Hello JV - a rather difficult/awkward question for you now (sorry...):
* In early July, you and your riders denied Dutch press reports of ‘delayed 6-month bans in the off-season’.
* Was your denial in fact a true statement (see below for why I believe it may well not have been)?
* If not, then why did you deny the report?
* Was USADA complicit in this untruth?
* Were the riders in fact given some kind of say by the governing bodies re. when their own bans started? (See below for why I think this might have been the case.)
On 5th July, you moved quickly to deny reports that your riders had been given ‘delayed 6-month bans in the off-season’.
(
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-no-slipstream-sports-usada-suspensions )
JV: "Regarding the Dutch media report: no 6mos (sic) suspensions have been given to any member of Slipstream Sports. Today or at any future date."
But it turns out that there were in fact delayed 6-month bans during the off-season, agreed presumably around mid-June. For example, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/s...one-rider-at-a-time.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
“Among the final witnesses was Hincapie, one of the most respected riders in cycling. Antidoping officials met with him in June, just days before the antidoping agency notified Armstrong of his potential doping violation.
When Hincapie confessed and said Armstrong had doped and encouraged it, the antidoping agency knew it had its case. Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde and Zabriskie agreed to take their names out of consideration for the Olympics. They and Danielson agreed to a six-month suspension that would begin Sept. 1, after the cycling season.“
This quote from the above article implies that your riders were in fact aware then that they would have delayed 6-month bans. This would have presumably been in mid-June - sometime between 13th June when Armstrong was formally charged, and 17th June, when it was reported that the 4 US riders had withdrawn their names from consideration from the Olympics. One would assume that the discussion regarding these future bans would have occurred around the same time as all of that. But, on 5th July, you denied the existence of these bans.
Questions for JV:
* Was your statement that no suspensions had been given ‘technically’ correct in early July - i.e. it had been discussed/agreed conceptually/informally, but no formal bans had as then been issued? (The bans were only applied from 1st/9th/10th Sept and were only formally announced on 11th Oct).
* So why did you deny something which you presumably knew to be true? A few suggestions:
(1) This was done by agreement with USADA. e.g. avoid bad PR re. the ‘delayed-ban’ concept?. For example, even as of 10th Oct, USA cycling said that they were unaware of the bans:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ders-from-usada-case-not-yet-suspended_256602 , so presumably USADA was in on this (possibly also USA Cycling).
(2) You and/or USADA did not wish to compromise the USADA investigation.
(3) Bad PR? I do think it was forgivable, since confirming this story would have done nothing for cycling except create more completely unnecessary sensationalistic headlines, somewhat damaging cycling as well as your own team. And you did know then that it would all be coming out at a more appropriate time anyway.
(4) The riders had not had sufficient time to prepare themselves emotionally for the fallout, so you took the ‘pragmatic’ route?
* Why were the riders informed (presumably before the start of Sept when the bans were retroactively announced to have started) before USA cycling (who denied any bans as of Oct 10th, or were they just lying for some reason?) Would USA cycling potentially not have agreed with the ‘delayed ban’ concept?
* Are there any precedents for 'delayed doping bans in the off-season'? It does appear that USADA wished to give the absolute minimal type of ban technically possible within its pre-stated rules. Is it allowable within WADA's rules? (Or do the rules just say nothing about that, and a 'forgiving' interpretation was chosen?)
* I notice that 4 of the bans start on 1st Sept, but CVdV’s ban starts on 9th Sept and Michael Barry’s on 10th Sept. This does seem rather inexplicable, given the timeline involved. It suggests to me that the riders were given some kind of choice/input as to when their bans started? Is this true? Perhaps you could let us know which races CVdV took part in between 1st-8th Sept? (Does anyone know this info for Michael Barry?) Is there any precedent in anti-doping for riders to be given a choice as to when their bans start?
* Where did the leak come from? Someone in USADA, or someone one of the riders had incautiously chatted to, as I imagine some of them would have done, given that it was all going to come out anyway. (It has been suggested that the leak was from LA’s camp to muddy the waters regarding the riders’/USADA’s truthfulness/impartiality, but I consider this very unlikely).
* Who in your team and who in cycling's governing bodies were aware in early July that the Dutch press report was true despite your denials (or largely true depending upon 'technicalities' etc.)?
* And what exactly happened with openness/transparency in all of this...??
I’m really sorry again if this question causes you/Garmin/USADA any problems - I am a genuine supporter of your team, yourself and anti-doping in general, so I was somewhat reluctant to bring it up, but felt that it was right to do so. I do suspect that you and/or USADA may have erred a little too much towards pragmatism rather than transparency in this particular instance.
Any comments (if you are indeed free to comment)?
- Argyle_Fan