JV talks, sort of

[Arnout]

Hi all. I've been reading this forum for years but never posted before, so here goes.
I happen to have a teammate who works, in a non-cycling capacity, for a major UK cycling sponsor. Luckily for him he gets to be a guest and sponsor representative on the Tour of Britain every 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.

Hey Lance. What do people say to you in the supermarket?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

When setting goals, there's a saying (my version): aim for the stars and miss, and you might hit the moon. Aim lower, for the moon say, and miss, and you're doing a reentry burn at 5000km/hr and disintegrating on impact.

Start at 100%. Always.

 

[hrotha]

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.

Garmin get extra exposure and support due to their stated anti-doping policy. Antidoping authorities shouldn't pay more attention to them than to other teams, but the public and the media are entitled to do it.

 

[sniper]

...
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.

certainly not uninteresting.
not that anyone except for the Garmin fanboys should be surprised, of course.

 

[sniper]

Hey Lance. What do people say to you in the supermarket?

Nah, Lance has other things to worry about, me thinks. or do you think he's trolling?
wouldn't lance be more effective in smearing Garmin?

To me both those rumors sound credible. Both wouldn't come as a surprise.
Though of course there is not much one can conclude or learn from them. I think even the more stubborn JV defenders would agree that not each and every single rider at garmin is clean.

 

[sniper]

Hi all. I've been reading this forum for years but never posted before, so here goes.
I happen to have a teammate who works, in a non-cycling capacity, for a major UK cycling sponsor. Luckily for him he gets to be a guest and sponsor representative on the Tour of Britain every 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.

interesting.

would you happen to have any names of the garmin rider(s) hammond referred to? or any suspicions yourself?

 

[Arnout]

Nah, Lance has other things to worry about, me thinks. or do you think he's trolling?
wouldn't lance be more effective in smearing Garmin?

To me both those rumors sound credible. Both wouldn't come as a surprise.
Though of course there is not much one can conclude or learn from them. I think even the more stubborn JV defenders would agree that not each and every single rider at garmin is clean.

Oh come on we aren't gonna take someone seriously who has a friend who has a friend, casually dismissing the USADA report as hearsay before uttering a weird story about a team Lance said he would hurt.

No, I don't think it is Armstrong (would be funny) but I think it is desperate to believe this guy.

 

[argyllflyer]

As noted elsewhere, the doping on USPS was pretty much contained to individuals doing their own thing (Leipheimer affadavit) unless riding in Lance's Tour club. As a classics rider, Hammond wasn't part of it and did not ever ride the Tour.

 

[sniper]

Oh come on we aren't gonna take someone seriously who has a friend who has a friend, casually dismissing the USADA report as hearsay before uttering a weird story about a team Lance said he would hurt.

No, I don't think it is Armstrong (would be funny) but I think it is desperate to believe this guy.

The detail about riders complaining to JV about hiring Dekker, it would be odd to make that up. That's credible to me. But well, this second comment. I guess it could be a gratuitious attempt to smear Garmin. Or not...
Anyway, let's see if he posts again.

 

[sniper]

Oh come on we aren't gonna take someone seriously who has a friend who has a friend, casually dismissing the USADA report as hearsay before uttering a weird story about a team Lance said he would hurt.

No, I don't think it is Armstrong (would be funny) but I think it is desperate to believe this guy.

Agreed, now that i think of it. Indeed he implicitly dismisses the usada file and makes sure to mention that Hammond hadn't seen any doping on USPS.
That first detail on the riders calling JV to complain about him hiring Dekker sounds credible. The rest could be smearing. Anyway, he'll probably won't post again.

 

[GJB123]

Really? You really think it is strange that Garmin hired a convicted doper? Geebus, JV himself doped and he has made it abundantly clear both verbally and by his actions that he will hire riders that he knows have doped (irrespective of whether that is known in the public domain) if he feels they could also perform clean. So what's all the brooha about hiring Dekker about?

 

[cocteau_ireland]

http://t.co/ecTOtei0 . This is brilliantly clever from vaughters; oh and insanely tragic.

 

[sniper]

Really? You really think it is strange that Garmin hired a convicted doper? Geebus, JV himself doped and he has made it abundantly clear both verbally and by his actions that he will hire riders that he knows have doped (irrespective of whether that is known in the public domain) if he feels they could also perform clean. So what's all the brooha about hiring Dekker about?

no broohah.
we were merely discussing whether that poster racyrichuk was a credible insider or a trolling troll. we concluded it's probably the latter.

 

[Argyle_Fan]

I am removing numerous of my posts as I do not consider myself very well informed and I feel that I am adding little to the discussion.

 

[Argyle_Fan]

I am removing numerous of my posts as I do not consider myself very well informed and I feel that I am adding little to the discussion.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vau...hould-not-have-turned-its-back-on-hodge-white

White was dismissed by Vaughters’ Garmin team in January 2011 because he contravened the team's strict anti-doping and medical referral rules when he sent Trent Lowe to Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral. Vaughters explained to the ABC that the decision to sack White came down to the Australian’s "poor judgement" rather than his own offences while riding, which Vaughters was unaware of.

"But I would never fire him, or even consider it, for what he did before," Vaughters explained. "Because his stance as far as anti-doping was concerned was always very clear, in that he acknowledged that he did it to me privately and to the riders privately as well."

White's anti-doping stance:

To team manager: I doped and got away with it.
To riders: I doped and got away with it.

 

[onimod]

http://t.co/ecTOtei0 . This is brilliantly clever from vaughters; oh and insanely tragic.

a bit too smart to be a cyclist really
alternatively - how thick were the rest of the USPS outfit?

 

[Benotti69]

So JV after today, why dont you give Floyd Landis a job?

His contribution in bringing the downfall of 5 major problems in the sport deserve to be rewarded with job in cycling. More so than White!

 

[thirteen]

So JV after today, why dont you give Floyd Landis a job?

His contribution in bringing the downfall of 5 major problems in the sport deserve to be rewarded with job in cycling. More so than White!

+1

i've been wondering the same thing myself...

 

[Argyle_Fan]

Hello JV - a rather difficult/awkward question for you now (sorry...):

* In early July, you and your riders denied Dutch press reports of ‘delayed 6-month bans in the off-season’.
* Was your denial in fact a true statement (see below for why I believe it may well not have been)?
* If not, then why did you deny the report?
* Was USADA complicit in this untruth?
* Were the riders in fact given some kind of say by the governing bodies re. when their own bans started? (See below for why I think this might have been the case.)

On 5th July, you moved quickly to deny reports that your riders had been given ‘delayed 6-month bans in the off-season’.
( http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-no-slipstream-sports-usada-suspensions )
JV: "Regarding the Dutch media report: no 6mos (sic) suspensions have been given to any member of Slipstream Sports. Today or at any future date."

But it turns out that there were in fact delayed 6-month bans during the off-season, agreed presumably around mid-June. For example, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/s...one-rider-at-a-time.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
“Among the final witnesses was Hincapie, one of the most respected riders in cycling. Antidoping officials met with him in June, just days before the antidoping agency notified Armstrong of his potential doping violation.
When Hincapie confessed and said Armstrong had doped and encouraged it, the antidoping agency knew it had its case. Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde and Zabriskie agreed to take their names out of consideration for the Olympics. They and Danielson agreed to a six-month suspension that would begin Sept. 1, after the cycling season.“
This quote from the above article implies that your riders were in fact aware then that they would have delayed 6-month bans. This would have presumably been in mid-June - sometime between 13th June when Armstrong was formally charged, and 17th June, when it was reported that the 4 US riders had withdrawn their names from consideration from the Olympics. One would assume that the discussion regarding these future bans would have occurred around the same time as all of that. But, on 5th July, you denied the existence of these bans.

Questions for JV:
* Was your statement that no suspensions had been given ‘technically’ correct in early July - i.e. it had been discussed/agreed conceptually/informally, but no formal bans had as then been issued? (The bans were only applied from 1st/9th/10th Sept and were only formally announced on 11th Oct).
* So why did you deny something which you presumably knew to be true? A few suggestions:
(1) This was done by agreement with USADA. e.g. avoid bad PR re. the ‘delayed-ban’ concept?. For example, even as of 10th Oct, USA cycling said that they were unaware of the bans:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ders-from-usada-case-not-yet-suspended_256602 , so presumably USADA was in on this (possibly also USA Cycling).
(2) You and/or USADA did not wish to compromise the USADA investigation.
(3) Bad PR? I do think it was forgivable, since confirming this story would have done nothing for cycling except create more completely unnecessary sensationalistic headlines, somewhat damaging cycling as well as your own team. And you did know then that it would all be coming out at a more appropriate time anyway.
(4) The riders had not had sufficient time to prepare themselves emotionally for the fallout, so you took the ‘pragmatic’ route?
* Why were the riders informed (presumably before the start of Sept when the bans were retroactively announced to have started) before USA cycling (who denied any bans as of Oct 10th, or were they just lying for some reason?) Would USA cycling potentially not have agreed with the ‘delayed ban’ concept?
* Are there any precedents for 'delayed doping bans in the off-season'? It does appear that USADA wished to give the absolute minimal type of ban technically possible within its pre-stated rules. Is it allowable within WADA's rules? (Or do the rules just say nothing about that, and a 'forgiving' interpretation was chosen?)
* I notice that 4 of the bans start on 1st Sept, but CVdV’s ban starts on 9th Sept and Michael Barry’s on 10th Sept. This does seem rather inexplicable, given the timeline involved. It suggests to me that the riders were given some kind of choice/input as to when their bans started? Is this true? Perhaps you could let us know which races CVdV took part in between 1st-8th Sept? (Does anyone know this info for Michael Barry?) Is there any precedent in anti-doping for riders to be given a choice as to when their bans start?
* Where did the leak come from? Someone in USADA, or someone one of the riders had incautiously chatted to, as I imagine some of them would have done, given that it was all going to come out anyway. (It has been suggested that the leak was from LA’s camp to muddy the waters regarding the riders’/USADA’s truthfulness/impartiality, but I consider this very unlikely).
* Who in your team and who in cycling's governing bodies were aware in early July that the Dutch press report was true despite your denials (or largely true depending upon 'technicalities' etc.)?
* And what exactly happened with openness/transparency in all of this...??

I’m really sorry again if this question causes you/Garmin/USADA any problems - I am a genuine supporter of your team, yourself and anti-doping in general, so I was somewhat reluctant to bring it up, but felt that it was right to do so. I do suspect that you and/or USADA may have erred a little too much towards pragmatism rather than transparency in this particular instance.

Any comments (if you are indeed free to comment)?

- Argyle_Fan

 

[Descender]

Man, you really are relentless.

 

[Cloxxki]

Man, you really are relentless.

I think the question could have been 1 or 2 lines, but it's still founded.
I suspect the reason is legal, but still good to ask.

 

[balkou]

* I notice that 4 of the bans start on 1st Sept, but CVdV’s ban starts on 9th Sept and Michael Barry’s on 10th Sept. This does seem rather inexplicable, given the timeline involved. It suggests to me that the riders were given some kind of choice/input as to when their bans started? Is this true? Perhaps you could let us know which races CVdV took part in between 1st-8th Sept? (Does anyone know this info for Michael Barry?) Is there any precedent in anti-doping for riders to be given a choice as to when their bans start?

Van de Velde and Barry were competing at GP cycliste de Montreal on 9th Sep.

 

[Argyle_Fan]

I am removing numerous of my uninformed comments as I feel that they add little to the discussion.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Question for JV - why do you think Matt White still has a role in the sport despite his unwillingness to confess to doping until outed in the USADA?

Why are you so unwilling to see dopers removed from professional cycling?