JV talks, sort of

[JV1973]

Uh huh.






Retics don't bounce 27% within 12 hours.



How about you release someone else's profile from pre-Giro first - you know, where everyone tested high?

Again, go get yourself tested. If you don't see any 27% changes, I'll pay you $10k!!! It's a great deal.

But, I think you'll be needing my bank details, cool guy...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Btw - thank you for providing the Merckx index quote. It perfectly demonstrates Ryder's profile stability.

No change in HB, slight change in retics. This isn't accomplishable via saline/epo in an 8 hour window. The retics would be high unstable after a transfusion and then a shot of epo to try and combat the suppressive qualities of the transfusion. They'd be down, then up, then who knows... and would not stabilize until the next morning. AND that's not even to mention the fact that an 8 hour window, with 2 urine tests in that window, would still result in an EPO positive.

Sorry. Nice try.

7am - 6pm is an 11 hour window. As for your claim that the body jumps all over the place, we're going to have to agree to disagree. None of these internal processes happen quickly - which is why the 11 hour window is so pertinent. Plenty of time for the body to respond.

Are you saying Ryder had EPO urine tests done?

 

[JV1973]

7am - 6pm is an 11 hour window. As for your claim that the body jumps all over the place, we're going to have to agree to disagree. None of these internal processes happen quickly - which is why the 11 hour window is so pertinent. Plenty of time for the body to respond.

Are you saying Ryder had EPO urine tests done?

Let me give you another theory:

How are retics measured? Are you aware of the differences in lab procedures and how the same slide can read well over 27% different, depending on the technician? Retics are just baby red cells. Go ask. Go ask lab techs about this. It might be interesting for you.

Yes, he was urine tested for EPO that day.

 

[mikkemus23]

Whats with the personal stuff here JV? Why so sore? No need to call critics names. I think it's healthy for the sport that dopers are questioned.. You are a class act for posting here, I'll give you that

 

[JV1973]

Whats with the personal stuff here JV? Why so sore? No need to call critics names. I think it's healthy for the sport that dopers are questioned.. You are å class act for posting here, I'll give you that

This Wiggo fellah just annoys me. It is overly personal, but then I get that way when you have a guy dedicating his life to trying to prove you're an evil human.

Anyhow, you're right... Sorry dad.

 

[mikkemus23]

This Wiggo fellah just annoys me. It is overly personal, but then I get that way when you have a guy dedicating his life to trying to prove you're an evil human.

Anyhow, you're right... Sorry dad.

Lol, okay junior.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In your TEDx talk you said:
* we designed this skinsuit. it saves the rider (Johan Van Summeren) 15W at 30 mph.
* Sumi won the race
* the skinsuit saved him [cough] 1000 calories

I am not playing expert. I am calling you out as a continual bender of facts.

6 hours at 15W savings - the exact scenario where you claimed someone saved 1000 calories - actually netts somewhere around 300 calories tops. Only if they were doing 48km/hr, which they weren't.

This was in a prepared TEDx talk, available for viewing on youtube.

Are you saying that you, the expert in all this compared to ignorant me made a simple mistake and carried the one too far or something?

The only person claiming my expertise is you. It's getting old.

The continual bender of facts would be you.

The only thing 'prepared' in the TEDx piece is the slide-show, pretty obvious that JV had no speech prepared.
The bigger issue would be the 'bermuda shorts' with jacket & tie combination that he was wearing.

 

[JV1973]

Lol, okay junior.

OK, I am done for the day.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Let me give you another theory:

How are retics measured? Are you aware of the differences in lab procedures and how the same slide can read well over 27% different, depending on the technician? Retics are just baby red cells. Go ask. Go ask lab techs about this. It might be interesting for you.

Yes, he was urine tested for EPO that day.

The samples were taken on the same day - are you saying they went to different labs or were tested by different techs?

The Sysmex XT-2000i automates the retic count. When they tested its performance, they found for retics there was a CV of 4.9% for open tube and 6.3% for close tubed.

 

[palmerq]

OK, I am done for the day.

I am quite sure that was a joke mr vaugthers, in response to you calling him dad, dont take it personally..... dont retire from the thread just cause of that... this is great reading for observers like me ! It is very interesting to see an actual team manager going at it with forum members, it's brilliant ! keep it up guys.. ! but just dont get insulting please ..

 

[Tinman]

Whats with the personal stuff here JV? Why so sore? No need to call critics names. I think it's healthy for the sport that dopers are questioned.. You are a class act for posting here, I'll give you that

+1. We've been done over many times for many years. We need dogs that go for bones. And yes Dear Wiggo doesn't mince it up, but there is clear evidence of serious thinking going on and a "take no prisoners" approach to questioning. It's the kind of questioning and reasoning one gets taught at Harvard. But it's not for the unnervy.

This Wiggo fellah just annoys me. It is overly personal, but then I get that way when you have a guy dedicating his life to trying to prove you're an evil human.

Anyhow, you're right... Sorry dad.

It's not personal at all, as much as it's easy to interpret it that way. But you are a tall tree JV... And you being here is serious kudos to you. It does set you apart from Brailsford, Riis, Vino, etc and supports the argument that you are serious about breaking Omerta and contributing to moving the sport forward.

So thanks for being patient and not taking things personal. And continuing to come back

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Here's my logic:

I want a clean sport.

JV says his team is clean - but this is literally impossible to prove. BP does not prove it. At all. Every discrepancy has to be explained away:
* everyone tested high pre-Giro 2012
* David Millar does not recover in GTs and hence his Hgb goes up in a GT - even though in 2009 he is forced to ride all 3 GTs and wins the final Vuelta TT and this is the first time I (and no doubt anyone else) has ever heard of the phenomenon of a "non-GT rider" who experiences low or no plasma volume in a GT. NB: I believe there is a CAS ruling that depends on (lack of) plasma volume expansion as evidence of doping in one of its rulings.
* there's a bump in Hgb in the final week of BW x 2 and RH x 1

Can JV be 100% certain about the team being clean or - or is he simply doing his best to make sure it has the perception of being clean?

So I look at other things he has said. If everything else he says is true - then it lends credibility to him saying something like "my team is clean" being also true.

If he keeps saying things that are false, or seriously bent out of shape, then it would seem his claim that "my team is clean" may not be as true as I or anyone else might want it to be.

That's why saying 1000 calories can be saved via 6 hours of 15W skinsuit savings - in a talk that you would think you would have plenty of time to prepare for - is so mind blowing for me. It's a complete and utter fabrication. It's can't even be considered marketing spiel.

It's nitpicky and trivial, but if Wiggins does 480W for 18 minutes in a TT and that gets "expanded" to 480W for 20-25 minutes, no it's not strictly false - no details were provided - but it looks like a bending of the facts. It's marketing spiel.

JV says a 34 minute TT may induce hypoxia that leads to retics 2 hours later, but hypoxia induces EPO, not retics. Studies show 3 hours of hypoxia lead to increased EPO, but no increase in retics. In trained athletes, if you're curious. So it sounds like marketing spiel - or clutching at straws.

Then JV says it was the Stelvio stage that induced the hypoxia, not the TT. When quite clearly he originally said the TT. And the studies disprove this theory regardless.

JV says he has seen 100s of BP profiles and knows when one is clean. But how did he know which were clean and which were cleverly doped? He doesn't even know why retics are up. It sounds like marketing spiel to me.

JV is adamant that Ryder was clean at the Giro - but was not there. Marketing spiel.

Legeay told his team not to dope.
JV did anyway.

JV tells his team not to dope.
...

It has nothing to do with being evil or good.

It's trying to determine if, ultimately, "my team is clean" is in fact true, or marketing spiel.

 

[hrotha]

this is the first time I (and no doubt anyone else) has ever heard of the phenomenon of a "non-GT rider"

What? I'm all for asking hard-hitting questions, but using reasonings like the above just makes you look bad. You've never heard of riders not having the recovery to be GT contenders? You've never read any discussion about, for example, Janez Brajkovic?

 

[JV1973]

The samples were taken on the same day - are you saying they went to different labs or were tested by different techs?

The Sysmex XT-2000i automates the retic count. When they tested its performance, they found for retics there was a CV of 4.9% for open tube and 6.3% for close tubed.

You assume that the sysmex is the only device being used. That's soooo 2004.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What? I'm all for asking hard-hitting questions, but using reasonings like the above just makes you look bad. You've never heard of riders not having the recovery to be GT contenders? You've never read any discussion about, for example, Janez Brajkovic?

Non-GT rider as a term to explain why someone's Hgb goes UP in a GT? [edited my post to clarify] No. Never heard of that. Robert Millar and Tyler both say it goes down - 10% or so - over 3 weeks.

Non-GT rider? Like Chris Hoy? Yes. No problems.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You assume that the sysmex is the only device being used. That's soooo 2004.

So the error (CV) would be lower, if newer, more modern technology is in use, correct?

 

[maltiv]

JV says his team is clean - but this is literally impossible to prove.

It's very easy to prove. All we need is a 24/7 surveillance of the team (or rather just one star rider) during the preparation of and during a GT. It's not very convenient, perhaps, but it's not a very difficult to do either.

If I were a pro rider right now I think I'd accept such a deal. Ok, it's definitely an invasion to one's privacy, but people have given up their privacy for a lot less. This would be an opportunity to save not only one's own reputation, but the entire sport's reputation.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's very easy to prove. All we need is a 24/7 surveillance of the team (or rather just one star rider) during the preparation of and during a GT. It's not very convenient, perhaps, but it's not a very difficult to do either.

If I were a pro rider right now I think I'd accept such a deal. Ok, it's definitely an invasion to one's privacy, but people have given up their privacy for a lot less. This would be an opportunity to save not only one's own reputation, but the entire sport's reputation.

It would do something - however training beforehand has a significant impact on performance.

 

[Tinman]

It's very easy to prove. All we need is a 24/7 surveillance of the team (or rather just one star rider) during the preparation of and during a GT. It's not very convenient, perhaps, but it's not a very difficult to do either.

If I were a pro rider right now I think I'd accept such a deal. Ok, it's definitely an invasion to one's privacy, but people have given up their privacy for a lot less. This would be an opportunity to save not only one's own reputation, but the entire sport's reputation.

Agreed. And teams must take more responsibility for their riders in exactly this way. During the critical periods you mention. With penalties to teams that are caught to have doping riders.

 

[JV1973]

Here's my logic:

I want a clean sport.

JV says his team is clean - but this is literally impossible to prove. BP does not prove it. At all. Every discrepancy has to be explained away:
* everyone tested high pre-Giro 2012
* David Millar does not recover in GTs and hence his Hgb goes up in a GT - even though in 2009 he is forced to ride all 3 GTs and wins the final Vuelta TT and this is the first time I (and no doubt anyone else) has ever heard of the phenomenon of a "non-GT rider" who experiences low or no plasma volume in a GT.
* there's a bump in Hgb in the final week of BW x 2 and RH x 1

Can JV be 100% certain about the team being clean or - or is he simply doing his best to make sure it has the perception of being clean?

So I look at other things he has said. If everything else he says is true - then it lends credibility to him saying something like "my team is clean" being also true.

If he keeps saying things that are false, or seriously bent out of shape, then it would seem his claim that "my team is clean" may not be as true as I or anyone else might want it to be.

That's why saying 1000 calories can be saved via 6 hours of 15W skinsuit savings - in a talk that you would think you would have plenty of time to prepare for - is so mind blowing for me. It's a complete and utter fabrication. It's marketing spiel at best.

It's nitpicky and trivial, but if Wiggins does 480W for 18 minutes in a TT and that gets "expanded" to 480W for 20-25 minutes, no it's not strictly false - no details were provided - but it looks like a bending of the facts. It's marketing spiel.

JV says a 34 minute TT may induce hypoxia that leads to retics 2 hours later, but hypoxia induces EPO, not retics. Studies show 3 hours of hypoxia lead to increased EPO, but no increase in retics. In trained athletes, if you're curious. So it sounds like marketing spiel - or clutching at straws.

Then JV says it was the Stelvio stage that induced the hypoxia, not the TT. When quite clearly he originally said the TT. And the study disproves this theory.

JV says he has seen 100s of BP profiles and knows when one is clean. But how did he know which were clean and which were cleverly doped? He doesn't even know why retics are up. It sounds like marketing spiel to me.

JV is adamant that Ryder was clean at the Giro - but was not there. Marketing spiel.

Legeay told his team not to dope.
JV did anyway.

JV tells his team not to dope.
...

It has nothing to do with being evil or good.

It's trying to determine if, ultimately, "my team is clean" is in fact true, or marketing spiel.

6 hours of hard racing would induce hypoxia, which would increase EPO production.... Guess what happens when EPO production is increased? More retics. And actually, I was originally referring to hypoxia from the day before and the TT. What you don't get is that it's not marketing spiel, it's that I do not know. I know that his retic count is very stable and a small increase from morning to afternoon is nothing unusual. That's why I've asked you to go test yourself.

I don't tell my team not to dope. I spend over $500,000 annually to make sure they don't. I set up a truth and reward policy to make sure there is clarity as to what is going on AND I allow any journalist any access they desire.

In addition Ive worked actively with WADA and USADA since 2004 to help improve their testing methods and execution and volunteered my team to try new testing methods.

The 1000 calorie thing is a genuine screw up. I went to Bermuda to go fishing, as I've done for many years. I did Tedx as a favor for my friend and I prepared a slide show. The 1000 calorie thing was just me doing the 15 watts over 6 hours math in my head wrong. I'm admitting I did it wrong. Is there something else?

there is no bump in Ryder's Hb. It falls as the 3 weeks progress. Is it linear? No. I have never witnessed a perfectly linear fall in Hb over 3 weeks. Ever.
Millar shows no plasma increase. the decrease in his performance is the best evidence of his failure to adapt to the stresses. I don't make these judgements in a test tube. they are made in context, judging performance and blood values.

What you're failing to see, is that this is not an area of science that has been exhaustively researched. It is, as Aschenden will tell you, more art than science. It's recognizing patterns from experience.

the statistically worst blood profile I have ever seen was from a rider that this forum constantly refers to as "clean"... Did he dope at the time of his profile blip? No, I doubt it, as his performance was sub par, not suspiciously over par. Context.

End of the day, I cannot convince you. So, I need to give up. There is nothing I can say, show or do that will alter your opinion. Since this is true, can we just not debate and come to the conclusion that our opinions will never be the same?

What you fundamentally underestimate is my earning power outside the world of cycling. It's not marketing spiel because I don't care enough about my position in cycling to be compromised by that crap. When I was a rider, yes, I allowed it to compromise me. That was a BIG mistake. But as one of my closest friends said to me "The biggest financial mistake you ever made in your life was being involved with cycling, as a rider or a manager"

evidence of me not caring? please see my quotes re UCI, re USADA, and actions over the last year. Not the actions of someone covering their ****. Maybe the actions of someone trying to get booted out of the sport!!

That is my best and final argument.

JV

 

[acoggan]

Yeah, sort of. The problem is how do you objectively measure the performance. Ferrari was using lactate readings and VAM. However, a lot of riding both dehydrates the rider (causing higher VAMs) and reduces lactate output (admittedly, for reasons I do not 100% understand, but Coggan brought up this issue in a thread of his on "Ferrari's Magic" or similar).

So you would *expect* to both have a higher VAM and a lower lactate reading for the same power output every time, assuming the rider didn't crack during the effort.

I would think just straight up wattage and w/kg is a repeatable and objective output to measure.

I am a scientist but not an exercise physiologist, so perhaps acoggan or krebs or someone else who is can fill in the gaps and point out errors in this reasoning.

1. The rate of glycogenolysis, and hence the rate of lactate production, is in part dependent upon muscle glycogen content.

2. I agree: power is power, and provides an integrative measure of all the physiological factors underpinning performance.

 

[Cyivel]

Well said JV brother.

 

[Ferminal]

No, he said if he had drunk enough water he wouldn't have tested positive, but it wasn't an excuse (he didn't claim he didn't dope), just an explanation of why he didn't manage to beat the test that one time.

Oh yeh, I mean an excuse for failing the test, not an excuse to show he wasn't doping

It was like "oh I'm so cool and lazy I cbf passing the test".

 

[PACONi]

JV, not wanting to side track the conversation, but what does Ryder think of this discussion?

 

[skidmark]

Ive spoken to all my riders regards to their past. Not sure why you'd think otherwise?

Here's a story about Ramunas Navardauskas:

Awesome. This is what I've been curious about, how you can assess who's clean and what the intake procedure is. I know you were responding to MJM, but I also wasn't sure if you spoke to all your riders about their past, because I'd asked before and it didn't get responded to. Thanks for opening the coconut a bit more for monkeys like us. Although I am still curious how the procedure might be different for a more experienced rider who might have a 'history' rather than an U23 rider - same deal, testing and chatting? Is there a 'what did you do in the past?' discussion, or is it more of a 'you know what this team is about, and you may have done whatever you've done in the past, but you're welcome here as long as the past is in the past?' Or something else entirely?

I got another question - I was thinking about how internal testing was in vogue about 4 years ago with several teams at the highest level, and now it seems to have phased itself out. Just wondering what your thoughts were on whether that was a helpful addition in the continuum of measures in the anti-doping world, or just kind of an add-on that looked good from a PR perspective. Or somewhere in between.