JV talks, sort of

[Mr.38%]

Hi Benotti,
I thought his answer was quite unequivocal when he said: "Here, I'll answer: None/No one."

Please stop quoting the troll as ignore does not filter quotes. TIA.

 

[D-Queued]

... Millar said he thought he doped, but that he was clean for one of his titles.

...

Let's be very clear on this.

When Indurain blasted past Lance in that Tour TT, Indurain was clean. That was pure, natural dominance of race horse over donkey.

Ok?

Dave.

 

[Mr.38%]

JV, do you tolerate other (banned) drugs, i.e. those that aid recovery or provide other 'marginal gains'?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Wrong! I'll answer. If you look to our May 27, 2010 statement, I think it's pretty clear what our answer is here. Now, the problem is, i can't compel CVV to go be honest about any of his previous teams, if no one is asking the question, or investigating them. If there is a LS or CSC investigation, at some point, I'll make it clear to CVV(or whoever) that his employment w slipstream is dependent on his honesty.

Have you asked him about what went on at CSC and LS?

Do you not think you ought to be more proactive.

For example at the moment you are reactive - if there is an investigation then the rider has to talk.

Surely the point about breaking omerta and cleaning up cycling is that riders should be able to blow the whistle. What is needed is riders to break omerta about the teams that are currently not subject to investigation.

Look at it this way - without Manzano where would we be with Puerto, where would the Armstrong investigation be without Landis? The truth is that all of these investigations started because someone was willing to put their head above the parapet.

Maybe if CVV were to come forward about his time at CSC then this might actually be the impetus to a full investigation. Of course this would no doubt be seen as spitting in the soup but this is surely where your role as his boss comes in - in supporting a rider, an unsanctioned rider, to come clean about doping across the board and to call for investigations into those teams.

This is surely the point at which you can truly start to change the landscape of racing. (and maybe get rid of Mr 60%, Holzer, Saiz etc etc)

 

[skidmark]

Which was the superior expression of Prince's musical vision, Purple Rain or Sign O' The Times?

Since you didn't direct your question to anyone in particular, I will jump in and say Purple Rain, for sure.

 

[ToreBear]

Let's be very clear on this.

When Indurain blasted past Lance in that Tour TT, Indurain was clean. That was pure, natural dominance of race horse over donkey.

Ok?

Dave.

Are you saying Indurain rode the 1994 tour clean? What about his other tours?

 

[hiero2]

It did seem to be pointing the finger fairly and squarely at Sky and Garmin.

Where is the old Prentice email again?

No. When was the last time Saxo had PR BS about clean riding! Did Riis produce a tome about transparency?

Not obsessed with Garmin/Sky.

Just tired of them trying hard to make people believe they are clean because they say so. It is similar to people believing the '500tests' myth.

Disagree - I think you guys are obsessed with Garmin/Sky. Ashendon's statement had nothing to indicate what teams he referred to. Nothing, nothing at all. "New age" is meaningless - it arguably applies to pretty much EVERY team out there today. We are ALL in the new age!

I don't believe them because they say so, I believe them because so far there are no smoking guns. They say so, AND they seem to be standing up to it. Even with LA, we had early indications that not all was right. And that was more than what we have today for Garmin, for sure. Sky, meh, maybe.

 

[hiero2]

Are you saying Indurain rode the 1994 tour clean? What about his other tours?

I would be interested in seeing Dave's response to this. Indurain de facto admitted to doping during his career, remember? The radio interview?

 

[Froome19]

he trained in Girona and Manchester, mainly. He was coached by Rod Ellingworth (sp?)

Good news that and not something I had heard before...

No surprises in that his whole development as a GT rider has been primarily through the British/Sky coaching especially considering the big leap he made over the past two years. Put into context with the fact that he had already been training in the set up and it makes more sense..

Would you have let him be coached by Ellingworth if you had heard about the Sky set up previously, JV?

 

[Benotti69]

Hi Benotti,
I thought his answer was quite unequivocal when he said: "Here, I'll answer: None/No one."

It is not gonna stop me asking. No doubt you will want the last word though so keep probing.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Since you didn't direct your question to anyone in particular, I will jump in and say Purple Rain, for sure.

I'm asking JV, since that's who most people are asking questions of in here. And he's probably getting fed up of answering doping questions, which by comparison are merely trivial, and I thought I'd hit him with the really tough ones.

 

[Froome19]

Have you asked him about what went on at CSC and LS?

Do you not think you ought to be more proactive.

Tbh JV probably knows close to exactly what went on and anyway what would be the benefits of asking him what went on?

Is it not information which can be exploited by JV as CVV would not give info to JV unless he guarantees it will not be exploited..

For example at the moment you are reactive - if there is an investigation then the rider has to talk.

Surely the point about breaking omerta and cleaning up cycling is that riders should be able to blow the whistle. What is needed is riders to break omerta about the teams that are currently not subject to investigation.

Look at it this way - without Manzano where would we be with Puerto, where would the Armstrong investigation be without Landis? The truth is that all of these investigations started because someone was willing to put their head above the parapet.

Maybe if CVV were to come forward about his time at CSC then this might actually be the impetus to a full investigation. Of course this would no doubt be seen as spitting in the soup but this is surely where your role as his boss comes in - in supporting a rider, an unsanctioned rider, to come clean about doping across the board and to call for investigations into those teams.

This is surely the point at which you can truly start to change the landscape of racing. (and maybe get rid of Mr 60%, Holzer, Saiz etc etc)

So are you saying that JV should force CVV to come out, because I get the feeling CVV may be reticent whilst still racing to speak out as it is noted that all these riders have spoken out only when they are not racing anymore.

CVV certainly would not want to come out and of course as you no doubt know, in truth it is probably better for Garmin in the long run that their rider does not come out whilst still racing for them.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I am not sure what your point is. CVV was given as an example but it could easily apply to any other rider on the team as the whole peloton is dirty.

To rephrase my question/comment. I would suggest that JV and Garmin are maintaining omerta by choosing not to speak about what they know.

Rather than be path-breaking and instigators for reform of cycling they instead choose to wait. CVV for example, would apparently not be compelled to talk to investigators about CSC unless there was an investigation into CSC.

The problem with that approach is that you end up with a situation where there is no investigation ever into CSC because no one speaks out about what went on there.

It seems to me that Garmin are playing both sides here. They maintain omerta - a wall of silence about 'unknown' doping.

Now, Garmin could take the lead here - JV could easily say to his riders - I will support you when you blow the whistle. You will still have a ride with us (unlike other whistleblowers who have been hung out to dry).

If JV is serious about cleaning up the sport then he should be encouraging his team to blow the whistle on previously unknown doping at other teams.

It is not as hard as you make out.

 

[Froome19]

Now, Garmin could take the lead here - JV could easily say to his riders - I will support you when you blow the whistle. You will still have a ride with us (unlike other whistleblowers who have been hung out to dry).


It is not as hard as you make out.

I disagree, if CVV speaks out whilst still riding then he is in a situation where he could get banned or whatever it is... I am not aware of the intracacies and what would occur precisely but I can not imagine that there would be any benefits for CVV. Only possible reprecussions for his career.

 

[skidmark]

I'm asking JV, since that's who most people are asking questions of in here. And he's probably getting fed up of answering doping questions, which by comparison are merely trivial, and I thought I'd hit him with the really tough ones.

I know I know, I was just pretending that I didn't notice what you were doing, and so responded facetiously, and now I took it too far in the being facetious department and it's not funny anymore. Dammit, I always do this.

Anyway, for serious: Purple Rain.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I disagree, if CVV speaks out whilst still riding then he is in a situation where he could get banned or whatever it is... I am not aware of the intracacies and what would occur precisely but I can not imagine that there would be any benefits for CVV. Only possible reprecussions for his career.

Since it is likely that CVV will have spoken to USADA about what went on at USP he is already subject to sanctions.

As I understand it whistleblowers can/are given reduced sanction for blowing the whistle.

Furthermore, when a rider like Contador is banned, Saxo continued to pay his wages.

If Garmin are serious about being anti-omerta then they would continue to pay the wages and support any riders who are sanctioned as a result of whistleblowing.

So your argument for not encouraging CVV or any other rider to blow the whistle does not really stand up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Since it is likely that CVV will have spoken to USADA about what went on at USP he is already subject to sanctions.

As I understand it whistleblowers can/are given reduced sanction for blowing the whistle.

Furthermore, when a rider like Contador is banned, Saxo continued to pay his wages.

If Garmin are serious about being anti-omerta then they would continue to pay the wages and support any riders who are sanctioned as a result of whistleblowing.

So your argument for not encouraging CVV or any other rider to blow the whistle does not really stand up.

Thats not correct -Contador released by Saxo Bank after doping suspension.

While I see your overall point -froome19 addresses it pretty well.
No-one is going to sign with a team if the first thing they have to do is sit out a suspension after admitting their doping past - regardless if they get paid or not.

I guess, this is where Omerta cannot be broken by the teams, but by the authorities if the waive suspension or do T&R - and I am not sure if thats the best way either.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Thats not correct -Contador released by Saxo Bank after doping suspension.

While I see your overall point -froome19 addresses it pretty well.
No-one is going to sign with a team if the first thing they have to do is sit out a suspension after admitting their doping past - regardless if they get paid or not.

I guess, this is where Omerta cannot be broken by the teams, but by the authorities if the waive suspension or do T&R - and I am not sure if thats the best way either.

There are always lots of specious reasons as to why omerta can't be broken and lots of people looking for reasons to justify why people don't break omerta, and very few people looking at ways in which riders can and should be encouraged to break omerta.

Although contador was 'fired' in February he re-signed a contract in early June 2 months before his 6 month ban from racing finished. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18368876. So he would have been paid in June and July while he was banned. (and there is nothing to say whether the contract included backpay to cover his ban unless Saxo have published the contract we don't have the details)

Firstly, we know that within anti-doping legislation there are provisions for reduced suspensions on the basis of the information given. So it is entirely possible that any sanction would be minimal rather than 2 years as you seem to think would be the defacto result of whistleblowing.

What has not been explored (in part because of omerta) is the degree to which a rider who was still active would be covered by whistleblower legislation within the EU and also North America. Thus far, all whistleblowers have with the exception of Simeoni been out of the sport by and large when they blew the whistle.

Garmin under JV could provide an environment which encourages riders to break omerta. At the moment Garmin are reactive rather than pro-active when it comes to breaking omerta.

As a report card goes - 'Could do better'

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And he resigned a contract in early June 2 months before his 6 month ban from racing finished. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18368876. So he would have been paid in June and July while he was banned.

First paragraph says on his return from suspension - you do not get paid while under suspension.

Firstly, we know that within anti-doping legislation there are provisions for reduced suspensions on the basis of the information given. So it is entirely possible that any sanction would be minimal rather than 2 years as you seem to think would be the defacto result of whistleblowing.

I am fully aware of the rules.
6 months, a year - no rider is going to sign with a team to sit in suspension.

What has not been explored (in part because of omerta) is the degree to which a rider who was still active would be covered by whistleblower legislation within the EU and also North America. Thus far, all whistleblowers have with the exception of Simeoni been out of the sport by and large when they blew the whistle.

Garmin under JV could provide an environment which encourages riders to break omerta. At the moment Garmin are reactive rather than pro-active when it comes to breaking omerta.

As a report card goes - 'Could do better'

The whistleblower suit is interesting - but is there something actually in EU law?

And again requesting one team to do something is pointless.
If Garmin do put in place what you request, no-one will sign. if no other team does it, then it falls apart.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I have no interest in a semantic argument with you. And I have to be honest, my points were to JV rather than to you and I am interested in what he has to say about whistleblowing and protecting whistleblowers rather than you.

Contador - the BBC story makes no mention of when his contract or the payment was due to start. However, unless the kind of contracts you sign are different to the ones I work with you get paid from when you sign the contract. The point remains - if riders are banned for breaking omerta, Garmin would be able to keep them on the books and keep paying them.

The comments about no rider is going to sign is obfuscation as this was never mentioned in my original question.

Here is a paradox for you - you assume that no rider is willing to break omerta and be banned for 6-12 months, and yet you assume that a rider would be willing to switch from riding doped to riding clean (with the potential drop in performance). The argument for why riders won't break omerta is exactly the same as the argument put forward about why riders won't ride clean. But somehow or other, JV has managed to persuade riders to do this.

Not a whistleblower suit but whistleblower protection. For example if I work in a steelmill and I blow the whistle on anything from unsafe working, to sexual harassment by senior management then I can not be punished (sacked, demoted etc) by my employers, if I am then I can sue them. So the question would be whether a whistleblower would be protected from punishment (ie bans) for blowing the whistle (as opposed to riders who co-operate with an investigation).

Garmin can lead the way - and if you blow the whistle on CSC, etc then that might actually start to remove some of the stauncher defenders of omerta. You kill two birds with one stone.

You always need your 'Rosa Parks' moment to induce critical mass.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There are always lots of specious reasons as to why omerta can't be broken and lots of people looking for reasons to justify why people don't break omerta, and very few people looking at ways in which riders can and should be encouraged to break omerta.

I see you were busy editing in stuff while I was replying.

I am always looking at ways that would break omerta - and quite simply, yours would not work.
Firstly - part of it relies on paying people while they sit out a suspension - so you have actually just thrown out one of the fundamental rules in anti-doping.

Secondly you are asking people (in this case a whole team) to do something that no-other team does and expecting it to be implemented?

As I have said many times - all we can ask teams to do is put in their own anti-doping measures and make sure that they do not dope, now.
Solving cyclings past needs to be done across the board and at a higher level.

 

[D-Queued]

Are you saying Indurain rode the 1994 tour clean? What about his other tours?

AFAIK he was always clean.

But, if there is any dispute whatsoever, that was his cleanest moment.

Dave.

 

[pmcg76]

There are always lots of specious reasons as to why omerta can't be broken and lots of people looking for reasons to justify why people don't break omerta, and very few people looking at ways in which riders can and should be encouraged to break omerta.

And he resigned a contract in early June 2 months before his 6 month ban from racing finished. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18368876. So he would have been paid in June and July while he was banned.

Firstly, we know that within anti-doping legislation there are provisions for reduced suspensions on the basis of the information given. So it is entirely possible that any sanction would be minimal rather than 2 years as you seem to think would be the defacto result of whistleblowing.

What has not been explored (in part because of omerta) is the degree to which a rider who was still active would be covered by whistleblower legislation within the EU and also North America. Thus far, all whistleblowers have with the exception of Simeoni been out of the sport by and large when they blew the whistle.

Garmin under JV could provide an environment which encourages riders to break omerta. At the moment Garmin are reactive rather than pro-active when it comes to breaking omerta.

As a report card goes - 'Could do better'

'Could do better' but still 'Top of the class' regardless.

Is there a guarantee that riders would only receive 6 month suspensions for spilling the beans. Right now CVV, DZ and Tommy D all look like they are heading for suspensions, if they turn out to be for 6 months 'in season' they might make it back but if they receive say a full 1 year suspension I think it more or less kills their career's as they are all on the slide to retirement anyway.

Imagine if they had all testified in 2008 when they joined Slipstream, we could very possibly have been looking at most of the Slipstream A team, CVV, DZ, Tommy D, Ryder, Julian Dean sitting out 6 month-2 year suspensions. As a result the team garners a bad reputation, no Tour de France, no nice sponsor like Garmin stepping in and the real possibility of the team dying before it even started. Would it have been worth the risk? Don't think so.

If guys are prepared to risk their own careers, I would imagine they would want to be sure that there would be some outcome to any investigation launched. As per the example of CSC, if CVV made allegations against CSC, who would he inform? UCI? USADA? WADA? Danish Federation? Which organisation could unconditionally carry out an investigation and offer an outcome that would be worth the risk of admitting.

The Armstrong case works because there is quite a few guys who admitted/ were caught previously e.g Andreu, Landis, Hamilton. Most admitted in front of the Grand Jury so were libel to perjury in the event of lying to other sporting organisations.

So in the case of CSC, there would be the testimony of CVV, Tyler Hamilton and lets include other ex CSC/Garmin riders DZ and Julian Dean. Would those testimonies suffice in the absence of any other actual evidence. Could those guys rely on the sporting authorities to secure the depth of evidence that is available on US Postal for exampl. Would other unsanctioned CSC rider's tell the truth in front of the UCI, Danish Federation or WADA? I doubt it.

This is not a simple case of spilling the beans and things will work out. Guys like Kimmage, Landis, Manzano, Jaksche or Hamilton had very little to lose when they broke 'ometra'. They were already out of cycling and were either already disgraced or nobodies. All the Garmin guys are still active.

I think if people really expect people to sacrifice their career's for something then there should be at least a guaranteed result to off-set the risk and right now there isn't, so its totally understandable why nobody goes involuntarily to the authorities.

 

[AlpineClimbr]

Although contador was 'fired' in February he re-signed a contract in early June 2 months before his 6 month ban from racing finished. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18368876. So he would have been paid in June and July while he was banned. (and there is nothing to say whether the contract included backpay to cover his ban unless Saxo have published the contract we don't have the details)

There's nothing in that article that says or implies that Contador was paid between the date he signed the contract and the end of his suspension.

As a report card goes - 'Could do better'

Yup.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I know I know, I was just pretending that I didn't notice what you were doing, and so responded facetiously, and now I took it too far in the being facetious department and it's not funny anymore. Dammit, I always do this.

Anyway, for serious: Purple Rain.

Purple Rain may be more compact and excellent (and features 0 weaker tracks) but I can't overlook that Sign O' The Times has over 80 minutes of peak form Prince, and that 6 and a half of those are dedicated to I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man.

I think that Purple Rain is a better record, but owing to its wider scope and lack of a movie tie-in Sign O' The Times may be a better encapsulation of Prince's musical vision.

Nevertheless, the title track on 'Purple Rain' is undoubtedly the greatest powerballad ever recorded... by a very long way.