JV talks, sort of

[JV1973]

Oh, and those so called 'cynics' they know what accountability and transparency mean. I'd suggest you study auditing basics. I don't think you know much about auditing, but then again I don't think anyone in cycling does. What needs to be done has been listed many, many times on this forum. But it never happens. Your sport, doesn't even come close. FFS, you are suggesting here, you spend $500K of 'your' money on anti-doping. No, your sponsors do. Your employer. And where is the tranparency in this? Having to take the unconfirmed word of an ex-doper who does have an agenda (albeit business agenda) to push! Comes with a massive pinch of salt. But wait...you a few months back suggested the UCI budget for anti-doping was inadequate and was as low as $100K!!! Care to qualify that type of madness for those of use in the forum who can count without using our fingers and toes?

As for the auditing part...it's funny how you mentioned Greenedge and their little PR act. When EY, PWC or Deloitte do a full financial audit of ANY pro cycling team, and publish all the numbers, then and only then should fans believe in them. Because Michelli Scarponi, the guy your rider beat in the Giro, well, the Italians have said some colourful things about him now haven't they and his financial position? Same goes for your testing internally. Nobody with an IQ over 120 would buy that your internal testing is good enough on word alone. Nobody. Want to know who the forum believes? Ashenden. Want to change the doubt man, show us you are not weak, that you aren't a sheep like well over half of cycling, one who follows the status quo, show us you really do regret doping and get his scientific group to run the numbers fully. Then publish them freely and educate the public. Having Kimmage sit on a bus ain't enough. The fact we have numbers getting thrown out about physiology on the forum proves it. They are all unqualified. Quantify and qualify it for people. Then the doubt will disappear and then you will be remembered for your efforts towards clean cycling. You literally have to go above and beyond what you think is enough because that is how far cycling has fallen.

As for your $500K figure...got a link to some financial documents? Stuff the US govt would see? Stuff the IRS would see? That'd go a way to proving the transparency part. Heck, you were the head of the anti-UCI breakway league. Along with BRUYNEEL!!! Lol Do you not understand how that makes you look? He's practically the devils henchman! And you think you have a right to dictate where dialog goes, least of all on a public forum? That guys who disagree need to be labelled and vilified? As I said, disgusting on your part given your history. Your history does not afford nor grant you such luxuries. Such is a commodity that you have not warranted. You literally need to be the polar opposite of what Lance was. And that requires patience. Actually, your words to the 'cynics' could be labelled cowardly. So are you that type of person JV, who is here to amend for past ills or are you just writing a bad script and getting emotional?

Now here is my opinion: Want to know the only riders on Garmin I think are clean? Ok. Farrar. If he is doping, he's doing something wrong. Haussler, but he is gone. Zabriskie, Danielson and Vande Velde. I can make a case for them. Talansky? Not after what he said about LA...either a brain dead idiot, or a doping apologist, aka doper. Dan Martin...I can't help but shake the idea that if cycling were clean, he'd be winning a lot more. No, I don't think his cousin is clean. Not even close. Hesjedal...Tour placing, I'd buy it, Giro??? Granted I think Scarponi and Basso toned it down compared to 2010 and 2011, but Rodriguez...yeah, need I say anymore? I will...what is your opinion regarding the statements of other former Postal riders who stated to USADA they doped between periond X and Y, but we all know, were killing it afterwards in period Z? You don't have to name anybody. Or if it is easier to answer in a different manner, do you believe everyone fully disclosed the whole truth to USADA regarding their doping? Because some people conveniently appear to have left some periods blank and dope free...results and performances relative to others state otherwise. And we all know the peleton talks non stop...loose lips sink ships. As for your selective ego boosting figures...I call BS on them. Don't believe them for a second. Nothing personal, but the manner they were given and logic behind doing so...ego boosting. Boasting coupled with bashing those who didn't reach your level. I have never heard Hinault of LeMond talk smack about lower level guys like that...but we've heard LA do it. Not classy at all. If you know better than the Conti guys, educate them and the public. Oh but that is why you're here...snap? With a massive dash of uber attitude tucked on as well. If your numbers were clean, you'd have been stating for a long time you were a potential big time winner if racing was clean. I don't recall hearing such words.

I'll even give you the chance to answer another question you bucked. Doing so will clarify your personal claims. Who without dope, at Postal, was the best? It's pretty simple. Because your figures, indicate you, if they are correct. Don't forget this forumists...JV indicated very subtly, he is uber elite and nobody questioned it. Nobody. Lance's figures aren't even close enough to warrant comparison, regardless of whether JV swings it to a dismissive claim about lactate threshold being of more merit. Actually JV, I'll make it easier for you...riding clean, were you better than Lance? Because at 23 Lance never had numbers that high. Few people ever will. Even now in the peloton. I've heard of none that have figures that high. So enlighten us...

One last thing. If you have been dishonest, lied or with held info about doping, or have dopers on your team, then I pray to God they are found, all is revealed and such people are run from the sport for life. May they reap the full fury that Armstrong has faced and will come to face. Because lets face it, if this is the truth, plain as day, then it is on merit worse than Armstrong. At least he still maintains his punch line, albeit it ignorantly. Lumping on the Janus mask is far worse.

And no, I don't personally give a toss, but the hypocrisy and parallels to Armstrong I am seeing here is alarming. Worse, it's being applauded. And no, this doesn't surprise me at all. That man has had a very deep affect on many people.

Oh, I do owe you an answer:

Christian VDV was physiologically the best rider on Postal. You don't seem to understand my perspective on physiology. A high vo2 max does not make a great rider. I had a very high vo2. Higher than Bernard Hinaults, almost certainly. He was great, I was mediocre. Why? because while in a limited 30 minute laboratory test, i could reach very high points of shifting oxygen. He could do 95% of that for 6 hours on the road. I was a car with very big engine with a small gas tank and a driver with bad depth perception.

VDV proved more than once he had the best physiology. The best example is Jan camp 1999. We did a test up a big hill. VDV was the best, by far, with still low lactate. But the results got moved around a bit, so Lance wouldn't feel insecure. Read about it. it's a public story. Think hincapie may have told it.

That's my opinion. which is limited to 1999 and 1998. Floyd also had very good physiology, clean, as evidenced by his 3rd in tour d'lavenir, long before he doped.

 

[JV1973]

btw - vo2 max is not a great indicator of ability. We don't test for it. We use a test that steps up every 10 minutes, from power level to power level. You never reach vo2 max with such long/fatiguing intervals. We measure v02 , but it never gets to max before the rider fails. This test is, however, a great indicator of on road performance, because it lasts an hour and a half and is very tough the whole time. The guys hate it.

This type of testing is more aligned with how your body adapts to and tolerates acidity. Which is far more interesting than v02 max.

 

[JV1973]

Mr. Vaughters what do you have against Mr. Ashenden? I think you seem a little condescending towards him.

No, actually I like Michael quite a bit. We just emailed a bit a few days ago. What I have disdain for is him being used to prove anything and everything on this forum by people who've never spoken to him.

His thoughts are very good and logical. I have much respect for him.

 

[Galic Ho]

Can't be Hushovd, he says the rider was performing sub-par at the time, which doesn't sound like Hushovd either before he joined Garmin (when he became WC) or in his year at Garmin. He's also not constantly referred to as clean in the clinic at least.

Must be Moncoutie really, I guess JV saw his profile because he thought of signing him? And his point isn't that said rider was doped, but that blood levels can vary even (or particularly) for clean riders, if he for example were dehydrated during the test. Also, clean riders don't manipulate their blood, so perhaps their numbers to some degree can have more variance than that of a doped rider on a great program...

Sastre had the best run in GT's I've seen in a long time. From 2008 to mid 2009. Then he hit the proverbial brick wall at the 2009 Tour and went from wonderful to lackluster, almost instantly and never regained the form.

 

[martinvickers]

There is a distinct difference between not giving your opinion and lying or not being truthful. You do see that don't you?. Can you even begin to contemplate the sh!t storm of he came on a public forum stating that riders X, Y and Z doped? What's there to win for him by doing that? Do you actually think that will stop those riders from doping of they do? In the worse case scenario it will probably leave JV out of cycling. But perhaps that makes you happy?

We may not like the fact that cycling getting cleaner is a revolution in slow motion with setbacks every now and then , but I am certain it is the best we can hope for and personally have more confidence of it finally yielding better results the JV-style than the Brailsford-style or the Clinic cynics-style.

If I can suggest an analogy.

Some people just like creative destruction - they want to go mining with explosives, blow the whole thing to kingdom come. and that's fine, and understandable. We live our lives in the moment.

But the truly awesome holes in the ground, the great trenches and canyons of the world, were not made with explosives, but with water drops.

And much patience.

LA coming down feels like a firework - in reality, it's 15 years of attrition.

So much more so for organisational and cultural change.

 

[hrotha]

No, actually I like Michael quite a bit. We just emailed a bit a few days ago. What I have disdain for is him being used to prove anything and everything on this forum by people who've never spoken to him.

His thoughts are very good and logical. I have much respect for him.

Problem is, we don't have many other independent reference points. We have Ashenden, and then we have... the Captain, I guess?. There's also you, but obviously you're an interested party so we have to be more sceptical about what you say.

Perhaps if the new antidoping system that will hopefully emerge from the UCI's downfall allowed their hematologists to speak freely, and more profiles were made public, we'd have other expert opinions to rely on, and divergent analysis. Until then, you can pretty much treat every mention of "Ashenden" as a placeholder for "independent, uncompromised, believable external expert".

 

[skidmark]

Okay, next question - when can you have the clinic over for dinner?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Mr. Vaughters, I have a question. Do you feel that social media (such as a forum like this one) is an effective tool in promoting a viewpoint and shpaing public perception?

The reason I ask is that there is a pattern to your posting style. Long absence, followed by a flurry of engagement. This is in contrast to a lot of posters who have a more consistent profile. Also, I have noticed that on a few occasions, your presence is preceded by some noteworthy cycling news.

I appreciate your presence here very much, and I suspect that the majority of posters here do too. I just wonder why you do it. I guess it could be for the same reasons any of us post here.

John Swanson

 

[Pentacycle]

Sastre had the best run in GT's I've seen in a long time. From 2008 to mid 2009. Then he hit the proverbial brick wall at the 2009 Tour and went from wonderful to lackluster, almost instantly and never regained the form.

2009 Tour: exhausted due to riding the Giro
2010 Giro: crashed in 1st week, but too injured to get to the podium despite that breakaway
2010 Tour and Vuelta: Slight recovery, but still too much suffering from the Giro and showing signs of getting older(35)
2011: a year too much, age caught up with him.

What's not logical about that? The reason for his bad performances after 2009 were probably due to his decreased recovery capabilities, that's why he could put less training in his GT preparation. Guys like VdV, Basso and Menchov are having the same trouble imo.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

BINGO!!! Thank you.

It's not that I wouldn't answer these questions if you came over for dinner. But I'm not touching them on a public forum. You guys don't get quoted from what you say on a forum in mainstream media. I do.
Unless I'm prepared to legally and publicly defend my position that "I think xyz doped" then I say nothing. I don't have hard evidence and I'm not one to go accusing people without hard evidence. That is just as immoral as doping.

When I say "i don't know" it means "I don't know"... It does not mean I don't have a private opinion.

And this applies to contract talks with Contador... We never got to the point of the talks that i saw his blood values. So, I can't say one way or the other on the guy. I'd be happy to give you my opinion on this, if you want to come over for dinner. But not here. I'm not going to publicly judge someone who I have never even seen their blood profile or medical records.

But I have my opinion. just not for here.

I only give my opinion on items/riders that I have hard facts about.

In the end, what maybe you guys don't get, I don't care as much as you might think about if rider xyz doped or not. I don't claim the sport is totally clean, what i claim is that clean riders are winning more than at any other point in cycling's history. That's all.

Fair enough but then rather than making statements such as 'cycling is cleaner' then the true answer is 'I don't know enough to say that cycling is cleaner'.

'Cycling is cleaner' is essentially a meaningless, PR statement, advertising that promises 'new and improved'.

It is hard to say 'Ricco is hardcore and unreformed - while others had agreed a truce', when we sit and watch the Vuelta and appear to have entered into a new phase of the doping arms race.

I think the other problem is that your positioning yourself as radical, runs into problems because you are talking to the true radicals in the clinic, while you maybe radical for a reactionary like McQuaid, to many here you appear to be a sheep in wolf's clothing. Your conservatism and reluctance to be anything other than reactive (other than the terrible breakaway league idea) when it comes to breaking omerta and really challenging the ancien regime in cycling is understandably frustrating, and hence why some see your actions as PR.

We'd like you to throw bombs but you keep wanting to sit down and sing Kumbayah with the omertists and dopers.

 

[Froome19]

Problem is, we don't have many other independent reference points. We have Ashenden, and then we have... the Captain, I guess?. There's also you, but obviously you're an interested party so we have to be more sceptical about what you say.

Perhaps if the new antidoping system that will hopefully emerge from the UCI's downfall allowed their hematologists to speak freely, and more profiles were made public, we'd have other expert opinions to rely on, and divergent analysis. Until then, you can pretty much treat every mention of "Ashenden" as a placeholder for "independent, uncompromised, believable external expert".

Personally I see Ashenden as biased as JV. It is his job to produce articles that are supposed to be anti-doping so he is not exactly going to go out and say that doping is significantly reduced in the sport, even if that was his opinion.

 

[martinvickers]

It is hard to say 'Ricco is hardcore and unreformed - while others had agreed a truce', when we sit and watch the Vuelta and appear to have entered into a new phase of the doping arms race.

To be fair, nearly killing yourself with your own amateur blood bagging system, having already been pinged, strikes me as probably on the outer edges of doping, even now - a desperate and tragic kind of hardcore, perhaps, but i'm not sure the word is really so unsuitable.

 

[del1962]

Personally I see Ashenden as biased as JV. It is his job to produce articles that are supposed to be anti-doping so he is not exactly going to go out and say that doping is significantly reduced in the sport, even if that was his opinion.

I don't think that is really fair on Ashenden.

 

[thehog]

Personally I see Ashenden as biased as JV. It is his job to produce articles that are supposed to be anti-doping so he is not exactly going to go out and say that doping is significantly reduced in the sport, even if that was his opinion.

No his job is not to issue reports. That's not what he does at all.

Do you know what his position is? He is a scientist. Scientests are peer reviewed for accuracy of their work, their findings and results.

He and Vaughters are miles apart in terms of the regulation they follow.

This is like saying a doctors make people sick so they keep coming back to hospital and seeing doctors.

I think you're being stupid now.

 

[acoggan]

Coggan's first posts on this forum were to toot his own horn

Again with the ad hominem attacks...

Considering that my presence here predates yours and the search function will only call up someone's last ~500 posts, I'd say that you have no idea what was contained in my first posts.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

To be fair, nearly killing yourself with your own amateur blood bagging system, having already been pinged, strikes me as probably on the outer edges of doping, even now - a desperate and tragic kind of hardcore, perhaps, but i'm not sure the word is really so unsuitable.

More hardcore than having a motorcyclist carry your bloodbags around in a pannier?

What about getting a team mate to come over and watch your bloodbags in the fridge?

Ricco isn't the first or the last doper to almost kill themselves. Ricco was doing his doping DIY, Contador, Piti and Vroome have access and the money to the latest methods and support teams.

Dertie has Marti to sort out his drugs and blood for him, Vroome had Leinders, Yates and Ferrari to sort him out, and Piti just went back on the Banesto/Caisse program.

 

[JV1973]

Fair enough but then rather than making statements such as 'cycling is cleaner' then the true answer is 'I don't know enough to say that cycling is cleaner'.

'Cycling is cleaner' is essentially a meaningless, PR statement, advertising that promises 'new and improved'.

It is hard to say 'Ricco is hardcore and unreformed - while others had agreed a truce', when we sit and watch the Vuelta and appear to have entered into a new phase of the doping arms race.

I think the other problem is that your positioning yourself as radical, runs into problems because you are talking to the true radicals in the clinic, while you maybe radical for a reactionary like McQuaid, to many here you appear to be a sheep in wolf's clothing. Your conservatism and reluctance to be anything other than reactive (other than the terrible breakaway league idea) when it comes to breaking omerta and really challenging the ancien regime in cycling is understandably frustrating, and hence why some see your actions as PR.

We'd like you to throw bombs but you keep wanting to sit down and sing Kumbayah with the omertists and dopers.

First: This is the type of discussion that I am happy to engage in. So, thanks. You've listened to my points, now I need to listen to yours.

I cannot answer your question to your satisfaction but I can say, what you've read in the news regards my actions is perhaps not the full story. The behind the scenes has been pretty damned nasty at times.

Now, am I a radical, like Kimmage? No, absolutely not. I am in a certain role in cycling, which prevents me from taking his positions, unless I want to self immolate. Even if I could, I'm not as radical, at heart, as Paul. But, I listen to Paul, I take his suggestions to heart, I argue with him, and I respect him. I think he would say the same of me.

All of this said, I think we are fast approaching a time where my patience and temperance is less needed. I hope.

On to "cycling is cleaner"... I don't see how saying "I feel more races are being won by clean riders than at any point in cycling's history" is different from "cycling is cleaner"... In the end, if the talented and clean riders are winning over less talented and doped more than 50% of the time, I am doing fuggin backflips, because when I was racing it was 95% to 5%. And, quite frankly, that's what I see these days.

Ryder Hesjdal's blood profile and climbing rates in the 2012 Giro wouldn't have seen him in the top 10 of a GT in 1996,1999 or 2006...etc... That's progress. I am happy about the progress. that's all. I'm trying to express to you guys that there is real and tangible progress.

And I get flamed for that. such a bummer.

 

[Froome19]

No his job is not to issue reports. That's not what he does at all.

Do you know what his position is? He is a scientist. Scientests are peer reviewed for accuracy of their work, their findings and results.

He and Vaughters are miles apart in terms of the regulation they follow.

This is like saying a doctors make people sick so they keep coming back to hospital and seeing doctors.

I think you're being stupid now.

I phrased the post wrong then, but you can work out what I mean nevertheless..

 

[Benotti69]

Hey, I'm all in favor of $750k per team going to blood passport. !00%.

That's the first well thought out and unbiased thing you've ever said on this forum.

Yes, thats a condescending statement about you. Why? Because I do not have respect for those that have already made up their mind before the debate begins. None.

it's not limited to you or sniper or anyone. i just have a disdain for people that assume they are always correct. In any argument.

You appear to enjoy this from what you no doubt consider a lofty position as DS/Owner of Slipstream a pro cycling team, but from where fans sit that lofty position is at sewer level.

Keep the speil going you can fool some of the people some of the time.

 

[Netserk]

Hi JV.

What is your opinion regarding the legal action between Kimmage and McQuaid/Verbruggen?

 

[JV1973]

More hardcore than having a motorcyclist carry your bloodbags around in a pannier?

What about getting a team mate to come over and watch your bloodbags in the fridge?

Ricco isn't the first or the last doper to almost kill themselves. Ricco was doing his doping DIY, Contador, Piti and Vroome have access and the money to the latest methods and support teams.

Dertie has Marti to sort out his drugs and blood for him, Vroome had Leinders, Yates and Ferrari to sort him out, and Piti just went back on the Banesto/Caisse program.

Gotta say, that is one thing I cannot reconcile... I knew about AC and Marti working together when we were talking to him. It bothered me, but I had been assured by some folks working in anti doping that AC's profile would be very stable. But working w Marto did not pass the sniff test, for sure, and especially with my knowledge. So, shame on me.

I am, a bit too optimistic, at times. I was hoping that perhaps Marti had moved on. And maybe he has/did? I don't know. And I never saw the blood profile to judge one way or the other. But, I wasn't totally comfortable with it. Honestly, I'm glad it didn't work out.

We won a GT in a way I don't have to be self conflicted about.

 

[JV1973]

Hi JV.

What is your opinion regarding the legal action between Kimmage and McQuaid/Verbruggen?

I think Paul has a very good case. More than most know.

 

[martinvickers]

You appear to enjoy this from what you no doubt consider a lofty position as DS/Owner of Slipstream a pro cycling team, but from where fans sit that lofty position is at sewer level.

Keep the speil going you can fool some of the people some of the time.

Seriously, B? This level of personal animus is constructive?

And, with the absolute and most genuine respect - you don't speak for 'fans' - you speak for yourself, nobody elected or appointed you. So let's try and keep the debate out of that cul-de-sac...

 

[BroDeal]

Is the breakaway league officially dead? It would seem to be a great time to use the possibility of it as a way to exert pressure on the UCI. Without the world championships, there would be a huge hole in the UCI's budget.

 

[Galic Ho]

Oh, I do owe you an answer:

Christian VDV was physiologically the best rider on Postal. You don't seem to understand my perspective on physiology. A high vo2 max does not make a great rider. I had a very high vo2. Higher than Bernard Hinaults, almost certainly. He was great, I was mediocre. Why? because while in a limited 30 minute laboratory test, i could reach very high points of shifting oxygen. He could do 95% of that for 6 hours on the road. I was a car with very big engine with a small gas tank and a driver with bad depth perception.

VDV proved more than once he had the best physiology. The best example is Jan camp 1999. We did a test up a big hill. VDV was the best, by far, with still low lactate. But the results got moved around a bit, so Lance wouldn't feel insecure. Read about it. it's a public story. Think hincapie may have told it.

That's my opinion. which is limited to 1999 and 1998. Floyd also had very good physiology, clean, as evidenced by his 3rd in tour d'lavenir, long before he doped.

Thanks for the answer. I buy that. That filled in the blanks. I'd heard the talk about Christian before and always assumed he had to be at the top or near it. But that's only with basic info. That's all I needed to here. Always thought Christian was the most talented. Would explain your thoughts on the 2008 Tour as well. I'd heard an AIS rider pull similar VO2max figures to you. I don't here about him performing at all and his numbers are higher than Cadel's. Heck, I had to do a double take when I heard his. I'd also heard Floyd has some really high numbers...but never had them confirmed on the forum despite asking.

My apologies for the accusatory tone regarding your posts about your physiology. This reply clarifies and qualifies those posts you made earlier. I should have given the other alternative...matter of fact blank statement. Like your position on other current riders and teams. Nobody can exist currently in cycling and just go boom he dopes. Most here understand that. Which might be why you aren't always charitable with those who are overtly 'cynical.' My qualm is that labeling people as such, can be used to deflect valid questioning when such people may raise a solid point. It's a general life thing, has nothing to do with cycling let alone you. Kind of a personal guideline. My first law lecturer said to question everything...was good advice.

But the rest of what I said...well, that is how it can appear to an outsider. As if you choose to be condescending every now and then. Most of your posts I don't have a problem with. My take is you just don't like hearing the same thing again and again and then you react. We all do it. All of us. As for the bit about being like LA, well I was just reading the bits Tyler mentioned about you...so I draw the parallel. Certain psychological characteristics are not inherently bad, it's how one uses them. The preparation, attention to detail, fascination with scientific endeavours, are traits that are needed to apply oneself to the highest degree in modern sport. Also a stubbornness and slight arrogance is needed. One might call it selfishness. You and LA having similar traits isn't bad...it's how you use them. And no, I haven't heard of you bullying and harassing other riders. Not even close. I don't believe that is the case here.

People on the forum need to remember, having a professional here is unique, even more so that said professional is deeply routed in cycling. There in lies the weakness. Witnessed doping and also participant. But not like some immersed themselves. Also you advocate a reasonable position with Garmin. Don't tolerate doping, but are forthcoming that it has happened and riders disclose it to you/officials if asked. Fair enough, because that is the wise way to play it. It's how I'd play it. To not do so, like Sky have been doing and the Australian Olympic Committee have done is arrogant, deceitful, naive and I think conditions people to put themselves into a position where their only alternative is to lie. That is not a good thing. I accept, that if their employer asks them to disclose what they may or may not have done and sign a contract with that paraphrased, but also, unable to disclose to the public the details, then that is what the game permits at this stage. Cycling isn't at the point yet to do so openly. That's mostly in part due to the UCI. Garmin's position long term is more tenable than the reactionary positions some have adopted. The wiser play and yes, given what I just described, some faith is required on your word and stance as the company head. But if the time arises where you can disclose more...well I believe you would. You and your riders did talk to USADA and though you relied on Floyd getting the ball rolling, those who talked didn't criticise Floyd or berate him. (That's partly why I didn't put Millar on my list...the others is because I simply don't here enough about them to have an opinion).

.But transparency, or the ultimate version of it, means that everyone gets to do this and the public know. Problem is, and I am fully aware of this, that such a position of FULL AWARENESS and TRANSPARENCY has not been provided. So Garmin do in part, do more than anyone else. The platform is in transition. And the weakness part, that was regarding all dopers. It wasn't personal. Being Betsy Andreu or Emma O'Reilly is conversely a worse position to be in. But it showed strength. A very strong sense of self and personal awareness. Only the brave ones, said no and they were so few.

The whole positioning oneself in cycling is a matter of balance. You have the misfortune of being in a precarious place. Wanting to do one thing and do another because the playing field doesn't always allow you to state your opinion. I get that and won't criticise it. That's beyond your power to ever change. I personally, don't think Tyler could label you as troubled by doping in his book and you being in the position you are now in as being anything other than mostly genuine. My post(s) whilst might have sounded personal (they weren't I wanted to clarify the extremes offered) were not. Highlighting the extremes and trying to show you why you get the responses you do. I get it, that you cannot talk about everything...hence why I stated the forum has expressed many times about what should happen.

In an ideal world we'd all know what goes on. There in lies perspective. You see real numbers, be it rider physiology testing, hematology graphs and stats, money spent on testing. The forum and general public do not. Granted, if I were in your position, I could not come out and disclose everything legally, least of all with the UCI over my back the last few years. I cannot imagine 2009 and 2010 were much fun for your riders with Lance back. Bad memories. If everyone had the same perspective, or even a close enough resemblance, then there would be no cynics. The position of a professional is not the same as a fan of any area of expertise and nor is their knowledge base. I BTW am not advocating the public get all knowledge, rather that a system is in place where there are controls and duties and responsibilities are limited. Financial restrictions do not suggest the person in charge of salaries and cash handing transactions on the books be also entrusted with physically handling cash as well. The two don't go together...but with the UCI we see a lot of similar analogies. There is simply so much back logged dirt, grime and omerta littering cycling, that for clean to be the norm and accepted by most, huge steps need to be taken. More so than have transpired the past two months.

Regarding Kimmage and him tagging along at the Tour with you and the team? Did he room with the guys, eat and sleep with them? Or did he just hop on the bus? Do you know the degree to which Linus Gerdeman went when he (supposedly) had journalists follow him around the Tour? Is the idea of chaperones out for all the big riders? If that happened, well the image of clean cycling goes way up. Also, would you be against the French changing the law so anti-doping tests could do one, maybe two tests per Tour, between 12am and 2-3am during the next Tour? We've all heard there is a window micro dosing epo is traceable during and this is it...a day or two before the mountains or rest day. If this happened, people would really start believing. As for Ryder's win. Best looking win regarding doping I've seen. Lots of big guys, below their other years. Even Rodriguez...big difference between the Giro and Vuelta. Appearance wise anyway...at least your not spruiking your own rider winning in the style of the outrageous GT wins the last decade.