JV talks, sort of

Page 88 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
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.
Yes - DIY blood doping after already being pinged seems more 'hardcore', to me, than being involved in a professionally run team programme.

It's clearly more dangerous. It clearly isn't because of peer pressure or team pressure. And it's singularly more stupid given his existing ping.

So, yes, it's more hardcore - it speaks clearly of desperation. Rather like that guy who recently got pinged for EPO because he was going out of contract...
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Pentacycle said:
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.
You just described exactly what I said. Went from 2008 Tour, 1st, Vuelta 3rd and then 2009 Giro with two stage wins and a major resurgence in the last week to come 4th. Okay, 2nd given Di Luca and Pellizotti were booted and we all know Di Luca was on another level. That is 3 GT's in a row and amazing results. Even Contador hasn't done anything like that.

I wouldn't put Vande Velde in with Menchov. Mr Human Plasma. Dude nobody here on this forum thinks the Pope is clean. Check his 2009 Giro out. He's more than likely been running scared. He had a huge portion of his assets frozen for doping involvement. We all should know how much has been said about Rabobank and their doctors...Menchov won 3 GT's on that team. Basso, well not RoboBasso of 2006 Giro infamy, but 2010 he won one of the hardest GT's I've ever watched. My take is they were all doping and dropped it down. Whether they were obliged to by the UCI (Menchov may have been due to his super dodgy blood values) or out of the goodness of their hearts...either way, they stopped altogether or too scared to go back to the level they did 3 to 4 years back.

Sastre's results on their own speak enough volume. Watching him try and break away in the mountains in 2009 as the winner of the previous years Tour was sad. He was swamped. Totally different level of riding. The eyes don't lie. I thought he was clean that Tour, or if not, nowhere near he was in 2009. Age doesn't just rock up one GT later and suddenly becoming the deciding factor. Heck, I still think the cleanest Lance ever rode was in 2010 because he was scared of being caught after what Floyd said. Lance had Horner admit they couldn't keep up. Horner dropped their power numbers and the alarming thing for me is they are far lower than what Rogers was prattling on about at this years Tour. So I take it all with a massive load of salt and try and make something out of it all.

I never said anything about Carlos performances being illogical. I said his ride up Alpe d'Huez stretches the imagination too far if it is to be considered believable. Take what JV admitted about Hinault. Now take his natural successor LeMond. LeMond's best time is about 42 minutes flat up Alpe d'Huez that you can find numbers for. Rubiera in the 80s was the best time. Skinny Columbian climber. Carlos went 39'30" or a few seconds off. Where does he get 90 seconds, on the best climber from the pre epo era? It's an anomaly and why I don't think he was clean in 2008. I was simply highlighting the problem with Ricco. He's so easy to pick on it isn't funny.

Here's a better way of framing Ricco. David Millar rode for Saunier Duval in 2007 did he not? Do you really think he didn't or wouldn't have heard a peep about Ricco, Piepopli or Cobbo? Now do you think that came up in discussion at Garmin some time? I do. Perhaps this reasoning explains JV's perspective on Ricco. I can accept that from people who know. I can live with it. What I don't stomach is the journalists who were all over Lance and the way they sunk the boot into Ricco, but not Lance. That is disgusting and absolutely vile. I still remember Mike Tomolaris after Ricco was popped...most disgusting journalist commentary I have ever heard. Yet where are they now? So I do understand to a degree JV even David Millar slating Ricco, but not everyone. If anyone warrants some understand, it's the people who rode with him and knew and lost out because of it.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
BroDeal said:
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.
I think it's a rather good idea to split the running of the sport per se from the running of it's highest professional competitions, from the running of its anti-doping and disciplinary arms - the risk however is that those who run the competitions thereby become too powerful to control.

Think PGATour. WTA and ATP tours. English Premier League. All seperate from the body actually running the sport from a technical and grassroots angle. All very successful - but perhaps to the detriment of the PGA, ITF and FA...there's a balance between independence, and accountability... - we need a sport that the UCI can't ruin - but also one that can't be ruined by anyone else...
 
While virtually the whole pro peloton piled up on Riccò and singled him out, I don't think it'd be fair to say JV did the same. In fact, he did write a pretty balanced piece on the whole thing at the time. I don't remember much about it but it was about putting Riccò in perspective and about not demonizing him.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
BroDeal said:
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.
this post deserves an answer.
if, as JV claims, a clean(er) cycling truce was called for by "most others" (whoever those were) after 2007, one would have expected those who 'signed' the truce to sideline the UCI, as the UCI was obviously complicit in the Pharmstrong scam. More stuff JV won't be able to answer other than by pointing at his own conflict of interest, I reckon.
Related question to JV: was Bruyneel part of the post-2007 clean(er) cycling truce? If not Bruyneel, then why did you continue to include Bruyneel in your plans for a clean future of cycling?
Who would you rather do business with: Bruyneel or Pat?
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Galic Ho said:
You just described exactly what I said. Went from 2008 Tour, 1st, Vuelta 3rd and then 2009 Giro with two stage wins and a major resurgence in the last week to come 4th. Okay, 2nd given Di Luca and Pellizotti were booted and we all know Di Luca was on another level. That is 3 GT's in a row and amazing results. Even Contador hasn't done anything like that.

I wouldn't put Vande Velde in with Menchov. Mr Human Plasma. Dude nobody here on this forum thinks the Pope is clean. Check his 2009 Giro out. He's more than likely been running scared. He had a huge portion of his assets frozen for doping involvement. We all should know how much has been said about Rabobank and their doctors...Menchov won 3 GT's on that team. Basso, well not RoboBasso of 2006 Giro infamy, but 2010 he won one of the hardest GT's I've ever watched. My take is they were all doping and dropped it down. Whether they were obliged to by the UCI (Menchov may have been due to his super dodgy blood values) or out of the goodness of their hearts...either way, they stopped altogether or too scared to go back to the level they did 3 to 4 years back.

Sastre's results on their own speak enough volume. Watching him try and break away in the mountains in 2009 as the winner of the previous years Tour was sad. He was swamped. Totally different level of riding. The eyes don't lie. I thought he was clean that Tour, or if not, nowhere near he was in 2009. Age doesn't just rock up one GT later and suddenly becoming the deciding factor. Heck, I still think the cleanest Lance ever rode was in 2010 because he was scared of being caught after what Floyd said. Lance had Horner admit they couldn't keep up. Horner dropped their power numbers and the alarming thing for me is they are far lower than what Rogers was prattling on about at this years Tour. So I take it all with a massive load of salt and try and make something out of it all.

I never said anything about Carlos performances being illogical. I said his ride up Alpe d'Huez stretches the imagination too far if it is to be considered believable. Take what JV admitted about Hinault. Now take his natural successor LeMond. LeMond's best time is about 42 minutes flat up Alpe d'Huez that you can find numbers for. Rubiera in the 80s was the best time. Skinny Columbian climber. Carlos went 39'30" or a few seconds off. Where does he get 90 seconds, on the best climber from the pre epo era? It's an anomaly and why I don't think he was clean in 2008. I was simply highlighting the problem with Ricco. He's so easy to pick on it isn't funny.

Here's a better way of framing Ricco. David Millar rode for Saunier Duval in 2007 did he not? Do you really think he didn't or wouldn't have heard a peep about Ricco, Piepopli or Cobbo? Now do you think that came up in discussion at Garmin some time? I do. Perhaps this reasoning explains JV's perspective on Ricco. I can accept that from people who know. I can live with it. What I don't stomach is the journalists who were all over Lance and the way they sunk the boot into Ricco, but not Lance. That is disgusting and absolutely vile. I still remember Mike Tomolaris after Ricco was popped...most disgusting journalist commentary I have ever heard. Yet where are they now? So I do understand to a degree JV even David Millar slating Ricco, but not everyone. If anyone warrants some understand, it's the people who rode with him and knew and lost out because of it.

a lot of the targeted testing directed at Saunier Duval was due to David speaking with UCI about his time there.
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
0
0
Galic Ho said:
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.

/snip
On that note I'd say make your posts more concise...seriously, half the time if someone posts a huge block of text like you tend to I scroll straight past.
 
Sep 11, 2012
31
0
0
Mr. Vaughters

in the interview with Bicycling you talked about the data of the peleton that you see as a member of an anti-doping committee (don't remember the name). And you suggested that it should be published - cause the data shows the dropping vaules and it shows that it gets cleaner.

My question is - is there any possibility that UCI or someone who manages that publishes the data? You suggested that they should.
 
Aug 9, 2012
2,223
0
0
will10 said:
On that note I'd say make your posts more concise...seriously, half the time if someone posts a huge block of text like you tend to I scroll straight past.
I think it was interesting and readable. There are some members I tend to schroll past, but thats because I know the content will not be interesting, not because of the size of the post.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
JV1973 said:
You should write a book. Oh, wait, you just did.

Again, condescending towards you? Absolutely. Not because I have disdain for you, personally, how could I? i don't know you. But, apparently, you know me quite well. No, no disdain for you, disdain for the "by being an unbending skeptic unwilling to look at anything other than my own thoughts as being truthful, I am somehow being helpful to the sport of cycling"

It's pathetic and self aggrandizing. As was your novel above.

Not a personal attack. A statement of opinion.
If and when I write a book, it won't be about cycling. More along the fantasy route.

My first post, was me adopting a stance opposite to how you'd presented yourself. I did so to highlight the points I thought you'd missed. It appeared to me you don't understand some of the cynicism in the Clinic. Your part in that cynicism is a minor role, but a role every person who has doped has added to.

Do I think you owe me anything? Or haven't contributed to antid-doping> Not at all. The sheer fact you talked to USADA about your person interactions regarding doping is proof enough you've played a role. But you know fully well that perspectives differ. You know everything your team does and what you have done. Fans do not. They get PR and media releases. Which brings with it a lot of rhetoric. My point in highlighting all the negative stuff, was to show you, not my opinion, but that it is exceptional hard for people who have seen a lot of garbage in this sport they love, to balance out the contrasts, the lulls, the gulfs between what they see happening now and in the past both on the road, politically, in the media and regarding anti-doping.

Are you like Lance? Give me a break, Tyler couldn't have run what he said in his book about you if it were false. Someone would squeal. As for the bit about me asking about riders not being forthcoming talking to USADA. Again, that was to highlight that cycling presents a lot of things that insult people's intelligence. The bit about meeting people in real...that was serious. Man, we've all heard how people have reacted towards Floyd let alone what they are saying about Lance. I cannot imagine right now, having blown the whistle on doping at Postal, any of you guys can be 100% confident that if you meet a disgruntled LA fanboy that it will be all pleasant. My point was that the inverse is true, labeling people as cynics on a forum is one thing and it would be prudent that it remains solely on the forum.

You are 100% right. You don't know me personally and nor do I expect you to cater to everyone's whim or personal believes and pre conceived notions. I was just trying to paint a picture for you about how some may react. Not that the tone in the first two posts was my real position. As I said, you'd not pick me out if you met me in real life. Ok, maybe you would based on questions I'd ask, but that is it. Despite the tone of the first two posts, Garmin is one of the few teams I consider cheering for. And no, I don't expect you to come out and say blah, blah, blah, such and such is doping and this is why. As I said, loose lips sink ships and you could have the same done to your team.


Some may ask why? Seriously people...it's obvious LA doped. Read Tyler's book. The man was methodical, meticulous, read people very well, called their bluffs and knew things others did not pertaining to others transgressions. He had a very deep intelligence gathering pool working for him. He was very informed and he has dirt on a lot of people. I've honestly wondered if he knows some deep and dark secret (possibly sexual) about Verbruggen or McQuaid such is their devotion to him (particularly Hein). If he decided to just give in (which is highly unlikely given his cognitive traits and psychological profiling) then Lance could literally burn so many people down. He could undo Levi's statements (which not all believe he stopped doping after 2007), Hincapie's and a ton of other riders who have not faced anti-doping sanctions from the USADA. He'd know who was honest and who was not. Now his position ATM does not allow him to say, that is wrong because of A, B or C, but IF he declared he'd doped and told the whole truth....what is on the cards then? It is foreseeable Lance could fry Contador alive and many in Spanish cycling. Let alone the damage at the UCI he could ensure. When the ball gets rolling, it could all cascade and predicting how that would turn out...it's unfathomable. Anything could come out.

So yeah I get it.:p I'm actually more surprised JV pops in here and answers questions. More surprised at how he slips up from time to time with his answers. If you gave the calm, cool collected responses you gave to me, to everyone, no matter how repetitious they became or personal, then you'd win the battle every time. Every time. Just saying. And yes, as I pointed out, your position and past don't afford you many other options. Does that mean doping and sins cannot be forgiven. Heck, I think they can, hence why I like Garmin's stance regarding doping. For example, if Lance tomorrow admitted everything he'd done, I'd forgive him. I'm way past it all. Didn't personally affect me, but it has impacted others. You ask for something of others and lie non stop, you owe them your apology. Period. No, they don't get to hold it over your head forever if you apologise and improve yourself.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
JV1973 said:
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.
The problem is that when you look at i) what cycling fans have been told in the past - after Festina, after Puerto, after Rasmussen etc that cycling was getting cleaner and ii) who is also telling us cycling is getting cleaner, you can understand why there is such a high degree of mistrust from fans.

There are also a lot of fellow-travellers and sell-outs when it comes to anti-doping. Damsgaard is a great example - someone who was held up as a pillar of anti-doping, and he ends up going and working for CSC and Astana. Should we really trust David Millar, a man whose primary interest, is and always have been promoting David Millar. And there are countless others who are now jumping on the anti-doping bandwagon, but whose commitment to it is negligible, but who are doing so because i) it takes the heat off them, ii) it is the popular thing to do, iii) they think it will make them more money, but who will as in 1999, go straight back to the syringe.

You are telling us that cycling is getting cleaner, but we were told that in 1997, 1999, 2006 and we're being told the same thing now.

Without the caveats, you end up sounding like you are repeating the party line. I do think that a more nuanced, honest and dare I say it realistic view about doping in cycling would be beneficial. Firstly, it would help to educate the mainstream fans who don't read the clinic and believe in unicorns. Secondly, it would help to put more distance between what you are saying about the direction of cycling and what McQuaid, Wiggins etc are saying about cycling.

The other reason for the mistrust is that cyclists are so very very whiny when it comes to complaining about being asked about doping - Wiggins' response during the TDF, that terrible Talansky interview, pretty much any interview with Frodo Cavendish. My response is 'stop questioning my right to question you, you'll be trusted when you actually deserve to be trusted, you've lied to us time and time again.'

Cycling is like an alcoholic - always promising to give up drinking and then going straight down the pub and ordering itself a quadruple vodka. It then comes staggering back, vomits on the doorstep of the fans.

I appreciate that you obviously have to be diplomatic - to be honest, that you haven't taken a baseball bat to David Millar and banned him from speaking is a wonder to me. And likewise, that you have to deal with the cycling media that seems to have a collective IQ in the single figures.

However, I think you should expose the nastiness and the difficulty of the environment in which you operate. Firstly, the omertists need to be exposed, and secondly, it aids transparency and it educates the public. At the moment we only see it through what the cycling press tells us, and they are oxygen thieves of the highest order who have no interest, desire or ability to expose the current system.

The other problem with your approach, is that you risk being left behind come the revolution as the radicals take over, or alternatively, by not supporting more radical solutions, you allow the old guard, which is still very strong, to organize and defend the ancien regime. I think you have to jump and you have to be more radical even though it goes against your better instincts.

As a footnote - since we can't really discuss active teams - what was your view on HTC/Columbia? They talked a lot about anti-doping, but there were a lot of ex-dopers around that team and involved in the running of that team. They had a lot of success - a lot of it eyebrow raising - Velits in the Vuelta for example. Legit or suspect?
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
JV
I see you making a huge mistake here. You are talking about bike racing like it is either way smaller or way bigger than it really is, $750,000 for a teams passport contribution? How many teams have $750,000 or anywhere near that for only the doping control component of the overall budget? I think that is a tiny part of the bike racing teams out there.

I have not followed in super detail the differences in your rebuild process but some squads that have a zero drugs policy have had to purge quality guys. Now the world wide web is squeezing on other guys like Ekimov,Vino and Riis harder and harder until the organizations break.

I see little difference between you, Yates,White,Julich and others. One guy stays another goes? Got to send a puzzler to the fans.

I certainly don't know the answers to how to fix anything of substance for the long term. But some kind of baseline appears to be an emergency before sponsors start to write a never again policy for their company involvement in the entire sport at any level.
Some type of a fresh start amnesty doesn't look like an option but the only one.

I think bike racing has a feeder system that has to be modernized. An example that I know about is domestic US racing. Cat 1 racers should have higher entry fees with doping controls of some kind at every race. Even if that is just squirting for the lead official in a double wide porta-potty. Even if at the beginning all the samples are not tested they should be taken just to have the option.
A chain of custody protocol can be established for all samples but have the procedures lean toward the most likely drug users, which in my opinion are guys getting *paid* to ride.

In the areas I am most familiar with like S.Cal, NY, Germany and Belgium there are guys that are trying to get a ride with any team for a salary. By all outward appearance they are pros to most people. Not to you because you travel w the show and see the few 100 real pros that own cars and a house from riding a bike. I see cat1s and 2s and other fake pros as part of the problem. They will eat,shoot rub, inject anything for a contract and the recognition.

I think early ID of the groups rather than the riders is more important in the US domestic scene. I don't think a one size drug policy or price is going to work for "pro" bike racing.
An example would be do a 100% test for the Pro,1 field at Superweek , Redlands and have it tested at the absolute cheapest place for drugs and whatever manipulation you can detect for @40-60 bucks a test. The data could be used as a baseline for the federation rather than have the wheel of misfortune spin and have a double unlucky rider, use and get caught. The system now.The federation should earmark 100-200k for drug tests ven if they have to borrow the money.

You and your bunch have shown us lots, it's if we choose to use the data you have given us. Not using Lance, but everybody else. The argument of huge hush money payouts is dumb,unless you are that guy. I don't think you are. I don't think that there is a deep pocket money trail leading to a Levi,Danielson,CVV or DZ results. A scenario where they pee cloudy and everybody winks and money in pocket.

I see it as a value added tax setup rather than your rich team idea of getting 750,000 from those that can afford it. The federation needs to make things a little more logical in the stepping stones to pro racing .And what they call a pro product. The stakes should be way,way higher for Cat1s in the US.
example, maintaining a license. Must race in 30 races a year w or wo placing to be a Cat 1. Entry fees should be high, to include better officiating,prize money and drug testing. The quality of the field should way better than it is currently. The USAC should not be able to use the word Pro in their race announcements. Race fans on these forums think they have seen a pro race when in fact they have not. A pro,1,2,3 field is a total letdown for fans,except for the wife and daughter of the 3 racing against CVV.

You, not the fans have to define the professional product. The UCI has let everybody down but the people at both ends of the extreme are the most effected.
The people just starting or thinking of starting racing and the pros trying to get sponsors have been crushed by the dope show. I see this lasting for a longtime.

Gila, Bisbee, Redlands,ToC are/were all super fragile. If US cycling doesn't start to build some racing traditions the only repeated memory for US race fans will be doping, You,Landis,Lance,CVV,Levi,George,Frankie,Tyler,Zirbel, Tommy D,Julich....on..and..on. don't forget Oliver"standout" Starr said in a backdoor way he used.

I see a place for everybody..Yates,White,Millar,Julich,Eki,Barry,Riis,Vino and yourself in this big disfunctional family. I think your statements sometimes impose rules and money figures on guys that look and act like pros but are not. Lots of what I read here is people so angry about really black and white things that are just nowhere near that. Any sport that doesn't have room for Danny Van Haute ain't gettin' my money.If somewhere in between black and white is Danny and you I accept it.

If I am really or kind of wrong about the pay to play thing and all US teams have $750k in the budget for doping related anything please put me in my place.

PS get off of your lazy.as$ and bring your best guys to Philly. Keep a great race and great race tradition. Fuc Greenville, Chattanooga Tenn really? I mean really? Fix it
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
martinvickers said:
Yes - DIY blood doping after already being pinged seems more 'hardcore', to me, than being involved in a professionally run team programme.

It's clearly more dangerous. It clearly isn't because of peer pressure or team pressure. And it's singularly more stupid given his existing ping.

So, yes, it's more hardcore - it speaks clearly of desperation. Rather like that guy who recently got pinged for EPO because he was going out of contract...
There are a whole raft of dopers who got pinged and went straight back to doping.

Some got caught, others weren't.

Is a DIY programme really more hardcore than a team organized, professionally run programme involving doctors, couriers, complex logistic operations and subterfuge?

Ricco is just an easy target. He's no different to a large chunk of the pro-peloton. Some are DIY, some are organized and some are super-organized.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
JV1973 said:
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.
Sounds like Tabata intervals on a bike. Sounds like fun. No really. It's be nice to know one's own personal attributes. See that is why I mentioned transparency. If the public had this explained to them, well it'd go a long way to debuffing all the confusion about power outputs, lactate threshold, oxygen uptake, fatigue and VO2 in general. As it is people have to fill in the blanks and some people clearly have a better framework for this base knowledge and could impart a lot of good.

But there lies the problem? Do this for your team and everyone knows what you're doing don't they? They can formulate how to beat you...even more so if you're clean.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
hrotha said:
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".
That is the point though with using Ashenden's viewpoints. Hearing him speak or write, his language is succinct, fluent and straight to the point. It's very hard to argue against. Very hard so convincing is he in his assertions.

He's also one of the few people going into depth about how doping works, what happens physiologically and has no issue with stating such and such doped because of A, B and C. Everything that should be happening, Ashenden is ahead of the norm in that regard. He is doing a good job educating people on the points I mentioned which is desperately needed. Placing faith in the UCI and dopers is just beyond daft.
 
JV1973 said:
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.
Pretty sure I just read it in Tyler's book, too.

Also, not a question, but amongst all the discussion of 'how radical can you afford to be without burning too many bridges in the sport', I remembered that one of my favourite moments of the 2010 season was sometime in the early season when there was an interview with you about the 2009 Tour when you made an off-the-cuff remark about Astana 'soft-pedalling for Lance'. I mean, a shot between the eyes towards someone who hates being belittled more than anything. You might be a bit handcuffed with how much you can speculate in public, but that was one was pretty satisfying to read.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
There are a whole raft of dopers who got pinged and went straight back to doping.

Some got caught, others weren't.

Is a DIY programme really more hardcore than a team organized, professionally run programme involving doctors, couriers, complex logistic operations and subterfuge?

Ricco is just an easy target. He's no different to a large chunk of the pro-peloton. Some are DIY, some are organized and some are super-organized.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree to an extent. For all our 'suspicions' about other members of the peleton, there can be no doubt that Ricco doped; and then, being caught, doped again, in a particularly insane way.

I think that probably deserves censure.

it seems very odd to think of him as a 'victim' of other, cleverer dopers. The guy cheated. Repeatedly. In unsafe ways. So 1. he's stupid, 2. he's bent, and 3. he's a repeat offender. Regardless of what others do, that's what he is, and he has to go.

Now, just because I say he's hardcore doesn't mean others can't be too - it's a large house with many rooms - clearly Armstrong was Hardcore, Hamilton was Hardcore, Ullrich too - but as to those in the peleton today - what do we actually know, as opposed to what we think we know, or think we have deduced?

You say he's 'no worse' than others in the peleton - who? And this is the important bit, what EVIDENCE do you have of this - not hunches, not doubts, not dislikes - Evidence - because evidence on Ricco, Armstrong, Hamilton etc we have. in spades.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
acoggan said:
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.
I've long been aware that though you are not posting, you are reading the forum. Your name gets mentioned, you almost always respond that day, or the day after at latest. I was reading this forum when it first began...was it March 2009? I was one of the lurkers who decided to post, learn and contribute. I didn't see the point in not posting and the SBS run cycling central site was, well it still is a joke regarding cycling's dirty past and hidden secrets. So I made an account in August 2009. But I'd been reading for some time. The post I was referring to may not have been your first, but it was definitely the first post of yours I read. And you mentioned it more than once. I hear someone state their own worth again and again...instinct tells me they're bragging.

BTW who was it whose original account was named after Bruyneel's wife? Was it thehog or Race Radio? Anyone know?

Yes, the ad hominen attack is unfair. My apologies. At least you qualified your data later on in the power thread and provided a means for the forum to gauge and understand that of others. You have caught on to why I do this? You do the same to others...it's only fair. But I'll stop. I'll just read your posts and let you go on with whatever it is you're saying.

And no, I don't read the forum every day. I've been gone at times for months on end.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
He is a 'victim' in the sense that everyone piles into Ricco. The same with Rasmussen. He is the obvious whipping boy and an easy target - he is annoying, a doper and very stupid.

However, there are lots of annoying, doped and stupid members of the peloton. The only difference is they haven't been caught.

It is very easy to call out Ricco. Why not call out someone who is richer, more powerful and smarter, but also a doper/enabler. Why not call out Riis, or Brailsford, or Contador?

When Ricco got popped, Frodo Cavendish said that he hoped that Ricco was raped in jail, Millar jumped on the bandwagon. And yet, when it comes to Contador for example, Millar takes exactly the opposite approach.

Ricco shouldn't be in the sport but then 99.99% of those involved in the sport shouldn't be involved in the sport either. Singling out Ricco and ignoring other equally egregious dopers seems a little unfair on Ricco.
 
Mar 17, 2012
1,069
0
0
The thing about JV is, in my opinion: He, in fact, is a good, likeable person. I think if cycling was full of team managers like him, the doping issue would be kicked out of the sport.

Unfortunately, the sport is full of Riis´, Unzues, Amadios, Ekimovs, Lelangues, Leveveres, van Schuerens, etc., all people who know cycling as a sport where taking PEDs is equal to training, proper dieting and sleeping. These people also would certainly prefer a clean sport, but don´t think for a second that it will ever be clean, so they don´t see the need to get it clean, because Riis doesn´t trust Liquigas, Liquigas doesn´t trust Movistar, Movistar doesn´t trust Garmin, and so on.

JV, I´m sure of that, dreams more of a clean sport than many others do. But, knowing he runs a business, and does this in a sport where you just take PEDs, he can´t choose what his opponents do. It´s good to have people like JV around, but they won´t change the sport.

JV himself has discovered by his own body which massive effects PEDs have. In a clean peloton, his men would lead the business. Since the peloton isn´t clean, his men are just forced to do the same what most of the others do. Otherwise, Garmin and Sharp and many of their sponsors quit rather sooner than later, and JV is without a World Tour team.

My message to him: Keep the good work up, speak out loud, you´re good for the sport.

Some things, though, are ashaming. Not many, but they exist. Telling people that Hesjadal has won the Giro on bread and water, for example, is just ridiculous. I mean, see whom he has beaten: Zapatero, Rodriguez, Basso, Kreuziger, and so on. On bread and water? Never ever!! Maybe no EPO, no HGH, no cortisone, no Testogel, but certainly more than two blood bags.

Sure, he can´t say, "Hesjedal, I want you to become 10th in Giro, please not better than this", and I´m sure Prentice Steffen, another person who really is great for the sport and its image, hasn´t done the transfusions, but winning the Giro against people of whom we know what they´re on is probably not a good sign for a team which I generally consider to be one of the cleanest.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
He is a 'victim' in the sense that everyone piles into Ricco. The same with Rasmussen. He is the obvious whipping boy and an easy target - he is annoying, a doper and very stupid.

However, there are lots of annoying, doped and stupid members of the peloton. The only difference is they haven't been caught.

It is very easy to call out Ricco. Why not call out someone who is richer, more powerful and smarter, but also a doper/enabler. Why not call out Riis, or Brailsford, or Contador?

When Ricco got popped, Frodo Cavendish said that he hoped that Ricco was raped in jail, Millar jumped on the bandwagon. And yet, when it comes to Contador for example, Millar takes exactly the opposite approach.

Ricco shouldn't be in the sport but then 99.99% of those involved in the sport shouldn't be involved in the sport either. Singling out Ricco and ignoring other equally egregious dopers seems a little unfair on Ricco.
I think you got it.It's all the pre and post dope behavior that people focus on. He is a bad,unlikable doper vs he is a really handsome,likable doper and so well spoken. He wasn't arrogant before getting caught so he is different.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
42x16ss The Clinic 8

ASK THE COMMUNITY