JV talks, sort of

[ChrisE]

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

Just excuse mew's giddiness....she is in full fledge sycophant mode talking to a real life cycling celebrity on the internets lol.

 

[thehog]

For the sake of a brilliant and thought provoking thread I ask that we collectively ignore ChrisE's posts. It will only serve to derail the excellent discussion.

 

[ChrisE]

Indeed. But I tend to be a risk taker.

Yes, he is. Actively reviewing data from doped performances to extrapolate on what they can do clean, in a sport that spends 2-3 times less than he claims they should spend on testing and research. Then writing op-eds imploring how rules must be in place to catch dopers and admitting his doping past, on the eve of public consumption of his USADA testimony, all the while fielding a GT winner.

The hog - give me a break....I am a little slow here and trying to digest this situation is taking some time. Perhaps after a few more days I will be falling over myself like the rest of you.

 

[frenchfry]

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.

It is amazing that an organisation that is proving to be morally bankrupt and quite probably criminal (accepting bribes) is still in charge of regulating cycling and nothing is being done about it except for rants on internet forums.

 

[Flux Capacity]

......look at the way riders at present are denying. The norm ....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.

Ah, excellent point, and something I've been thinking about lately. It is disturbing. This is why I initially fell for Armstrong's spin many years ago. As you suggest, most dopers used to avoid the issue, appear sheepish, then, many would just slink off into virtual obscurity, but Armstrong was always SO adamant and LOUD about it. I'm embarrassed about it now, I found it very convincing in the early 2000s.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes, he is. Actively reviewing data from doped performances to extrapolate on what they can do clean, in a sport that spends 2-3 times less than he claims they should spend on testing and research. Then writing op-eds imploring how rules must be in place to catch dopers, on the eve of public consumption of his USADA testimony, all the while fielding a GT winner.

The hog - give me a break....I am a little slow here and trying to digest this situation is taking some time. Perhaps after a few more days I will be falling over myself like the rest of you.

Yes, that's evident. That's the first bit of honest self-reflection you have ever made. Keep up the good work.

 

[thehog]

It is amazing that an organisation that is proving to be morally bankrupt and quite probably criminal (accepting bribes) is still in charge of regulating cycling and nothing is being done about it except for rants on internet forums.

That is the dichotomy of a organization that is not elected by the people. They will only serve the interest of themselves. Not even the riders could vote them out or have a say.

 

[D-Queued]

It is amazing that an organisation that is proving to be morally bankrupt and quite probably criminal (accepting bribes) is still in charge of regulating cycling and nothing is being done about it except for rants on internet forums.

Confirming Lord Acton again: absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Dave.

 

[pugdog]

It is amazing that an organisation that is proving to be morally bankrupt and quite probably criminal (accepting bribes) is still in charge of regulating cycling and nothing is being done about it except for rants on internet forums.

Why is it amazing? What about boxing and football? Why should they be allowed corruption a gogo and not cycling? ...NB sarcasm.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Just excuse mew's giddiness....she is in full fledge sycophant mode talking to a real life cycling celebrity on the internets lol.

loll
If only you knew...


Anyway, thanks JV.

 

[Runitout]

Yes, he is. Actively reviewing data from doped performances to extrapolate on what they can do clean, in a sport that spends 2-3 times less than he claims they should spend on testing and research. Then writing op-eds imploring how rules must be in place to catch dopers and admitting his doping past, on the eve of public consumption of his USADA testimony, all the while fielding a GT winner.

The hog - give me a break....I am a little slow here and trying to digest this situation is taking some time. Perhaps after a few more days I will be falling over myself like the rest of you.

For the first time since Dailypeloton, I find myself agreeing with Chris E.

 

[Dalakhani]

There's a website that's well-known in Scotland called rangerstaxcase.

It was set up to expose the various financial shenanigans going on at Glasgow Rangers football club - all the stuff the Scottish football media was to dumb, or too obsequious, to ask.

The writers are people who are insiders in Scottish football - but they're anonymous, and the registration of the domain is anonymous.

Why couldn't cycling have something similar?

Why couldn't an anonymous site be set up by a true insider that exposes how much is going on - or not going on - in the sport?

I'm not talking about irresponsible mud-slinging, but talking openly about being a clean rider in the sport, or the DS of a clean team.

Talking about how they - and colleagues - feel about Armstrong, UCI, Sky, WADA etc. - sharing what they know, talking about the science, asking the questions the mainstream media won't ask.

 

[ChrisE]

For the first time since Dailypeloton, I find myself agreeing with Chris E.

Free your mind, and the rest will follow.

Look, I applaud him for coming in here. He doesn't have to do that. But, there are some inconvenient contradictions in his story, and I stated my aversion earlier to his method inre to how he is going about this publicly.

My aversion to his method is my opinion and I expect criticism in here for that opinion, but the facts you quoted are not. Hopefully he will come back and answer those questions, but I can't see how he will. It is not as easy as the red meat reason he threw to hog about his earlier interviews.

 

[Dalakhani]

I don't suspect he's taking requests, but I have a question for JV1973. Here goes...

Garmin are one of the teams that are rumoured to have been interested in signing Chris Froome 12 months ago (when Froome didn't have a contract lined up for 2012).

If that's true, what did you expect Froome to be in your team? GC contender? Multiple mountain stage winner? Top time trialist? All of the above?

Or just a super-domestique who'd support guys like Ryder, and win some mountain-top finishes in 2nd-tier races (not grand tours)?

Or somewhere in between?

 

[Runitout]

Free your mind, and the rest will follow.

Look, I applaud him for coming in here. He doesn't have to do that. But, there are some inconvenient contradictions in his story, and I stated my aversion earlier to his method inre to how he is going about this publicly.

My aversion to his method is my opinion and I expect criticism in here for that opinion, but the facts you quoted are not. Hopefully he will come back and answer those questions, but I can't see how he will. It is not as easy as the red meat reason he threw to hog about his earlier interviews.

My aversion to his method is that it appears to place good press higher than the moral strength he trumpets so loudly. I would bet my socks that Whitey would still be at Garmin if Landis hadn't spoken to Kimmage.

And yet, he's taken greater steps than the Riises and Breukinks of this world in promoting clean cycling. I still can't decide if he's a spineless hypocrite, a compromised crusader, a press-hungry cheapskate, or the best hope we have for clean cycling. I figure it's 90% of the first three, and yet he still probably qualifies for the last one too.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

It certainly is buzzing with this idea.

McQuaid knows he, Verbruggen and their buddies are in trouble. As we have seen the last few weeks they have no problem making themselves look like complete fools to continue the cover up.

WADA has made it clear to them they are walking on very thin ice. If they keep it up expect WADA and the IOC to step of the rhetoric of kicking them out of the Olympics

Fat Pat is playing chicken with WADA right now. Going after JV and his riders would increase the stupid level to 11

 

[Cloxxki]

There's a website that's well-known in Scotland called rangerstaxcase.

It was set up to expose the various financial shenanigans going on at Glasgow Rangers football club - all the stuff the Scottish football media was to dumb, or too obsequious, to ask.

The writers are people who are insiders in Scottish football - but they're anonymous, and the registration of the domain is anonymous.

Why couldn't cycling have something similar?

Why couldn't an anonymous site be set up by a true insider that exposes how much is going on - or not going on - in the sport?

I'm not talking about irresponsible mud-slinging, but talking openly about being a clean rider in the sport, or the DS of a clean team.

Talking about how they - and colleagues - feel about Armstrong, UCI, Sky, WADA etc. - sharing what they know, talking about the science, asking the questions the mainstream media won't ask.

There are several varieties on dopingleaks online, just not very actively so. Perhaps by lack of copy. These people need copy. Omerta is still working well I suppose. If one wants to leak, they can do so fully anonimously. Open an webmail account and send it to whomever listens. Just figuring out the address of one Clinic poster (doesn't require a degree in hacking science, just guess some via nickname plus hotmail/google/yahoo etc) can do the trick.

EDIT: just opened dopingleaks@gmail.com in case some informant is too lazy to figure out something, and wants to leak before his head explodes.

 

[Runitout]

It certainly is buzzing with this idea.

McQuaid knows he, Verbruggen and their buddies are in trouble. As we have seen the last few weeks they have no problem making themselves look like complete fools to continue the cover up.

WADA has made it clear to them they are walking on very thin ice. If they keep it up expect WADA and the IOC to step of the rhetoric of kicking them out of the Olympics

Fat Pat is playing chicken with WADA right now. Going after JV and his riders would increase the stupid level to 11

Yes, cycling is full of vindictive, hypocritical petty tyrants. They run teams and they run the sport. Cycling deserves the leaders it gets.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I don't suspect he's taking requests, but I have a question for JV1973. Here goes...

Garmin are one of the teams that are rumoured to have been interested in signing Chris Froome 12 months ago (when Froome didn't have a contract lined up for 2012).

If that's true, what did you expect Froome to be in your team? GC contender? Multiple mountain stage winner? Top time trialist? All of the above?

Or just a super-domestique who'd support guys like Ryder, and win some mountain-top finishes in 2nd-tier races (not grand tours)?

Or somewhere in between?

Vaughters tweeted several times about Chris Froome, firstly stating he did want him before the 2011 Vuelta, but his performances priced him out of Garmin's range. He also tweeted calling for financial equality of some kind for teams, to prevent the top teams 'hoarding talent' and avoiding the debate we saw over the relative strengths of Wiggins and Froome.

I would suggest he saw him as a GC contender more than anything.

 

[ChrisE]

My aversion to his method is that it appears to place good press higher than the moral strength he trumpets so loudly. I would bet my socks that Whitey would still be at Garmin if Landis hadn't spoken to Kimmage.

And yet, he's taken greater steps than the Riises and Breukinks of this world in promoting clean cycling. I still can't decide if he's a spineless hypocrite, a compromised crusader, a press-hungry cheapskate, or the best hope we have for clean cycling. I figure it's 90% of the first three, and yet he still probably qualifies for the last one too.

Oh, I definitely think he wants the sport to be clean. Why would anybody want to be involved in something that is not? Yet, we heard TH say how the peleton circled the wagons when somebody got caught, instead of the opposite. How is that whack mindset overcome?

He is either blowing the trumpet too loudly, overstating the problem for self promotion since his clean riders can win GT's, or the problem is not that bad thus contradicting his op-ed and his post about what little $ is spent on testing.

Does anybody really think a clean Ryder and Wiggins are the cyclists that can overcome either the mostly clean or mostly dirty undertested peloton (which is it?) and win GT's?

 

[sniper]

Free your mind, and the rest will follow.

Look, I applaud him for coming in here. He doesn't have to do that. But, there are some inconvenient contradictions in his story, and I stated my aversion earlier to his method inre to how he is going about this publicly.

My aversion to his method is my opinion and I expect criticism in here for that opinion, but the facts you quoted are not. Hopefully he will come back and answer those questions, but I can't see how he will. It is not as easy as the red meat reason he threw to hog about his earlier interviews.

to the bold: no doubt.
some of what he says seems inconsistent with a full-throttle anti-doping stance. For instance, I don't really see why he dimsisses some of the doping talk as "ridiculous rumors" (somewhere upthread), knowing the history of cycling.

i also agree it's a bit at odds with the spirit of the Clinic that in order to get an answer from JV you have to compromise by watering down the criticism and do a bit of sweet-talking. Although most (including me) seem to find his presence here exciting and seem happy to make that little sacrifice, it would perhaps be more fruitful if he'd log in under an anonymous account.

 

[Dalakhani]

I would suggest he saw him as a GC contender more than anything.

Interesting... Sky, who had him, didn't seem to think of him that way. (Until he showed he was a GC contender in the Vuelta.)

 

[Dalakhani]

There are several varieties on dopingleaks online

What's the URL for that? I tried a google search and all that came up was a site that's "reserved".

 

[ChrisE]

....
i also agree it's a bit at odds with the spirit of the Clinic that in order to get an answer from JV you have to compromise by watering down the criticism and do a bit of sweet-talking. Although most (including me) seem to find his presence here exciting and seem happy to make that little sacrifice, it would perhaps be more fruitful if he'd log in under an anonymous account.

I am with you on applauding him being here as I stated upthread. If he was anonymous he would get dog-piled by saying Wiggins is clean.

But, aren't actions like "sucking up" to get a few morsels that cannot be verified one way or the other pretty pathetic? It's like what the press does...regurgitate BS and nuthug to maintain access.

Applauding what he says, instead of applauding him being here and putting stuff out for critical appraisal, is what I find nauseating. We have no idea if he is being "honest" or not; all we can do is hold up what he says and does vs the environment and undeniable reality of cycling and sport in general.

 

[daviel]

He's still a cheat.