JV talks, sort of

[romnom]

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.

Is the issue in the enforcement of the rules or the rules themselves? Being a complete non-expert I've never understood how the current anti-doping approach is supposed to work. You have a set of rules that is really strict and invasive to the athletes combined with a testing system that is expensive and ineffective at best. How is that ever going to be seen as credible if the science for effective testing doesn't exist? It's basically making promises you can't keep. Is the goal to actively prevent doping and the negative health effects it might cause or just to make the random fan think the sport is 'clean'? Maybe I'm just a doper saved by the lack of athletic talent, but it always seems to me like the discussion that should be had is about doping in general rather than credibly enforcing anything. The current climate of pretty much everyone asking for more and better testing and longer bans with very little talk about if any of it really makes much sense, seems pretty bad.

To me it has always felt like people in general are very open to the medical marvels of the world. If it's something that helps you with your personal training, studies, work, sleep, weight loss, mood or whatever it's all okay, when it comes to competitive sports it's a sure sign of moral corruption. Then again, when you get to systematic steroid abuse and blood transfusions it does seem like some lines have been crossed. Just more reason to revise the rules when people get the similar bans for blood doping than they do for stimulants that random gym goers use just train after work. For me all of this is just amusingly absurd but I would imagine that for the athletes and people involved in sports would find things like these rather annoying.

Would be nice to know how the people actually competing and working in sports would rewrite the anti-doping rules if they were given the chance. As it is the whole discussion looks toxic to me. Doping is bad and to maintain credibility people involved in sports seem to be pretty much forced towards all sorts of zero tolerance nonsense. Maybe I just don't get it, but when thinking of sports like cycling, where we know at times the majority of the professionals have made the choice to dope, I find it really hard to believe it isn't more about rules conflicting with reality than moral corruption. There's plenty of real legal issues with the shady doctors and drug trade but somehow the focus seems to be on banning athletes. I know which issue I'd focus on.

I have an anti-bull**** agenda. and by extension an anti-bull****ter agenda. Which sucks for you, and your ilk. Where the clinic does Good, i imbrace it - but people like you are a poison in it, rendering what might be a useful forum for sharing information and clamping down on cheats into a laughable w***fest.

As for intelligence...bring your A-Game anytime you like, Mrs.

Seriously, any time. Because, all false modesty aside, if it ever came to it, I'd ****ing eat you.

This looks like the perfect way to promote quality discussion over 'laughable w***fest'. If you haven't figured it out yet, no amount of intelligence is going to win you any of these debates. If you actually see the clinic as doing some good, it might be worth it just to let the madness go on and focus on the bits and pieces that make sense. Just a thought, if you feel like using your intelligence to ****ing eat me too, then go ahead. Might actually be a better option for you to be honest, you'll have no trouble getting the last word in that discussion. I'm afraid the clinic regulars have shown to be quite resilient over the last decade or so. Where ever the discussions have been. You'll get nowhere trying to fight it, and considering the history of the sport, maybe it's better that way.

 

[Neworld]

it's clear by now what strategy garmin has: to hijack and monopolize the fight against doping. it's a brilliant tactic and it is being bought by the press as well as by numerous fans, cycling commentators, etc. Millar and Vaughters are widely seen as present-day's doping fighters. at present, very few question the cleanliness of garmin riders, very few question JV's nobel intentions, very few question Millar's repentance.

I think that is a very simplistic, sweeping and generalized assessment. There is no G. W. Bush 'fight' against doping. Maybe its just cautious optimism allowing a few bright lights to capture the momentum of change so that more opportunities open up in the future. Nothing is perfect initially, but as long as it has a trend towards improvement 'people' will support it. JV has been fairly consistent no?

The overall concept of doping and corruption in pro cycling has stretched the elastic band of tolerance pretty tight. Don't worry people are watching JV/Garmin.

very well plaid indeed.

"plaid"...very Garmin of you !

 

[sniper]

I think that is a very simplistic, sweeping and generalized assessment. There is no G. W. Bush 'fight' against doping. Maybe its just cautious optimism allowing a few bright lights to capture the momentum of change so that more opportunities open up in the future. Nothing is perfect initially, but as long as it has a trend towards improvement 'people' will support it. JV has been fairly consistent no?

The overall concept of doping and corruption in pro cycling has stretched the elastic band of tolerance pretty tight. Don't worry people are watching JV/Garmin.

indeed generalizing, but that is just in response to Millar's and JV's generalizing statements in press about cleaner cycling, marginal gains, and sky's clean tour victory.
JV comes in here to bend data and see what he can get away with. I've seen little more.
Well, he's been very open about his own team, granted, but he hasn't said one single thing he wasn't supposed to say from a PR point of view.
I often wonder why he's in here under his real name. This forum's spirit is towards full transparency. JV is obviously hindered in that respect.
What I do see is JV cleverly trying to capitalize on the wave of anti-doping sentiments among cycling fans.

Millar is co-owner of Garmin. One can only assume he and JV coordinate how to go about spreading the message. Perhaps you are, but I am not liking what I'm hearing from those two guys in press.
Now JV is suddenly nominating Zorzoli for continuity at the UCI.
Millar is again (without anybody asking) stating how clean Sky won the tour. Evidence? There is non, but Millar vouches for Sky.

Much of it stinks, and in the case of JV/Millar there is no way that one says anything without the other approving of it. They co-own the business.

Look at how JV talks about Ashenden. Something uncomfortable shines through.
Look at his rants here towards people who do not instantly believe in clean cycling. (nb: most of his rants have been deleted by the mods, but they spoke volumes about what he really thinks of those who don't buy his tale of clean cycling)
Much if not most of what Millar/JV say is a repetition of USPS/Lance/Bruyneel rethorics. Silence the non-believers as preconceived haters of cycling.

Look at their preconceived support of Sky. (even though JV's slightly backtracked on that in later posts, now admitting that he "doesn't know", whereas he vouched for them on earlier occasions.)
Look at how he "didn't know" whether Contador doped or not. Of course he knew/knows. It was in the news ffs.
Look at his plans with Bruyneel. Look at his negligible public support for Kimmage. All awkward.
Look at the problems within Garmin. White, Weltz, Lim...

Most of the JV/Millar criticism towards UCI has come after the USADA report. How convenient.

Give me one reason why I should buy any of the clean cycling stuff?

JV has spoken of a "truce" called for by "most others" after 2007.
Is that just a shipload of horsecr@p or will we live the day that JV actually specifies what he meant by that?
I assume the former is more likely than the latter.

 

[martinvickers]

This looks like the perfect way to promote quality discussion over 'laughable w***fest'. If you haven't figured it out yet, no amount of intelligence is going to win you any of these debates. If you actually see the clinic as doing some good, it might be worth it just to let the madness go on and focus on the bits and pieces that make sense. Just a thought, if you feel like using your intelligence to ****ing eat me too, then go ahead. Might actually be a better option for you to be honest, you'll have no trouble getting the last word in that discussion. I'm afraid the clinic regulars have shown to be quite resilient over the last decade or so. Where ever the discussions have been. You'll get nowhere trying to fight it, and considering the history of the sport, maybe it's better that way.

An interesting reposte, my humble thanks. I have no intent to 'win' debates; merely express my views.

I post here because i enjoy doing so, and because two things that irritate me are major issues in the clinic - cheating dopers and bullsh*tters.

Doping talk is banned elsewhere on this forum, yet doping is a central part of road cycling for decades. That you have to deal with a few loons is the predictable price of involvement.

Can't say it bothers me. D*ckheads are like the poor; they are always with us.

One of the loons tried to suggest I was 'insane' or 'unintelligent' - because I called him on his bullsh*t. It was a rather pathetic attempt at an ad hominem from a contributor, the value of whose output goes downhill remarkably quickly on most threads he or she is involved in.

Some I have clashed with write some actually interesting stuff elsewhere - Dear Wiggo called me a few names, but actually some of his stuff is pretty interesting. I thought we had a heated but useful discussion on criminalising doping for example.

And some are just a bit on the 'sad' side.

Meanwhile the real fight, the fight to clean up the actual sport, goes on. I contributed a few times to the Kimmage fund; I wrote to both British and Irish Cycling. I wrote to An post Sean kelly's team. I even had a few discussions with some reasonably influential guys (of both genders) on the future of sports law in the area of doping, and other forms of cheating (e.g. matchfixing is already widely criminalised).

Don't worry that I somehow think the Clinic is 'the frontline' - it's not, it's just an interesting diversion.

 

[Benotti69]

Don't worry that I somehow think the Clinic is 'the frontline' - it's not, it's just an interesting diversion.

I doubt anyone ever considered the clinic frontline.

It is a palce that discusses information on doping and is an outlet for doping in cycling. The levels and quality of the information vary.

That the Sky threads are full of people who post nowhere else but defending Sky continuosly shows the influence of the clinic.

That Vaughter's comes in here, that Armstrong and his many minions have been and continue to try to obfuscate the information shows that the clinic is influential.

Its influence will end when doping ends.

 

[boomcie]

Dear Jonathan/ mister Vaughters

I have enjoyed reading your contributions. It’s nice to have someone from the inside on (the) board. Sadly, you have not been able to answer some of the interesting questions raised here, because you did not want to accuse any riders without ironclad proof. You did tell us that we could discuss this with you over dinner and though I believe that we could be bff’s, I’m not going to humiliate myself by showing up at your doorstep only to be denied a well-deserved meal.

To the point, my question does not involve any specific riders, so I believe you could answer it freely.

“I have read that Michel Pollentier and Freddy Maertens among others used to carry around condoms filled with clean urine in their anuses. This made me wonder what other self-degrading and distasteful things have happened in the peloton. To what lengths did/ do riders go to either dope themselves, or hide it from the world?"

Sincerely
boomcie

 

[GJB123]

JV comes in here to bend data and see what he can get away with. I've seen nothing more.

That is because you are not looking and not listening. You only want to hear confirmation of your own preconceived ideas.

Millar is co-owner of Garmin. One can only assume he and JV coordinate how to go about spreading the message. Perhaps you are, but I am not liking what I'm hearing from those two guys in press.

"One can only assume"? No, YOU assume it because it fits your agenda and preconceived ideas.

Now JV is suddenly nominating Zorzoli for continuity at the UCI.
Millar is again (without anybody asking) stating how clean Sky won the tour. Evidence? There is non, but Millar vouches for Sky.

Yes, there is reason to question those points. So please do so and see what they say. We already know JV is at best ambiguous about Sky when thoroughly asked and we also know he is not always happy with what his riders (including Millar) and staff say in public. BTW there also goes your "I bet they coordinating what to say".

It all stinks, and in the case of JV/Millar there is no way that one says anything without the other approving of it. Cut from the same wood.

And you know that (approving each other stories beforehand) how? Or is this one of your special hunches again? Furthermore it stinks to you, because that fits your preconceived ideas.

Look at how JV talks about Ashenden.

Actually I find him quite respectful on Ashenden. It is the people who can't stop quoting him like his the oracle of Delphi that clearly irritate the heel out of him.

Look at his rants here towards people who do not believe in clean cycling. Condescendent.

Oh booho, did he hurt your feelings?

Look at his preconceived support of Sky. (even though he's backtracked on that in later posts.) Look at how he "didn't know" whether Contador doped or not. Of course he knew/knows.

He knows as much as you and I do. That is that Contador received a ban for 50 picograms of Clen in his urine sample that was deemed by CAS to have entered his system in all probability not through doping. Not my opinion, not his opinion, but that of CAS. What would JV stand to win by commenting on it beyond that? If you think he knows more than that, please show us how he should or could know. Now most people think it was no food supplement but rather a tainted blood bag, but we realistically do not know for sure. Besides that how should he know anything about any alleged doping program by Contador? Everything else JV said was along the lines that he thinks Contador is probably so naturally gifted he could win clean and that he is happy he didn't sign him in the end. He has also been very clear that he is not going to say anything on any rider without having seen the data or the facts himself. That's seems perfectly reasonable to me for a man in his position.

Look at his public support for Kimmage. Negligible.

We seem to have been reading different things then. I thought he was quite clear on what he thought of that.

Most of the JV/Millar criticism towards UCI has come after the USADA report. How convenient.

And you actually think pulling the pin from that grenade earlier would have been useful? I said it before, JV is going about this very intelligently, fighting the battles he can win and staying in the war. It is of no use to go in kamikaze-style. We have seen that in the past. It is much smarter to use the momentum created to realize your agenda. I know you don't like that and that you prefer everybody to have a pair of c0j0nes the size of basketballs, but that is not the best way to go about it imho and it very easy for you to sit and judge when they are not your c0j0nes that are on the chopping block.

Much if not most of what Millar/JV say is a repetition of USPS/Lance/Bruyneel rethorics. Silence the non-believers as preconceived haters of cycling.

Don't flatter yourself. You are no Emma O'Reilly, David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Floyd Landis, Stephen Swart, Betsy Andreu, Greg LeMond or Tyler Hamilton. You are an anonymous poster on a cycling forum and there is no need to "silence" you in that respect or any other respect. He could just stop coming here (or stop answering to your silly theories) and be done with it. No skin of his nose. Did you at any time ever consider that the way you are going about questioning JV is rather rude, irritating and obnoxious and that someone actually might take offense at being called a liar in just about every post you make about him?

Give me one reason why I should buy it?

Yeah right, the chance of you accepting anything JV says is about as big as heel freezing over. You have already decided, so stop pretending like you're anywhere open minded enough when JV/Garmin are concerned.

 

[sniper]

I won't say too much, you wrote a good post, and perhaps you're right that I'm overemphasizing certain issues.

just a few things:

Oh booho, did he hurt your feelings?

no, i just stress it because it is from the same book as Armstrong/Wiggins: deny your critics by calling them fools, or haters, or conspiracists. We've seen how that worked out for Armstrong.

He knows as much as you and I do. That is that Contador received a ban for 50 picograms of Clen in his urine sample that was deemed by CAS to have entered his system in all probability not through doping. Not my opinion, not his opinion, but that of CAS. What would JV stand to win by commenting on it beyond that? If you think he knows more than that, please show us how he should or could know. Now most people think it was no food supplement but rather a tainted blood bag, but we realistically do not know for sure. Besides that how should he know anything about any alleged doping program by Contador? Everything else JV said was along the lines that he thinks Contador is probably so naturally gifted he could win clean and that he is happy he didn't sign him in the end.

Every fool, including JV, knew and knows that Dirty was on the juice big time, yet JV tried to sign him. He can backtrack all he wants (e.g. by saying he's pleased he didn't sign him after all), it still doesn't look good.

And you actually think pulling the pin from that grenade earlier would have been useful? I said it before, JV is going about this very intelligently, fighting the battles he can win and staying in the war. It is of no use to go in kamikaze-style. We have seen that in the past. It is much smarter to use the momentum created to realize your agenda. I know you don't like that and that you prefer everybody to have a pair of c0j0nes the size of basketballs, but that is not the best way to go about it imho and it very easy for you to sit and judge when they are not your c0j0nes that are on the chopping block.

agreed.

Yeah right, the chance of you accepting anything JV says is about as big as heel freezing over. You have already decided, so stop pretending like you're anywhere open minded enough when JV/Garmin are concerned.

I am in no way preconceived as regards Garmin being clean or as regards JV really trying to have his riders race clean. I don't really know. I am open for evidence. Note, however, that the available signs aren't very positive (White/Del Moral/Girona/Weltz, Millar's pro-sky agenda, JV on marginal gains, Wiggo 2009..) Try and explain that away. The only 'evidence' in favor of Garmin is JV's word. But his word is very reliant on marginal gains....

What I am preconceived about is this: the degree of cleanliness of present-day cycling. One only needs to read the news (and I doubt you or JV have done that recently) and one can learn that cycling isn't clean, nor is it 'so much cleaner' than in 2007. Yet that is what JV claims, states, writes, says. Why? PR. Understandable? Yes. Credible? No.

Finally: anybody tell me what JV meant with the "truce" called for after 2007 by "most others". If he doesn'T specify that, it'll echo in here as gratuite PR.

 

[GJB123]

no, i just stress it because it is from the same book as Armstrong/Wiggins: deny your critics by calling them fools, or haters, or conspiracists. We've seen how that worked out for Armstrong.

Like I said, don't flatter yourself. There is no reason to silence you, because your opinion has no public value whatsoever. That is not saying anything on your opinion but rather on the weight it carries (i.e. none). He could just as well be done with it by not answering you or not coming here at all. Stop and think whether it might have some other reason why he berates you.

Every fool, including JV, knew and knows that Dirty was on the juice big time, yet JV tried to sign him. He can backtrack all he wants (e.g. by saying he's pleased he didn't sign him after all), it still doesn't look good.

Asked and answered. He felt from what he did know that AC would probably also be awesome without PED's, hence his interest in signing him. I see nothing wrong with that and it is totally in line with hiring known and unknown drug cheats as long as they can win clean and are willing to do it clean on his team.

I am in no way preconceived as regards Garmin being clean or as regards JV really trying to have his riders race clean. I don't really know. I am open for evidence. Note, however, that the available signs aren't very positive (White/Del Moral/Girona/Weltz, Millar, JV,marginal gains, HEsjedal 2012, Wiggo 2009..) Try and explain that away. The only 'evidence' in favor of Garmin is JV's word.

Pull someone else's leg. You are the epitomy of preconceived ideas. When I look up preconceived ideas in the dictionary it says "sniper". :rolleyes

And then you come again with your great list of "facts" including Girona. Really, are you still harping on about that? I see that at least your goal is not to be taken seriously by anyone. As for some of the names; White he explained (he hires ex-dopers and fires them all the same if they don't adhere to the team policy), Weltz ditto (he said he told Weltz to stop talking out of his *** regarding the USPS-saga. We weren't ther but why should I doubt that happened), Del Moral he explained (note that he was ****ed that one of his riders went there and that he did not send him there himself), on Hesjedal (do we really have anything on him other than the thoughts of a self-taught google-"expert" of a few months in the Clinic. As far as I can tell anyone who even closely resembles an expert thought the blood profile was not indicative of blood doping), which leaves Wiggins 2009. Yes that is dodgy, but for now not more than that.

What I am preconceived about is this: the degree of cleanliness of present-day cycling. One only needs to read the news (and I doubt you or JV have done that recently) and one can learn that cycling isn't clean, nor is it 'so much cleaner' than in 2007. Yet that is what JV claims, states, writes, says. Why? PR. Understandable? Yes. Credible? No.

Well let's agree to disagree. I think cycling is cleaner than it has been in some 20 odd years. By how much, I don't know, but when you look at cycling you would be hard pressed to argue that doping is as structural and widespread at it once was. Are we there yet? By no means, but I have the sneaky feeling JV agrees on that, given how he is still slowly pushing towards more reform.

Nice to see you are finally acknowledging you have preconceived ideas. I wouldn't have known if you hadn't just told me. having acknowledged them, any discussion with you on the cleanliness of cycling is moot. Whatever anyone says, let alone a now convicted and self confessed PED-abuser who has a stake in modern day cycling, is of no use, because you will be instantly convinced they are wrong or lying or both.

Finally: anybody tell me what JV meant with the "truce" called for ater 2007 by "most others". If he doesn'T specify that, it'll echo in here as gratuite PR.

Again you are taking it way to literally. I know that suits your agenda, but do you really think they all set around a table and agreed to stop or turn it down a notch or two. I read that much more in the light that he could see riders were cleaner by looking at the times and the blood values and probably through the grapevine the peloton. Is that hard evidence? Hell no, but it does sound plausible to me. Then again I don't have any preconceived ideas on this issue.

 

[sniper]

ok, some good points ,GJB, and I'll shut up about it now.

however:
rather preconceived than having my *** fooled again like its 1999.
Ask Phil Ligget. He wasn't preconceived about Armstrong

again, there is nothing to suggest cycling is significantly cleaner or that sky won the tdf clean. So as long as JV utters that, I'll be cynical of everything else he has to say.

JV said it became significantly cleaner after 2007. He still said that yesterday, ffs, meaning: he still ignores Contador 2008/9/10, he ignores Armstrong 2009/10, he ignores the Schlecks, he ignores Evans, he ignores Bruyneel, Riis, the Padua investigation, Del Moral (who stayed in cycling until at least 2010), Marti (who stayed in cycling until at least 2010). Those constitute the front line of present day cycling (post-2007). Does he really believe those guys decided to race clean after 2007? Of course JV doesn't. So why speak of a "truce" called for by "most others"? I'm confused there.
He needs not go around and accuse those guys, of course, but he needn't go around telling us cycling is so much cleaner than it was pre-2007 either. Cuz if you'rve read the news you know that's hogwash.

if at all it is cleaner at present, it is because some guys are scared ****less to get caught, not because some "truce" was called for.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I think nurse needs to come and up someone's medication.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

JV. What is your opinion in relation to a proposal to introduce an unprecedented anti-doping regulation that would enable the authorities to ban all cyclists for life, from competition, management, or any future employment in any capacity within cycling, for a first time doping offense ?

JV alluded to this on twitter and JVs answer was basically what about Zirbel & Montriger ( 2 guys who tested positive probably through contamination).

I am not answering for Jv but as it shares my view I remembered it and you might get the principal before a good question gets lost in the deluge here.

 

[manafana]

JV is a prime example that someone can make a mistake in life but then go about doing what they can to ensure otehrs dont make same mistake and main reason the sky policy is a joke, cycling was very tained in the 90s thats how it is, yes lets speak out and name and shame but those who have showing a willingness to speak and change and especially those who spoke early deserve our respect.

 

[pmcg76]

I think nurse needs to come and up someone's medication.

You better go and see that nurse then, rather than being on here when your medication is running low.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You better go and see that nurse then, rather than being on here when my medication is running low.

I didn't realise that your need was so great. Perhaps a straitjacket might help you.

 

[pmcg76]

I didn't realise that your need was so great. Perhaps a straitjacket might help you.

Weak stuff, definitely missing bite without the meds.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Well I don't want to hurt someone as mentally frail as yourself. You'll only run crying to the mods and nurse.

Perhaps if nurse finds you an old jockstrap to sniff you'll feel a bit better. You know you always feel better when you're as close as you'll ever get to the things you love the most.

 

[GJB123]

ok, some good points ,GJB, and I'll shut up about it now.

however:
rather preconceived than having my *** fooled again like its 1999.
Ask Phil Ligget. He wasn't preconceived about Armstrong

again, there is nothing to suggest cycling is significantly cleaner or that sky won the tdf clean. So as long as JV utters that, I'll be cynical of everything else he has to say.

JV said it became significantly cleaner after 2007. He still said that yesterday, ffs, meaning: he still ignores Contador 2008/9/10, he ignores Armstrong 2009/10, he ignores the Schlecks, he ignores Evans, he ignores Bruyneel, Riis, the Padua investigation, Del Moral (who stayed in cycling until at least 2010), Marti (who stayed in cycling until at least 2010). Those constitute the front line of present day cycling (post-2007). Does he really believe those guys decided to race clean after 2007? Of course JV doesn't. So why speak of a "truce" called for by "most others"? I'm confused there.
He needs not go around and accuse those guys, of course, but he needn't go around telling us cycling is so much cleaner than it was pre-2007 either. Cuz if you'rve read the news you know that's hogwash.

if at all it is cleaner at present, it is because some guys are scared ****less to get caught, not because some "truce" was called for.

You are arguing as if he said it is clean. I think he is well aware of the facts you mention, but nevertheless those facts don't exclude the possibility that cycling has become cleaner compared to the period 1991-say 2006/2007. I don't think he or anyone else have claimed cycling is clean now. All he claimed was that a clean rider can now win one day races AND stage races. That's all. You are again reading way too much in his word. Unfortunately that happens with people who have preconceived ideas. They hear what they want to hear.

You have every right to be skeptical given the history of cycling, just try and be as open minded as possible that things can actually change when you engage in a discussion and I am sure you will find that he discussions become much more constructive interesting and less condescending.

Lastly nobody has said that cycling got cleaner (not clean) because most riders and DS's have suddenly grown a conscience. Quite the contrary and that is reason why cycling still needs a push to vastly improve the anti-doping effort. Funnily enough exactly the same thing JV is advocating and want you are slating him for or at least nit taking seriously for. Personally I don't give a sh!t why people called a "truce" or why doping got dialed back or why you can perhaps win clean now. All I care for that, whatever the reason, it seems to working, albeit slowly.

 

[pmcg76]

Well I don't want to hurt someone as mentally frail as yourself. You'll only run crying to the mods and nurse.

Perhaps if nurse finds you an old jockstrap to sniff you'll feel a bit better. You know you always feel better when you're as close as you'll ever get to the things you love the most.

Oh such a brave forum warrior/tough guy. I am quaking in my boots.

All you have are insults, nothing else, You simply go around spouting random stuff and the minute someone challenges you on it, the name-calling and insults start. The true mark of the insecure.

You are less than pathetic.

 

[pmcg76]

You are arguing as if he said it is clean. I think he is well aware of the facts you mention, but nevertheless those facts don't exclude the possibility that cycling has become cleaner compared to the period 1991-say 2006/2007. I don't think he or anyone else have claimed cycling is clean now. All he claimed was that a clean rider can now win one day races AND stage races. That's all. You are again reading way too much in his word. Unfortunately that happens with people who have preconceived ideas. They hear what they want to hear.

You have every right to be skeptical given the history of cycling, just try and be as open minded as possible that things can actually change when you engage in a discussion and I am sure you will find that he discussions become much more constructive interesting and less condescending.

Lastly nobody has said that cycling got cleaner (not clean) because most riders and DS's have suddenly grown a conscience. Quite the contrary and that is reason why cycling still needs a push to vastly improve the anti-doping effort. Funnily enough exactly the same thing JV is advocating and want you are slating him for or at least nit taking seriously for. Personally I don't give a sh!t why people called a "truce" or why doping got dialed back or why you can perhaps win clean now. All I care for that, whatever the reason, it seems to working, albeit slowly.

I had to laugh when sniper mentioned JV bending facts. Nobody bends things better than Sniper and his chums. They do the very things that they criticise people on here for but fail to see the irony.

 

[martinvickers]

I doubt anyone ever considered the clinic frontline.

It is a palce that discusses information on doping and is an outlet for doping in cycling. The levels and quality of the information vary.

That the Sky threads are full of people who post nowhere else but defending Sky continuosly shows the influence of the clinic.

That Vaughter's comes in here, that Armstrong and his many minions have been and continue to try to obfuscate the information shows that the clinic is influential.

Its influence will end when doping ends.

I don't necessarily agree, but I appreciate the civility in the response.

 

[sniper]

You are arguing as if he said it is clean.

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/225617454045478913

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I had to laugh when sniper mentioned JV bending facts. Nobody bends things better than Sniper and his chums. They do the very things that they criticise people on here for but fail to see the irony.

Ya, and then right on cue.....

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/225617454045478913

Did you not read the replies sniper - or were you hoping no-one would check...

Fmkroi- I'd say cleaner, a lot cleaner. Still clearly some dopers out there. And still some teams that need to improve the PR msg.
Vaughters - true true

 

[RownhamHill]

You are arguing as if he said it is clean.

I had to laugh when sniper mentioned JV bending facts. Nobody bends things better than Sniper and his chums. They do the very things that they criticise people on here for but fail to see the irony.

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/225617454045478913

So I just clicked the link above, to a twitter conversation, which I've copy and pasted:

Jonathan Vaughters
‏@Vaughters
@fmk_RoI 1999 dauphine, ventoux stage: VAM 1912, w/kg 6.8.... See why I feel cycling is clean now?

1-0 to Sniper!

18 Jul fmk ‏@fmk_RoI
@Vaughters I'd say cleaner, a lot cleaner. Still clearly some dopers out there. And still some teams that need to improve the PR msg.

18 Jul Jonathan Vaughters
@fmk_RoI true true.

Oh. Wait a minute. . .

EDIT Sorry Doc, you beat me to it!

 

[sniper]

Ya, and then right on cue.....

Did you not read the replies sniper - or were you hoping no-one would check...

Fmkroi- I'd say cleaner, a lot cleaner. Still clearly some dopers out there. And still some teams that need to improve the PR msg.
Vaughters - true true

it's what you'd call backtracking