• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

JV talks, sort of

Page 79 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
python said:
he did...

but what seems to be missing from all the comments i read so far, is that the role of epo as a performance enhancer (at the most sophisticated level) - and this is a well known fact to ashenden - the role was evolving from epo being the main blood doping element of a programme (through the 90's up to 00) to the one being a supplemental element being used in combination with blood transfusions from '00-'01 and on. there are a couple of reasons. one, of course, being the epo test introduction in 2000 (2001 in cycling).

the term epo micro-dosing needs to be qualified. it existed both before and after the epo test intro.

prior to the epo test, the riders only had to beat the 50% hct limit. they'd try to quickly build hct with the relatively large subcutaneous epo doses prior to the major races and then maintain their hct - again subcutaneously - (thus the therm a maintenance dose) during a major grand tour. tyler suggests that he was using 2000 iu every 3d day. this was micro-dosing then. it was easy to beat the 50% limit b/c each self-respecting team had spinners.

then around 2000-'01, epo doses (micro-doses) and the injection schedules changed correspondingly because they had to be incorporated into the overall blood doping programme relying on blood transfusions during the major races.

tyler did describe the phenomena in his book though he lacked many technical details he communicated to usada/wada. for example, he described a sophisticated doper advised by ferrari had to stop subcutaneous 2000 i u twice a week and go to a 500-1000 i u every day or 2 intravenously. again, this was required to beat the urine epo test as prior to 2008 the passport at least formally) did not exist.

ironically, according to ashenden et al, this 10 year old (!) epo schedule designed to beat the urine test appears to be also relatively safe today against the fully implemented blood passport.

i freely admit that i did not read the whole ashenden paper referred to by von mises and don't know the doses he used (would like to know though), but reading the abstract the paper appears to have missed the most important - trying to replicated the behavior of a sophisticated doper trying to beat the system.

that the bio-passport failed to catch a twice-a-week micro-dose as opposed to even a smaller dose daily is alarming.

Great post Python.

This appears to be still a popular PED of the modern peloton. That epo use is still a big factor of riders preperation and maintenance for GTs.
 
python:

During the initial ‘titration’ phase (Phase I), four subjects were given 10 IU/kg for 4 weeks whilst the remaining six received twice this dosage but over half the time (2 weeks). Thus, all subjects received the same total quantity of rhEPO (adjusted for body weight) during the titration phase. With the feedback information ‘in hand’ from the titration phase, the dosage of rhEPO was subsequently standardised for all 10 subjects and gradually elevated so that subjects received 20 IU/kg for 4 weeks (Phases II and III), then injections of 30 IU/kg for the final 4-week period (Phases IV and V; three subjects were given 40 IU/kg for their final three injections). Total haemoglobin mass was measured immediately after the titration phase, then every fortnight (i.e., at the end of each Phase) until completion of the study.

The weekly dose came from two injections (Monday and Thursday).

In summary, we would speculate that the likely sensitivity of urinalyses to detect our protocol of once weekly injections of 1,500–6,000 IU per week, assuming samples were collected 2 days post-injection, would probably range between 0 and 25% (i.e., a continuum correlated with the dosage used). Incidentally, our blood passport findings do not affirm Lundby’s prediction that longitudinal monitoring of blood variables would surpass urinalyses’ lack of sensitivity (Lundby et al. 2008).

As a reference to Delta Hbmass%:


Phase I 2.7 ± 2.3

Phase II 4.1 ± 4.1

Phase III 6.9 ± 5.3

Phase IV 9.2 ± 5.4

Phase V 10.5 ± 6.5

I'm confused, don't know if the doses are per injection or per week.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Mrs John Murphy said:
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?


I don't have a good answer on this one. I was/am more upset with the fact that Cycling Australia and GE had every chance to ask about his past, and never did, and then fired him when they found out. That's cover you own *** behavior, not looking at the situation and doing what is right. Why not wait for the report from their new anti-doping investigator to come out, first, then decide what to do?
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Argyle_Fan said:
I wonder if this is why:
"In the weeks afterward, Armstrong pressed to know the names of the witnesses, but the antidoping agency would not release them, fearing he would intimidate and silence them before they could testify at an arbitration hearing."
(from NYT article - see earlier post for link).
This would certainly explain JV's & USADA's involvement in denying a report they both well knew to be true (and that of USA Cycling too, if they too knew about it all).

Although I do still wonder about your (JV's??) opinions on the issue of 'delayed off-season bans with a riders' choice of dates'. Was the delay in the bans related to USADA's fears re. witness intimidation, or a desire to minimise the consequences for the riders, as far as the rules allowed? The 'choice of dates' would imply the latter, although the former could easily have been an additional consideration (and presumably explains why the bans were announced over a month after they actually started).

- Argyle_Fan

While my quotes re this during the TdF could seem untruthful, at that time no bans had been given or agreed to by my riders. Why? My guess is that USADA was hoping that there would be a broader truth and reconciliation effort across the sport and that bans would be put aside, as the need for full disclosure from multiple parties would be needed. However, when UCI started kicking up about jurisdiction, etc, they figured it would not be a cooperative effort, but instead a contentious one. Too bad.
Anyhow, at that point, my guess is, they realized the need for 6 mod bans, as no truth and reconciliation would occur.
 
May 6, 2010
158
0
0
Visit site
JV,
Given that you have admitted to riding doped most of your career, why is it that your career results have been allowed to stand? Do you think this is just?
Doesn't it make a mockery of doping enforcement?

I mean, this isn't to knock your current efforts to reform the sport, nor, obviously, was it your decision. But what do you think of it, and how do you think it will affect your credibility?

Thx
 
JV1973 said:
I don't have a good answer on this one. I was/am more upset with the fact that Cycling Australia and GE had every chance to ask about his past, and never did, and then fired him when they found out. That's cover you own *** behavior, not looking at the situation and doing what is right. Why not wait for the report from their new anti-doping investigator to come out, first, then decide what to do?

Here's a question for you - what would you do if one of your riders was outed as having doped (for example one of your ex-Gerol riders)?
 
Mrs John Murphy said:
Here's a question for you - what would you do if one of your riders was outed as having doped (for example one of your ex-Gerol riders)?

Didn't this just happen with DZ, CVV and Danielson? I guess you're implying that it would be a rider that deceived the team on coming in (I assume there's some sort of interview process). Hmm, I guess that is an interesting question, or rather 2 - namely, what is the screening process in terms of talking about a rider's past when they come to Garmin, and what would you do if you found out that they lied?

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your question MJM, I was just trying to flesh it out because I'm curious too.
 
skidmark said:
Didn't this just happen with DZ, CVV and Danielson? I guess you're implying that it would be a rider that deceived the team on coming in (I assume there's some sort of interview process). Hmm, I guess that is an interesting question, or rather 2 - namely, what is the screening process in terms of talking about a rider's past when they come to Garmin, and what would you do if you found out that they lied?

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your question MJM, I was just trying to flesh it out because I'm curious too.

Well JV outed them himself.

I asked about the USP 3 and JV said that he was 'aware' from his time at USP of their doping and knew how far in they were. (That was how they came to be outed). What we've never established is whether he has asked his unconvicted riders (those who didn't ride for USP or CA etc) if they had been doping at their old teams.

So we don't know if JV has or hasn't asked say RH or HH if they have doped previously - and what he would do if they were outed as part of say an investigation into Gerol/Phonak etc
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Mrs John Murphy said:
Well JV outed them himself.

I asked about the USP 3 and JV said that he was 'aware' from his time at USP of their doping and knew how far in they were. (That was how they came to be outed). What we've never established is whether he has asked his unconvicted riders (those who didn't ride for USP or CA etc) if they had been doping at their old teams.

So we don't know if JV has or hasn't asked say RH or HH if they have doped previously - and what he would do if they were outed as part of say an investigation into Gerol/Phonak etc

Same treatment as the rest of my guys.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Love the Scenery said:
JV,
Given that you have admitted to riding doped most of your career, why is it that your career results have been allowed to stand? Do you think this is just?
Doesn't it make a mockery of doping enforcement?

I mean, this isn't to knock your current efforts to reform the sport, nor, obviously, was it your decision. But what do you think of it, and how do you think it will affect your credibility?

Thx

As I've said before, I'm happy to give up those results, but most of the guys that were 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc have already been suspended or caught. So, I think it's just a matter of not being able to figure out correct reallocation.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
jv,
here's the 16K question EVERYONE is likely wondering about but is not asking...

armstrong is not without talent but doped, cheated and lied. these are facts. he also owned the unparalleled and very efficient team of enablers. but so did his main competitors. yet, despite not being the most talented rider out there (even ferrari said so recently, see below*), he remained so dominant for very long...

perhaps now, that so much was outed and your depositions became public you can give your opinion as to why?

i am aware of (and agree with) your assessment that not everyone responds equally to synthetic epo specifically and the peds in general. tyler said the same and many scientists agree.

tyler in his book wondered the same but never gave an explicit opinion except at hinting that armstrong might have used more BBs than others, that is more than 3 per a grand tour

what do you think ?

*this interview

'Ma anche un amico vero, ed un atleta formidabile: «Però non è stato il più forte tra quelli che io ho allenato — ride Ferrari —: non mi chieda altri nomi….'

'But it is also true that [lance armstrong] is a friend and an excellent athlete, but he was not the strongest of those I trained, don’t ask the other names….’
 
May 21, 2010
581
0
0
Visit site
Another follow-up question to the above:

What, in your opinion, was Armstrong's reason for coming back in 2009? Tyler, in his book, suggests that Lance wanted another TdF win in the belief that it would finally silence all his detractors and un-sully his legacy. What's your take on this? Do you think Lance actually felt that everyone in the clinic would finally just shut up if he won another TdF?
 
<I'll insert a thought on LA's supiority before JV answers, and try to keep it brief. Ignore if necessary.>
If the HemAssist rumor holds true, that should explain everything. It's not just having an edge, it's an edge with pointy, stainless biosteel, micro-haired, piosoned spikes welded to it. No way to overcome that with supertalent and middle of the road doping program.
If the HemAssist was indeed there during his post-cancer racing (he was even secretive in an adjacent room when teammates knew he was taking on a BB, so what if there was a pink BB in stead of red...?), he could indeed have been a mediocre talent, made by doping and doping alone. His main talent in and for life would be surviving his doping. His lifetime program might even offer lower odds for survival than his cancer.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Cloxxki said:
<I'll insert a thought on LA's supiority before JV answers, and try to keep it brief. Ignore if necessary.>
If the HemAssist rumor holds true, that should explain everything. It's not just having an edge, it's an edge with pointy, stainless biosteel, micro-haired, piosoned spikes welded to it. No way to overcome that with supertalent and middle of the road doping program.
If the HemAssist was indeed there during his post-cancer racing (he was even secretive in an adjacent room when teammates knew he was taking on a BB, so what if there was a pink BB in stead of red...?), he could indeed have been a mediocre talent, made by doping and doping alone. His main talent in and for life would be surviving his doping. His lifetime program might even offer lower odds for survival than his cancer.

I don't actually know. I know starting in 2004 there was a test for free hemoglobin, which would deter hemmassist use. The problem is, we'll never figure this out. There were probably many others that used hemmassist. Or even PFCs. So, were they more or less talented than Lance? I don't know?
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Elagabalus said:
Another follow-up question to the above:

What, in your opinion, was Armstrong's reason for coming back in 2009? Tyler, in his book, suggests that Lance wanted another TdF win in the belief that it would finally silence all his detractors and un-sully his legacy. What's your take on this? Do you think Lance actually felt that everyone in the clinic would finally just shut up if he won another TdF?


That would be some very poor logic!
 
May 25, 2010
149
0
0
Visit site
Another ex postie @ JV

Jonathan,

Ryder unfortunately rode for Postal in 2004/2005. Did he get asked questions (by yourself) in regard to his time on the team?
 
JV1973 said:
Same treatment as the rest of my guys.

I'm presuming by this you mean 'encourage them to tell the truth to the relevant authorities' or something along the lines of what you've stated here in the past. But that begs the question of how you address these riders' pasts when a) determining whether to recruit them and b) signing them. I don't actually know. With Sky being so high-profile lately about this affirmation of never doping etc, I've been curious what Garmin's intake procedure is. The team has always struck me as having an attitude of 'whatever you did in the past, be open about it and don't dope here', but I wonder how explicit this is.

Say you had an opportunity to sign Rodriguez - top tier rider who has never been banned. You don't want to assume that he must have doped (I remember reading what you wrote about Tondo), right? (I mean, I know you post in the clinic, so that indicates that you think everyone who wins MUST dope...) So without certainty, how do you determine whether or not he can compete without doping on your team, first of all? Dekker's trials were well publicized, but would you subject all new riders to similar physical tests, even if you didn't know if they doped, and if there was a chance they might in fact have been clean?

And how do you know that the physical data they generate is done while clean? I'd imagine there's some kind of conversation that has to take place, right?

I'm just curious if there's a standard procedure, or if it's kind of a case-by-case basis. From a fan standpoint, it's easy to think 'well they're anti-doping, so I guess riders must know what that means coming in', but I've never really thought about the logistical implications of how that must work.
 
JV you said that CA/GE had every opportunity to ask MW about his past but did not. Did you discuss with MW his doping at USP? Have you discussed past doping with your other riders?

Or do you operate a version of don't ask, don't tell policy, where you do not ask your riders about doping but with the caveat that should a rider be outed you will not sack him (even though he was not forthcoming about past doping)?

I assume that this is what you meant by 'same treatment as the rest of my guys'.

Which brings me back to the question from before - why is Dekker treated differently to dopers who have not yet been outed?

How does keeping a doper who maintains omerta until outed in cycling, help cycling?
 
May 6, 2010
158
0
0
Visit site
JV1973 said:
As I've said before, I'm happy to give up those results, but most of the guys that were 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc have already been suspended or caught. So, I think it's just a matter of not being able to figure out correct reallocation.

Thank you for the reply. I appreciate your honesty. I don't know if it will be raised, but it seems to me to go to the critique of USADA's procedure that we are hearing all over the place, "the riders got a sweetheart deal to keep their results if they informed" etc. I don't buy it, I think that line of criticism is very biased, and I think your testimony and the USADA report are very credible.

However, I do think that if USADA had stripped ALL results known to have been obtained by riders who were doping, it would eliminate that possible line of criticism and add more consistency to the process. I am particularly surprised that most of the ex-Posties were stripped of results obtained while doping, but you were not.

Like I say, I'm all in favor of what you're doing, and I don't at all condemn you for making choices that most highly competitive people would have made, but I have to say, man--your results would have been better off stripped. It looks weird for you to keep your results. The whole issue with 2nd, 3rd, and 4th could be resolved by vacating the results as was done with LA.

Anyway, thanks again and cheers.
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
Visit site
JV1973 said:
While my quotes re this during the TdF could seem untruthful, at that time no bans had been given or agreed to by my riders. Why? My guess is that USADA was hoping that there would be a broader truth and reconciliation effort across the sport and that bans would be put aside, as the need for full disclosure from multiple parties would be needed. However, when UCI started kicking up about jurisdiction, etc, they figured it would not be a cooperative effort, but instead a contentious one. Too bad.
Anyhow, at that point, my guess is, they realized the need for 6 mod bans, as no truth and reconciliation would occur.


Also seems possible USADA didn't feel able to commit to the reduced bans until the needed testimony was actually delivered live in arbitration, or by, as it turned out, affidavit.