JV talks, sort of

[RownhamHill]

JV says we are hiding behind our anonymity.
I say he's hiding behind his lack of anonymity.

he's a clever guy, and i think he's one of the first in cycling (a) to understand the power (positive or negative) of the internet and (b) to understand that perception is reality.

JV admits he is too compromised to talk in here about guys like riis, leinders, contador, wiggins. of course he is. So why isn't he coming in here anonymously? (rethorical question)

More generally, if JV is dedicating his life to anti-doping (which he says he is), I don't understand why he contents himself with the current situation. He seems quite passive at the moment (disregarding his activity here in the forum). I don't see him asking for Pat's head, I don't see him supporting kimmage, I don't see him asking questions about Leinders, the BP, etc.
to be sure, all very understandable from the perspective of a guy who simply is trying to make a good living off of cycling. his sponsorship deals largely depend on the message. but imo it undermines his credibility.

So. Question for JV. Did you just out 'Sniper' as your own sock puppet account?

 

[pmcg76]

of course I agree.

The point is obviously this:
objectively, we don't know about sky. the passport malfunctions, so that's not an argument either way. and there are some seriously dodgy markers surrounding sky, but still: objectively, we don't know. (cf. Ashenden's opinion on the matter.)
yet, there comes Jonathan, proactively spreading the message that Sky are clean, including off the record to Walsh. Why?
Again, the objective, agenda-less thing for Jonathan to say to Walsh would be: "I honestly don't know, David."

EDIT: and where is Jonathan admitting the BP is flawed? why is he going to such length to defend a fig leaf?

Again, where is the link that JV somehow influenced Walsh to believe that SKY are clean, is it in an interview or public info somewhere? Where are you getting this claim from?

 

[skidmark]

The problem, as I see it, is that doping in pro cycling is an exercise in hyperbole. Just when you think it can't be that bad - we find out that it is even worse.

I admire JV's efforts and imagine that he is sincere (and funny as well). I just see that a majority of the actors in pro cycling are still living in that parallel world where the reality is the lie. Doping is certainly less rampant than in the 90's and 00's, but given the reaction of many pros lately it would be ignorant to think that the problem is anywhere near being solved. Any talk of a T&R process make me laugh. There is no organisation that is structurally sound enough or empowered enough to make it work, and there will never be consensus on how to administer punishment vs amnesty. For now it is a PR gimmick and a pretext for the UCI to escape much needed scrutiny.

The rash of confessing riders that admit to doping but who miraculously stopped in 2005, 2006 or 2007 (sorry if I generalised too much and didn't account for Leipheimer's difference) is just an example of how it will be difficult or impossible to actually get the whole truth from a group who have been lying so much and for so long that even they might not know what the truth really is.

I appreciate you clarifying, and I totally agree with your comments. Pardon my pedantry re: 2006-2007, but I think it is an interesting difference to note.

Riders that had been doping for years all said they stopped around the same time, of their own accord. That's fishy. But then, if you do believe Garmin is sincere in its approach (I realize this is not exactly what you specifically were saying, but I'm using the general 'you'), then some of their riders did, in fact, make that choice. Was it just the existence of a team that encouraged clean riding? Or was it as Leipheimer described, where DS's wouldn't touch it anymore and you would only continue if you were a 'big boy' (I recognize that Brunyeel did cave and help him in the end, but he was resistant)? While I roll my eyes at Hincapie's 'I'm trying to encourage young riders to ride clean' angle, I also don't see how it would benefit him to lie that he stopped after 2006, and if it was a less organized environment (as circumstantial evidence re: Kohl, Ricco in 2011, etc suggests) I see it as being plausible that the culture did shift somewhere around that time with regards to teams moving from a 'we'll set you up' to a 'I don't care what you do as long as you don't get caught' mentality, which in turn could have led to some pros stopping as they deemed it too dangerous to self-administer. I'm sure the details emerging on Rabo will add some context.

Anyway, my whole point was that I don't necessarily think that all the US pros (except Levi) got together and said 'hey, make sure to say you stopped in 2006' - I'm sure they weren't all fully forthcoming, but it seems to me like it could be a more complicated picture than could be summarized by 'everyone stopped doping in 2006 (rolleyes)', which is something I see tossed around a lot.

That said, I have no faith in things changing until the current UCI is toast anyway, so arguing this point is kind of like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[JV1973]

of course I agree.

The point is obviously this:
objectively, we don't know about sky. the passport malfunctions, so that's not an argument either way. and there are some seriously dodgy markers surrounding sky, but still: objectively, we don't know. (cf. Ashenden's opinion on the matter.)
yet, there comes Jonathan, proactively spreading the message that Sky are clean, including off the record to Walsh. Why?
Again, the objective, agenda-less thing for Jonathan to say to Walsh would be: "I honestly don't know, David."

EDIT: and where is Jonathan admitting the BP is flawed? why is he going to such length to defend a fig leaf?

You underestimate how much I dislike Sky. And Walsh? I gave him my opinion, not more. His mind seemed to change more after his discussion with Brailsford.

Again, you assume I have some great incentive to defend them. I don't. I'd say I'm tired enough of this whole circus that I don't have much of an incentive to defend my own team. I mean, what if my team goes away? I take a job that pays better and has less travel involved. Wow, that would suck.

My opinion of Sky is an opinion and could be wrong.

As far as branch root, let's change the whole thing. I don't disagree. Again, you assume I disagree. It's a good solution.

But what I am saying is that due to pragmatic reality of a completely changed risk/reward scenario vs the 90's or even mid 2000's that cycling has changed. I'm not saying this was done with great moralistic enthusiasm of crusaders. I'm saying it happened out of necessity. Same people that thought they could make money from winning races in any way shape or form, now realize that that money fountain dies if the win comes with a doping scandal. It's pure, ruthless, market forces. Not more, not less.

And I like to think that some of us, with a bit of introspection, didn't want riders having to do the same crap we used to. It's really not fun living with a huge lie. It takes the fun right out of bike racing, which is why most of us started in the first place.

So, do we need branch/root? Maybe so. I'm not opposed. But it has moved in a good way, with or without that.

And this doesn't mean I think everything is perfectly cleaned up. But is it A LOT better? Yes. immensely.

 

[JimmyFingers]

So. Question for JV. Did you just out 'Sniper' as your own sock puppet account?

I soooo want this to be true

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/jonathan-vaughters-crossing-the-line/

Sunday October 14, 2012. This was originally published in July 1999

This is one of the many common experiences cyclists share – pros and cat-five riders alike. Along with fixing flat tyres, running out of food, dreading rainy days, and the looks of those not acquainted with Lycra clothing, the Tour is something we can all relate to on some level or another.

While speaking to a friend of mine, a weekend warrior back in Colorado, I was reminded of how many parallels we share. He was speaking to me about how a race in Colorado ended due to some controversy over the centre line rule – one of many odd and obscure rules all of us who race in the US have to deal with.

The centre line rule simply states that you may not cross the centre of the road while racing – 50 per cent of the road for racing, 50 per cent of the road for cars. This makes sense, I suppose, as oncoming traffic is dangerous for the riders, and closing roads is difficult these days.

Well, back in Colorado we have quite a few races incorporating the centre line rule. We have quite a bit of wind in the mountains, so, as you might except, sometimes, to get a proper drafting effect riders sneak over the yellow line. Illegal and unsafe as it is. Soon enough, the other riders notice the advantage gained by those drafting on the sheltered side and also start to move across.

All of this is very much against the rules but riders think, “if they’re doing it, I better do it too, else I’ll be dropped in the crosswind.” Being competitive in nature, bicycle racing attracts people who want to win.

Soon enough, race officials come and lash out warnings from their motorbikes. For a time it works, but a few here and there sneak across, then more, then all. This situation escalates and the officials start to give out penalties. To whom? Only the ones they see. If you can get away with crossing the line you won’t get a penalty. So everyone is going across from time to time.

Once more, most of the field has crossed the line. Now cars have to pull off and dangerous situations arise. Motorists are angry. The public is angry with cycling. So, as the race rounds a bend a police car pulls in front. The race is stopped by stern-looking policemen, wanting to know why cyclists can’t obey the law.

This scenario has happened more than once in Colorado, but my friend seemed particularly upset this time. “Stupid rule,” he said. “We weren’t in danger! Man, I love that race, and now it might not happen any more. I only crossed the line for a second maybe once, or twice, because I had to.”

“The pros never have to deal with stuff like this,” he said. Then I told him that maybe all cyclists have to deal with stuff like that. He shrugs and says, “Nah, not you guys,” and then asks me how I think I’ll do in this year’s Tour…

Allready remorse in 1999?

 

[JV1973]

So. Question for JV. Did you just out 'Sniper' as your own sock puppet account?

That would be awesome if that were the case. I'll leave it a mystery, as I'm flattered by the fact you think I'm that smart.

 

[sniper]

You underestimate how much I dislike Sky. And Walsh? I gave him my opinion, not more. His mind seemed to change more after his discussion with Brailsford.

Again, you assume I have some great incentive to defend them. I don't. I'd say I'm tired enough of this whole circus that I don't have much of an incentive to defend my own team. I mean, what if my team goes away? I take a job that pays better and has less travel involved. Wow, that would suck.

My opinion of Sky is an opinion and could be wrong.

As far as branch root, let's change the whole thing. I don't disagree. Again, you assume I disagree. It's a good solution.

But what I am saying is that due to pragmatic reality of a completely changed risk/reward scenario vs the 90's or even mid 2000's that cycling has changed. I'm not saying this was done with great moralistic enthusiasm of crusaders. I'm saying it happened out of necessity. Same people that thought they could make money from winning races in any way shape or form, now realize that that money fountain dies if the win comes with a doping scandal. It's pure, ruthless, market forces. Not more, not less.

And I like to think that some of us, with a bit of introspection, didn't want riders having to do the same crap we used to. It's really not fun living with a huge lie. It takes the fun right out of bike racing, which is why most of us started in the first place.

So, do we need branch/root? Maybe so. I'm not opposed. But it has moved in a good way, with or without that.

And this doesn't mean I think everything is perfectly cleaned up. But is it A LOT better? Yes. immensely.

thanks JV, appreciate it. apologies if I'Ve been unfair in my assumptions/suggestions, though you more than anybody will understand that for the true cynics to be able to believe again, some farreaching, visible changes have to occur, top-down. Luckily the true cynics are but a small minority on the whole. Cycling will remain strong and sponsors will continue to invest, I reckon, with or without the UCI.

So. Question for JV. Did you just out 'Sniper' as your own sock puppet account?

 

[JV1973]

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/jonathan-vaughters-crossing-the-line/

Allready remorse in 1999?

Already understood the core of the problem, and how hard it would be to solve it. Remorse? No. Guilt? Yes.

 

[gillan1969]

You underestimate how much I dislike Sky. And Walsh? I gave him my opinion, not more. His mind seemed to change more after his discussion with Brailsford.

Again, you assume I have some great incentive to defend them. I don't. I'd say I'm tired enough of this whole circus that I don't have much of an incentive to defend my own team. I mean, what if my team goes away? I take a job that pays better and has less travel involved. Wow, that would suck.

My opinion of Sky is an opinion and could be wrong.

As far as branch root, let's change the whole thing. I don't disagree. Again, you assume I disagree. It's a good solution.

But what I am saying is that due to pragmatic reality of a completely changed risk/reward scenario vs the 90's or even mid 2000's that cycling has changed. I'm not saying this was done with great moralistic enthusiasm of crusaders. I'm saying it happened out of necessity. Same people that thought they could make money from winning races in any way shape or form, now realize that that money fountain dies if the win comes with a doping scandal. It's pure, ruthless, market forces. Not more, not less.

And I like to think that some of us, with a bit of introspection, didn't want riders having to do the same crap we used to. It's really not fun living with a huge lie. It takes the fun right out of bike racing, which is why most of us started in the first place.

So, do we need branch/root? Maybe so. I'm not opposed. But it has moved in a good way, with or without that.

And this doesn't mean I think everything is perfectly cleaned up. But is it A LOT better? Yes. immensely.

this may be true but its coming from a terrible base level...and, even if true, its going to be difficult to get anyone to believe whilst the UCI management committee is showing support for two individuals immersed in the 'bad old days'. Until they go any protestations that things are much better are quite difficult to believe i.e. we have to take your word for it...and guess what...we've taken peoples (insiders) word for it before....and look where that has got us.....

 

[RownhamHill]

That would be awesome if that were the case. I'll leave it a mystery, as I'm flattered by the fact you think I'm that smart.

Probably for the best to leave a bit of mystery!

By the way. Did you see my question yesterday about the George Hincapie chase down in 2009? Hoping you can shed some light?

 

[D-Queued]

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/jonathan-vaughters-crossing-the-line/

Allready remorse in 1999?

Good find. JV can speak for himself, but it was an excellent summary and a potentially intriguing analogy. Cannot see that as remorse, though. Just a really astute summary.

From personal experience, I have been DQ'd for the yellow line rule when mistaken for another rider(s) who did actually cross.

Nowadays, when you tell someone you are a cyclist, even if a novice Master 60+ (to which I can only aspire), you are knowingly linked to doping behavior in the peloton.

Like doping, it is a prisoner's dilemma scenario. And, the fallout affects everyone.

Dave.

 

[JimmyFingers]

But what I am saying is that due to pragmatic reality of a completely changed risk/reward scenario vs the 90's or even mid 2000's that cycling has changed. I'm not saying this was done with great moralistic enthusiasm of crusaders. I'm saying it happened out of necessity. Same people that thought they could make money from winning races in any way shape or form, now realize that that money fountain dies if the win comes with a doping scandal. It's pure, ruthless, market forces. Not more, not less.

I think this is telling statement: that the drugs are being put away not because everyone wants to, but because they have to for the sport to survive.

It is telling that only cyclists were named as Fuentes clients. Those same market forces are moving to prevent those other names get into the public domain to protect their product. Other sport's must love cycling, it diverts so much attention away from the nefarious sides of their sport and the frequent infrequency of testing there. They know the damage that will be done to the sport if Spain or Barcelona are exposed as drugs cheats.

Nicole Cooke exposed just how damaging the drug scandals to the women's side of the sport. Ever since the Olympics British female cyclists have been repeating the mantra of how under-funded it is, how few teams there are, how few events there are, and Cooke spelt out why. The sport is dying a slow death as repeated scandals hit. The pro-tour isn't about to go under of course, but it must be more difficult to find sponsors and when you do, they probably don't pay as much as they might.

Consider the position the sport might be in without the scandals, how much more sponsorship there may be, more events, much greater viewing figures, particularly in Germany. Ultimately a cheating pro is endangering his pay packet, and not just because he may get banned.

 

[mastersracer]

I think this is telling statement: that the drugs are being put away not because everyone wants to, but because they have to for the sport to survive.

They aren't doing it for because they are suddenly altruistic. If some doping practices have changed, its due to changes in detection, enforcement, and sanctions, including informal ones in the form of canceled sponsorship. Paradoxically, a cleaner sport, or at least the perception of it, provides increased incentives for riders to cheat, so its more likely that there will just be smarter doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

this may be true but its coming from a terrible base level...and, even if true, its going to be difficult to get anyone to believe whilst the UCI management committee is showing support for two individuals immersed in the 'bad old days'. Until they go any protestations that things are much better are quite difficult to believe i.e. we have to take your word for it...and guess what...we've taken peoples (insiders) word for it before....and look where that has got us.....

That's pretty unfair though.
JV says it is cleanER, and I would agree with that. But as you noted that's from a pretty low base.

After that JV has not said that he agrees or disagrees with your assessment.
More to the point, even though he is a team owner, he is not in a position to change the sport. Saying anything about Pat/Hein would be merely PR and hollow. JV can only tell what he does on his team, anything else is merely opinion or an educated guess.

 

[hrotha]

JV, how sure are you about Dekker being "Clasicómano Luigi"? Do you think we can trust him on that? It's a very weird codename for Fuentes to use, considering Dekker was very much not a clasicómano at the time, in 2006. There's a certain rider who also has close links with Cecchini and is much more likely to be called "Clasicomano". He's so high-profile some people might think he should be protected, and Dekker is personally attached to Cecchini so he might be willing to do certain stuff for him.

Have you asked him directly? If you haven't, could you please do so? Then come back here and report his reaction. Kthx.

 

[jonny testaronny]

A Few More Questions

Hola, JV--nice to see you still hanging in on this forum, in a very entertaining way to boot. Had two questions for you, the first on Contador:

He was only 20 or 21 when he took it. From what I know, he is the only athlete to ever make it through the 6.5 w/kg stage. Barely, from what I heard. Meaning 10 mins at 6.0 and 10 mins at 6.5 w/kg... This probably means on a climb of 30-45 mins he could sustain 6.2 range.

Do you think these numbers represent what Contador could do clean? He was pretty young when he took the test, and he wasn't yet a pro, but the amateur team for which he'd been riding apparently was run by Saiz.

The second is more historical. People generally seem to think that a good few (if not all) French riders began to ride clean after 1998 because of the longitudinal survey testing and fear of getting caught by the stups. I recall reading an interview with Jean-Cyril Robin just before the 99 Tour, where he complained about the two-speed peloton, admitted that FDJ riders as a group had discussed going back on the gear, and said he had argued vehemently against it, though he could understand why riders might go that way.

Do you think French riders were largely clean after 1998? Robin in particular--he'd be the highest finisher in the '99 Tour that one might make a case for being clean. Am I right to assume he was getting the white lunchbags on USPS in 1998, having been at Festina previously? I've still not seen a good explanation of why Bassons' FDJ teammates gave him grief in the '99 Tour if they were riding clean, though I think I've seen that explained by some saying they resented the way he presented himself as the only clean cyclist in the peloton. And do you have any thoughts on Moncoutie, who Gaumont considered clean?

Thanks, and please keep up the posting! Though trying to get a handful of the hardcore cynics here to look beyond their biases and at the facts is like trying to get Lindsay Lohan to admit she has an attitude problem, you seem to be making progress with one or two!

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think this is telling statement: that the drugs are being put away not because everyone wants to, but because they have to for the sport to survive.

The point is to minimize doping controversy, not a clean peloton. You leap to the conclusion that there is less demand for doping when there is no evidence that is true.

IMHO, the current paradigm is don't kill yourself doping and don't get involved in doping controversy. That's not riding without doping!

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Same people that thought they could make money from winning races in any way shape or form, now realize that that money fountain dies if the win comes with a doping scandal. It's pure, ruthless, market forces. Not more, not less.

What percentage of those involved in cycling get that?

Also, do you not think that the response of many to the realisation that doping scandals = drying up of the money, is to make sure that all scandals are suppressed?

Don't you agree that the UCI realised this after Festina which is why they have gone out of their way to protect the likes of Disco/USP, Highroad and now Sky.

The Biopassport is just good PR and all about being seen to do something rather than actually doing something.

The incentive is to bury scandals and to re-enforce omerta and this is driven by market forces.

I did ask before but what does 'cleaner' mean to you? Same number of dopers taking fewer drugs, or fewer hardcore dopers and more dope free riders?

 

[Le breton]

...............
It's really not fun living with a huge lie. It takes the fun right out of bike racing, which is why most of us started in the first place.
.

Nice to read that (Although I doubt it very much that Pascal Hervé could possibly say the same thing, do you eat at his restaurant when you are in Limoges?)

 

[Le breton]

.........
I recall reading an interview with Jean-Cyril Robin just before the 99 Tour, where he complained about the two-speed peloton, admitted that FDJ riders as a group had discussed going back on the gear, and said he had argued vehemently against it, though he could understand why riders might go that way.

Do you think French riders were largely clean after 1998? Robin in particular--he'd be the highest finisher in the '99 Tour that one might make a case for being clean. Am I right to assume he was getting the white lunchbags on USPS in 1998, having been at Festina previously? I've still not seen a good explanation of why Bassons' FDJ teammates gave him grief in the '99 Tour if they were riding clean, though I think I've seen that explained by some saying they resented the way he presented himself as the only clean cyclist in the peloton. !

Bassons didn't present himself as the only clean cyclist in the TdF 1999. Some people - journalists, racers - chose to view it that way.

In my opinion Madiot had a big responsibility in the situation. He is always too wishy-washy about doping, le cul entre deux chaises as we say in French.

He is always afraid not to have a team the following year for lack of results and ready to compromise or close his eyes because of it I believe.

I was not there so I don't know of course, but it seems to me that Madiot had enough weight, had he wanted to, to make a difference if he had come out strongly in support of Bassons. Maybe not enough weight to impress L.A., but many of the other people involved.

Madiot blamed Bassons for the fact that Heulot's breakaway was reeled-in by US Postal in the Alpe d'Huez stage and the other racers in the team presumably felt the same way. A win by Heulot in Alpe d'Huez would have been a triumph for Madiot.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/tour99/stage10report.html

I realize that you want JV's take on the situation, not mine, but thought I would give my 2 cents worth.

 

[frenchfry]

Nice to read that (Although I doubt it very much that Pascal Hervé could possibly say the same thing, do you eat at his restaurant when you are in Limoges?)

Pascal Hervé had absolutely no qualms about doping, and almost seemed to enjoy the lying part. At least he wasn't hypocritical, he stated clearly that he doped in order to make more money. No shame whatever.

 

[Cerberus]

Not true. The WADA code utilizes strict liability for athletes and the principle has been upheld by CAS. I was asking whether there has been any exploration of this principle as applied to management or whether JV would be open to exploring/advocating for it.

The problem is that the best strategy from a game-theoretic perspective is for team management to encourage doping implicitly because it provides utility for the team (results etc) while the risk falls on the rider. Anti-doping can't be effective with the current structural incentives that exist. These need to change.

I get what you're saying and there is that incentive, but strict liability for managers is a very different thing from strict liability for riders. You can realistically control what you put into you own body but it's simply 100% flat out impossibly to control what your riders put into theirs. The managers could influence the odds, but they can't control it.

there isn't even any certainty that it would reduce doping, the managers might start actively aiding the riders in order to minimize the risk that they ****ed up their private doping and got caught. If you're gonna do the time you might as well do the crime.

 

[Gregga]

Nice to read that (Although I doubt it very much that Pascal Hervé could possibly say the same thing, do you eat at his restaurant when you are in Limoges?)

He was such a bit cheater without any remorse (I think Moreau was the same, Dessel too) the french were not all clean.

About Hervé, have you heard of that story about Fuentes making transfusions in Hervé's restaurant in Limoges during the 2004 TdF ? It's here http://elpais.com/diario/2007/05/23/deportes/1179871206_850215.html

 

[Le breton]

Pascal Hervé had absolutely no qualms about doping, and almost seemed to enjoy the lying part. ...........

I have heard from a very reliable source of far more reprehensible behaviour, but I am sorry I can't write it down here.