The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Dr. Maserati said:Hi Benotti,
I thought his answer was quite unequivocal when he said: "Here, I'll answer: None/No one."
User Guide said:Quick and simple question here JV...
1, how many tests a year is the passport supposed to need to be effective.
2, how many tests actually happen.
thx in adv
Edit.. if anyone else knows the answers id be grateful,thx
JV1973 said:Lab error was only in the first reading. I only know that, as I spoke with many other team doctors that said they got very high readings at the start of Giro, so it seemed to be systemic, not isolated. This happens. A blood sample left at room temp just a bit too long is totally screwed up.
I don't see anything erroneous in the all of the other readings. Blood values do drop over 3 weeks, but never in a perfect linear fashion. Remember, hydration status, at the moment of the test, can have large impacts. Along with plasma retention, which can be affected by something as simple as weather (ever notice you pee more at the start of a cold ride?)
I've been observing blood values since about 1996, and I've seen doped, micro-doped, and undoped profiles aplenty. While I don't have the education level of many researchers, my bet is I might not be so bad at understanding these profiles.
I wouldn't release this stuff if I thought the riders in question weren't clean. I'd just fire them instead. It's really only logical.
hrotha said:Good to have you back, JV.
Since the last time you came here, there's something that has been bugging me. You said talking to WADA and/or the competent national antidoping authorities was a must for you to sign an ex-doper. You also said if you had reason to believe someone had been on the gear you wouldn't sign him without that confession, even if he reassured you he was going to ride clean. I can see how that works for caught dopers like TD, but what about someone like Contador?
Yes, yes, I know that thing didn't get very far at all and you were never even close to signing him or talked to him about it, but he exemplifies what I mean here. Reading between the lines, it's pretty obvious you thought he wasn't clean, but believed San Millán when he told you his talent was real and could do it clean. So, let's imagine for a minute things got further than they did and you sat down around a table with him to negotiate a contract. According to what you said last time, you would ask him to confess both to you and to WADA and to AEA as a requisite to sign with your team. But that doesn't make sense. You'd be signing a star rider, only to not be able to have him start in any races for a year. And he'd be signing to give up one year and his reputation when he could easily sign for a different team. That approach wouldn't work for either the team or the rider.
The ex-Posties/Discoveries were supposed to have talked to WADA and/or USADA from the beginning. And yet, none of them has ever been suspended (as you're aware, the popular theory is that they will serve a reduced ban soon, maybe during the off-season, maybe after Bruyneel's hearing, but before the investigation started there was no reason for that delay).
So I don't see how this works. Would you be so kind as to clarify? Thanks in advance.
I'm really glad you didn't leave for good, by the way.
User Guide said:Quick and simple question here JV...
1, how many tests a year is the passport supposed to need to be effective.
2, how many tests actually happen.
thx in adv
Edit.. if anyone else knows the answers id be grateful,thx
sniper said:lots of JV data bending in this thread.
meanwhile, JV is yet to answer the simple questions.
e.g. why does Leinders deserve an investigation, and Weltz doesn't?
or, what teams you think Ashenden was referring to?
Well, I did ask him very directly if he would hire someone he suspected wasn't clean if they didn't come clean to him and the relevant authorities first, and he said "No". I thought it was pretty unambiguous.pmcg76 said:Has JV ever said that it is a requirement for his riders to have to speak to the authorities voluntarily. I know what he has said in the past is that if any of his riders were ever called before anti-doping authorities or in an investigation, they are expected to co-operate and tell the truth or risk being fired.
There is a slight difference in those scenarios and I think people have misunderstood what JV has said and gone running off in the wrong direction as usual. Perhaps it is myself who has misunderstood and will happily change my view if shown otherwise.
pmcg76 said:Why are you consistently trying to apply SKY standards/procedures to Garmin.
It is SKY who have the policy of not signing doctors/athletes/directors with a dodgy past. Thus they supposedly opened an investigation into Leinder's past bowing to public pressure.
Garmin have never had such a policy and JV has gone on record as stating such an approach is folly and almost impossible to implement given cycling's past.
Why would Garmin need to open an investigation into Weltz when they are probably all to aware of his past misdemeanors. Both Weltz and JV were at US Postal in 98 so I am sure JV knows the essentials. If Weltz had allegedly performed dodgy practices whilst at Garmin, I would expect it to be different.
Weltz has said a few stupid things in recent times and JV has said he has already talked with Weltz and told him to stop the BS.
It is amazing to me how there is so much information out there yet you seem to somehow always muddle things in an attempt to slander Garmin.
JV1973 said:Lab error was only in the first reading. I only know that, as I spoke with many other team doctors that said they got very high readings at the start of Giro, so it seemed to be systemic, not isolated. This happens. A blood sample left at room temp just a bit too long is totally screwed up.
JV1973 said:I wouldn't release this stuff if I thought the riders in question weren't clean. I'd just fire them instead. It's really only logical.
Weltz is not a team doctor.sniper said:why is Leinders' job at Sky "worrying" (JV a few weeks back), whilst Weltz merely needs to "stop lying" (JV yesterday). Two measures?
hrotha said:Weltz is not a team doctor.
sniper said:You're an awfull scientist, accepting claims like this one without a shred of empirical evidence.
Dr. Maserati said:Hi Sniper, I am not a scientist, nor is the picture in my avatar of me either - my apologies if this revelation causes you deep distress.
As for what JV said, yes I am quite happy to accept it as is - if you have some 'empirical evidence' to suggest he is not telling the truth, please share - please remember that things like "visited Girona" is not evidence.
Dr. Maserati said:Hi Sniper, I am not a scientist, nor is the picture in my avatar of me either - my apologies if this revelation causes you deep distress.
As for what JV said, yes I am quite happy to accept it as is - if you have some 'empirical evidence' to suggest he is not telling the truth, please share - please remember that things like "visited Girona" is not evidence.
sniper said:i figured out that much.
phat, verdruggem, bruyneel and riis aren't team doctors either.
they're enablers. weltz seems to have been an enabler. isn't he anymore?
and let's not let Weltz get in the way of the central question:
which teams are the new age teams ashenden referred to?
It seems you did manage to read my post - but missed the important part:sniper said:visiting or residing in girona, standing alone, is a lousy piece of evidence indeed. but you see, we didn't reconstruct proto-indo-european on the basis of one single sound correspondence either.
sniper said:i figured out that much.
phat, verdruggem, bruyneel and riis aren't team doctors either.
they're enablers. weltz seems to have been an enabler. isn't he anymore?
and let's not let Weltz get in the way of the central question:
which teams are the new age teams ashenden referred to?
Dr. Maserati said:It seems you did manage to read my post - but missed the important part:
As for what JV said, yes I am quite happy to accept it as is - if you have some 'empirical evidence' to suggest he is not telling the truth, please share - please remember that things like "visited Girona" is not evidence.
GJB123 said:Sky has a policy of not hiring any team doctors who have been implicated in PED-use. They hired Leinders. Leinders is implicated in PED-use at Rabobank. That is in direct contradiction to their own policy. Hence questions are asked and investigations are started.
Garmin has a well-known policy of not excluding former PED-offenders (hell, JV is one himself) if they are willing to come clean and stay clean. Weltz abused PED's, facilitated and has apparently agreed to keeping his nose clean at Garmin. If not, JV stated he would fire him. How is that in contradiction with ant known policy within Garmin? Oh yes, he did tell Weltz to cut he BS on the Armstrong-saga, which, It think we can agree, is a good action.