JV talks, sort of

[Le breton]

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

the french were not all clean : obviously.

Not the slightest surprise about the Hervé story.

 

[Benotti69]

the french were not all clean : obviously.

Not the slightest surprise about the Hervé story.

Madiot has always turned a blind eye, his behaviour of Bassons was despicable.

 

[jonny testaronny]

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.

No, I'm glad to hear your thoughts--the opinions of people who know things & are willing to share them are what makes this forum worth reading. Agree about Madiot being wishy-washy. Didn't Mentheour say in "Secret Défonce" that Madiot disliked the turn towards blood doping in the 90s and thought it was too dangerous? Can't recall exactly, but don't remember Mentheour saying that Madiot took a strong stance against it, only that he considered the reality of it unfortunate and was glad he didn't have to use EPO back in his day.

 

[JimmyFingers]

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!

You maybe right, and I am idealistic, I just want to be able to watch a sport that I feel a part of and believe in. I like the fact that JV involves himself here, and provides us with information we wouldn't otherwise have and a conduit into the peloton. This a place that could easily ignored, so I struggle to see a motive to post here that isn't an honest one, a need to engage and explain and even apologise. It comes down to opinion again how you receive, and I don't blame anyone for cynicism. I'll choose to take JV words as hope that things are better, whatever the motivation.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You underestimate how much I dislike Sky.

Can you elaborate on this and why?

 

[D-Queued]

You maybe right, and I am idealistic, I just want to be able to watch a sport that I feel a part of and believe in. I like the fact that JV involves himself here, and provides us with information we wouldn't otherwise have and a conduit into the peloton. This a place that could easily ignored, so I struggle to see a motive to post here that isn't an honest one, a need to engage and explain and even apologise. It comes down to opinion again how you receive, and I don't blame anyone for cynicism. I'll choose to take JV words as hope that things are better, whatever the motivation.

It is fundamentally enabling. It also sends a message to others that 'you are not part of the conversation', and JV isn't afraid to be.

By participating, he provides an explicit endorsement. There are those things he is willing to discuss. He also implicitly endorses other conversations and points of view where may share sentiment, but not his voice.

Dave.

 

[carl spackler]

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.



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

I wouldnt call it market forces. I think its more complicated than that. "Market Forces" is a cop out, for everyone who ever said it, including Adam Smith. People make choices. Yours have been different than Armstrong's JV, and not just for purely mercenary reasons. I give you more credit than that. If you're calling me wrong than I guess the cynics are right and everyone is as corruptible as anyone else.

Maybe Tygart just does his job to make cycling stronger in the long run for sponsors too.

It may be greed that got people there in the 90s and 2000s. Armstrong, Nike, Oakley, Trek. Hein, everyone. Greed tied to a corrupt and unfair, unregulated system. It may be greed that is making cycling appear less dirty right now as well, but if the corruption and ridiculous sponsorship system based on greed isn't eliminated, if no riders organization prevents the so called "prisoners dilemma and such, then there will be no clean pro cycling ever.

The whole market of cycling isnt greedy. Ironically, the sport itself isnt about greed but rather teamwork.

Thoughts?

 

[martinvickers]

I wouldnt call it market forces. I think its more complicated than that. "Market Forces" is a cop out, for everyone who ever said it, including Adam Smith. People make choices. Yours have been different than Armstrong's JV, and not just for purely mercenary reasons. I give you more credit than that. If you're calling me wrong than I guess the cynics are right and everyone is as corruptible as anyone else

I don't think that follows. Everyone, or almost everyone, may have a price. Doesn't mean it's the same price. And that price is 'factored in' to the current financial state of the sport. To the extent that doping stories hurt income generally, market forces will have an effect.

or to put it another way, Markets are amoral, not immoral. It's not that they're evil, it's that they don't care. And the morality or otherwise of individuals is already priced in.

 

[carl spackler]

I don't think that follows. Everyone, or almost everyone, may have a price. Doesn't mean it's the same price. And that price is 'factored in' to the current financial state of the sport. To the extent that doping stories hurt income generally, market forces will have an effect.

or to put it another way, Markets are amoral, not immoral. It's not that they're evil, it's that they don't care. And the morality or otherwise of individuals is already priced in.

I respectfully disagree. Markets are moral, nothing is amoral. Not everyone is motivated by the so called incentives, whatever they may be, presumably profit, that drive the market. Otherwise there would be no change, or rules, just this fantasy free-market delusion where greed or "market forces" reign. Do you make you decisions solely based on what is most profitable. Of course not. Nobody does.

I think the reason that people dont want to touch cycling for sponsorship is because its been "branded"- in the parlance of our time- as immoral. Due to doping, and quite accurately for that matter. Presumably people dont want to buy things associated with cheating, because those people are moral. If cheating were ok, and it is for some, then they may as well leave on their yellow bracelet.

In my opinion the free market has always been a cheap excuse to take morality out of our own hands, as if somehow the hidden hand of the "market" evolution will guide us down the correct path. Same ethic that drove wall street, still drives it.

I could be talking out of ***. Not sure what is meant by "morality already priced in"

 

[JimmyFingers]

I respectfully disagree. Markets are moral, nothing is amoral. Not everyone is motivated by the so called incentives, whatever they may be, presumably profit, that drive the market. Otherwise there would be no change, or rules, just this fantasy free-market delusion where greed or "market forces" reign. Do you make you decisions solely based on what is most profitable. Of course not. Nobody does.

You seriously believe that? If you do then the world is much darker place then you imagine it to be. Not everyone is motivated by profit perhaps, but a very large proportion are.

 

[sniper]

You seriously believe that? If you do then the world is much darker place then you imagine it to be. Not everyone is motivated by profit perhaps, but a very large proportion are.

the insight and realism (or lack of idealism) you show in this post doesn't quite seem to match your earlier expressed idealism viz. believe in the power of cycling to change itself from inside.

 

[JimmyFingers]

the insight and realism (or lack of idealism) you show in this post doesn't quite seem to match your earlier expressed idealism viz. believe in the power of cycling to change itself from inside.

My idealism comes from the desire to believe in the sport and riders I love to watch, that they aren't cheating, not that I believe they are all clean. That desire means I adopt an optimistic, innocent-until-proved guilty stance, rather than assume guilt first and wait to see if you are proved wrong.

Nothing wrong with either, different sides of the same coin. we all love cycling and want the best for the sport, hence why sometimes I can't fathom why we argue so much.

 

[sniper]

My idealism comes from the desire to believe in the sport and riders I love to watch, that they aren't cheating, not that I believe they are all clean. That desire means I adopt an optimistic, innocent-until-proved guilty stance, rather than assume guilt first and wait to see if you are proved wrong.

Nothing wrong with either, different sides of the same coin. we all love cycling and want the best for the sport, hence why sometimes I can't fathom why we argue so much.

+1!

 

[JimmyFingers]

Hold me

 

[Benotti69]

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 read the above as the statement that cycling is cleanER but not clean. That microdoping is the modus across the board for most contenders if not all teams A teams.

JV maybe wont admit this as he cannot cut off your nose to spite your face.

But where has the doping risk element suddenly appeared from? Are UCI threatening teams who fail the bloodpassport? Can the UCI still be bought, because Armstrong disproved that BP is being applied across the board. Who else has paid UCI, most teams seem to have no public problem with UCI?

I always thought the BP was a way to exercise control on teams but no get rid of doping. It was a shot across the bows to prevent 1 team producing another Armstrong and meant UCI had the threat of a BP violation very easily to keep teams in control and it also meant they could elevate a team of their choice, say Sky to be the 'show' team. UCI seemed to do this with Sky in 2012.

 

[GJB123]

agree, there wasn't much of a point in my post.
to be fair though, it's not my fault that all this medical talk about marginal gains in cycling sounds rather farcical.
I'm not insinuating anything about SM (well, not in that post, at least). My point was about how flawed it is to rely on data, seeing that much of the data you (plural) rely on apparently stems from dirty riders who never get/got caught.

other points remain:
you're defending the passport, even though its obviously flawed. why? care to tell us why you invite Walsh over for barbecue and tell him how clean Sky is? Even a few glasses of wine couldn't tempt you into being a bit more realistic? What did you tell Walsh? You know there's honestly no way you can vouch for Sky. So why are you bothering with Walsh? Why not tell him the truth, the truth being that you don't know?

With the passport so obviously flawed, your cycling is cleaner message needs a bit more foundation.
I don't believe you really believe it. You don't strike me as that naive.
Not to mention the message doesn't help cleaning up cycling, as it is more likely to prevent guys like Walsh from being more investigative and inquiring, and, more problematically: guys like Pat are trying to take credit for it.

p.s. +1 to frenchfry's post above.

I think he has been perfectly clear why he thinks cycling has become cleaner. You just don't want to to understand him. I'll try and explain it: from JV's experience (and most would agree with him) it was virtually impossible to win big races (especially GT's) without being juiced. Now he has a rider on his team for whom he knows/is convinced he is riding clean and winning a GT (you may disagree Hesjedal is clean, but that shouldn't stop you from following the logic). So is a clean rider (clean to JV's knowledge) can now win a GT whereas that was virtually unthinkable some years ago, it would be fair for him to state that in his opinion cycling is now cleaner. Now that isn't so difficult is it?

 

[blackcat]

still, we were never made aware of yder's native talent, when he left usps and phonak and onto healthnet,

ofcourse, this may be because rh was not doping in a very hot peloton. both reasons are plausible. you can make your own mind.

 

[sniper]

still, we were never made aware of yder's native talent, when he left usps and phonak and onto healthnet,

ofcourse, this may be because rh was not doping in a very hot peloton. both reasons are plausible. you can make your own mind.

there were gaps in Ryder's BP data in 2012. I think a month without testing somewhere. He prepares on Hawaii in the absence of JV.
I honestly don't know how JV can be sure Ryder is clean.
If Ryder doped at Rabo, USPS, or Phonak, he sure didn't tell JV. If he's doping right now, no reason why he'd tell JV either.

And to be honest, I don't think JV really knows for sure. I think he simply contents himself with the fact that Ryder's data look good enough to keep up the claim of cleanliness and that whatever Ryder is taking, he's not doing it Ricco style. Sophisticated is the word.

 

[sniper]

I think he has been perfectly clear why he thinks cycling has become cleaner. You just don't want to to understand him. I'll try and explain it: from JV's experience (and most would agree with him) it was virtually impossible to win big races (especially GT's) without being juiced. Now he has a rider on his team for whom he knows/is convinced he is riding clean and winning a GT (you may disagree Hesjedal is clean, but that shouldn't stop you from following the logic). So is a clean rider (clean to JV's knowledge) can now win a GT whereas that was virtually unthinkable some years ago, it would be fair for him to state that in his opinion cycling is now cleaner. Now that isn't so difficult is it?

Of course I know why he's saying that he thinks cycling is cleaner.
The point is: does he genuinely think cycling is cleaner?
I don't think so.

 

[pmcg76]

there were gaps in Ryder's BP data in 2012. I think a month without testing somewhere. He prepares on Hawaii in the absence of JV.
I honestly don't know how JV can be sure Ryder is clean.
If Ryder doped at Rabo, USPS, or Phonak, he sure didn't tell JV. If he's doping right now, no reason why he'd tell JV either.

And to be honest, I don't think JV really knows for sure. I think he simply contents himself with the fact that Ryder's data look good enough to keep up the claim of cleanliness and that whatever Ryder is taking, he's not doing it Ricco style. Sophisticated is the word.

Why do you always come out with statements that you don't know are true. How do you know that JV doesn't know what Ryder was doing at other teams?

So is Ryder getting his doping past all those doctors at Garmin?? Logically looking at this Ryder would need assistance to dope and keep it hidden unless he has accomplices at Garmin which would suggest there is a rogue element.

Ryder is also based in Girona during the season where most of Garmin are based of course so if doping big time, he would have to be doing it away from the rest of the team based in Girona which is a lot of riders to avoid and Girona is not that big a place. Quite a few of the Garmin boys are 'known' around Girona.

 

[Benotti69]

What with all the Italian investigations going on, does JV know what Charly Wegelius got up to in his time there and at Lotto?

 

[D-Queued]

there were gaps in Ryder's BP data in 2012. I think a month without testing somewhere. He prepares on Hawaii in the absence of JV.
I honestly don't know how JV can be sure Ryder is clean.
If Ryder doped at Rabo, USPS, or Phonak, he sure didn't tell JV. If he's doping right now, no reason why he'd tell JV either.

And to be honest, I don't think JV really knows for sure. I think he simply contents himself with the fact that Ryder's data look good enough to keep up the claim of cleanliness and that whatever Ryder is taking, he's not doing it Ricco style. Sophisticated is the word.

Ryder may or may not have doped at these other teams. If he did, he may or may not have come clean with JV.

That does not mean, however, that JV would not be aware of any such doping, if it occurred. If he did dope before Garmin, there are likely more than one or two people that know about that.

I cannot speak for him, of course, but you may presume too much to think JV would not know.

Dave.

 

[the asian]

t.

Ryder is also based in Girona during the season where most of Garmin are based of course so if doping big time, he would have to be doing it away from the rest of the team based in Girona which is a lot of riders to avoid and Girona is not that big a place. Quite a few of the Garmin boys are 'known' around Girona.

I thought he was based in Monaco.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

there were gaps in Ryder's BP data in 2012. I think a month without testing somewhere. He prepares on Hawaii in the absence of JV.
I honestly don't know how JV can be sure Ryder is clean.
If Ryder doped at Rabo, USPS, or Phonak, he sure didn't tell JV. If he's doping right now, no reason why he'd tell JV either.

And to be honest, I don't think JV really knows for sure. I think he simply contents himself with the fact that Ryder's data look good enough to keep up the claim of cleanliness and that whatever Ryder is taking, he's not doing it Ricco style. Sophisticated is the word.

JV is fairly evasive when it comes to discussing what he knows about his riders. I can not believe that he would take a risk on signing someone without checking out what skeletons lie within their cupboards. It would be a huge risk to sign someone and not to check out if they are likely to end up on the wrong end of an 8 year ban.

My assumption is that JV must know about the past doping of his riders, and he must make a decision based on 'how likely is that team to exposure' and 'how likely is this rider to be banned if the **** hits the fan'. He tends to say 'if asked by the anti-doping agency they will go and speak to them'.

JV may well have assumed that Phonak being dead weren't likely to be re-investigated, USP, well RH is so low down on the food chain he won't be called, and maybe he considered Rabo to be unlikely to fall.

Do you think it is an accident that Garmin have no Italians and only 1 Spanish rider? IMO if I were JV I would 1) be very worried about them being involved in a scandal and 2) I'd be very doubtful of their ability to stay off the hot sauce.

 

[the asian]

J
Do you think it is an accident that Garmin have no Italians and only 1 Spanish rider? IMO if I were JV I would 1) be very worried about them being involved in a scandal and 2) I'd be very doubtful of their ability to stay off the hot sauce.

. Most of his team are Anglophone Time Trialists.

I remember he said on this forum that he turned down the opportunity to sign Tondo because he connected the dots and felt he wasn't clean, but later upon learning Tondo's outing of a drug ring, he very much regretted the decision.

So yes, it's obvious that he's extremely hesitant on signing Spanish & Italian riders, Koldo Fernandez being the only exception.