JV talks, sort of

[sittingbison]

wagyu.

just like Canc and Martin. Lazy bone idle wonkars.

 

[sniper]

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

You're an awfull scientist, accepting claims like this one without a shred of empirical evidence.

 

[sniper]

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?

 

[python]

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

i'll give it a shot...jv may give you a different answer that would be based on his team's experience.

1. since this is based on the statistics and interpreting suspicions/abnormal patterns, the sufficient number of tests would depend on whether we are just accumulating initial data or keep monitoring past the the accumulation of initial data.

an answer - in the classic statistics, one needs about 30 data points to start relying on NORMAL distribution. if i recall correctly, several exploratory studies that became the foundation for blood profiling, referred to the same or a slightly smaller number. past the initial stage (to understand the so called natural pattern), the number of tests would depend on whether there is a suspicion. it would be too simplistic to say, for example, lets test once a month, b/c riders would adapt to lack of randomness and cheat.

2. this could be derived from the uci published data and the occasional messages from individual riders - between a dozen to several dozens per season per rider.

 

[hrotha]

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.

 

[GJB123]

I think you are mixing up some of the answers he gave. He will hopefully be back to explain, but if I understood him correctly it as follows.

- Riders need to talk if they were caught
- He encouraged some of them (notably those who weren't caught) to talk to relevant authorities, which in the older days would have been the UCI (and JV and we all know that is no use). I don't think he stated they should talk to WADA.
- If there is an investigation in which some of his riders might be implicated as witnesses or dopers, he would instruct them to fully cooperate, be compliant and tell the truth.
- With regard to Contador I suppose he would want to know about the skeletons in the closet, expect him to ride clean and come forward officially if so required. How the clen-case affects that, is a mystery to me, so maybe JV can elaborate on that. Also how Op Puerto would influence behavior is interesting to know. If AC was involved and the investigation is still ongoing of sorts, would he have obliged him to come clean (if he hasn't already in '06, as rumor has it).

Regards
GJ

 

[Benotti69]

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.

- "with many other team doctors " would those be the new age team docs under a new guise or the old doping dark era docs?

- "I wouldn't release this stuff if I thought the riders in question weren't clean. I'd just fire them instead." why would you not report them to the relevant anti-doping authority about their doping? It is only logical.

 

[pmcg76]

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.

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.

 

[the big ring]

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

Answered it here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1036109#post1036109

 

[pmcg76]

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?

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.

 

[hrotha]

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.

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.

 

[sniper]

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.

You can bend it like Beckham, the question remains:
why is Leinders' job at Sky "worrying" (JV a few weeks back), whilst Weltz merely needs to "stop lying" (JV yesterday). Two measures? you seem to be ok with that, fine. I choose to be "worried" about Weltz at Garmin.

And if Leinders-Sky is a worrying fact, why is JV so certain Sky and Wiggo are clean? Or is he?

If the perception is already this ugly, what does reality look like?

And which are the new age teams ashenden referred to?

 

[the big ring]

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.

A few more questions:

1. How did it come about that CaptainBag had an email from you with Ryder's blood values? Did he ask you for them, or did you volunteer them? If you volunteered them, why through CaptainBag and not just release them as you did with Brad's values?
2. Do you know the real identity of CaptainBag?

You have released the blood values for 2 riders in 3 races: Brad 2009 Giro and Tour, Ryder 2012 Giro.
3. Why are you releasing the values of only your best results? Do ABP values prove cleanliness?
4. Have you considered releasing the blood values of a domestique from the same races - as a baseline, if you like and if not, why not? You would not even have to provide their name, just their numbers.
5. If there was, as you suggest, "systemic high readings at the Giro", you could release up to 8 other riders' values - from your team alone. You don't have to prove anything to me or anyone else, but are you prepared to do this to show us the veracity of your claim? Again - no names need even be shown, just the values. Is it difficult to get a rider's values?
6. As pointed out previously, there is a consistent pattern of a bump in the 3rd week of all 3 datasets you have released. Is this something we would see in all passports, or only riders who perform top 5 in a GT?

 

[Catwhoorg]

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.

That is a fantastic bottom line of a post. I wish more teams had that attitude.

 

[hrotha]

why is Leinders' job at Sky "worrying" (JV a few weeks back), whilst Weltz merely needs to "stop lying" (JV yesterday). Two measures?

Weltz is not a team doctor.

 

[sniper]

Weltz is not a team doctor.

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]

You're an awfull scientist, accepting claims like this one without a shred of empirical evidence.

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]

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.

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]

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.

visiting or residing in girona, standing alone, is a lousy piece of evidence indeed. but you see, the reconstruction of proto-indo-european doesn't rely on one single sound correspondence either.

 

[pmcg76]

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?

Why do you keep referring to Weltz then if he is not the central question. All the things that have arisen concerning Weltz have concerned his time at US Postal which JV is clearly aware of and ok with. Having Weltz at Garmin does not contradict any of their own policies like SKY having Leinders does.

You keep applying SKY standards to Garmin which ain't the reality of the situation but you seem to have a major problem understanding that. Of course when that is pointed out to you, then the whole thing changes to what Ashenden has said about new age teams.

You just keep muddling things in an effort to slam Garmin.

 

[GJB123]

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

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]

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?

I guess you should go and ask Ashenden. How is JV suppose to know any more than you or I who Ashenden was referring to?

 

[sniper]

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.

Evidently I don't. Which is why I am not claiming to know for a fact that Garmin are doping, yet JV and Millar (with equally little evidence) seem to know for a fact that Wiggo c.s. are clean.

In the absence of evidence in both directions, all we can do is read into the information available to us. When Benotti and others read into Ashenden's words as referring to Sky and Garmin, that is a perfectly plausible piece of reasoning, yet you're countering it as if it weren't a logical inference. It is (imo).

Knowing what we know about cycling, and looking at the available data (Weltz, Girona, White, Lim, Ashenden's comments, Wiggo 2009, Hesjedal 2012), I don't see why, here in the Clinic, we should treat Garmin as innocent until proven guilty? In the standard press and court rooms, ok, but in here? meh.

 

[sniper]

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.

admitted, you and pcgm have a good point in stressing the not-hiring-dodgy-doctors-policy of sky, which compels them to investigate leinders, whereas the reverse is true for Garmin vis-a-vis Weltz. And yes, JV telling him to cut the crap was a good thing.

But Weltz is not the central issue (we'te used to seeing dodgy figures at Garmin, so nothing new there). The central issue is that JV depends on, and actively proliferates, the view that sky are clean. why? He himself admitted Leinders at sky is "worrying".