JV talks, sort of

[Krebs cycle]

Regarding contacting Ashenden directly, well of course that is a futile exercise. If he cannot reveal names publicly, then he isn't going to reveal names over email to someone he doesn't know who will subsequently post the correspondence to a public web forum.

If you were quick you could have bought some biochem stuff off him though last week and started your own doping program....


http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/26109947...LX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_500wt_1182

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/26109949...LX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_500wt_1182

 

[Krebs cycle]

Oh come off it you doping apologist!

oh I'm definitely an apologist, I've been on EPO twice and it was awesome!!

 

[AlpineClimbr]

I was promptly beaten down with a sarcastic wet trout by several posters who claim that every pro cycling team is on the cutting edge of sport science.

Ooooooh. Sarcastic Wet Trout. I was looking for a new user name.

Brilliant!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There are several points in here that are worth considering. For starters, if one is looking for a doping explanation they will find it no matter what Ashenden says. Secondly, Ashenden is not explicitly referring to sport science programs, but is referring to sophisticated/organized "doping programs". These are not the same thing and the former does not imply the latter. Many teams have had sophisticated and organized doping programs in the absence of sport science programs. He also says "pockets" which means that he is basically admitting that the problem is not widespread.

Thirdly, here we have another example of the usual inconsistency or paradoxical collective reasoning that exists in the clinic.... if Sky are the only team with a sport science program, that could potentially give them a performance advantage (without doping). I asked this question elsewhere and I was promptly beaten down with a sarcastic wet trout by several posters who claim that every pro cycling team is on the cutting edge of sport science. If that were true, then according to your interpretation, it would imply that Ashenden's comments could refer to any pro team, hence not the exclusive perfect match you are looking for.

When Ashenden says "new age", my take on that is the big changes in sponsorship/branding that have occurred and along with that change has come "propaganda" which is basically just them saying, we are a new team with a new sponsor, we doped in the past but those days are over. Again, everyone in this forum likes to cite "doping history" as a reason to be suspicious so why would you ignore the doping history of many current teams and/or re-badged teams when interpreting Ashenden's comments, but focus solely on two teams that don't actually have any history of doping scandal whatsoever? They don't have that history because they're not really "new age" at all, they're just new.

The entire problem with this forum is that due to the dope-centric bias (which I understand stems from a doping scandalous history), pretty much everything gets interpreted as code language for doping. If any DS or manager or cyclist from any pro team takes a strong anti-doping stance then it is "propaganda". If they remain silent on the subject it is "omerta".

Ashenden uses the term "pockets". Rob Parisotto and Olaf Schumacher stated several years ago "the gap has narrowed". Aldo Sassi says he believed cycling was getting cleaner. The average times and performances up HC and cat 1 climbs for the top 10 are minutes slower than they were 5-10yrs ago. USADA put the entire pro tour on notice when it basically said, we don't care how long it takes, we will pursue justice. Why does everyone believe so strongly that nothing has changed?

The entire problem with this post is you think a few people who question you (often quite rightly) is a collective.
Its a forum - some agree with you, some won't.

 

[Krebs cycle]

The entire problem with this post is you think a few people who question you (often quite rightly) is a collective.
Its a forum - some agree with you, some won't.

The entire problem with this post is that you assume that is what I meant. I don't, but I'm not going to post a list of names in such cases. It is actually quite obvious that not everyone in the entire forum shares the same opinions and for you to suggest that is what I am implying is just being a bit pedantic really.

 

[131313]

The entire problem with this post is that you assume that is what I meant. I don't, but I'm not going to post a list of names in such cases. It is actually quite obvious that not everyone in the entire forum shares the same opinions and for you to suggest that is what I am implying is just being a bit pedantic really.

Words have meaning. You have a habit of using them, then getting irate when people question them (such as telling me not to respond to your posts unless I go back and read all of your other posts for context, or such as assuming Dr. Maserati is a mind reader and knows what you really think).

You've pulled the "you people say blah-blah" card and grouped everyone with whom you disagree as a collective on so many occasions that it ends up detracting from the sensible things you have to say. In short, I think you need to learn to communicate a little better. Castigate away, as I'm sure you will...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The entire problem with this post is that you assume that is what I meant. I don't, but I'm not going to post a list of names in such cases. It is actually quite obvious that not everyone in the entire forum shares the same opinions and for you to suggest that is what I am implying is just being a bit pedantic really.

I am pedantic, thanks.

So - the reason you included all the stuff about "everyone" and the "collective reasoning" and the entire problems of the forum, was what exactly?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

@krebs cycle: If, when you used the term "paradoxical collective reasoning", you didn't mean to imply firstly that most clinic posters hold a similar view and secondly that we are all a bit thick, then you need express yourself with more precision.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Words have meaning. You have a habit of using them, then getting irate when people question them (such as telling me not to respond to your posts unless I go back and read all of your other posts for context, or such as assuming Dr. Maserati is a mind reader and knows what you really think).

You've pulled the "you people say blah-blah" card and grouped everyone with whom you disagree as a collective on so many occasions that it ends up detracting from the sensible things you have to say. In short, I think you need to learn to communicate a little better. Castigate away, as I'm sure you will...

I have a habit of getting irate when people twist and distort the points that I make into something else for the sake of nitpicking. Dr Maserati didn't even address the content of the post, his sole aim there was to nitpick over semantics. Alternatively, some people don't understand the science so they accuse me of not communicating properly when in fact it is their own lack of education and refusal to upskill themselves that is the real problem.

What is clear is that an anti-Sky collective voice exists within the forum (for the nitpickers, it does not represent the entire forum). However, the point I am making is that this collective voice does not use a collective reasoning. Certain individuals may not be paradoxical, but the collective voice most certainly does use paradoxical and inconsistent arguments. There is a lack of agreement which undermines the overall position.

Those whom are arguing that Sky's performances do not prove doping or are even highly indicative of doping are all pretty much in close agreement with respect to their reasons why.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I am pedantic, thanks.

So - the reason you included all the stuff about "everyone" and the "collective reasoning" and the entire problems of the forum, was what exactly?

Well show it wrt to cycling performance analysis rather than semantics.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have a habit of getting irate when people twist and distort the points that I make into something else for the sake of nitpicking. Dr Maserati didn't even address the content of the post, his sole aim there was to nitpick over semantics.

Well I have a habit of getting irate when people say I am part of a collective.

The reason I did not address any of your points was because I actually agree with the small piece that was somewhere in there.
I know - I went against what everybody but you thinks, shocking

What is clear is that an anti-Sky collective voice exists within the forum (for the nitpickers, it does not represent the entire forum). However, the point I am making is that this collective voice does not use a collective reasoning. Certain individuals may not be paradoxical, but the collective voice most certainly does use paradoxical and inconsistent arguments. There is a lack of agreement which undermines the overall position.

Those whom are arguing that Sky's performances do not prove doping or are even highly indicative of doping are all pretty much in close agreement with respect to their reasons why.

As a nitpicker I would point out that saying collective does not include everyone is rather silly.

Again you have attempted to lump people in to a group or groups - why not present your arguments and let them live or die on merit?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well show it wrt to cycling performance analysis rather than semantics.

Well at one point I did take a genuine interest in that - and I asked you questions.
However, you had a nasty habit of lumping my views in with others and then portraying views that did not match yours as having some sort of Anti-Sky bias.

 

[palmerq]

i think this is the questions for jv thread not the collective whatever agaisnt sky thread... lets leave it for jvs questions and take the other stuff elsewhere

 

[Ozzie2]

I have a question.

WTF? http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/news/blog/transperancy-international

Wow

I just read it

I thought the David Millar book opened my eyes
I thought THs book blew everything remaining away

This kid wrote a long heartfelt email, mapping who he is, what he is doing to catch up and get ahead, and he was just ignored

And then ignored
And he tried to initiate contact
And was ignored
And on and on, and then he was just spat out

And after alllll that, he just wanted the money he was owed and to be on good terms with you and everyone JV

And then he was **at upon by the "corporation"

Here is my question

Was it worth it Johnnie? $15k and everyone was happy.

I know there are 3 sides to every story, but maybe can I ask it this way...cos I wouldn't expect a reply to a question like "were you just negligent to your charges and didn't open the emails he sent, maybe you were too busy, receiving 300 emails a day and all that." I mean I get there sometimes, and the sh**storms I have to deal with , with my other sales reps etc.

So hows this?

JV: Was the whole affair one of the low points in your career?

Thank you for being man to be here and engage us, and best wishes in the relationship/ marriage

 

[RichWalk]

Wow


I know there are 3 sides to every story, but maybe can I ask it this way...cos I wouldn't expect a reply to a question like "were you just negligent to your charges and didn't open the emails he sent, maybe you were too busy, receiving 300 emails a day and all that." I mean I get there sometimes, and the sh**storms I have to deal with , with my other sales reps etc.

So hows this?

Not seen that transcipt before and its pretty damning; your comment above rings true for many a business, mine included, there are always areas one misses or fails to act upon in time.
Trouble is Garmins mantra is clean cycling, if this atricle is verbatum & accurate it adds further fuel to the comments that these born again clean teams, do exactly what they need to gain profit driven results whilst paying lip service to their stated aims.
That is until they get tripped up by the electronic media and have to band together a bunch of well publicised retrospective statements as a damage limitation measure.
This is not the way to manage an essential element of your business model and in countless other sectors could potentially ruin you ; until the taciturn acceptance of any links to doping, however tenuous are banished from the sport its going to be a very slow process of change at best.

I view much of this as sponsor related PR and the best I've seen from so called proponents of these outfits boils down to their teams being a 'work in progress'. Not something I'd like to go into my shareholders meeting and admit.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Not seen that transcipt before and its pretty damning; your comment above rings true for many a business, mine included, there are always areas one misses or fails to act upon in time.
Trouble is Garmins mantra is clean cycling, if this atricle is verbatum & accurate it adds further fuel to the comments that these born again clean teams, do exactly what they need to gain profit driven results whilst paying lip service to their stated aims.

This is confusing two different issues.

This transcript makes Slipstream look like an employer treating a worker badly and trying to avoid paying wages. But what it doesn't do is make Slipstream look tolerant of doping at all.

 

[Benotti69]

This is confusing two different issues.

This transcript makes Slipstream look like an employer treating a worker badly and trying to avoid paying wages. But what it doesn't do is make Slipstream look tolerant of doping at all.

It also doesn't make Garmin look intolerant to doping at all either.

 

[Ozzie2]

And JV either a busy guy who let it get ahead of him until it became neglect, at which point it was beyond him and legal got involved.

or they are just lip service.

to think the entire thing would never have come to light if they just paid him the $2000 bonus.

my read is the speed he replied with the comment about his being seen in non approved clothing at Pegasus suggests he was aware of everything every step of the way and was deliberately not replying for whatever reasons

I'd suggest anyone interested in jv and this thread simply cannot not read that transcript

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

It also doesn't make Garmin look intolerant to doping at all either.

Yes, it's essentially of zero evide ntial worth either way when it comes to doping. It tells us nothing, which doesn't stop some people with axes to grind from grinding those axes.

It does however make them look bad as an employer for other reasons.

 

[hrotha]

Yes, it's essentially of zero evide ntial worth either way when it comes to doping. It tells us nothing, which doesn't stop some people with axes to grind from grinding those axes.

It does however make them look bad as an employer for other reasons.

well, there's the issue of how few tests Lowe was subjected to, and how little they cared about them (so little they didn't even see the name of the doctor). And that for a rider with health issues and weird values who should have been scrutinized more closely than the average. Makes you wonder how they'd manage to detect suspicious values in a rider if he was doping.

Reading the transcript I'm surprised that White referred him specifically to Del Moral, not to the only UCI-accredited medical centre nearby, where Del Moral happened to work, which I remembered as the official version.

 

[Benotti69]

Garmin didn't seem to interested in the riders health either.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Just learned a little factoid: corticosteroid = catabolic steroid.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-catabolic-steroids.htm

One of the most common catabolic steroids is cortisone. This may be injected at the sight of a soft tissue injury to reduce pain and swelling. Cortisone skin creams may be applied to reduce swelling, itching, and inflammation associated with skin conditions, bad insect bites, or severe reactions to poison oak.

 

[veganrob]

Just learned a little factoid: corticosteroid = catabolic steroid.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-catabolic-steroids.htm

Yes, ther are two kinds of steroids, anabolic for building muscle, and catabolic for reducing inflamation. It can come in forms of cream etc. Or potentially more dangerous steroids like Prednisone which suppresses the entire body system. Long term use really harms the immune system as well as other organs. This is what they would use for TT's. Good dose of this and they are feeling no pain.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yes, ther are two kinds of steroids, anabolic for building muscle, and catabolic for reducing inflamation. It can come in forms of cream etc. Or potentially more dangerous steroids like Prednisone which suppresses the entire body system. Long term use really harms the immune system as well as other organs. This is what they would use for TT's. Good dose of this and they are feeling no pain.

According to JV, Dekker is going to lose 2 kg of fat and 2kg of muscle. Apparently the body won't take any of Dekker's leg muscle, just his upper body muscle - in a catabolic process that will see Dekker's absolute power increase.

I can't find a discussion online where a catabolic state is induced and muscle is broken down where you want it to be - ie not your legs as a cyclist. It kinda makes sense, but I'd still like an explanation.

In doing research on it, I discovered the whole cortisone = catabolic, which piqued my curiosity as losing weight and tolerating pain seemed like a double whammy for the pro cyclist. And we know cortisone is used in pro cycling thanks to a famous back-dated script.

 

[veganrob]

I am not aware of any catabolic steroid that can target a certain part of the anatomy. If JV is claiming this then it is totally some smokescreen