as too risky in the pro game.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

We know of motor use from at least 3 separate sources.

Van den Driessche
Manufacturer of motors (name escapes me)LeMond bought one from the guy.
RAI showed a bike with a motor.

So i am going to go with UCI is allowing motors in some cases. Maybe just Sky or maybe those who can afford the 'motor tax'. Their tests for motors looks as useless as the blood and urine tests.

But, the Festina'98 Scandal. We find out that the sport is riddled with doping, who knew? The next year a Yank wins the 99 TdF after recovering from cancer. He then wins the next 6 in a row and doesn't get popped till 2012 and it was not the UCI who popped him, in fact they backed him till it was obvious to the deceased he was getting popped.

The sport has had multiple scandals. Kimmage outed the sport in 1989 and no one important stood up to back Kimmage. Who backed Voets in 98? Fuentes!

It is a matter of time before they are caught. Why? It happens. Because people in the sport are immoral when it comes to winning. We see that constantly. A motor is no biggie to them. Just another opportunity to win. So yep someone will be caught. Someone is going to get done over and go for their revenge.

The article also mentions that for 7000 euros you can have a mini motor (5 cm) build in your frame in Varjas his bikeshop. According to a shop employee Eddy Mercx and Lemond both bought one. The shop also has a T-mobile bike from Vinokourov displayed which was a gift apparantly. Makes me wonder why they received a gift from Vino.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

We know of motor use from at least 3 separate sources.

Van den Driessche
Manufacturer of motors (name escapes me)LeMond bought one from the guy.
RAI showed a bike with a motor.

These three sources show that bicycle motors exist. They do not show that the use of such motors is a widespread phenomenon in the pro peloton or even that such use exists at all. As I've already explained to you at some length, it is not good enough to look at the existence of potential benefits from a method of cheating, it is necessary to also look at the risks involved. Certainly any even slightly clever cheat will not forget to do the latter, even if doing so is a common way to approach things here.

The problem with motor cheating schemes is not that it's technologically impossible. Nor that it would bring no benefits. Nor that cycling teams are universally filled with sticklers for sporting ethics. The problem is the logistics of the necessary conspiracy. These reintroduce the very risks that brought disaster to in house doping schemes and led to their outsourcing as a matter of rudimentary precaution. And they are risks that anyone running a cycling team understands.

That does not mean that no team will take the risk anyway. The history of cycling is filled with people making choices of dubious wisdom. But if those choices are being made, the details will come out. This current all speculation / no information situation will not last, or rather if it does last it will gradually become evidence in itself that motor cheating is regarded as too risky in the pro game.

I feel at present motor doping is no different a risk than PEDs. Why? Because the last thing UCI wants is to find a motor and if does find one, they are not going to tell anyone. Van den Driessche was a warning shot.

At some stage someone in UCI will say stop! No more motors and that will be that while they can test( properly for it) but that wont stop motor use in granfondos, smaller races etc.....

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

I feel at present motor doping is no different a risk than PEDs. Why? Because the last thing UCI wants is to find a motor and if does find one, they are not going to tell anyone.

This is like banging my head off a brick wall. I have now said to you four times that the risk issues I am talking are independent of the UCI. The UCI had no more of a desire for in house team doping programmes to be revealed than it does for motor cheating schemes to be revealed. The same vested interests were involved. The UCI is not omnipotent. Not everything is determined by their bureaucrats. The issues I am talking about are the same ones that led to in house doping programmes being replaced with outsourcing - (a) the storage, transport, supervision and use of the relevant illicit goods and (b) the necessary involvement of or possession of unhelpful knowledge by junior staff members and people who don't have enough skin in the game to ensure lifelong silence.

 

[Benotti69]

Blood bags or motors...........

 

[DFA123]

So, to re-cap Cannondale's performance this TdF, with just the processional stage to go:

Highest placed rider: 16th
Second highest placed: 82nd
Highest mountain classificatin: 31st
Highest points classification: 44th
Highest youth classification: 12th
Stage Wins: 0
Stage Top 5s: 0
Stage Top 10s: 2

That is an embarrassment of a tour by any standards. Even a pro-conti team would be ashamed with those results.

The question is: is this the performance of a clean team in a dirty peloton?

I'd like to hear JVs updated thoughts on this; because if, as he proudly claims, this really is an era of clean cycling, then what is JV and the rest of the team staff doing in a job based on those results?

 

[thehog]

Re:

So, to re-cap Cannondale's performance this TdF, with just the processional stage to go:

Highest placed rider: 16th
Second highest placed: 82nd
Highest mountain classificatin: 31st
Highest points classification: 44th
Highest youth classification: 12th
Stage Wins: 0
Stage Top 5s: 0
Stage Top 10s: 2

That is an embarrassment of a tour by any standards. Even a pro-conti team would be ashamed with those results.

The question is: is this the performance of a clean team in a dirty peloton?

I'd like to hear JVs updated thoughts on this; because if, as he proudly claims, this really is an era of clean cycling, then what is JV and the rest of the team staff doing in a job based on those results?

The normally interesting 1975 was nullified by JV telling him he could win the Tour. The team was weak sauce this year. I'm surprised even now JV would put up with Sky it only crushing the race but taking most of the publicity with them. Even more surprised that Cannodale put up with with absolutely nothing.

 

[the delgados]

Re:

So, to re-cap Cannondale's performance this TdF, with just the processional stage to go:

Highest placed rider: 16th
Second highest placed: 82nd
Highest mountain classificatin: 31st
Highest points classification: 44th
Highest youth classification: 12th
Stage Wins: 0
Stage Top 5s: 0
Stage Top 10s: 2

That is an embarrassment of a tour by any standards. Even a pro-conti team would be ashamed with those results.

The question is: is this the performance of a clean team in a dirty peloton?

I'd like to hear JVs updated thoughts on this; because if, as he proudly claims, this really is an era of clean cycling, then what is JV and the rest of the team staff doing in a job based on those results?

I dunno--start doping?
When the Slipstream project was announced way back when, JV said results didn't matter as long as the team was clean.
It was a feel good story and everyone was ready to cheer for the last-placed rider. But then they started winning almost immediately. The whole narrative was turned on its ear and most everyone realized JV's invented narrative was a bunch of PR BS.
Maybe now the team is returning to its original mandate, in which case we can all cheer for JV's cycling project.
Oh, hell. Now I'm confusing myself.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So, to re-cap Cannondale's performance this TdF, with just the processional stage to go:

Highest placed rider: 16th
Second highest placed: 82nd
Highest mountain classificatin: 31st
Highest points classification: 44th
Highest youth classification: 12th
Stage Wins: 0
Stage Top 5s: 0
Stage Top 10s: 2

That is an embarrassment of a tour by any standards. Even a pro-conti team would be ashamed with those results.

The question is: is this the performance of a clean team in a dirty peloton?

I'd like to hear JVs updated thoughts on this; because if, as he proudly claims, this really is an era of clean cycling, then what is JV and the rest of the team staff doing in a job based on those results?

I dunno--start doping?
When the Slipstream project was announced way back when, JV said results didn't matter as long as the team was clean.
It was a feel good story and everyone was ready to cheer for the last-placed rider. But then they started winning almost immediately. The whole narrative was turned on its ear and most everyone realized JV's invented narrative was a bunch of PR BS.
Maybe now the team is returning to its original mandate, in which case we can all cheer for JV's cycling project.
Oh, hell. Now I'm confusing myself.

I am guessing Cookson doesn't like JV so JV's team is on the sauce but dialled back. Tom D was on it. Hesjedal won a Giro, Wiggins finished 4th at TdF, Martin won 2 monuments. All big performances in pro cycling....

 

[Lyon]

Re:

The question is: is this the performance of a clean team in a dirty peloton?

I'd like to hear JVs updated thoughts on this; because if, as he proudly claims, this really is an era of clean cycling, then what is JV and the rest of the team staff doing in a job based on those results?

Cycling is clean but being one step ahead JV's guys are even cleaner. Five showers a day is my guess. Just look at Rolland, other years he would be all sweat and grease but this year he was so smooth and sparkly - a shining testament to how clean cycling can be.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

So, to re-cap Cannondale's performance this TdF, with just the processional stage to go:

Highest placed rider: 16th
Second highest placed: 82nd
Highest mountain classificatin: 31st
Highest points classification: 44th
Highest youth classification: 12th
Stage Wins: 0
Stage Top 5s: 0
Stage Top 10s: 2

That is an embarrassment of a tour by any standards. Even a pro-conti team would be ashamed with those results.

The question is: is this the performance of a clean team in a dirty peloton?

I'd like to hear JVs updated thoughts on this; because if, as he proudly claims, this really is an era of clean cycling, then what is JV and the rest of the team staff doing in a job based on those results?

I dunno--start doping?
When the Slipstream project was announced way back when, JV said results didn't matter as long as the team was clean.
It was a feel good story and everyone was ready to cheer for the last-placed rider. But then they started winning almost immediately. The whole narrative was turned on its ear and most everyone realized JV's invented narrative was a bunch of PR BS.
Maybe now the team is returning to its original mandate, in which case we can all cheer for JV's cycling project.
Oh, hell. Now I'm confusing myself.

I am guessing Cookson doesn't like JV so JV's team is on the sauce but dialled back. Tom D was on it. Hesjedal won a Giro, Wiggins finished 4th at TdF, Martin won 2 monuments. All big performances in pro cycling....

I don't think the team's on the sauce; I don't think they've got a team program. I think the riders source and consume their own PEDs for the most part, with JV and co sitting back just enough to maintain plausible deniability. All the successful riders you mentioned not only had their own ways of getting PEDs, but are exceptionally well-connected in the doping industry; Wiggins with British Cycling, Danielson with Discovery, Martin with the Roches, Hesjedal with MTB/Rasmussen. Doubtless (most of?) the riders are still doping, but probably on less effective programs than those rather professionally trained cyclists.

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

So, to re-cap Cannondale's performance this TdF, with just the processional stage to go:

Highest placed rider: 16th
Second highest placed: 82nd
Highest mountain classificatin: 31st
Highest points classification: 44th
Highest youth classification: 12th
Stage Wins: 0
Stage Top 5s: 0
Stage Top 10s: 2

That is an embarrassment of a tour by any standards. Even a pro-conti team would be ashamed with those results.

The question is: is this the performance of a clean team in a dirty peloton?

I'd like to hear JVs updated thoughts on this; because if, as he proudly claims, this really is an era of clean cycling, then what is JV and the rest of the team staff doing in a job based on those results?

I dunno--start doping?
When the Slipstream project was announced way back when, JV said results didn't matter as long as the team was clean.
It was a feel good story and everyone was ready to cheer for the last-placed rider. But then they started winning almost immediately. The whole narrative was turned on its ear and most everyone realized JV's invented narrative was a bunch of PR BS.
Maybe now the team is returning to its original mandate, in which case we can all cheer for JV's cycling project.
Oh, hell. Now I'm confusing myself.

I am guessing Cookson doesn't like JV so JV's team is on the sauce but dialled back. Tom D was on it. Hesjedal won a Giro, Wiggins finished 4th at TdF, Martin won 2 monuments. All big performances in pro cycling....

I don't think the team's on the sauce; I don't think they've got a team program. I think the riders source and consume their own PEDs for the most part, with JV and co sitting back just enough to maintain plausible deniability. All the successful riders you mentioned not only had their own ways of getting PEDs, but are exceptionally well-connected in the doping industry; Wiggins with British Cycling, Danielson with Discovery, Martin with the Roches, Hesjedal with MTB/Rasmussen. Doubtless (most of?) the riders are still doping, but probably on less effective programs than those rather professionally trained cyclists.

And the award for least effective doping program in the 2016 Tour de France goes to...
Cannondale Drapac!
Unfortunately JV is not here to accept the award, but I'm sure both he and the team's founders are excited to be recognized by the cycling community for this great achievement.
Chapeau!

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So, to re-cap Cannondale's performance this TdF, with just the processional stage to go:

Highest placed rider: 16th
Second highest placed: 82nd
Highest mountain classificatin: 31st
Highest points classification: 44th
Highest youth classification: 12th
Stage Wins: 0
Stage Top 5s: 0
Stage Top 10s: 2

That is an embarrassment of a tour by any standards. Even a pro-conti team would be ashamed with those results.

The question is: is this the performance of a clean team in a dirty peloton?

I'd like to hear JVs updated thoughts on this; because if, as he proudly claims, this really is an era of clean cycling, then what is JV and the rest of the team staff doing in a job based on those results?

I dunno--start doping?
When the Slipstream project was announced way back when, JV said results didn't matter as long as the team was clean.
It was a feel good story and everyone was ready to cheer for the last-placed rider. But then they started winning almost immediately. The whole narrative was turned on its ear and most everyone realized JV's invented narrative was a bunch of PR BS.
Maybe now the team is returning to its original mandate, in which case we can all cheer for JV's cycling project.
Oh, hell. Now I'm confusing myself.

I am guessing Cookson doesn't like JV so JV's team is on the sauce but dialled back. Tom D was on it. Hesjedal won a Giro, Wiggins finished 4th at TdF, Martin won 2 monuments. All big performances in pro cycling....

I don't think the team's on the sauce; I don't think they've got a team program. I think the riders source and consume their own PEDs for the most part, with JV and co sitting back just enough to maintain plausible deniability. All the successful riders you mentioned not only had their own ways of getting PEDs, but are exceptionally well-connected in the doping industry; Wiggins with British Cycling, Danielson with Discovery, Martin with the Roches, Hesjedal with MTB/Rasmussen. Doubtless (most of?) the riders are still doping, but probably on less effective programs than those rather professionally trained cyclists.

I disagree

They are performing like a French team, it dont mean they dont dope, just they take less risks. But Bardet looked like he caught up big juicers.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

So, to re-cap Cannondale's performance this TdF, with just the processional stage to go:

Highest placed rider: 16th
Second highest placed: 82nd
Highest mountain classificatin: 31st
Highest points classification: 44th
Highest youth classification: 12th
Stage Wins: 0
Stage Top 5s: 0
Stage Top 10s: 2

That is an embarrassment of a tour by any standards. Even a pro-conti team would be ashamed with those results.

The question is: is this the performance of a clean team in a dirty peloton?

Have you considered that they're just bad? There's a reason JV has cycled through more title sponsors than most other teams.