JV talks, sort of

Page 350 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Leinster said:
Parker said:
Sue White said:
Anybody know cannondale's annual budget compared to say sky?

JV is probably one of the best admins of a team out there.
Surely the primary role of a team boss is to attract sponsorship money. Everything flows from that. The better they are at doing it, the more successful the team is likely to be.

People are welcome to criticise the likes of Brailsford and Unzue, but the foundation of the successes of their teams has been their ability to secure long term sponsorship from big multi-national companies.
Don’t BSkyB own a significant chunk of Team Sky? Surely a big portion of Brailsford’s success is that he *doesnt* have to go running around looking for potential sponsors from about May/June every year, and can just focus on the team winning races
Or one could argue that a part of other teams' success is that they develop and maintain a long term relationship with a sponsor while Slipstream's sponsor churn rate suggests a large part of their problem is poor sponsor relations.

Now one can ask what exactly is the problem here. It could be that the general manager - JV - doesn't actually want to manage and would prefer to be off coaching riders or acting as DS. It could be just bad luck after bad luck after bad luck in courting and landing the wrong sponsor. It could be that cycling's economic model is borked and the only thing that will save teams - Slipstream to Sky - is revenue sharing. And franchises for life.
 
Oct 10, 2012
926
0
0
Re:

Benotti69 said:
Good ol JV. Silence then when Froome is cleared he lands on the side of the victor.

http://www.velonews.com/2018/07/news/vaughters-anti-doping-testing-imperfect_471310

Vaughters follows the money. Another brownnoser......

Another one for whom the Armstrong doping was personal rather than about cleaning up the sport.
I see Ryan Trebon has called JV out over his comments

''What’s really hilarious if you ask me is that NO ONE I know that is 100% clean has ever had any sort of positive/False positive/ over the threshold finding ever. It’s always questions riders on suspect teams that try and pull this ***. Vaughters opinion is so tainted''.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
Good ol JV. Silence then when Froome is cleared he lands on the side of the victor.

http://www.velonews.com/2018/07/news/vaughters-anti-doping-testing-imperfect_471310

Vaughters follows the money. Another brownnoser......

Another one for whom the Armstrong doping was personal rather than about cleaning up the sport.
I get what you mean
well, I see a few on here and twitter for whom the Froome doping is personal, rather than about cleaning up the sport.
you call every cyclist out
many don´t
 
Aug 10, 2010
5,235
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Leinster said:
Parker said:
Sue White said:
Anybody know cannondale's annual budget compared to say sky?

JV is probably one of the best admins of a team out there.
Surely the primary role of a team boss is to attract sponsorship money. Everything flows from that. The better they are at doing it, the more successful the team is likely to be.

People are welcome to criticise the likes of Brailsford and Unzue, but the foundation of the successes of their teams has been their ability to secure long term sponsorship from big multi-national companies.
Don’t BSkyB own a significant chunk of Team Sky? Surely a big portion of Brailsford’s success is that he *doesnt* have to go running around looking for potential sponsors from about May/June every year, and can just focus on the team winning races
Or one could argue that a part of other teams' success is that they develop and maintain a long term relationship with a sponsor while Slipstream's sponsor churn rate suggests a large part of their problem is poor sponsor relations.

Now one can ask what exactly is the problem here. It could be that the general manager - JV - doesn't actually want to manage and would prefer to be off coaching riders or acting as DS. It could be just bad luck after bad luck after bad luck in courting and landing the wrong sponsor. It could be that cycling's economic model is borked and the only thing that will save teams - Slipstream to Sky - is revenue sharing. And franchises for life.
Franchises for life is interesting, but once you have that what percentage is there for the UCI middleman? I think the good old boys in the UCI would be nuts to incorporate that model because it would ultimately be suicidal. Still...they are shortsighted morons and they have done lots of stupid stuff in the past.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
Benotti69 said:
Good ol JV. Silence then when Froome is cleared he lands on the side of the victor.

http://www.velonews.com/2018/07/news/vaughters-anti-doping-testing-imperfect_471310

Vaughters follows the money. Another brownnoser......

Another one for whom the Armstrong doping was personal rather than about cleaning up the sport.
I get what you mean
well, I see a few on here and twitter for whom the Froome doping is personal, rather than about cleaning up the sport.
you call every cyclist out
many don´t
Not the Froome thread, but i disagree that it is personal like Armstrong. Froome has not *** any over (that i know of) like Armstrong and is only doing to a greater degree what those who have gone before have done. I dont blame him but i will call him what he is a doper and a cheat.

As for Vaughters, snakeoil salesman of the lowest order. He is not good enough to be chameleon just jumps ship to whatever looks like winning. Armstrong is gone a long time and the sport is no cleaner, but according to JV the bad man who shouted at him is gone so everything is A OK.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
more humour from one of cyclings biggest clowns

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/05/team-sky-tour-de-france-rival-education-first-chris-froome-jonathan-vaughters

Vaughters insisted cycling has cleaned up its act, despite many believing that little has changed since the Festina affair of 1998.
Really, how and where? All that has happended is one former rider, his DS and a couple of docs got busted. The docs are probably still working albeit at a distance.

“That’s just not reality,” he said. “I can say that all day long, but nobody’s going to believe it. It’s not true and I think anyone inside the sport with any genuine knowledge is going to say that’s not true. Unfortunately many people look at us all sceptically.
Yet snakeoil salesman cant give and any examples for anyone to believe. Earlier he claims that teams give a paltry $140K when he says it should be much higher. SO anti-doping way under funded, so how can be it be effective?

“I’m all for transparency once there’s an ADRV [anti-doping rule violation] under way. I think those should be almost like publicly open trials so that people can see the evidence. But when you’re trying to determine whether or not you’re even going to bring a case, then, come on …”
Transparency, this is laugh out loud, considering Danielson and Vaughters deafening silence.

What a joke Vaughters is.
 
He's got a lot of score settling going on in his book. Guess a man like him feels he has a lot of scores to settle.

Not sure of its factual accuracy in places, mind you.

As for the denoument, where he makes a claim on your sympathy by coming out as having been diagnosed with Aspergers. Oi vey.
 
Okay, so, some food for thought for Clinicians. JV and the ABP. I couldn't be bothered mentioning this in the review, you can have it here:
Why do I defend it, if athletes are still blood doping, and the biological passport didn't catch them?

The biological passport, by nature, is not an exact device to detect doping. It is, instead, a method by which you look at the body's own parameters and observe if there are changes. It is indirect testing. It looks for smoke, not fire.

Simple. It was never designed to catch them. It was designed to prevent them from transfusing enough blood that it would actually make much of a difference. It isn't about catching people and burning them alive in public. It's about keeping the races fair as possible.

If the bio-passport's effect on the sport is that a blood doper transfuses 350ml of blood instead of 1 liter, well then, it's been effective in its job. I'll take a talented rider that is able to sleep at night over a stressed-out rider that just transfused 350ml of blood any day in a race.
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Okay, so, some food for thought for Clinicians. JV and the ABP. I couldn't be bothered mentioning this in the review, you can have it here:
Why do I defend it, if athletes are still blood doping, and the biological passport didn't catch them?

The biological passport, by nature, is not an exact device to detect doping. It is, instead, a method by which you look at the body's own parameters and observe if there are changes. It is indirect testing. It looks for smoke, not fire.

Simple. It was never designed to catch them. It was designed to prevent them from transfusing enough blood that it would actually make much of a difference. It isn't about catching people and burning them alive in public. It's about keeping the races fair as possible.

If the bio-passport's effect on the sport is that a blood doper transfuses 350ml of blood instead of 1 liter, well then, it's been effective in its job. I'll take a talented rider that is able to sleep at night over a stressed-out rider that just transfused 350ml of blood any day in a race.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts