JV talks, sort of

[Benotti69]

I just came here to ask the same thing.

John Swanson

It is why I have big doubts about Vaughters and his true motives, the fact that he is prepared to deal with such people who are the major problem in cycling in its current guise why would I believe they are part of the solution for clean cycling.

 

[thehog]

It is why I have big doubts about Vaughters and his true motives, the fact that he is prepared to deal with such people who are the major problem in cycling in its current guise why would I believe they are part of the solution for clean cycling.

I'm a big fan of the breakaway league.

 

[sniper]

Sky and Garmin are (as far as i am aware) still the only two teams with a medical/sports science program.
Sky and Garmin are (correct me if i'm wrong) the only two teams with pro-active anti-doping programs.

I still haven't heard JV's thoughts on which specific teams he thinks Ashenden was referring to.

originally posted by Ashenden: Despite the self-serving data bending and associated propaganda to the contrary, I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated dopers even within ‘new age’ cycling teams.

What other teams than Sky and/or Garmin would fit the description?
(serious question)

 

[JV1973]

Everyone:

I will try and get to these questions, but it isn't going to be for a few weeks, as i am getting married on Oct 7th.
I appreciate the curiosity and level of knowledge that these questions have embedded, so I'm not ignoring them. I just don't have time to deal with it right now.

Thanks, JV

 

[my username is flish]

Congrats dude

 

[GJB123]

Sky and Garmin are (as far as i am aware) still the only two teams with a medical/sports science program.
Sky and Garmin are (correct me if i'm wrong) the only two teams with pro-active anti-doping programs.

I still haven't heard JV's thoughts on which specific teams he thinks Ashenden was referring to.


What other teams than Sky and/or Garmin would fit the description?
(serious question)

Why don't you drop Ashenden an e-mail? Everything else is mere speculation and therefore inherently quite useless however informed the speculation may be. And how likely do you think its is that JV will say that MA refers to Garmin. He already indicated he doesn't give a fnck about Sky and just hopes they are indeed clean.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

Why don't you drop Ashenden an e-mail? Everything else is mere speculation and therefore inherently quite useless however informed the speculation may be. And how likely do you think its is that JV will say that MA refers to Garmin. He already indicated he doesn't give a fnck about Sky and just hopes they are indeed clean.

Regards
GH

yep, let's drop everything that puts Garmin in a bad daylight.
after all, their DS is getting married soon. (NB: did he really need to post that here? surely not an attempt to silence his criticasters, is it?)

note that if Ashenden's predictions are only half true, speculation will be all we can practice here in the clinic, as there will be (a) very few positives, (b) a lot of clean-cycling propaganda, (c) a lot of data bending, and (d) a whole lot of well organized, highly sophisticated dopers out there.
nice prospects.

 

[GJB123]

yep, let's drop everything that puts Garmin in a bad daylight.
after all, their DS is getting married soon. (NB: did he really need to post that here? surely not an attempt to silence his criticasters, is it?)

note that if Ashenden's predictions are only half true, speculation will be all we can practice here in the clinic, as there will be (a) very few positives, (b) a lot of clean-cycling propaganda, (c) a lot of data bending, and (d) a whole lot of well organized, highly sophisticated dopers out there.
nice prospects.

Still I have heard no reason whatsoever why you wouldn't go straight to the horse's mouth, rather thhan calling out DS's who may be implicated. But then again that would spoil half the fun, wouldn't it?

Regards
GJ

 

[Dr. Maserati]

yep, let's drop everything that puts Garmin in a bad daylight.
after all, their DS is getting married soon. (NB: did he really need to post that here? surely not an attempt to silence his criticasters, is it?)

note that if Ashenden's predictions are only half true, speculation will be all we can practice here in the clinic, as there will be (a) very few positives, (b) a lot of clean-cycling propaganda, (c) a lot of data bending, and (d) a whole lot of well organized, highly sophisticated dopers out there.
nice prospects.

I was going to make a joke that some here will say that it shows how desperate JV is to uphold Omertà that he will go off and get married to avoid questions.
Then sniper comes along.

You took a few days off to lick your wounds And now come back to repeat nonsense that you already asked, and have had answered.

Why on earth would Ashenden have any idea? He's presented with a few anomalous passport cases a year and is asked to render opinion on them. What does this have to do with a dark era continuing or not?

Sorry, but while I respect Michael and our doctors have a good working relationship with him, I don't think he's qualified to make an overarching judgement on professional cycling's current state.

I also think you are focusing on comments of his and creating your own context. Michael is ****ed at the UCI, as many of us are. That's where his venom is aimed. I seriously doubt he would have much negative to say about Garmin if directly asked.

I am arguing with a Stop sign, I know. Need to stop.

 

[sniper]

Still I have heard no reason whatsoever why you wouldn't go straight to the horse's mouth, rather thhan calling out DS's who may be implicated. But then again that would spoil half the fun, wouldn't it?

Regards
GJ

The reason I repeated ashenden's comment is that two days ago somebody (somebody without any interest in doping, nota bene) told me that sky and garmin are the only teams with a dedicated sports medical science program (don't recall the exact term he used). I've been too lazy to check it, but in any case it was news to me, and it put the ashenden comments about 'highly sophisticated' and 'organized' doping in a new daylight; a correlation between one and the other is not difficult to see.

Add to that the 'data bending' and 'propaganda', and you have a perfect match between Garmin/JV and Ashenden's reference.
I'm not saying this to annoy JV or any of his believers. It's an objective observation.

The only thing JV has said in here is that he doesn't think Ashenden is qualified to make such calls. But whether he is or isn't, that's a different question.
My question is more basic: which teams was ashenden referring to?
And please note that it's an earnest question: could there be other teams than Sky and Garmin that fit the description?

 

[sniper]

I was going to make a joke that some here will say that it shows how desperate JV is to uphold Omertà that he will go off and get married to avoid questions.
Then sniper comes along.

You took a few days off to lick your wounds And now come back to repeat nonsense that you already asked, and have had answered.

Doc! Good to see you man.
Thought you would have me on ignore by now. Seems i was wrong and underestimated you yet again.
Anyway, you are commenting on something that was between brackets, i.e. off topic.

 

[sniper]

come back to repeat nonsense that you already asked, and have had answered.

I asked which teams ashenden was referring to, and whether it could be teams other than sky and garmin. how was that answered? (rethorical question)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I asked which teams ashenden was referring to, and whether it could be teams other than sky and garmin. how was that answered?
do NOT misinterpret me. instead, try to identify where your eyes are located, then try to open them, and then read.

Just for you:
Edit- just spotted your edit. You might want stick by what you write.

Sky and Garmin are (as far as i am aware) still the only two teams with a medical/sports science program.
Sky and Garmin are (correct me if i'm wrong) the only two teams with pro-active anti-doping programs.

I still haven't heard JV's thoughts on which specific teams he thinks Ashenden was referring to.


What other teams than Sky and/or Garmin would fit the description?
(serious question)

 

[131313]

I asked which teams ashenden was referring to, and whether it could be teams other than sky and garmin. how was that answered?
do NOT misinterpret me. instead, try to identify where your eyes are located, then try to open them, and then read.

why don't you contact Ashenden and ask him? Is Vaughters a mind reader as well? My guess (strictly a guess) is that his comment is targeted at Sky specifically, but he used the plural form to make the comment seem more ambiguous. Frankly, I don't think Garmin's race results and performance really draw huge red flags. OK, they won the Giro, and any GT win is suspect by definition. Besides that? Not much.

Again, this is simply my interpretation. If you really want to know, contact Ashenden. He's not hard to reach. Of course, if your true motivation is simply to use this to slam Garmin, then carry on...

 

[sniper]

Just for you:

a gift? thanks man.

 

[sniper]

why don't you contact Ashenden and ask him? Is Vaughters a mind reader as well? My guess (strictly a guess) is that his comment is targeted at Sky specifically, but he used the plural form to make the comment seem more ambiguous. Frankly, I don't think Garmin's race results and performance really draw huge red flags. OK, they won the Giro, and any GT win is suspect by definition. Besides that? Not much.

Again, this is simply my interpretation. If you really want to know, contact Ashenden. He's not hard to reach. Of course, if your true motivation is simply to use this to slam Garmin, then carry on...

Well put. This was one of my thoughts as well. (but couldn't put it into words.)
Indeed the plural here seems to have that pragmatic effect for Ashenden not to come across as specifically accusing Sky.

No, its not to slam Garmin. I couldn't care less about Garmin. (well, not more or less then about any other team, that is)
As I said earlier, my earnest curiosity is which other teams than Sky and Garmin would fit the description?
I think that is an interesting question. For instance, are there other teams with a sports medical science program, or are Sky and Garmin really the only two?

 

[armchairclimber]

Well put. This was one of my thoughts as well. (but couldn't put it into words.)
Indeed the plural here seems to have that pragmatic effect for Ashenden not to come across as specifically accusing Sky.

No, its not to slam Garmin. I couldn't care less about Garmin. (well, not more or less then about any other team, that is)
As I said earlier, my earnest curiosity is which other teams than Sky and Garmin would fit the description?
I think that is an interesting question. For instance, are there other teams with a sports medical science program, or are Sky and Garmin really the only two?

Here's a thought...you want to win the tour clean. You have massive resources. What kind of programme might you initiate? Maybe a sports medical science programme? It's probably what I'd be looking at doing. I might call it something else but, in essence, I'd want the best sports science and medical advice at the disposal of my coaching team.

 

[sniper]

Here's a thought...you want to win the tour clean. You have massive resources. What kind of programme might you initiate? Maybe a sports medical science programme? It's probably what I'd be looking at doing. I might call it something else but, in essence, I'd want the best sports science and medical advice at the disposal of my coaching team.

well, yeah, which is why i was slightly surprised to learn sky and garmin are, apparently, the only teams implementing a scientific medical program.
certainly they are not the only teams with money.

 

[Benotti69]

The reason I repeated ashenden's comment is that two days ago somebody (somebody without any interest in doping, nota bene) told me that sky and garmin are the only teams with a dedicated sports medical science program (don't recall the exact term he used). I've been too lazy to check it, but in any case it was news to me, and it put the ashenden comments about 'highly sophisticated' and 'organized' doping in a new daylight; a correlation between one and the other is not difficult to see.

Add to that the 'data bending' and 'propaganda', and you have a perfect match between Garmin/JV and Ashenden's reference.
I'm not saying this to annoy JV or any of his believers. It's an objective observation.

The only thing JV has said in here is that he doesn't think Ashenden is qualified to make such calls. But whether he is or isn't, that's a different question.
My question is more basic: which teams was ashenden referring to?
And please note that it's an earnest question: could there be other teams than Sky and Garmin that fit the description?

I have been thinking about Vaughter's comment that Ashenden isn't qualified to make such a call.

Well what was Ashenden doing for the UCI if not examining biopassports?

Did Ashenden not examine the biopassports of the pro peloton and examine certain riders that passports had anomolies and if so were some of them Garmin riders that Garmin may not even know about?

Why would Ashenden make such a statement about the dark era having a new guise if he did not know something.

If i was the DS of a 'clean' team i would be worried that the sport was not getting cleaner and that means it would be harder to win races and keep the team going. But nah just dismiss it out of hand. What would a leading anti doping scientist know?

 

[Benotti69]

Here's a thought...you want to win the tour clean. You have massive resources. What kind of programme might you initiate? Maybe a sports medical science programme? It's probably what I'd be looking at doing. I might call it something else but, in essence, I'd want the best sports science and medical advice at the disposal of my coaching team.

Maybe the Mapei Centre rings a bell?

Maybe Aldo Sassi rings a bell?

Yeah like Garmin and Sky are the only teams that do sports science, that also ride unicorns at high altitute as part of their training.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

well, yeah, which is why i was slightly surprised to learn sky and garmin are, apparently, the only teams implementing a scientific medical program.
certainly they are not the only teams with money.

So- someone said that Garmin & Sky have a "scientific medical program".
You have no idea what they are even talking about, let alone if it's true.

Why don't you question whoever made that claim, before you go off and start acting all surprised that they are "apparently" the only teams doing so....
Or do you wish to cut straight to it and suggest this must be the teamS Ashenden was on about?

 

[sniper]

I have been thinking about Vaughter's comment that Ashenden isn't qualified to make such a call.

Well what was Ashenden doing for the UCI if not examining biopassports?

Did Ashenden not examine the biopassports of the pro peloton and examine certain riders that passports had anomolies and if so were some of them Garmin riders that Garmin may not even know about?

Why would Ashenden make such a statement about the dark era having a new guise if he did not know something.

If i was the DS of a 'clean' team i would be worried that the sport was not getting cleaner and that means it would be harder to win races and keep the team going. But nah just dismiss it out of hand. What would a leading anti doping scientist know?

this.

Garmin-believers should ask themselves: even if Ashenden only implied Sky, how would it reflect on JV's credibility if Sky turns out to be a sophisticated, well-organized team of dopers?
JV can state he doesn't care about Sky (as he did a few days ago here in the clinic), but that doesn't change the fact that he's been very pro-active in selling Sky as clean winners of the Tour. if Wiggo would turn out to be a doper (and Ashenden seems to think he is), imo one conclusion would be that JV has been selling us bags of crap.

If i was the DS of a 'clean' team i would be worried that the sport was not getting cleaner and that means it would be harder to win races and keep the team going. But nah just dismiss it out of hand. What would a leading anti doping scientist know?

if the perception is bad already, the reality must really stink.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

this.

Garmin-believers should ask themselves: even if Ashenden only implied Sky, how would it reflect on JV's credibility if Sky turns out to be a sophisticated, well-organized team of dopers?
JV can state he doesn't care about Sky (as he did a few days ago here in the clinic), but that doesn't change the fact that he's been very pro-active in selling Sky as clean winners of the Tour. if Wiggo would turn out to be a doper (and Ashenden seems to think he is), imo one conclusion would be that JV has been selling us bags of crap.

if the perception is bad already, the reality must really stink.

Oh good - you finally decided to contact Ashenden and he confirmed that it was Wiggins and Sky after all.
Can you post your correspondence with him - I am sure he wont mind as you have offered his thoughts here already.
Thanks

 

[Krebs cycle]

The reason I repeated ashenden's comment is that two days ago somebody (somebody without any interest in doping, nota bene) told me that sky and garmin are the only teams with a dedicated sports medical science program (don't recall the exact term he used). I've been too lazy to check it, but in any case it was news to me, and it put the ashenden comments about 'highly sophisticated' and 'organized' doping in a new daylight; a correlation between one and the other is not difficult to see.

Add to that the 'data bending' and 'propaganda', and you have a perfect match between Garmin/JV and Ashenden's reference.
I'm not saying this to annoy JV or any of his believers. It's an objective observation.

The only thing JV has said in here is that he doesn't think Ashenden is qualified to make such calls. But whether he is or isn't, that's a different question.
My question is more basic: which teams was ashenden referring to?
And please note that it's an earnest question: could there be other teams than Sky and Garmin that fit the description?

There are several points in here that are worth considering. For starters, if one is looking for a doping explanation they will find it no matter what Ashenden says. Secondly, Ashenden is not explicitly referring to sport science programs, but is referring to sophisticated/organized "doping programs". These are not the same thing and the former does not imply the latter. Many teams have had sophisticated and organized doping programs in the absence of sport science programs. He also says "pockets" which means that he is basically admitting that the problem is not widespread.

Thirdly, here we have another example of the usual inconsistency or paradoxical collective reasoning that exists in the clinic.... if Sky are the only team with a sport science program, that could potentially give them a performance advantage (without doping). I asked this question elsewhere and I was promptly beaten down with a sarcastic wet trout by several posters who claim that every pro cycling team is on the cutting edge of sport science. If that were true, then according to your interpretation, it would imply that Ashenden's comments could refer to any pro team, hence not the exclusive perfect match you are looking for.

When Ashenden says "new age", my take on that is the big changes in sponsorship/branding that have occurred and along with that change has come "propaganda" which is basically just them saying, we are a new team with a new sponsor, we doped in the past but those days are over. Again, everyone in this forum likes to cite "doping history" as a reason to be suspicious so why would you ignore the doping history of many current teams and/or re-badged teams when interpreting Ashenden's comments, but focus solely on two teams that don't actually have any history of doping scandal whatsoever? They don't have that history because they're not really "new age" at all, they're just new.

The entire problem with this forum is that due to the dope-centric bias (which I understand stems from a doping scandalous history), pretty much everything gets interpreted as code language for doping. If any DS or manager or cyclist from any pro team takes a strong anti-doping stance then it is "propaganda". If they remain silent on the subject it is "omerta".

Ashenden uses the term "pockets". Rob Parisotto and Olaf Schumacher stated several years ago "the gap has narrowed". Aldo Sassi says he believed cycling was getting cleaner. The average times and performances up HC and cat 1 climbs for the top 10 are minutes slower than they were 5-10yrs ago. USADA put the entire pro tour on notice when it basically said, we don't care how long it takes, we will pursue justice. Why does everyone believe so strongly that nothing has changed?

 

[Willy_Voet]

If any DS or manager or cyclist from any pro team takes a strong anti-doping stance then it is "propaganda". If they remain silent on the subject it is "omerta".

Oh come off it you doping apologist!