JV talks, sort of

[blackcat]

JV. No PR strategy. Throw the book out the window.

Just tell the truth. (generic axiom for future action)

I have a problem getting over a narrative of "I cannot finish the Tour because I cannot get a cortison injection for this wasp sting that has closed my eye".
"I doped (inferred) on USPS, but CA was different." "One year I rang Roger before the Tour, and asked him about taking assistance, I was desperate for results, and wished to pay Roger back with road results. He said it was not worth it, and dont take the epo." "Ventoux opened my eyes, and gave me the practical demonstration of what this erythropoetin could achieve. (please read my unsaid inference, that I stopped doping here, at this point, ALSO STARTED there for that brief period of preparing for the Tour and Dauphine)".

These talking points, were they three or four sentences I quote, words to effect of, all these 3 or 4 narratives, were completely, completely false.

I want to be gullible, because I want to believe what you are telling us is the truth. But you have gone pretty far to compromising trust.

And then there was Lim, therewas the Prentice Steffan email about perception being the most important.

I dont want Lim's thermal regulation theory frozen bidons on stage 17 hailmary glory. The frozen bidon hailmary glory, is piled ontop of our ricecakes, our sans gluten nurition.

Bill Moyers "What they want to keep hidden, that's the news... everything else is PR"

Moyers was a pastiche of Hearst
William Randolph Hearst "News is something, someone, somewhere doesn't want to see published – everything else is advertising."

rosebud

 

[blackcat]

Define everything? JV says lab error made Ryder test high. I asked to see corroborating evidence. *crickets*

that first year where Chipotle were at the Tour, I believe Millar was target tested about the 4th day. And again a day or two later. That might be wrong on the second back up test.

But that test back at the debut Tour, was that 08? Those skewed numbers from Millar, JV also said, were incorrect calibration of the lab technology.

Any number that you do not like, could be a lab calibration fault. It could. But no all of them surely.

We heard with from Dr Arnie Baker about all the incorrect measurements from Floyd too, with the testo assay. This was the weeks after St Moritz, who were there? Frikshorn, Pate, VdV, Millar, who else was in the pre July training camp. Was VdV target tested with Millar those days?

Perhaps, just perhaps, we have good reason to be suspicious, because we have been burnt for so long. No one would blink an eye if we threw vitriol ten-fold more aggressive at Ricco, or Schumacher, or Kohl.

 

[sittingbison]

JV, I see you are online now. Perhaps you can answer this question?

There has been considerable debate about "clean" TdF winners like Evans, with the most cogent argument for them doping being they manage compete against and beat a known doping field.

Can you explain how any of the guys like Evans can perform against dopers.

A corollary question is how can these guys (and modern domestiques like Dodger) seemingly outperform known NON blood vector dopers in LeMond and Badger

ta.

 

[JV1973]

JV, I see you are online now. Perhaps you can answer this question?

There has been considerable debate about "clean" TdF winners like Evans, with the most cogent argument for them doping being they manage compete against and beat a known doping field.

Can you explain how any of the guys like Evans can perform against dopers.

A corollary question is how can these guys (and modern domestiques like Dodger) seemingly outperform known NON blood vector dopers in LeMond and Badger

ta.

It's hard to figure out clean performances of very talented guys vs less than clean with somewhat talented guys. It's very difficult.

I just look at the VAM of the winner on key climbs, calculate the power, and ask if this is reasonable for a human or not. Then look at the top 20-30 in the same way. Then I cross coordinate this with the median hemoglobin being recorded during any given season by UCI. If I see VAM rates that are physiologically likely and HB values are within normal context, then I assume that the *majority* of the riders in the top 20-30 were clean or minimally doped, as they would be the ones most tested.

This has been the case in recent Grand Tours, which is very encouraging.

But, to specify one rider and say "clean" or "not clean" is impossible without seeing individual blood records.

Which is lamentable. Very.

The other night Ashenden told me I'd never win any of these debates, but the best solution was for the enforcement of anti-doping rules to be seen as credible, and if that happened then I'd stop having these debates. He's absolutely right.

 

[JV1973]

that first year where Chipotle were at the Tour, I believe Millar was target tested about the 4th day. And again a day or two later. That might be wrong on the second back up test.

But that test back at the debut Tour, was that 08? Those skewed numbers from Millar, JV also said, were incorrect calibration of the lab technology.

Any number that you do not like, could be a lab calibration fault. It could. But no all of them surely.

We heard with from Dr Arnie Baker about all the incorrect measurements from Floyd too, with the testo assay. This was the weeks after St Moritz, who were there? Frikshorn, Pate, VdV, Millar, who else was in the pre July training camp. Was VdV target tested with Millar those days?

Perhaps, just perhaps, we have good reason to be suspicious, because we have been burnt for so long. No one would blink an eye if we threw vitriol ten-fold more aggressive at Ricco, or Schumacher, or Kohl.

you have every reason to be suspicious. absolutely. I would never argue that.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Ashenden reads the clinic??

 

[Tinman]

But, to specify one rider and say "clean" or "not clean" is impossible without seeing individual blood records.

Which is lamentable. Very.

JV, naive question but why could these blood records (all of them, every single test) not be made public, say 3 months later. And put the onus on the rider/team to explain discrepancies, rather than UCI to "prove" positive.

 

[Ferminal]

Ashenden reads the clinic??

He'd have to be #13 in that case...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Btw - I am happy to give profiles and other info to experts. Not a pre-decided, anonymous, angry dude on a forum. Sorry, its not *crickets*, its "NO"...

When you show the ability to be objective and have expertise, I'm happy to be as transparent as you want. But you exhibit neither.

Lastly, you resort to "legends" pretty quickly. Why? Because tantalizing stories are more fun to you that reality. Me too. that's why I love Star Wars.

JV

Captaintbag has been asking for data from pros - you have already given him Ryders "clean" profile - have at it. Or did you miss all the tweets from Captaintbag as he does analysis and you respond to him?

 

[GreggGermer]

Thanks Greg for the balanced articles and posts. I think your 5 points for improvements are spot on. It's not rocket science but rather few people seem to conclude & go on record similarly. I have copied them below for the broader Clinic audience.

I am interested to hear whether you see anti doping control move away from UCI or remain as is, as you did not list this.

I am VERY much for testing moving to an independent body. I know JV wrote an article about it recently but I haven't got around to reading it, but from what the headline says is he wants the UCI not to be responsible for doping tests, which is spot on.

Actually I want the UCI to be responsible for only the administration of the sport.

Areas they need to be out of in my opinion include:

- creation of so-called "sticker" programs which is nothing more than a money grab by them and helps to give clarity to less than .05% of consumers (top elite pro cyclists). Yes, they should have a system to certify bikes to commissioners who can't do their job can see a sticker and realize a bike is within regulation. Don't make it an obligatory system which causes undue burden to bike manufacturers.

- Race promotion - why should the UCI have the power to take membership money, start a private organization and then make that organization's race a World Tour race over others? All this can do is create a conflict of interest in someone who is managing the sport and their "promotion arm". What happens when the "promotion arm" wants to take a prime weekend from a large race like Paris-Nice or the like? Please expand cycling globally, but the cronyism and conflict of interest at hand with the UCI is to much.

So, yes, no UCI testing ... I mean, when the UCI came out and told all the TOC that only they could test the riders, all I could think was; "Wow, there is a nice 'training' block that riders don't need to worry about getting caught, and the main sponsors is the drug company which makes the drug of choice for most of the riders. Oh the irony!"

I'm glad to post here and answer questions. I'm not super active as I've got other things going on in my life and only chime in when I feel my opinion can help further a discussion.

-Gregg-

 

[sniper]

I think I should slightly amend my comment:

I can vouch for two riders who rode for the cyclocross team I put together last year, Gabby Day and Craig Richey, during last year. As both raced for me, lived at my house and having spent numerous hours getting to know each rider I can, and would, go to bat against any forum weasel who tried to bring them down with doping accusations.

That said, if JV has access to the power data of his rider, blood profiles, and other information it is reasonable to develop an opinion on a riders cleanliness. You should be able to parse out a bad seed amongst your riders. The question then becomes do you trust JV's opinion and words, which I have a feeling for most in the Clinic would be a no.

I know Brailsford has said at the end of the season they would open up the data for Wiggo to anyone who wanted to see it, but has anyone taken him up on the offer?

good points. I fully accept that you can vouch for certain guys in certain situations, as you nicely point out.

my main issue, though, is with gratuite statements such as this one by Millar:

Sky won the Tour clean and they have become another flag-bearer for the future. But they're getting vilified because their zero-tolerance policy has been questioned. Yet they were still clean. They never doped.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/05/david-millar-cycling

Sorry, but that is just hogwash.

Or this one from Vaughters:

The former US Postal rider [Vaughters] also took the opportunity afterwards to stress his total belief that his former Garmin rider Bradley Wiggins won the 2012 Tour riding clean.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9553805/Jonathan-Vaughters-calls-for-a-Truth-and-Reconciliation-commission-to-look-into-cyclists-doping-past.html

We've heard so many say the same about USPS and Armstrong. Incredible that guys like Millar and JV still seem to expect of us we take such statements at face value. They've learned very little from the Usada files. Or perhaps they have: they've learnt that the cycling public is easily deceived and happy to assume cycling is cleaner if some guy with enough media appeal says so.
Insulting really, but that's their style sort of. JV is on here insulting his critics on a daily basis. He and Millar make an excellent couple. Cut from the same wood.

 

[GJB123]

The former US Postal rider [Vaughters] also took the opportunity afterwards to stress his total belief that his former Garmin rider Bradley Wiggins won the 2012 Tour riding clean.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...ping-past.html

It says "belief" (albeit total belief) not "know". He can belief that if he wants to and that belief probably stems from having insider knowledge on what Wiggins can do physically. JV stated more than once that he looks whether someone could do it clean, but never knowing for sure someone did it clean. I understand they are just nuances and word games for some, but should have learned by now that he chooses his words wisely and for a reason (and there is nothing wring with that imho).

 

[sniper]

It says "belief" (albeit total belief) not "know". He can belief that if he wants to and that belief probably stems from having insider knowledge on what Wiggins can do physically. JV stated more than once that he looks whether someone could do it clean, but never knowing for sure someone did it clean. I understand they are just nuances and word games for some, but should have learned by now that he chooses his words wisely and for a reason (and there is nothing wring with that imho).

goodness me. He "took the opportunity afterwards" to explicitly state he thinks Wiggo is clean. He wasn't even asked!. He proactively comes out in defence of Sky.

Please, GJB123, tell me why?
You'll agree with me that it smells like gratuite PR, rather than something he truly believes. I think JV senses that Sky are onto something, yet his and Millar's proactive defence of Sky suggest they actually don't care too much that Sky might be doping.

If Garmin were clean and if JV's intentions were noble, you'd expect them to be much tougher on Sky, especially after the Leinders debacle.
But instead, they're more than happy to defend Sky and publicly and proactively vouch for their cleanliness.

Try and explain that.

 

[hrotha]

JV, what do you think of the reactions from the peloton to the whole debacle in light of the ongoing Padua investigation? I have trouble taking anyone seriously when they spout the "it's all in the past, it's changed now, let's look forward" line, because that conveniently ignores that, according to the Bertagnolli affidavit and what we've heard from Padua, it's business as usual for Dr. Ferrari.

I'm aware your position is that the majority at the top of GTs right now are either "clean or minimally doped". Do you think these reactions are leftovers from a dying doping culture (not necessarily doping practice), or rather a sign that the majority might well be "minimally doped" rather than clean?

Have you talked to other team managers/DS's about Padua, or heard what the broader peloton thinks about it through the grapevine?

 

[sniper]

Please call Francesca Rossi for corroborating evidence. I don't have any. I asked her the same question

so you asked for corroboration, didn't get, yet you present it here as fact?

 

[coinneach]

goodness me. He "took the opportunity afterwards" to explicitly state he thinks Wiggo is clean. He wasn't even asked!. He proactively comes out in defence of Sky.

Please, GJB123, tell me why?
You'll agree with me that it smells like gratuite PR, rather than something he truly believes. I think JV senses that Sky are onto something, yet his and Millar's proactive defence of Sky suggest they actually don't care too much that Sky might be doping.

If Garmin were clean and if JV's intentions were noble, you'd expect them to be much tougher on Sky, especially after the Leinders debacle.
But instead, they're more than happy to defend Sky and publicly and proactively vouch for their cleanliness.

Try and explain that.

I'll try: maybe it's because Garmin see Sky as going though what Garmin did, and they feel a bit sorry for them. After all, they are an English speaking team, publically stating clean cycling at their core (albeit different methods), and then have to endure endless sniping from people they might have thought of as their allies, while other teams seem to get off Scot-free (maybe because DM doesn't ride for them?)
You may be right that JV senses that Sky are onto something, but that doesn't necessarily mean dope, it might still be something worth copying?

 

[JimmyFingers]

JV is on here insulting his critics on a daily basis.

Think this line is hilarious, considering the bile spouted here towards him, Millar and others in the Peloton here. May be worth removing the plank from your eye before pointing out the splinter in his.

 

[blackcat]

The only neo-pro at Saunier Duval in 2007 was Raul Alcoron. Unless you are talking about 2006 when we know that Millar didn't ride for the first 6 months of the season.

Or could it be that you are twisting facts to fit your agenda. Oh yeah, you guys never do that one here

the guy came 11th in the Dauphine prologue that year. Ex-jnr world tt'er, Basically a bottom age too when he won it, cos a December birthdate.

Beat Hushovd by a coupla secs, then Thor wins the prologue in the Tour, the one where it was just an up an back, think it was only 5km. Or I might be mixing up the DL prologue, with the TdF prologue. Also a material amount of time, ahead of Wiggins. In a prologue. When Wiggins was hitting this distance for his objectives. Think DZ was second, George third, who the heck won, the memory is failing this. Could not have been Vino could it. It may have.

All this comes off memory JV. So, no, I think most guys who read my posts, know I can reel off esoterica re:results from the period 02-09, off by memory. Some like Libertine Seguros, will correct me if I am wrong, or conflate a rider, or detail. But dont follow the results page on CN now, nor the sport really. Definitely not a CQ watcher.

So, might wish to ask the forum at large, if I am making up facts to fit my agenda. Lend it over to others to decide this. I am confident others will answer in my favour.

 

[Tinman]

Jimmy any contributions today? Or just another day at the office for you again...

 

[sniper]

Think this line is hilarious, considering the bile spouted here towards him, Millar and others in the Peloton here. May be worth removing the plank from your eye before pointing out the splinter in his.

hilarious doesn't make it less true.

 

[GJB123]

goodness me. He "took the opportunity afterwards" to explicitly state he thinks Wiggo is clean. He wasn't even asked!. He proactively comes out in defence of Sky.

Please, GJB123, tell me why?
You'll agree with me that it smells like gratuite PR, rather than something he truly believes. I think JV senses that Sky are onto something, yet his and Millar's proactive defence of Sky suggest they actually don't care too much that Sky might be doping.

If Garmin were clean and if JV's intentions were noble, you'd expect them to be much tougher on Sky, especially after the Leinders debacle.
But instead, they're more than happy to defend Sky and publicly and proactively vouch for their cleanliness.

Try and explain that.

He has been very clear on that. You expect him to pull the pin from the grenade and lovingly blow himself and his team up so you get the feeling he is indeed fighting the good fight. Okay, he is dead after that and can do zilch for cleaner cycling anymore, but he keeps the likes of you happy. It doesn't help cycling one little bit, he would just be the next dead hero/martyr, but you would be a happy chappy though.

I have stated before that I think he is seeking a slow revolution and picking his battles, he knows he can win or he knows he can afford to lose them without losing the war. That means he will have to be overly diplomatic while biding his time and sometimes not provide public support for those he doe support (e.g. Landis) or say nice things about people he might guess are not so nice at all (e.g. Armstrong in the past, Contador, Riis, Sky, McQuaid, etc.).

In other words he might be fighting the same battle you want to see fought (make no mistake you are in no way in the front line of that battle, no matter how much you like to think you are), but he fights it in a way you do not approve of. Now, I might be proven wrong in the future, but I feel confident enough that cycling needs more JV's right now than a load of self-proclaimed martyrs pulling the pin on a grenade for no use at all.

Regards
GJ

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Ya - there is only 12 of us



The above is a real good point - particularly from a fans perspective.

But it does not fall on JV to have all the answers, solutions or to be able to point fingers at others.
I often think that here people look at cycling as one big (happy) family where everyone knows everyone's business or that they share some unified approach. The reality is a sport in turmoil, full of mistrust with no leadership.

Add to that the genuine bullying from some (not just Armsrongs mob) and it is difficult to get disclosure and the full picture.
Unfortunately it needs all anti-doping taken out of the hands of the UCI (& the replacing of the boys club).

While I agree that JV (& all other stakeholders) needs to understand the fans perspective - the fans also need to understand his and theirs.
Ultimately, all JV can do is attempt to run a clean team.

It was more a response to JV feeling that he (unfairly) gets a hard time in the forum and explaining why people are reluctant to believe him and other people claiming to be anti-doping.

My view is that JV's anger ought to be more directed at those who cause him to be mistrusted than the people who don't trust him.

Some might think that combination is a pretty good reason to pile in!



And here I come back again to evidence - firstly, if they haven't been caught, how are they stupid?

Secondly, who gives a **** if they are 'annoying' - lots of innocent people are annoying, lots of crooks are great craic. Ullrich was a party dude. Pantani had charisma coming out of his eyeballs - both were still cheating s***s. Just because Lance was both a cheat and a functioning sociopath doesn't mean one must follow the other.

And finally, and most importantly, without EVIDENCE, this is pure conjecture.

Do you not accept it is possible that Ricco, is, you know, worse than 'the average'? not alone by any means - but not exactly just 'middle of the pack' either?



Again, again, again. Evidence!!! Sticking Brailsford in the middle there is not clever - a 'Clinic' consensus does not Evidence make.

For the record? I loathe Riis with a passion only surpassed by Bruyneel, and maybe Vinik... I loathe him as much as I loath Armstrong. He should be drummed out of the sport.

Contador saddens me, but also angers me. In my view the Puerto links (which a spanish court disgustingly weedled him out of), then the Clen bust is two strikes - and really should mean life ban. I have zero trust in his 2012 Vuelta. (I have little trust in the Vuelta full stop)

On the other hand, as a rider he is undeniably talented and exciting to watch - I suspect even clean Berti is probably a top tier rider - so it makes me angry to be 'robbed' of enjoying him because's he's a cheat.

As for Brailsford - I'm sorry, there simply IS NOT THE EVIDENCE that there is on the other two - but let me equally clear - if any ever genuinely comes to light, get him the f*** out of the sport, and do it with plenty of kicks to the balls. and if people want to advance the cause of even greater anti-doping measures to catch him if he's guilty - I'm all ears, ready to join.

Because, believe it or not, I've no skin in that game; on a very serious level, I don't give a toss if Sky get booted - I just get tired of witch-hunts based more on animus than evidence. And some of the anti-sky and anti-millar and anti-JV stuff seems more informed by pure animus.



I hate cheats, but I draw the line at that, personally - Cav has a colourful mouth on him when he gets started.

I do agree there are some worrying signs that Berti is getting the 'Patron' treatment - whatever Wiggins sins, both sporting and personal, i find it hard not to conclude that Berti's have disturbing LA like qualities - the 'friendly' spanish authorities, the drug bust all but wished away. But I can only reiterate, Berti has been popped, and is up to his neck in Puerto - Wiggins has never popped (yet) and I'm not aware of his being cited in any court cases - though I stand happy to be corrected...

I think you have completely misunderstood my point to the point.

In simple terms - Ricco is no worse than anyone else in the peloton when it comes to doping. However, his personality and lack of power makes him easier for the pro-peloton to abuse, than someone like Contador, Brailsford etc.

It is that the peloton displays with regard to Ricco the kind of pile on mentality that you'd expect in school yard bullying - find the weakest person in the group and pile on and ignore the others.

 

[GJB123]

hilarious doesn't make it less true.

I really, seriously think you re-read some of your posts concerning bit also addressed at JV and tell me seriously that you think you have adhered to normal forum etiquette and that you really didn't expect him to get irritated by that? You really do think it was the content of your questions that irritated the hell out of him and you really think that it wasn't the style of your questions and the fact that you might come across as somewhat prejudiced in your questions? Do you really think it had nothing to do with you seeming somewhat closed minded as to the explanations being given? Do you really think JV isn't f*cked with you he doesn't answer and f*cked if he does and that basically whatever he says you have already might up your mind about him and Garmin? I mean really?

 

[sniper]

He has been very clear on that. You expect him to pull the pin from the grenade and lovingly blow himself and his team up so you get the feeling he is indeed fighting the good fight. Okay, he is dead after that and can do zilch for cleaner cycling anymore, but he keeps the likes of you happy. It doesn't help cycling one little bit, he would just be the next dead hero/martyr, but you would be a happy chappy though.

I have stated before that I think he is seeking a slow revolution and picking his battles, he knows he can win or he knows he can afford to lose them without losing the war. That means he will have to be overly diplomatic while biding his time and sometimes not provide public support for those he doe support (e.g. Landis) or say nice things about people he might guess are not so nice at all (e.g. Armstrong in the past, Contador, Riis, Sky, McQuaid, etc.).

In other words he might be fighting the same battle you want to see fought (make no mistake you are in no way in the front line of that battle, no matter how much you like to think you are), but he fights it in a way you do not approve of. Now, I might be proven wrong in the future, but I feel confident enough that cycling needs more JV's right now than a load of self-proclaimed martyrs pulling the pin on a grenade for no use at all.

Regards
GJ

don't disagree.

but it's JV's and Millar's proactive defence of Sky (i.e. even when not asked) that I find troublesome.

Also, I'm not only judging JV's words from a PR perspective.
From a PR perspective they are clever and comprehensible, I no doubt agree with you.
I'm also judging them in terms of truthfulness.
They don't sound very truthful when it comes to Sky in particular and clean cycling in general.
While he can say that stuff in public interviews, on here in the Clinic we should be allowed to expect a bit more openness regarding the likes of Contador, Riis and Bruyneel. Yet JV simply 'doesn't know'. And he's defended Wiggo on here several times as well. Ok, he's backtracked on that a little bit in later posts, saying about Wiggo what he said about Contador ("I don'T know"), but that was only after some posters had expressed their disbelief regarding JV's supposed naivity.
It's his choice to come on here, not mine. On here, he should be held to Clinic-standards, which are a bit more exigent than your average newspaper interview.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Some might think that combination is a pretty good reason to pile in!



And here I come back again to evidence - firstly, if they haven't been caught, how are they stupid?

Secondly, who gives a **** if they are 'annoying' - lots of innocent people are annoying, lots of crooks are great craic. Ullrich was a party dude. Pantani had charisma coming out of his eyeballs - both were still cheating s***s. Just because Lance was both a cheat and a functioning sociopath doesn't mean one must follow the other.

And finally, and most importantly, without EVIDENCE, this is pure conjecture.

Do you not accept it is possible that Ricco, is, you know, worse than 'the average'? not alone by any means - but not exactly just 'middle of the pack' either?



Again, again, again. Evidence!!! Sticking Brailsford in the middle there is not clever - a 'Clinic' consensus does not Evidence make.

For the record? I loathe Riis with a passion only surpassed by Bruyneel, and maybe Vinik... I loathe him as much as I loath Armstrong. He should be drummed out of the sport.

Contador saddens me, but also angers me. In my view the Puerto links (which a spanish court disgustingly weedled him out of), then the Clen bust is two strikes - and really should mean life ban. I have zero trust in his 2012 Vuelta. (I have little trust in the Vuelta full stop)

On the other hand, as a rider he is undeniably talented and exciting to watch - I suspect even clean Berti is probably a top tier rider - so it makes me angry to be 'robbed' of enjoying him because's he's a cheat.

As for Brailsford - I'm sorry, there simply IS NOT THE EVIDENCE that there is on the other two - but let me equally clear - if any ever genuinely comes to light, get him the f*** out of the sport, and do it with plenty of kicks to the balls. and if people want to advance the cause of even greater anti-doping measures to catch him if he's guilty - I'm all ears, ready to join.

Because, believe it or not, I've no skin in that game; on a very serious level, I don't give a toss if Sky get booted - I just get tired of witch-hunts based more on animus than evidence. And some of the anti-sky and anti-millar and anti-JV stuff seems more informed by pure animus.



I hate cheats, but I draw the line at that, personally - Cav has a colourful mouth on him when he gets started.

I do agree there are some worrying signs that Berti is getting the 'Patron' treatment - whatever Wiggins sins, both sporting and personal, i find it hard not to conclude that Berti's have disturbing LA like qualities - the 'friendly' spanish authorities, the drug bust all but wished away. But I can only reiterate, Berti has been popped, and is up to his neck in Puerto - Wiggins has never popped (yet) and I'm not aware of his being cited in any court cases - though I stand happy to be corrected...

I think you have completely misunderstood my point to the point.

In simple terms - Ricco is no worse than anyone else in the peloton when it comes to doping. However, his personality and lack of power makes him easier for the pro-peloton to abuse, than someone like Contador, Brailsford etc.

It is that the peloton displays with regard to Ricco the kind of pile on mentality that you'd expect in school yard bullying - find the weakest person in the group and pile on and ignore the others.