JV talks, sort of

[Tyler'sTwin]

Didn't Frei say he shot 500 iu IV when he tested positive?

 

[Merckx index]

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.

I would add to this that when the passport came into use, riders who had much earlier switched to transfusions to avoid an EPO positive again began using a microdose form of EPO in order to raise their retics following a transfusion. In the normal transfusion cycle, a withdrawal is followed immediately by a transfusion, so there is no perturbation of hematological parameters. However, when a rider transfuses for PE, there is no preceding withdrawal. As a result, HT increases and simultaneously, retics decrease--a sure fire way to trigger a passport positive. To avoid this, as I noted in my earlier post, riders a) transfuse saline, to reduce the HT, and b) take EPO, to raise retics. The latter, then, is another form of micro-dosing, which Floyd first told investigators about.

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.

Here's the complete article: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/37/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00421-011-1867-6.pdf?auth66=1351987102_c35477537d8faff8941cd711189d88ea&ext=.pdf

Edit: for some reason, the link is not working when incorporated into my post, though I can access the article with it. Try this link, which goes to a version of the abstract which allows you then to access the whole paper through a link on the top left of the abstract:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-011-1867-6?LI=true

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

Definitely. And as discussed in this forum previously, MA has also published work suggesting blood transfusions can also easily beat the passport.

Finally: Even a passport positive or significant abnormality is not a guaranteed sanction. The data then go to an expert panel for review. The panel might still decline to conclude that doping is definitely the cause of the abnormality.

I'm confused, don't know if the doses are per injection or per week.

The Ashenden study was twice a week. I believe the reference to once a week is because a study involving once a week injections found 25% EPO positives. They are saying that if they injected the total dose obtained by two weekly injections in one weekly dose, their study would be like that study.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Here's the complete article: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/37/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00421-011-1867-6.pdf?auth66=1351987102_c35477537d8faff8941cd711189d88ea&ext=.pdf

Can you please confirm this link? I would like to read the full article also.

 

[Ferminal]

Didn't Frei say he shot 500 iu IV when he tested positive?

Wasn't his excuse not drinking enough water?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Question for JV:

You've said that Matt White should have a future in cycling. My question is 'who should have no future in cycling and why?'

 

[JV1973]

Question for JV:

You've said that Matt White should have a future in cycling. My question is 'who should have no future in cycling and why?'

My opinion? Ricco is a good example. A guy who kept at it, hard core, long after most others had called a truce. That's just my opinion and its very subjective.

 

[JV1973]

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?

If anyone on my team is asked any questions about past doping, by an authority, they are obliged, by their employer to be honest. Policy isn't just for ex-usps riders.

Dekker was tested extensively because his doping was much more recent and extreme than any other member of my team. I wanted to know if his talent was real. I think it is, but the jury is still out.

 

[JV1973]

Question for JV:

You've said that Matt White should have a future in cycling. My question is 'who should have no future in cycling and why?'

And, yes, I spoke to Matt White about his past doping. Absolutely.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I am having a little trouble squaring the first and second paragraphs here.

If anyone on my team is asked any questions about past doping, by an authority, they are obliged, by their employer to be honest. Policy isn't just for ex-usps riders.

Which seems to suggest that you don't ask your riders yourself if they doped on their former teams.

Dekker was tested extensively because his doping was much more recent and extreme than any other member of my team.

The question would be 'how do you know his doping was more recent and extreme than other members of your team if you haven't asked them?'

Lets say you sign Mr X, he's come up from the US domestic circuit where he is the next big thing. How do you make sure his talent is real? Or what happens if you sign Mr Y from a European WT team - how do you make sure his talent is real? What steps do you take to make sure that they aren't products of the syringe?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

And, yes, I spoke to Matt White about his past doping. Absolutely.

Can you help me out with timelines here. The Armstrong investigation began cSummer 2010, when White was still on your staff. I assume that he had been sacked before investigators came knocking on the door of Garmin otherwise he would have been obliged to talk to investigators the same as active riders?

 

[Tinman]

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.

Yes nice summary. thanks . It's also how I interpreted the EPO era. But now for what is happening since... Found this interesting link on Haemassist and other oxygen carrying blood substitutes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemoglobin-based_oxygen_carriers

 

[autologous]

I think if anyone was drilling this hard (like I dunno me, for example), JV would walk out of the interview and block their twitter account. Just hazarding a guess.

You rate yourself too highly, unless by "drilling hard" you're referring to masturbatory technique. JV already has you pegged :

You really need to stop commenting on things that you have zero knowledge about. It brings down the whole group's understanding of the issues and does not contribute anything worthwhile.

 

[Argyle_Fan]

Many thanks for explanation!

Hello Jonathan - Good to hear from you - thanks for that. Also thanks again from me & everyone else for taking the time to chat to us openly, when really you have no obligation or rational motivation to do so .

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.

Yes, that all makes sense now. And to think that I thought that there was something a little nefarious going on - need to learn (yet again…) to trust, and it‘s sometimes hard with pro-cycling, ya know! Sorry again for the excessive interrogation a few posts ago - but I was in fact fairly confident you’d be able to explain in some fashion I was unable to think of.

I’m even more impressed now knowing that your guys and the others went to the front-line with USADA without there even being a discussion of a deal being in place, and completely of their own volition, to improve cycling. Everything I read re. DZ was particularly sad - an abusive relationship with Johan, his breakdown/crying and the family history of course. Not surprised he wanted Travis there during his testimony. (Just out of curiosity - not particularly important - but who was the other guy who wanted Travis present during his testimony?) Any particular reason DZ wanted him there - personal appreciation of Travis’ efforts? I'm not at all surprised that DZ has not had a single unsupportive comment on his blog (out of 50-ish) - shame GH had a few bad comments - not sure why.

I’m still vaguely wondering about whether the riders got offered a choice of dates for their bans - but I guess it’s not much of a step beyond the off-season ban concept - or was it just a coincidence of scheduling etc? I also vaguely wonder your opinions on the ‘off-season’ aspect (which does appear to have at least one precedent).

I guess we don’t really need to ask much about your opinion of the heavily reduced bans - I’d assume you agree with David Millar‘s recent comments on the subject. Do you agree with David that there should not be ‘no consequence’ to their actions? Does this differ in the case of an extended amnesty (any updates on that btw - sounds like it’s been under pretty serious discussion, and I imagine it’ll be on its way sometime, once the details get hammered out between WADA/riders/teams).

So I guess it must have been a source in WADA who leaked the details for the Dutch press report (must have been a knowledgeable source given the accuracy wrt detail). I wonder what could have been their motivation? My guess would be the love of gossip. I wonder why WADA hasn’t made a brief comment, which would easily have been buried in the rest of the news, although I guess it’s not all that important. Would they punish the anonymous leaker if they knew who it was?

How did the guys all feel about being asked to withdraw from Worlds/Olympics selection? Might they have not been asked to withdraw if it were all already out in the public domain (c.f. Millar and the repeal of the UK Olympic ban this year), but riders/USADA didn’t want a media s**t-storm or any implication of a cover-up? I recall that GH was particularly looking forward to his 6th Olympics. Will those who have not retired by then be putting themselves forward for Rio?

Any idea of the riders’ plans during their 'extended off-season’? Is there any particular type of training which can only be utilised to full effectiveness during this kind of ‘extended break from racing’, so that you can 'take advantage' of this in some kind of fashion? Training which 'breaks you down' before it 'builds you up' for instance? Much needed family time? I guess they’re all welcome to team camps etc. - for the morale boost as much as for the training (I guess they’re all pretty experienced now wrt charting their own training regimes). While the ‘UPS 3’ are off the roster, will your roster be limited to 27, or is there room for 6-month stagiaires (if this is ever done). Will the ’UPS 3’ be paid normally during their bans? Are they still keeping up with their 'doping-confession' daily email support group?

Any plans to recruit Jullich/White as DSs? (I know you found it hard to replace Whitey). Any idea why Julich didn’t testify to USADA? I guess he must have been worried about losing his job with sky due to ‘zero-tolerance‘ (similarly possibly for Whitey with CA/OGE). I still don’t understand why Kevin hasn’t testified - anything to do with Mellow Johnny’s being associated with LA? Know of any of the other 19 unidentified ‘riders’ who’re planning to come forward at some point (you don’t have to give their names)? Seems you’re still on good terms with Whitey, but not unfortunately Lim - how did Whitey react when you sacked him, as I guess he loved his job. I’m sure you gave him good refs for his job-hunt. Any issues with DZ & CVdV still working privately with Lim?

Crazy that it seems to have been the UCI who put a spanner in the works re. ‘no-bans’ in the generalized amnesty proposal - but they do a lot of crazy s**t it seems. Maybe since they don’t seem to like the amnesty idea? Omerta speaking?

You had no ban - statute of limitations? Was a personal ban something you were concerned about? I guess you’ve got plenty of competent people who could have run the show for a few months in your absence whilst you got on with your MBA etc.

Will you voluntarily ‘asterix’ your palmares semi-officially sometime? Do any of your riders/friends have plans to do the same? Seems like the best solution in the absence of any reasonable way to ‘reallocate’ the results.

Best Wishes ,

- Argyle_Fan

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You rate yourself too highly, unless by "drilling hard" you're referring to masturbatory technique. JV already has you pegged :

Really.

No comment from you about JV's claim that a 15W saving via a skinsuit saves a rider in a 6 hour race [cough] 1000 calories?

Let's start with something nice and simple like that.

Please explain to everyone how zero knowledge on my part leads me to show that 15W for 6 hours is ~324cal for someone with 25% efficiency, or 351 for someone with 22% efficiency. Assuming the race averaged 48km/hr. JV mentioned 7 hours for the race, but it was won in 6:09 (258km).

Then perhaps you can explain how JV can even make the claim, when it requires the condition of a rider riding at 48km/hr, but the race in question averaged 43km/hr, and the rider in question only rode solo for 22 minutes of the race, at an average of 40km/hr.

Go.

Or is it true because JV is a maigcal unicorn and everything he says is true?

 

[blackcat]

My opinion? Ricco is a good example. A guy who kept at it, hard core, long after most others had called a truce. That's just my opinion and its very subjective.

hypothetically, what if say a rider named Cark Mavendish, is also hardcore, but now, like Armstrong, is like AGI and Goldmans, ie too big to fail.

Ricco was small enuff small fry smallfish. You can do him at Red Lobster for a specials night, $4 with fries me. Ricco small fish fast fried.

 

[blackcat]

JV1073

put my apology on record. And I think DearWiggo is in a similar vain. I am not apologising for someone, and DW has his own motive, but I think they may be similar to mine.

we (can I use a collective we) hold you to a higher standard because everyone remembers the high ambitions of the nascent Chipotle'ers. But then we saw them riding too hot. We ordered the option, of tempered heat. Like we were promised.

So we hold you to a higher standard.

And it is a fine line. Because why should Farrar ride with one hand behind his back against a rider, Cark Mavendish. A rider who hangs on over cat 1 climbs which would have made him lose the gruppetto, and then be dq'ed for missing the time cut. Not even talking hc climbs. He wins 6 stages, or 7, and green. Why should Tyler compete with his hands tied behind his back, on stages where some guy hangs on, say a cat 2 col, catches up on the descent, then wins a sprint for the first place, and Tyler is second on the stage.

Why does Tyler miss out in this hypothetical. And why would you enforce a system which deprives him of competing on equal terms.

I see it as a situation, which your aspirations, cannot fulfil. Which I am sorry for.

 

[python]

thanx ferminal and ME. i finally found some time to read the whole article.

atm, i don't feel it changed any of the conclusions towards the end of my post above.

ps.

some made comments - here and in the parallel jv thread - about the various hboc doping products (hemassist etc) as representing the edge of blood doping in the early 2000s. i personally don't feel that to be the case. the reasons are probably off topic here. i'll be happy to engage in the discussion if there is the right place...

 

[hrotha]

Hey JV,

“Did it feel massive? Did you feel happy?”
“I felt okay. I wasn’t ecstatic.”
“That doesn’t make sense?”
“Well, for sure, it was the best form of my life as a bike rider, but I wasn’t . . . I was just sort of . . . I will leave it at this; I wasn’t overly pleased with that victory. It was interesting to me. It answered a lot of questions. But it wasn’t the most ecstatic moment of my life by any means.”

Given that you had been doping for a while already by the time you won on Mont Ventoux, could this mean you were given A-class treatment for the Dauphiné to act as a sort of tester for the team leaders' program for the Tour? And that therefore the questions it answered was, essentially, "What could I accomplish on an A-class program"?

You see, there's a bit of a legend around Dauphiné being the traditional testing grounds, where a team's dop domestiques would step up on the program to see how it was holding up, and I'd like to know if that was a real thing that happened.

 

[sniper]

My opinion? Ricco is a good example. A guy who kept at it, hard core, long after most others had called a truce. That's just my opinion and its very subjective.

"most others had called a truce"? what does that mean? stopped doping full throttle and shifted to bandwidth doping? stopped doping period? And who are "most others"? Certainly the Spanish armada didn't hear about the truce, did they? Just the anglo-phone teams or what?
Care to give an objective opinion? Pretty easy singling out Ricco.

 

[Benotti69]

"most others had called a truce"? what does that mean? stopped doping full throttle and shifted to bandwidth doping? stopped doping period? And who are "most others"? Certainly the Spanish armada didn't hear about the truce, did they? Just the anglo-phone teams or what?
Care to give an objective opinion? Pretty easy singling out Ricco.

What info does JV have to know others called a truce?

 

[sniper]

What info does JV have to know others called a truce?

wouldn't Rabobank have preferred to stay in the business if any such truce did really exist? Rather, I recall Rabobank stepped out because they don't believe cycling is capable of cleaning itself up. They should've called JV for a second opinion!
Or was Rabo not part of the truce?

 

[hrotha]

I think that, as you don't trust JV, you're choosing to call BS on everything he says, regardless of how reasonable it is. I'd say it's clear that, in 2008, with the introduction of the passport, there were some folks partying like it was 2007, and they stood out (Riccò, Piepoli, Sella & friends, Schumacher, etc).

 

[Benotti69]

Too many times pro cycling has declared itself to be clean and lied.

There are definitely less amounts of PEDS being consumed but to declare it clean with the same protagonists controlling it and the teams full of the same enablers and doctors when it was so dirty is asking us to believe night is day.

Edit: I am thinking of a Nico Roche radio interview when he accused Kimmage and Walsh of having a vendetta and when asked what did he mean he quickly retracted it, but said they appeared bitter.

Nico Roche is part of bike pure, now why on earth would he consider the 2 journalists over the last 20 years who have consistently called for a cleaner sport of cycling be accused of having a vendetta?

This word is to me peloton speak to describe the atitude of Walsh and Kimmage. The sport is still a closed rank and those who flow against it are bitter, jealous and have a vendetta. That is the modern pro cyclists feeling about the Walsh's, Kimmage's, Bassons, Ballesters and others who so called spat in the soup!

Now N Roche is on the bike pure website, why? PR, it appears that they will do anything to appear what they are not.

I get this feeling when I read JV and Millar or Sky and Brailsford 'speak'. They are trying to cast shields over themselves to deflect the reality that the only change has been in the amounts being used, which can be seen by some as a good thing and might be comparable to cycling before epo became the dope fo choice but for me it is not enough. To cross the line to dope whether with 1 pill or 100 is still doping.

This is only my opinion and I have no evidence but what I think is based on what is in the public arena, on forums, by the PR speak of teams, by the doctors still working in the sport, by the ridiculous statments issued by top riders, by the silence of the majority of riders, by the silence of nearly all the team onwers and DS, by the pictures broadcast of unbelievable performances, by the performance of ex dopers in this years Vuelta and on and on and on...

 

[hrotha]

I agree but I don't see what that has to do with anything. I think JV's "truce" is qualified by the description ofRiccò's approach as "hard core". I don't believe JV is saying cycling suddenly got clean in 2008.

 

[sniper]

I think that, as you don't trust JV, you're choosing to call BS on everything he says, regardless of how reasonable it is. I'd say it's clear that, in 2008, with the introduction of the passport, there were some folks partying like it was 2007, and they stood out (Riccò, Piepoli, Sella & friends, Schumacher, etc).

that Ricco was exaggerating, very well. but what the hell does it mean that "most others" called for a "truce"? It sounds like cheap PR if it isn't specified any further. You know as well as I do that nobody called for a truce. Look at the Spanish riders apologizing for Armstrong and dominating the Vuelta. Were the Spanish not part of the truce? Look at Rabo not believing in clean cycling. Did Rabo not know about the truce? Look at Vino at the Olympics. Look at Sky. Also, Bruyneel and Riis were certainly still in the game when JV's alleged truce was called for. Did they welcome the truce? Did they sabotage it?