JV talks, sort of

[Dear Wiggo]

No doubt, Benotti, Sniper, Mrs John and The Big r... eeh, Dear Wiggo will interpret this as JV playing the long con.

Long con? No. Remember Dr Prentice Steffen's email: perception = reality.

eg: Tyler thinks JV is genuis smart.
eg: Compare the total amount of pro-rider support Betsy received to JV doing anything in their direction. Kudos for doing anything but it's easy to stand out in a crowd of one. Remember: JV refused to allow his name to be published - just some random rider in support of Frankie. To outsiders it looks like "so what?" but to the insiders (Andreus) this is a massive difference to them. But 0 risk to JV. None whatsoever. IMO? No cost to JV.

So ... JV hated the doping culture. Then left the team and kept doping on a clean team. but hang about. He left for more money. Not coz he hated the doping culture. Note Legeay is anti-doping. But JV says "very little doping at CA". Not "no doping". Who else was doping there? Just him? He brought the doping? Not buying it. Voigt had better results (on paper) than JV during their years at CA and JV was still doping with a high natural Hct.

Here's what I don't understand in JV's confession: every other rider I read about was asking for or getting deliveries of EPO. On a regular basis. You have to keep it cold as soon as it is delivered or it spoils.

So JV, who left USPS to go to CA because they offered him more money (ie he was not getting paid too well at USPS) had so much expensive EPO left over that he had enough to use it on and off for the next 3 years? (JV admits upthread to doping in 2000, 2001 and 2002 at CA).

Here's a hint: http://wiki.medpedia.com/Erythropoietin_(Drug)

In contrast to small molecules that can be synthesized from relatively simple starting compounds and have virtually unlimited shelf-lives, Epo is large, complex (containing both protein and sugar molecules), cannot be made without the aid of living cells, and loses potency (strength) upon storage.

Puhlease.

Let me assure you, any EPO he used 3 years later was either bought new, or impotent. And JV is not dumb, he wouldn't inject himself with 3 year old EPO and trick himself into a placebo effect.

JV hated the "doping culture" but didn't mind the doping too much, it would seem.

But it's ok now, you know. The guy who was being needle-stabbed by his trainer in the forest as a junior when being trained and is claimed to know how to use a centrifuge and took it everywhere with him is now squeaky clean, and managed to either

1. beat a peloton of doped riders at the Giro squeaky clean (uh)
2. beat a peloton of squeaky clean riders at the Giro (uh wha!?)

including beating an 80kg Gustav Larsson TT machine in the final 34km TT where it was all about absolute power (31.5km in 34minutes is the clue there), and Larson was down 1:24 in the overall and the winner of the Giro was on the front for hilly stages doing all the work either chasing breaks back solo or riding guys off his wheel. At 72kg, that rider has to match Larsson's (80kg) power to match his time. ie he is doing 10% more W/kg in that TT. 10%. Not normal.

JV is adamant his boy is clean, even though he wasn't there to celebrate the Giro win. Even though the blood values during the Giro are weird (more to come on that). Even though there are gaping holes in the ABP off-season testing (more to come on that). JV can detect doping practices from a distance. Like. Telepathically.

Like in 2009, where he did not see or spend time with Wiggins yet is adamant Wiggins was clean for the Tour, coz like. He has remote doping detection equipment built in ya know.

Like now Dekker is going to lose 2kg of muscle and increase his absolute power (like Wiggins did in 2011/12), and apparently rode the Vuelta at 8% bodyfat.

Magic.

If you can fool the ABP with micro dosing EPO, trust me, you can fool Jonathan Vaughters.

If you hate something, you don't keep doing it.

Taking a stand for someone anonymously is a very safe way of showing support.

IMO: JV does not want clean cycling. He wants clean image cycling, where perception of clean is paramount. And a well-paid job for himself in the process.

 

[blackcat]

^ cant disagree with this post

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

JV/Garmin have no policy that is written down or can be seen, because they appear to look at each rider on a case by case basis. And having a policy on ex-dopers would be the height of hypocrisy by JV.

Well we don't actually know that because we've never had a clear answer from JV about riders outside of Millar, Dekker, JJ and his comments about the USP 3.

The next question would be - is a case by case approach appropriate and how do you work out the approach if you don't talk to the rider concerned about doping or do you just guess based on what you know?

Or what about new riders about whom very little might be known - ie Talansky - who lets be honest seems like a massive ****? An interesting case given his comments and support for Armstrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well we don't actually know that because we've never had a clear answer from JV about riders outside of Millar, Dekker, JJ and his comments about the USP 3.

Thats the point - you are looking for a clear answer. I doubt very much there is a clear answer or policy.

The next question would be - is a case by case approach appropriate and how do you work out the approach if you don't talk to the rider concerned about doping or do you just guess based on what you know?

Or what about new riders about whom very little might be known - ie Talansky - who lets be honest seems like a massive ****? An interesting case given his comments and support for Armstrong.

To the blue - how do you know that he does not talk to the riders?
JVs priority would be to ensure that riders are not doping on his team now regardless of their past.
Some guys he knows, and knows that they preferred not to dope (CVV,DZ) and someone like Dekker was required to chat to WADA.
Neo pro's - unless there is something compelling, then you can only do your own tests on them.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Thats the point - you are looking for a clear answer. I doubt very much there is a clear answer or policy.

How ... convenient.

 

[tofino]

NYtimes audio interview

NYtimes audio from yesterday. 15 minutes about half way down the page.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e-fair-one-former-armstrong-teammate-says-no/

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Thats the point - you are looking for a clear answer. I doubt very much there is a clear answer or policy.



To the blue - how do you know that he does not talk to the riders?
JVs priority would be to ensure that riders are not doping on his team now regardless of their past.
Some guys he knows, and knows that they preferred not to dope (CVV,DZ) and someone like Dekker was required to chat to WADA.
Neo pro's - unless there is something compelling, then you can only do your own tests on them.

Unless you are privy to Vaughter's mind how can you know? I've asked Vaughters if there is a policy and until such point as he says yes or no, we can't know what it is.

Vaughters himself indicated he did not talk to the USP 3 about doping at USP. When the issue of other riders have been discussed, others have argued that Vaughters would not have spoken to riders about their previous doping.

If it is a case by case approach - how do you develop your strategy if you never talk to the rider concerned? It seems a bit slapdash.

But again, the only person who can confirm is JV.

As for neo-pros - again - we don't know. What kind of tests re-doping/views on do neo-pros joining Garmin undergo? Do they undergo tests?

Again, only JV can answer the question, so we'll just have to wait for him to come back.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

No doubt, Benotti, Sniper, Mrs John and The Big r... eeh, Dear Wiggo will interpret this as JV playing the long con.

Considering who he's playing with (UCI vs Public Opinion/Perception), and the legacy of corruption and black-balling, how else could it be played?

I'm the biggest idealist out there (in terms of anti-doping), and even I can see how JV's gotta play the game.

I keep coming back to the point that at least he's been honest about his past, and has the nutular fortitude to show up here and duke it out in enemy territory.

Who else, in the upper echelons of cycling, has done that?

Might be only PR. But it's PR I can live with, especially after the swamp of half-truths that we've been flooded with..

 

[Tinman]

I'm the biggest idealist out there (in terms of anti-doping), and even I can see how JV's gotta play the game.

I'm with you (benefit of the doubt). For me bigger immediate urgent fish to fry. Like UCI complicity in all of this. And the team Sky lie. And the Livestrong lie. Those are the 3 issues that need broader awareness over the next week.

Otherwise history is likely to repeat.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I keep coming back to the point that at least he's been honest about his past,

Disagree entirely.

Only doped a few times in 2000-2002 with stuff he had left over?

He has been as ambiguous as he possible can about his past.

 

[skidmark]

Disagree entirely.

Only doped a few times in 2000-2002 with stuff he had left over?

He has been as ambiguous as he possible can about his past.

Didn't he reply in the "JV talks" thread a few days ago with specific races that he doped for in the CA period? Was that not specific?

Also, where did you get the info that he left for CA for more money? I've seen you write that a few times, but have never heard it before. Seriously, not being facetious, there are just so many threads going on right now that I could have missed where that info is. And since a central point of yours seems to be that he was motivated by money, I'm curious what the difference in salary might have been.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Also, where did you get the info that he left for CA for more money? I've seen you write that a few times, but have never heard it before. Seriously, not being facetious, there are just so many threads going on right now that I could have missed where that info is. And since a central point of yours seems to be that he was motivated by money, I'm curious what the difference in salary might have been.

Sometimes I speak from a point of intuition or empathy, but this is pulled right from JV's affidavit.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JV+Vaughters+Jonathan+Affidavit.pdf

Maybe he left coz LA and JB were not "fighting for him to stay", but the money angle in the end is what counts. IMO of course.

 

[sniper]

(...) snipped for brevity.

I'm not sure why certain (obviously not unclever) posters seem so eager to give Garmin the benefit of the doubt, even though lots of things are and have been happening that a clean Garmin cannot account for (as you've just brilliantly pointed out with this post).

I'd say, be a bit more cautious, as we've been fooled twice already, but nope, Betsy says amen, and thus all is good. We can believe in the new era again. (ah, and the clean era started already in 2006, how could we have missed it?)

And it's funny how some of the same posters seem to agree that Wiggins being clean is an unlikelihood. Yet a clean Wiggo is one of the central pillars of JV's talk about a clean era and marginal gains.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Didn't he reply in the "JV talks" thread a few days ago with specific races that he doped for in the CA period? Was that not specific?

I don't see how any of this is inconsistent? I was struggling with what to do in those years. Team was clean. I was not, always. Paris-Nice in 2000 was clean...dauphine 2000 was not.

This isn't all so simple that you can just use a binary yes/no equation. I drifted back and forth. Then finally quit.

Back and forth implies more than one race.

there's actually detail that isn't even in the affidavit, that i told usada... there's just only so much stuff that is relevant.

Relevant to what? USADA's case is LA. Not relevant to USADA's case?

Yes, that's all correct. Legeay did say that and I had some great results with him, clean, but there were other times when I was not clean. Hence my story above, but that doesn't mean i didn't totally freak myself out doing that and quit for the rest of 2001.

Your only reading it as inconsistent as I never went into super detail publicly. And don't really intend to, as there's nothing I can do about it. Well...except make sure it doesn't happen in my team.

Times (plural). Quit for the rest of 2001 ... buuuut....

Ahhh... Yeah, last time I doped was 2002. But yeah, there were a few instances that I doped in between USPS and the end of my career. 2001, when I won a flat TT in the Dauphine beating David Millar....should have won the whole race, but I freaked out about maybe testing positive and blew up in the alps due to lack of sleep!!! and being a nervous wreck!

Few instances. Progression is single (1) instance, couple (2) of instances, few (n) instances.

Not sure what inconsistencies you're seeing? I don't see any. I mean, my interviews were never as detailed as the affidavit, but that's normal.

Interviews are vague. Affidavit is detailed. But wait, there's more, coz the affidavit is not exhaustive:

What JV has said is not specific at all. It's not a list of races. So far we have "few times" but only one race. We have 2000, 2001 and 2002 doping, but using left over dope from 1999:

I can tell you now, it wasn't left over EPO he used in 2002.

Finally: how does he make sure it doesn't happen in his team? Not at the Giro this year makes it very hard to enforce the "no doping" mantra, surely?

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

Finally: how does he make sure it doesn't happen in his team? Not at the Giro this year makes it very hard to enforce the "no doping" mantra, surely?

He hires guys like Matt White

 

[AcademyCC]

I'm with you (benefit of the doubt). For me bigger immediate urgent fish to fry. Like UCI complicity in all of this. And the team Sky lie. And the Livestrong lie. Those are the 3 issues that need broader awareness over the next week.

Otherwise history is likely to repeat.

Im in this camp. The doubters are so militant about 100% clean that they keep raising questions about the only source we have that is willing to at least project a clean image. Wake up guys, we are in a world that 100% clean is just not possible. We have to deal with the real problems first ie: proper facilitators and dopers then somewhere down the line can get onto the fine detail. Having a go at Garmin at the minute is stupid.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Unless you are privy to Vaughter's mind how can you know? I've asked Vaughters if there is a policy and until such point as he says yes or no, we can't know what it is.

I am not privy and never claimed to be - but if you have asked something on more than one occasion and he did not point towards a policy, then it probably does not exist.

Vaughters himself indicated he did not talk to the USP 3 about doping at USP. When the issue of other riders have been discussed, others have argued that Vaughters would not have spoken to riders about their previous doping.

If it is a case by case approach - how do you develop your strategy if you never talk to the rider concerned? It seems a bit slapdash.

But again, the only person who can confirm is JV.

As for neo-pros - again - we don't know. What kind of tests re-doping/views on do neo-pros joining Garmin undergo? Do they undergo tests?

Again, only JV can answer the question, so we'll just have to wait for him to come back.

Where has JV said that he did not talk to the USPS guys about doping?
I would find that completely unlikely - now he may not have tied them to a chair or waterboarded them for exact details of every instance they doped, but he would certainly know what went on.


JV doped, he lived in that environment and knows how it works - I would say his BS detector would be very sensitive.

 

[hrotha]

Im in this camp. The doubters are so militant about 100% clean that they keep raising questions about the only source we have that is willing to at least project a clean image. Wake up guys, we are in a world that 100% clean is just not possible. We have to deal with the real problems first ie: proper facilitators and dopers then somewhere down the line can get onto the fine detail. Having a go at Garmin at the minute is stupid.

Transparency requires scrutiny. I'm sure that JV, when he gets over the irritation caused by some less thoughtful questions, welcomes the probing.

Also, we keep asking about Garmin for two reasons. One, as a team marketed heavily on being clean, they should be held to higher standards. Two, we might already get an answer to the questions we ask.

 

[Tinman]

I'm with you (benefit of the doubt). For me bigger immediate urgent fish to fry.

Let me clarify MY position.

There is so much content here with so many links/connections that I cannot keep up. I value the opinion of several JV critics here hugely, but I cannot evaluate at this stage the veracity of their arguments. My focus at the moment is on other issues, team Sky and UCI mainly. Hence my personal "benefit of doubt". I value JV's effort at dialogue, I cannot assess whether he is taking me for a ride or not. Benefit of doubt. I respect others may be way ahead of me.

The more I read and sleuth, the more JV doesn't come out well. Even since I posted earlier. Just posted on early Yates/Weltz connections on the Sky thread. JV clearly also in there with Weltz questions remaining.

 

[AcademyCC]

Transparency requires scrutiny. I'm sure that JV, when he gets over the irritation caused by some less thoughtful questions, welcomes the probing.

Also, we keep asking about Garmin for two reasons. One, as a team marketed heavily on being clean, they should be held to higher standards. Two, we might already get an answer to the questions we ask.

Yep I realized that deficiency in my argument as soon as I posted. Still have issues myself. Just think we need to focus on more prevalent points at the minute. Its just such a mess, we need JV to be in their trying to fight against Pat/Hein etc.

My thoughts are null and void if he's taking us for a ride. I'm putting my trust in him for the time being. If it turns out Garmin are dirty as well that will be it for me. No more pro cycling.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Im in this camp. The doubters are so militant about 100% clean that they keep raising questions about the only source we have that is willing to at least project a clean image. Wake up guys, we are in a world that 100% clean is just not possible. We have to deal with the real problems first ie: proper facilitators and dopers then somewhere down the line can get onto the fine detail. Having a go at Garmin at the minute is stupid.

Yes. Let's settle for 10% clean. It's not possible to be 11% clean. 10% it is. Oh look. We're already there. Clean GT winners!! Clean teams!!

Everyone go home. We're done.

 

[AcademyCC]

Yes. Let's settle for 10% clean. It's not possible to be 11% clean. 10% it is. Oh look. We're already there. Clean GT winners!! Clean teams!!

Everyone go home. We're done.

I get what your saying. In a perfect world - yes lets make sure everyone is clean. Do you not think at the minute that's a bit unrealistic?

Again its such a mess their is no way we can hope for 100% clean straight away, its going to be a process.... that may take some time.

We've got to work with what we've got.

 

[racyrichuk]

Hi all. I've been reading this forum for years but never posted before, so here goes.
I happen to have a mate who was on the Tour of Britain this year. As anyone who's ever been on a stage race will tell you, the night stages are the hardest and relinquish the best gossip and insights.
Here's some gossip from recently retired Garmin rider Roger Hammond, who was DS there for a UK Conti-level team. You may wish to call it hearsay as it's secondhand. Much like half the Armstrong report is!

To their credit, several Garmin riders were less than impressed at the hiring of Dekker and called JV to moan and get an explanation as to why a clean team would hire a doper. His glib and dismissive response: 'I like ambition'. Taken to mean he admires dopers as they demonstrate they'll go the extra mile to succeed. Charming.

Second point. The Armstrong furore was obviously in full swing at the time in September. Hammond was naturally asked what he knew of doping at Disco, and said, quite believably, he saw and heard nothing and it was never suggested he should dope himself. But...... he was aware of doping at Garmin! No details forthcoming. Even drunk he knew when to shut up!

Make of all that what you will.

 

[webvan]

Yeah, hearsay from a guy who was drunk? Maybe he was being ironic? He might as well have not said anything about being aware of "doping at Garmin".

So what's that "more is coming" stuff from Hesjedal suspicious blood results at the Giro? Why pick on Hesjedal because he beat Larsson when he beat him by a mere 5 seconds when 5 other guys beat them and the winner was 1 minutes ahead...oh and Larsson had a bad fall a few days before.

I'm the biggest doubter out there and I called the Armstrong cheating the day of the 1999 prologue, but I'm amazed how people will just step in and write about the "Sky lie" or accuse Hesjedal of being doped with zero to show for it apart from some hatred, seemingly against those who win or who preach, which I can understand for the latter but that shouldn't give way to baseless accusations, this is silly and discredits anything else they have to say really.

 

[peterst6906]

...One, as a team marketed heavily on being clean, they should be held to higher standards...

All teams and all riders should be held to the same standard - clean.

To imply that a team that doesn't claim to be clean can be held to lower standards is backwards to me. Hold them all to the same standard and scrutinise them all equally.