JV talks, sort of

[del1962]

What distances?

She is ten and as far as I know the threat will not come until around 14 to 17. That is when the vultures will show up and pressure will be applied to those they think have what it takes to move up in the show. The ones who do not relent to the pure pressure will be called rubes and the ones that take up the heat will be called stars.

Sky is the limit.

No, when she gets to 14-17 it wil be boys not the olympics that will interest her (more than likely)

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

What distances?

400m - 800m would be my guess. She's not taking things too seriously yet and I only push sport as a healthy past-time. To be honest, I'd like her to be good - as it's more fun being good than bad - but not that good, to avoid the pressures.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

No, when she gets to 14-17 it wil be boys not the olympics that will interest her (more than likely)

I already have my shotgun and ammo!

 

[blackcat]

When the "marginal gains" provided by EPO were discovered by cyclists, they were all over it. Almost 100% of them jumped on the bandwagon.

If the "marginal gains" provided by warming down are so significant, how come the forward looking riders who used EPO are now so backwards?

sniag lanigram

 

[blackcat]

When the "marginal gains" provided by EPO were discovered by cyclists, they were all over it. Almost 100% of them jumped on the bandwagon.

If the "marginal gains" provided by warming down are so significant, how come the forward looking riders who used EPO are now so backwards?

i can only think that the sky swannies are not meeting worlds best practice with their hand relief and happy endings at post stage rub n tugs.

sky soigneurs are the weak link

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The Bold part ,,,,,,

opposite could be written.
"I think they are getting their rocks off by sucking-up to a 'DS'."

Indeed it could be written and the strawman easily refuted, because (and indeed you will know this, personally) I am known to correct and question people in many threads on many topics Glenn.

 

[JV1973]

You've said sorry / apologized and talked since whenever or whatever date. That is good for you as you're the one who has to live with the decisions made. Not that it matters what the fans think but good for you for finally making the tough decision to come clean.

What do you tell all of your peers back in the 90's that did not dope but got pummeled by you guys that did? Anything to say to them?

More like the USA doped cycling teams were just on the bikes riding and living the dream. Why should they care 2 cents about the consequences of their actions. The one who did not dope,,,,,well they are just dumb rubes right.

Ooops soooooo sorry to all the rubes out in the USA amateur cycling scene that that did not dope. We pulled a scam and conn on all you rubes.

But since all that is old news lets move on to clean cycling.

What I know is this:

In my generation, the guys who were winning medals at Junior National/World championships at 14-17 years old, long before doping ever entered their mind, were the same guys who were of a high enough calibre to race in Europe and be selected by pro teams to race pro, and henceforth be introduced to doping, as was par for the course in Europe at that time. I can think of one guy who was good enough, but chose to opt out of doping: Darren Baker. And, yeah, he deserves an apology.

I'll give you an example, in 1993, I finished 2nd GC, won TT stage in the Vuelta Venezuela. It was packed with Colombians and Venezuelan riders who went on to successful pro careers. I was 19. At this point in my career my only doping was drinking way too much Joe Weider weight gainer and having really bad gas. This result got me a contract in Europe, which by the end of 1996 had me choosing to dope. But doping did not get me to the contract.

I also won Tour of the Gila, with 1 teammate, in 1995, against all the best US pro guys, dope free. And the moment I went back to Europe, I went from winner to 124th place. Same form, same fitness.

I see this all the time, amateurs that dope thinking it's "the way" to get into the pros. One, most good DS's can spot a super-fast donkey from a mile away. Two, even when they sneak into a pro team, going from a non bio-passport monitored doping regime (full gas) to having a constant stream of blood tests, slows them down a lot. A lot. Usually it ends up in tears - a year or two in the pros and goodbye. In some ways, I was lucky, EPO had not quite hit the scene when I was amateur (1992-1993).

If you can do 6.0 w/kg and you get you *** handed to you by guys doing 6.6, then blame doping and ask for a damn apology. But what I hear a lot of these days are guys who, 10-15 years ago, could do 5.2 w/kg, complaining they were robbed. 5.2 + massive doping = 5.7.

So, do I owe an apology to Darren Baker? Yes. He was a 6.0 athlete. He finished in the top 50 of Tour de Suisse in 1996, clean. Which is an unbelievable feat and would put him in the top 10 of the Tour de France, if he doped. He was cheated by me and others.

Hope this lends a bit of perspective.

btw - funny quote from the guy who beat me at Vuelta Venezuela at a race in 1996. He was on a big Italian team and we recognized each other at Volta Catalunya. He said "Everyone back home thought I was doping when I won the Tour of Venezuela, but I wasn't. Now, nobody back in Venezuela thinks I dope, because i don't win anymore, but I dope myself every day of every race."

 

[JV1973]

i can only think that the sky swannies are not meeting worlds best practice with their hand relief and happy endings at post stage rub n tugs.

sky soigneurs are the weak link

Damn, Blackcat, I used to despise you. Now I kinda think you're funny.

 

[JimmyFingers]

He has that effect on people

 

[JV1973]

When the "marginal gains" provided by EPO were discovered by cyclists, they were all over it. Almost 100% of them jumped on the bandwagon.

If the "marginal gains" provided by warming down are so significant, how come the forward looking riders who used EPO are now so backwards?

Because EPO, unlike much of doping, is not a marginal gain. It is a macro gain. Unmonitored, 1994-1997, it provides a 10-12% advantage. Somewhat monitored, 1998-2001, it provides a 5-8% advantage (still not marginal)... Then, closely monitored (2001-2007) maybe a 3-6% advantage, still not marginal. You basically need to get to a evolved biopassport, plus advanced EPO test gel situation, like now, to reduce it's advantage to marginal (<1%)

It only took 20 years!!!

JV

 

[hrotha]

I wouldn't say Brescialat was a big Italian team.

 

[JV1973]

I wouldn't say Brescialat was a big Italian team.

back then it was. Well, maybe not big, but damn fast.

 

[JV1973]

Because EPO, unlike much of doping, is not a marginal gain. It is a macro gain. Unmonitored, 1994-1997, it provides a 10-12% advantage. Somewhat monitored, 1998-2001, it provides a 5-8% advantage (still not marginal)... Then, closely monitored (2001-2007) maybe a 3-6% advantage, still not marginal. You basically need to get to a evolved biopassport, plus advanced EPO test gel situation, like now, to reduce it's advantage to marginal (<1%)

It only took 20 years!!!

JV

*an evolved*

 

[JV1973]

Because EPO, unlike much of doping, is not a marginal gain. It is a macro gain. Unmonitored, 1994-1997, it provides a 10-12% advantage. Somewhat monitored, 1998-2001, it provides a 5-8% advantage (still not marginal)... Then, closely monitored (2001-2007) maybe a 3-6% advantage, still not marginal. You basically need to get to a evolved biopassport, plus advanced EPO test gel situation, like now, to reduce it's advantage to marginal (<1%)

It only took 20 years!!!

JV

Well, assuming the passport is objectively and impartially administered by an appropriately funded organization. So, perhaps <1% is currently too optimistic. Sorry. Don't jump on me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because EPO, unlike much of doping, is not a marginal gain. It is a macro gain. Unmonitored, 1994-1997, it provides a 10-12% advantage. Somewhat monitored, 1998-2001, it provides a 5-8% advantage (still not marginal)... Then, closely monitored (2001-2007) maybe a 3-6% advantage, still not marginal. You basically need to get to a evolved biopassport, plus advanced EPO test gel situation, like now, to reduce it's advantage to marginal (<1%)

It only took 20 years!!!

JV

Probably a fair assessment - but in the same way anti-doping evolves there are some who will find a way past it.
And we know that blood bags (with micro-doses of EPO) can still be utilized.
Obviously the passport is meant to pick that up - but we know that Armstrong got away with it and the BP has been curbed for cost.

What is your view on the current state of the Passport?

 

[esafosfina]

What I know is this:

In my generation, the guys who were winning medals at Junior National/World championships at 14-17 years old, long before doping ever entered their mind, were the same guys who were of a high enough calibre to race in Europe and be selected by pro teams to race pro, and henceforth be introduced to doping, as was par for the course in Europe at that time. I can think of one guy who was good enough, but chose to opt out of doping: Darren Baker. And, yeah, he deserves an apology.

I'll give you an example, in 1993, I finished 2nd GC, won TT stage in the Vuelta Venezuela. It was packed with Colombians and Venezuelan riders who went on to successful pro careers. I was 19. At this point in my career my only doping was drinking way too much Joe Weider weight gainer and having really bad gas. This result got me a contract in Europe, which by the end of 1996 had me choosing to dope. But doping did not get me to the contract.

I also won Tour of the Gila, with 1 teammate, in 1995, against all the best US pro guys, dope free. And the moment I went back to Europe, I went from winner to 124th place. Same form, same fitness.

I see this all the time, amateurs that dope thinking it's "the way" to get into the pros. One, most good DS's can spot a super-fast donkey from a mile away. Two, even when they sneak into a pro team, going from a non bio-passport monitored doping regime (full gas) to having a constant stream of blood tests, slows them down a lot. A lot. Usually it ends up in tears - a year or two in the pros and goodbye. In some ways, I was lucky, EPO had not quite hit the scene when I was amateur (1992-1993).

If you can do 6.0 w/kg and you get you *** handed to you by guys doing 6.6, then blame doping and ask for a damn apology. But what I hear a lot of these days are guys who, 10-15 years ago, could do 5.2 w/kg, complaining they were robbed. 5.2 + massive doping = 5.7.

So, do I owe an apology to Darren Baker? Yes. He was a 6.0 athlete. He finished in the top 50 of Tour de Suisse in 1996, clean. Which is an unbelievable feat and would put him in the top 10 of the Tour de France, if he doped. He was cheated by me and others.

Hope this lends a bit of perspective.

btw - funny quote from the guy who beat me at Vuelta Venezuela at a race in 1996. He was on a big Italian team and we recognized each other at Volta Catalunya. He said "Everyone back home thought I was doping when I won the Tour of Venezuela, but I wasn't. Now, nobody back in Venezuela thinks I dope, because i don't win anymore, but I dope myself every day of every race."

Indeed you were fortunate... but many races were won with EPO earlier than that, and the temptation and, if I'm honest, the pressure was huge. I lost a contract for 92 that I could have secured had I 'dabbled'... I don't think any less of you for deviating JV, but it's important to state that many of us rode their professional careers clean, and it can be done with a modicum of success.

 

[sniper]

Because EPO, unlike much of doping, is not a marginal gain. It is a macro gain. Unmonitored, 1994-1997, it provides a 10-12% advantage. Somewhat monitored, 1998-2001, it provides a 5-8% advantage (still not marginal)... Then, closely monitored (2001-2007) maybe a 3-6% advantage, still not marginal. You basically need to get to a evolved biopassport, plus advanced EPO test gel situation, like now, to reduce it's advantage to marginal (<1%)

It only took 20 years!!!

JV

and we're supposed to believe these marginal gains give SKY the same dominance as EPO gave USPS.
doesn't add up.

 

[blackcat]

Damn, Blackcat, I used to despise you. Now I kinda think you're funny.

forum harlequin.

i'm like jon stewart, except i'm funny.

___i'm a colbert guy
but
funnier than colbert too.

 

[hrotha]

back then it was. Well, maybe not big, but damn fast.

Short of Amore & Vita, I don't think there was a single small Italian team that wasn't pretty fast in the mid 90s. Aki, Brescialat, Navigare, Refin, ZG... All smallish teams, all flying - especially at the Giro. Heh, I was too young to wonder why back then.

But I still like Mariano Piccoli even in retrospect

 

[JV1973]

and we're supposed to believe these marginal gains give SKY the same dominance as EPO gave USPS.
doesn't add up.

Honestly, I don't know. I can point out climbing speeds and median blood info, but that only shows the general picture. So, you are only supposed to believe what you choose to believe.

 

[biokemguy]

Do they test for this

Hi JV,
Back when this paper came out the authors claimed in the main stream (non-scientific) press that tests for illicit use of these compounds in sports were ready to go. Do you know that to be true? Some on here seem to think this is the new EPO.

I am skeptical that an academic research lab would have the resources AND put them towards developing such a test. Maybe they just alerted WADA or USADA to their findings and waited to publish until the test was developed, but that was never made clear.

 

[Beech Mtn]

JV, if you don't stop quoting your own posts, people are going to think The Hog is your sockpuppet here on the forum.

OK, now re EPO, what about these supposed new forms of EPO that aren't detectable? And reports that some guys don't get tested all that often for the biopassport? If those two things are true, leaves room for EPO gains to grow back to the higher macro numbers of earlier years.

Any chance UCI will do like USADA and publish numbers of times an athlete is tested each year? Having some basic stats, like number of biopassport blood tests per quarter for each athlete would allow the passport to look more robust to the general public, IMO.

 

[roundabout]

Short of Amore & Vita, I don't think there was a single small Italian team that wasn't pretty fast in the mid 90s. Aki, Brescialat, Navigare, Refin, ZG... All smallish teams, all flying - especially at the Giro. Heh, I was too young to wonder why back then.

But I still like Mariano Piccoli even in retrospect

Didn't they become Liquigas?

At least I think they were called Brescialat-Liquigas at some point.

 

[JV1973]

Probably a fair assessment - but in the same way anti-doping evolves there are some who will find a way past it.
And we know that blood bags (with micro-doses of EPO) can still be utilized.
Obviously the passport is meant to pick that up - but we know that Armstrong got away with it and the BP has been curbed for cost.

What is your view on the current state of the Passport?

The CADF has made it's payroll and revenue sources independent. They have ousted Pat as president of the BOD and replaced him with Daniel Baal. That's all good news for the passport. I wouldn't say they are independent of the UCI, but they are autonomous, which is a good first step.

 

[JV1973]

Hi JV,
Back when this paper came out the authors claimed in the main stream (non-scientific) press that tests for illicit use of these compounds in sports were ready to go. Do you know that to be true? Some on here seem to think this is the new EPO.

I am skeptical that an academic research lab would have the resources AND put them towards developing such a test. Maybe they just alerted WADA or USADA to their findings and waited to publish until the test was developed, but that was never made clear.

WADA is sully very tightlipped about new tests. they like to surprise people.