JV talks, sort of

[Froome19]

How did JV know that when he signed them?

Considering all JV knew and his own involvement would they have lied to him, considering they had come out of the same environment as JV himself has, it is possible to assume that he could have known that they were not doping?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The question is simple - does JV set the same, or different conditions of team membership for convicted and unconvicted riders?

Why does JV make Dekker walk over coals to prove he is not going to dope again but does not even bother to talk to unconvicted dopers about their past practices?

Was Dekker's treatment really about riding clean and making sure Dekker doesn't dope, or more about projecting an imagine in the media?

If JV were so concerned about riders lapsing back into doping then why does he not make every rider undergo the same tests/work that Dekker had to undergo?

 

[the asian]

and yet he makes Dekker walk over coals because he wants to be certain he won't dope again.

I don't understand why JV treats convicted dopers differently from unconvicted dopers, even if he knows the truth about both.

Look at RH's choice of teams - USP, Phonak - teams that JV has to have been at least familiar with and their practices.

Why would you set up safeguards to make sure the likes of Dekker don't go reaching for the cookie jar but not for someone like RH?

Does Garmin operate a doping 'don't ask, don't tell' policy when it comes to the unconvicted?

What I understand from JV's posts are that, what he will look at is, whether the rider could do get reasonable results riding clean. All the riders who sign for them ofc will have to ride clean.
As pointed out by the poster above, JV might have not been convinced whether Dekker could obtain results clean.

For USPS riders, as there was an investigation going on he would have told them to come clean, and to the authorities everything they know. Ryder rode for USPS for only one year and probably would not have been part of the doping ring, which is a reasonable assumption to make as the reasoned decision has indicated that most riders at USPS were introduced by the 3rd or 2nd year at the earliest.

The question to ask is, if there is a doping probe of other teams such as CSC, Phonak, Rabo, would any Garmin riders be required to do the same as former USPS riders. JV's answers so far seem to indicate that this is the case.


I think it's the most pragmatic stance to take, considering the fact that he has a team to run.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Reactive rather than proactive anti-doping.

Don't ask, don't tell.

If you really care then why would you not set up the same safeguard procedures for unconvicted riders coming from dirty teams.

Pragmatic... I think Kristen Armstrong had the same view on EPO.

 

[Froome19]

What I understand from JV's posts are that, what he will look at is, whether the rider could do get reasonable results riding clean. All the riders who sign for them ofc will have to ride clean.
As pointed out by the poster above, JV might have not been convinced whether Dekker could obtain results clean.

For USPS riders, as there was an investigation going on he would have told them to come clean, and to the authorities everything they know. Ryder rode for USPS for only one year and probably would not have been part of the doping ring, which is a reasonable assumption to make as the reasoned decision has indicated that most riders at USPS were introduced by the 3rd or 2nd year at the earliest.

The question to ask is, if there is a doping probe of other teams such as CSC, Phonak, Rabo, would any Garmin riders be required to do the same as former USPS riders. JV's answers so far seem to indicate that this is the case.


I think it's the most pragmatic stance to take, considering the fact that he has a team to run.

Indeed, JV stated as much here when talking about JJ:
http://velorooms.com/the-doping-section/jorg-jaksche/msg52830/#msg52830

It seems like JV focuses on rider's personalities and will decide how to progress accordingly.

 

[131313]

The question is simple - does JV set the same, or different conditions of team membership for convicted and unconvicted riders?

Why does JV make Dekker walk over coals to prove he is not going to dope again but does not even bother to talk to unconvicted dopers about their past practices?

How do you know that Vaughters hasn't talked to Hesjedal about his past doping practices? And why do you assume there's a different standard for Hesjedal vs. Dekker, and that they're "treated differently"?

It seems that for good or bad, his approach is to "handle it within the team" vs. through the media. Serious question: what do you suggest he do? I mean, I guess he could force Hesjedal to admit any and all former transgressions prior to joining the team and take his 2 year suspension...but do you think anyone is actually going to join the team if that were a requirement?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The question is simple - does JV set the same, or different conditions of team membership for convicted and unconvicted riders?

Why does JV make Dekker walk over coals to prove he is not going to dope again but does not even bother to talk to unconvicted dopers about their past practices?

Was Dekker's treatment really about riding clean and making sure Dekker doesn't dope, or more about projecting an imagine in the media?

If JV were so concerned about riders lapsing back into doping then why does he not make every rider undergo the same tests/work that Dekker had to undergo?

I would assume he has different standards for different riders, not on if they have been convicted or not.

JV knows most of the exUSPS riders personally and would know their true feelings about doping. For riders that he might not know that well it would be logical to have a different standard.

 

[the asian]

Reactive rather than proactive anti-doping.

Don't ask, don't tell.

If you really care then why would you not set up the same safeguard procedures for unconvicted riders coming from dirty teams.

Pragmatic... I think Kristen Armstrong had the same view on EPO.

Which rider will sign for your team if you insist that they must disclose every thing about their doping and about their former teams doping practices.

Even the clean ones like Moncoutie might not sign due to the hazard of giving evidence to investigations.

You must learn to think from a team owner/manager's perspective also.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

How do you know that Vaughters hasn't talked to Hesjedal about his past doping practices? And why do you assume there's a different standard for Hesjedal vs. Dekker, and that they're "treated differently"?

It seems that for good or bad, his approach is to "handle it within the team" vs. through the media. Serious question: what do you suggest he do? I mean, I guess he could force Hesjedal to admit any and all former transgressions prior to joining the team and take his 2 year suspension...but do you think anyone is actually going to join the team if that were a requirement?

This is what I've asked him several times and JV has never given a direct answer.

He stated in relation to the USP riders named that 'he knew about their doping and the level and considered it not to be at the same level at Dekker'

To which my reply is fair enough but what about the other riders from dirty teams who you are less familiar with? What steps do you take to make sure you aren't signing a recidivist?

We are not talking about confessions here, we are talking about the steps that JV takes when signing riders who come from dirty teams.

JV only likes one question at a time and we've dealt with compelling people to speak. He has already said that his position is reactive rather than proactive and that was as far as we got with that. I'll ask JV about that after I get the answer to the first question.

 

[131313]

We are not talking about confessions here, we are talking about the steps that JV takes when signing riders who come from dirty teams.

OK, fair enough. My guess is that he feels that their internal testing would be able to discern any doping, but I agree that's a legitimate question which needs answering. Still, I give JV a lot more credit than Brailsford, whose stated approach is that all riders and staff who doped are supposed to pretend it never happened so that they can maintain their "zero tolerance" policy. I'm not saying I agree 100% with his approach, but I see a stark difference when looking at those 2 teams.

 

[Sarcastic Wet Trout]

The only difference is that Dekker got caught - it seems that JV's concern with making sure ex-dopers don't dope again only runs to those who have been busted because it makes PR sense.

This makes no sense. Your saying having unconvicted dopers getting busted for doping now makes PR sense? In what way?

Sounds like ranting.

 

[JRanton]

This might seem like a trivial point (and it probably is) but I noticed when reading the Michael Barry affidavit that on two separate occasions (2001 and 2002) Vaughters failed to clear out EPO vials and syringes in his apartment prior to moving out. He just left them under the bed and in the closet. It just seems strange to me that he'd leave this stuff lying about, if as he's claimed he was ashamed of his doping and struggling with his conscience whilst at Credit Agricole.

Can you clarify this please JV?

 

[D-Queued]

How do you know that Vaughters hasn't talked to Hesjedal about his past doping practices? And why do you assume there's a different standard for Hesjedal vs. Dekker, and that they're "treated differently"?

It seems that for good or bad, his approach is to "handle it within the team" vs. through the media. Serious question: what do you suggest he do? I mean, I guess he could force Hesjedal to admit any and all former transgressions prior to joining the team and take his 2 year suspension...but do you think anyone is actually going to join the team if that were a requirement?

Just observing that I am very confident that such a dialog took place.

Minimally, JV had to have a conversation as part of his 'practice' upon hiring any rider. But, I have it on good authority that such a specific conversation has taken place.

Dave.

 

[the asian]

We are not talking about confessions here, we are talking about the steps that JV takes when signing riders who come from dirty teams.

.

As 131313 said, I guess he must be relying on his internal testing.
He must be also thinking that guys once busted are will be more reluctant to dope again, perhaps explaining why he hires so many ex dopers.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

This makes no sense. Your saying having unconvicted dopers getting busted for doping now makes PR sense? In what way?

Sounds like ranting.

No because that isn't what I am saying and I am not sure how you read that into my words.

Let me rephrase it.

There is a view that JV is essentially a very slick PR man. That all his actions and pronouncements have to be viewed through the prism of PR.

JV's anti-doping is merely a PR move. He makes statements, takes action when it will either result in favourable PR or reduce negative PR.

The extension to the view is that by making Dekker go through all these hoops to join the team (but not making unconvicted dopers go through the same hoops) shows that far from being concerned about doping, JV is more concerned about appearing to be tough on (but also forgiving of) dopers.

That in short doping is not what matters to JV but rather image.

As 131313 said, I guess he must be relying on his internal testing.
He must be also thinking that guys once busted are will be more reluctant to dope again, perhaps explaining why he hires so many ex dopers.

This doesn't square with his comments about Dekker and how much work it was to get him to ride clean.

If busted dopers are less likely to dope again, unbusted dopers are more/less likely to dope again?

OK, fair enough. My guess is that he feels that their internal testing would be able to discern any doping, but I agree that's a legitimate question which needs answering. Still, I give JV a lot more credit than Brailsford, whose stated approach is that all riders and staff who doped are supposed to pretend it never happened so that they can maintain their "zero tolerance" policy. I'm not saying I agree 100% with his approach, but I see a stark difference when looking at those 2 teams.

I agree that there are obvious safeguards such as testing. What strikes me as interesting is that when it came to Dekker and JJ, JV talked a lot about mental make up, about how they spent hours looking at their behaviour etc, to see what they would do if the going got tough. Which is great, but what about riders from dirty teams.

If he were signing someone from say Saxo, or the modern day RS, teams with reputations for doping, how does he make sure that when the going gets tough that they won't dip their hands in the cookie jar? Does he do the same kind of mental make up exams on all new riders or just those coming back from bans?

 

[Froome19]

Was not the work with Dekker only because he believed that Dekker may not be capable of riding at a high level if clean.

Which he said was specific to Dekker, whilst the others he believed could do so (he gave example of Danielson)

So it explains why he tested Dekker and working with him so much, as it would not have been worth taking a rider on who was not capable of riding at a high level clean.

 

[D-Queued]

This might seem like a trivial point (and it probably is) but I noticed when reading the Michael Barry affidavit that on two separate occasions (2001 and 2002) Vaughters failed to clear out EPO vials and syringes in his apartment prior to moving out. He just left them under the bed and in the closet. It just seems strange to me that he'd leave this stuff lying about, if as he's claimed he was ashamed of his doping and struggling with his conscience whilst at Credit Agricole.

Can you clarify this please JV?

Quite possible that JV left on relatively short notice for a race/camp/racing season, and was unable to conveniently return himself to clean up.

Or, maybe he is just a messy guy.

Dave.

 

[the asian]

No because that isn't what I am saying and I am not sure how you read that into my words.

Let me rephrase it.

There is a view that JV is essentially a very slick PR man. That all his actions and pronouncements have to be viewed through the prism of PR.

JV's anti-doping is merely a PR move. He makes statements, takes action when it will either result in favourable PR or reduce negative PR.

The extension to the view is that by making Dekker go through all these hoops to join the team (but not making unconvicted dopers go through the same hoops) shows that far from being concerned about doping, JV is more concerned about appearing to be tough on (but also forgiving of) dopers.

That in short doping is not what matters to JV but rather image.



This doesn't square with his comments about Dekker and how much work it was to get him to ride clean.

If busted dopers are less likely to dope again, unbusted dopers are more/less likely to dope again?

High profile busted dopers who still have ambitions are less likely to dope again, we have seen with basso & scarpo, coz 2nd bust means doom for them.

Unbusted dopers are more likely to dope again as they will have a 2nd chance even if they are caught.

It will also depend on the riders mindset and ofc natural talent.

Most instances where busted riders will try to dope again is when they feel they have no chance of obtaining reasonable results riding clean.

Dekker obviously struggled with his numbers riding clean and perhaps that is why JV had to put in a lot of effort to convince him that he can ride clean.

Also don't forget the Garmin-Cervelo merger. It is more likely that Vaughters did not apply such stringent methods to riders like Haussler who came from Cervelo due to the massive influx of riders that year.

OFC we could clarify it by asking JV. I thought about asking that question previously but refrained coz I thought it would be unfair on the former Cervelo guys/

 

[skidmark]

No because that isn't what I am saying and I am not sure how you read that into my words.

Let me rephrase it.

There is a view that JV is essentially a very slick PR man. That all his actions and pronouncements have to be viewed through the prism of PR.

JV's anti-doping is merely a PR move. He makes statements, takes action when it will either result in favourable PR or reduce negative PR.

The extension to the view is that by making Dekker go through all these hoops to join the team (but not making unconvicted dopers go through the same hoops) shows that far from being concerned about doping, JV is more concerned about appearing to be tough on (but also forgiving of) dopers.

That in short doping is not what matters to JV but rather image.



This doesn't square with his comments about Dekker and how much work it was to get him to ride clean.

If busted dopers are less likely to dope again, unbusted dopers are more/less likely to dope again?



I agree that there are obvious safeguards such as testing. What strikes me as interesting is that when it came to Dekker and JJ, JV talked a lot about mental make up, about how they spent hours looking at their behaviour etc, to see what they would do if the going got tough. Which is great, but what about riders from dirty teams.

If he were signing someone from say Saxo, or the modern day RS, teams with reputations for doping, how does he make sure that when the going gets tough that they won't dip their hands in the cookie jar? Does he do the same kind of mental make up exams on all new riders or just those coming back from bans?

Especially with regards to the bolded above, I'm not sure how those things necessarily have to contradict each other. If I were running a cycling team and trying to go about the best, most high-profile way to make it possible to change the doping culture prevalent in the sport, I would certainly be concerned with both PR and doping. I mean, thinking of what the culture seemed to be in 2007 or so, riding the PR wave of 'we're against doping' while actually realizing that being too outspoken will get you tossed out of the sport would be the only way to proceed successfully. Baby steps, hopefully to a point where the tide will have turned and you're an established enough team to be more vocally critical and not worry about being turfed from the WT or something. The USADA case and the exposure it's getting must give the truly anti-doping people in cycling a little more leverage than they used to have.

Your question is still valid, and I agree we haven't really seen a comprehensive response. But the specific case you're citing, Dekker, is an interesting one. Yeah he had to take physical tests to see if he could compete at a WT level, but that doesn't necessarily mean other athletes do not, it's just that we don't hear about it because they're not a sensation like a publicly exposed doper. And in the press it's been evident that it was still uncertain over the year whether Dekker would get renewed. I don't know if that means other riders would be treated differently, just not publicly. Imagine Trent Lowe had been doping, for example. Before he came out with the Del Moral stuff, he had just been let go quietly - perhaps that would be what would happen to a Dekker-like rider if it wasn't such a high-profile signing who, it ended up, couldn't keep up clean. Dekker is a PR gem because he's had to shed his cockiness as well as 'reforming' on the moral level, I'm sure I'd take advantage of that if I were in charge.

With regards to taking riders into the team, that's what I'm interested in too. I mean, what the hell would you say to Nick Nuyens when you signed him (and, off topic, but why the hell would you sign Nick Nuyens?) 'hey Nick, I heard rumours you were doped to the gills at Cofidis, what's the deal with that?' You'd probably just say 'that's not cool at this team and we need to know you wouldn't do that again'. At some point you just have to believe riders, and I don't think that Dekker's essentially been asked anything more than that really, has he?

There's also the fact that there are wildly different personalities. With Dekker, okay he might deserve some extra questioning because you've gotta know if he can be humble, or if he's getting dropped in a French 2.1 race is he gonna start charging again to save his pride. I'd imagine that might be less of a problem (or at least something you'd approach differently) with someone like Vande Velde (who seems relatively easygoing for a pro cyclist) or Hesjedal (who seems like a stoned Ent most of the time) or whoever.

Anyway, your question deserves an answer better than my speculation, I just wanted to point out that I don't think anti-doping and PR are mutually exclusive goals.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The question is simple - does JV set the same, or different conditions of team membership for convicted and unconvicted riders?

That would be JV's anti-doping policy that noone can show me, anywhere, yet all seem to think exists and is plain and obvious and transparent.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

OK, fair enough. My guess is that he feels that their internal testing would be able to discern any doping, but I agree that's a legitimate question which needs answering. Still, I give JV a lot more credit than Brailsford, whose stated approach is that all riders and staff who doped are supposed to pretend it never happened so that they can maintain their "zero tolerance" policy. I'm not saying I agree 100% with his approach, but I see a stark difference when looking at those 2 teams.

"Zero tolerance" to me means less than one.

The story posted previously that people seemed to agree on was that Tommy D was caught with internal testing at a Garmin training camp and told to stop.

That is not zero tolerance. That is catching a doper before the vampires do.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

“Of all the guys Frankie has ever ridden with, two people supported Frankie. One was Greg LeMond, the other was JV. JV was the only teammate, the only one, who supported us from the very beginning through this thing. Frankie even told me that JV hated the doping culture as much as Frankie did. Maybe they were the sacrificial lambs. You had guys like Bassons, who never had a career because of all this, and the you had people like Frankie and JV whose careers were essentially killed because they wouldn’t get on the comprehensive doping programme and wouldn’t see [Doctor] Ferrari.

No doubt, Benotti, Sniper, Mrs John and The Big r... eeh, Dear Wiggo will interpret this as JV playing the long con.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That would be JV's anti-doping policy that noone can show me, anywhere, yet all seem to think exists and is plain and obvious and transparent.

See, this is the difference between Garmin & Sky.
JV/Garmin have no policy that is written down or can be seen, because they appear to look at each rider on a case by case basis. And having a policy on ex-dopers would be the height of hypocrisy by JV.

Sky on the other hand put up a policy, then changed it somewhat yet maintain they are shocked about Barry. Sky were playing PR and have been caught out in it.

 

[robow7]

People continue to bring up why JV didn't take on Dekker or JJ, but obviously many have never run a business based upon a team concept. He probably just didn't care for their personalities or attitudes and knew they wouldn't get along with the others and their natural baseline ability just wasn't off the wall enough to justify taking the chance. After being in a similar "team" business structure for 30 years, I've had to pass on some really remarkable people just because I knew they wouldn't fit in. It's not that deep and mysterious.

 

[sniper]

No doubt, Benotti, Sniper, Mrs John and The Big r... eeh, Dear Wiggo will interpret this as JV playing the long con.

it does reflect very well on JV's credibility.
but we all agree JV wants clean cycling, perhaps more than other DSs.
that is not the only issue, though.
it's also about Garmin being clean or not.
Wiggo 2009? Hesjedal 2012? marginal gains?
and JV's public support for Sky is odd.
Sky is as obvious as USPS was.

Other issues bothering me?
how JV ignored Lowe.
how JV rants on here occasionally in a style reminiscent of Wiggins.
admittedly, though, Betsy's story reflects well on him.

edit: let's not forget his attempt to sign contador (by that time an obvious doper), the breakaway plans with bruyneel...