JV talks, sort of

[Ventoux Boar]

Froome, the greatest fraud in the history of humanity, apparently, hammered Talansky for a full 12s on their last encounter (as far back as Monday). It's a bit harsh telling JV his boys can't get anywhere near Froome.

 

[the sceptic]

Froome, the greatest fraud in the history of humanity, apparently, hammered Talansky for a full 12s on their last encounter (as far back as Monday). It's a bit harsh telling JV his boys can't get anywhere near Froome.

Nice cherry picking.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Froome, the greatest fraud in the history of humanity, apparently, hammered Talansky for a full 12s on their last encounter (as far back as Monday). It's a bit harsh telling JV his boys can't get anywhere near Froome.

And he did that while completely ignoring Talansky as if he was immaterial to the race.

Because he is.
Because only Alberto is a threat.

Froome's entire focus was on dropping Alberto and gaining time on him.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

And he did that while completely ignoring Talansky as if he was immaterial to the race.

Because he is.
Because only Alberto is a threat.

Froome's entire focus was on dropping Alberto and gaining time on him.

Every single data point that fails the narrative test always has Froome not trying too hard for some reason. Quite a coincidence.

 

[the sceptic]

Every single data point that fails the narrative test always has Froome not trying too hard for some reason. Quite a coincidence.

You picked the data point that supported your agenda, while ignoring the bigger picture. Maybe you should take a look at how much time Talansky lost to Froome on various MTFs in the tour last year?

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Shouldnt you be a bit ****ed off that some "clean" riders can climb faster than Armstrong, when your own garmin boys are obviously nowhere close to doing that?

12 seconds. Twist it however you like, but on a day when Full *** Mutant Froome attacked like a demon to shift Contador, "nowhere close" was 12s.

Perhaps you have a PE qualification from a prestigious institution you'd like to cite in your defence?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Every single data point that fails the narrative test always has Froome not trying too hard for some reason. Quite a coincidence.

And people who have not swung their leg over a bicycle argue points over which they have so little experience.

Whatever makes you happy dude. I got no dog in this fight, but I know who Froome is concerned about, and who the top guys are watching.

 

[BYOP88]

Just email me. My first name @ my company's name.com

Offer is open to anyone.

Me discussing in this forum basically turns into a bunch of bullies punching the nerd on the playground. Just like twitter.

I deleted my post because it's useless.

JV.

Were you still in the Tour in 1999 when your team leader started 'punching the nerd on the playground'? If so and even if you weren't I hope you stood with Bassons and defended him from the bullies and weren't part of the bullying crowd.

 

[badboygolf16v]

JV happy to have a doping Wiggins on his team in 09. Nuff said.

 

[Granville57]

JV happy to have a doping Wiggins on his team in 09. Nuff said.

Eh, not so sure that's really "nuff."

JV has never expressed much of a thrill about working with Wiggo, and Sir Bradley was very much off on his own with his Brit crew for training and preparation.

 

[Benotti69]

Eh, not so sure that's really "nuff."

JV has never expressed much of a thrill about working with Wiggo, and Sir Bradley was very much off on his own with his Brit crew for training and preparation.

JV was not happy at Wiggins leaving for Sky neither. His comments about Wiggins came after he left.

JV has defended Sky and their riders.

JV is great at avoiding the questions and citing bullying, psuedo science etc etc

 

[The Hitch]

JV seems to have forgotten that he did dope, and did lie.

If your career was based on those 2 things, and essentially all your success since has spawned from those, then at least aknowledge that.

When I was about 5 I was rude to my teacher and stuck a tongue out, and **** if I didn't feel guilty about it every single time I saw her from then till I left primary school 5 years later.

JV doesn't seem to have that.

He seems to think anyone who remotely doubts him is in the wrong. As if they have no right to do so.
If you lied and cheated then people have the right to do doubt you. Even if they are all in the wrong and all jerks and all would eat your dog, well it comes with the territory of having lied and cheated before.

It is every fans individual right to decide if they want to trust JV. And I don't see how anyone can truly be repentant if they consider the people they duped the once to have no right to doubt them the second time.

He's done some things for clean sport, some things to make me believe him, such as coming on here, and allowing Kimmage at the 2010 TDF, and I have defended him, but he doesn't these days even seem to aknowledge his own past these days.

His twitter handle says "I have dedicated my life to anti doping". Really?

If you doped and lied for much of your career, and you now want to help anti doping, then aknowledging that people won't trust you should the starting point. Rule number 1.

As the poem says

"If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too"

That applies doubly so if you lied to them in the first place.

As w-ankmeister cycling blog pointed out in a brilliant article on JV that has unfortunately since been taken down, any honorable action requires a sacrifice. JV doesn't seem to think there is any sacrifice. Or if there is he feels he's paid it, and everyone should welcome him back with open arms.
That's not his decision to make.

In this way he embodies the present attitude of the sport. The belief that doping can be fought without any sacrifice.

Calling Shane Stokes a dunce, using distractions rather than answering actual questions, his hypocrisy regarding ascent times, and worst of all for me keeping absolutely secret Hesjedal's doping history while riding a "clean gt winner" tag on him, then acting not only as if he had done nothing wrong but acting as if the fans should be thankful that Hesjedal confessed - in secret knowing there would be no repercussions

JV instead dismisses anyone who doubts, treats them as the enemy (even if they are in the wrong, you cheated earlier, you deal with it), then continues to behave dishonestly on several occasions such as the above.

If I had doped and cheated earlier I would feel red faced about it for the rest of my life and forever feel like I owe something. Doubly so if I continued to work in cycling.

Luckily for JV, and his general health I suppose, he has a different attitude.

 

[D-Queued]

JV happy to have a doping Wiggins on his team in 09. Nuff said.

Sure. But a 'lost hope' and 'clean' (ahem) Lance beat him.

The marginal gains that are titrated into the Sky transfusions worked better than the pan y aqua that JV had him on.

Just saying. The obvious.

Dave.

 

[Digger]

JV seems to have forgotten that he did dope, and did lie.

If your career was based on those 2 things, and essentially all your success since has spawned from those, then at least aknowledge that.

When I was about 5 I was rude to my teacher and stuck a tongue out, and **** if I didn't feel guilty about it every single time I saw her from then till I left primary school 5 years later.

JV doesn't seem to have that.

He seems to think anyone who remotely doubts him is in the wrong. As if they have no right to do so.
If you lied and cheated then people have the right to do doubt you. Even if they are all in the wrong and all jerks and all would eat your dog, well it comes with the territory of having lied and cheated before.

It is every fans individual right to decide if they want to trust JV. And I don't see how anyone can truly be repentant if they consider the people they duped the once to have no right to doubt them the second time.

He's done some things for clean sport, some things to make me believe him, such as coming on here, and allowing Kimmage at the 2010 TDF, and I have defended him, but he doesn't these days even seem to aknowledge his own past these days.

His twitter handle says "I have dedicated my life to anti doping". Really?

If you doped and lied for much of your career, and you now want to help anti doping, then aknowledging that people won't trust you should the starting point. Rule number 1.

As the poem says

"If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too"

That applies doubly so if you lied to them in the first place.

As w-ankmeister cycling blog pointed out in a brilliant article on JV that has unfortunately since been taken down, any honorable action requires a sacrifice. JV doesn't seem to think there is any sacrifice. Or if there is he feels he's paid it, and everyone should welcome him back with open arms.
That's not his decision to make.

In this way he embodies the present attitude of the sport. The belief that doping can be fought without any sacrifice.

Calling Shane Stokes a dunce, using distractions rather than answering actual questions, his hypocrisy regarding ascent times, and worst of all for me keeping absolutely secret Hesjedal's doping history while riding a "clean gt winner" tag on him, then acting not only as if he had done nothing wrong but acting as if the fans should be thankful that Hesjedal confessed - in secret knowing there would be no repercussions

JV instead dismisses anyone who doubts, treats them as the enemy (even if they are in the wrong, you cheated earlier, you deal with it), then continues to behave dishonestly on several occasions such as the above.

If I had doped and cheated earlier I would feel red faced about it for the rest of my life and forever feel like I owe something. Doubly so if I continued to work in cycling.

Luckily for JV, and his general health I suppose, he has a different attitude.

Brilliant - he maintains that walking away from a big contract with CA was sacrifice enough - forgetting that he would not have had that contract if he hadn't doped.

He would not have the name he did, in order to set up that development team, if he hadn't initially doped.

Talks about decreasing times - when a time comes along which beats the time of Oxygen Vector doping times - silence. He wants it both ways.

Talks about giving people a second chance - ok...but what happened with Floyd landis' second chance?

Talks about bullying - but said not a word in support of taylor phinney when he talked of finishing bottles

Talks of fairness - didn't see him talk about how wrong it was that Fuyu Li got a two year ban and Rogers got nothing.

Talks of it being cleaner - yet uses calibration issues when there are, shall we say, results which are not what you might expect. (mild way of putting it)

Says Alberto Contador might have been Antonio Colom on the Puerto files...yet AC was in the middle of Libery Sigueros riders.

Absolutely slaughtered Joerg Jaksche.

JV does obfuscate - ok don't answer me I can get that - but it's something Kimmage even complained about in 2008.


Stuart O'Grady - JV initially supporting his version - until Johan sorted that one out...


And for the record, I thought the way he spoke to someone like Stokes, who does a good job, in a difficult environment, was all wrong. It was just pure politics. Answering but not answering.

 

[Netserk]

Eh, not so sure that's really "nuff."

JV has never expressed much of a thrill about working with Wiggo, and Sir Bradley was very much off on his own with his Brit crew for training and preparation.

I'm sure Vande Velde was off on his own as well.

 

[hrotha]

I gave JV the benefit of the doubt because he'd actually engage fans in seemingly honest and open discussion, but he rarely does that anymore, so he's quickly sliding back in my cynical scale. Back then, it looked like he might actually remain consistent (remember the telling "I just don't know..." when first confronted with Froome's EPO-era times?) and hence change his public discourse to something a lot closer to ringing the alarm bells. But he seems to have decided rocking the boat is not worth it. "Not as dirty as in the 90s" is good enough.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Digger,

FuYu Li and Landis are two very interesting cases.

FuYu -> busted back to Continental racing instantly.
Landis -> basically blacklisted.

Neither one ever got another opportunity on the WT.

There are a few more riders like those two. Mancebo somehow lands in the U.S. after Puerto and does consistently great and absolutely capable of riding WT level and that never happened. Was it Rasmussen trying to ride for some 2nd-tier team that the UCI scuttled?

I realize that has nothing to do with JV1973 other than he handles the sports mysterious forces very well.

 

[red_flanders]

Every single data point that fails the narrative test always has Froome not trying too hard for some reason. Quite a coincidence.

Instead of making generalizations about "narratives", why not just add your own tactical analysis of what happened and debate the point? That might fall under the category of "discussion", "respectful discourse" and/or "disagreement" instead of adding nothing but attacks on posters and defense of Froome.

For my part, I kind of agree with Dear Wiggo but not completely. Froome chased down every attack, as well as pulling from the front the whole time. Which is of course, absurd. So he was not only marking Contador. But he did let the group come back when Contador was marking him, which is why Talansky et. al. did come back many times. For sure Contador was doing nothing but seeing if he could match Froome and didn't give Jack Squa****** about winning the stage. Same can't be said for Froome, though clearly Contador was who he was trying to bury.

I personally have never seen a rider use such absurd tactics and still win. While not his most mutant performance in terms of VAM or watts per kilo, or time, it was an incredible display of power as well as tactical ineptitude.

I realize it's probably pointless to try and engage you in an actual discussion, as you seem to be here solely to carp at those who question Froome, but I thought I'd give it a shot.

 

[sniper]

Sir Bradley was very much off on his own with his Brit crew for training and preparation.

which is why vaughters' vouching for wiggo's cleanliness in 09 should not be taken too seriously.

 

[The Hitch]

I gave JV the benefit of the doubt because he'd actually engage fans in seemingly honest and open discussion, but he rarely does that anymore, so he's quickly sliding back in my cynical scale. Back then, it looked like he might actually remain consistent (remember the telling "I just don't know..." when first confronted with Froome's EPO-era times?) and hence change his public discourse to something a lot closer to ringing the alarm bells. But he seems to have decided rocking the boat is not worth it. "Not as dirty as in the 90s" is good enough.

Same, I defended him over that tweet too.

But then not long after he made another tweet, in response to someone. He said that some people don't understand that some cyclists are simply super talented and will ride fast on talent alone.

 

[BYOP88]

so how exactly can vaughters vouch for wiggo's cleanliness in 09?

Because only the non-cool dweebs doped after 2006. Wiggans is a dedicated follower of fashion so would have been ahead of that curve. #ModPower

 

[sniper]

it is also worth pointing out that much of the discourse Walsh uses to defend Froome and Sky seems to have been borrowed from Vaughters.
Stuff like this

"It was his [Froome's] good fortune to enter the sport when anti-doping controls were becoming more effective and attitudes changing."

http://pastebin.com/UXrzj16r

 

[Digger]

Because only the non-cool dweebs doped after 2006. Wiggans is a dedicated follower of fashion so would have been ahead of that curve. #ModPower

Him saying doping is not tolerated anymore and not what the cool kids do...Rogers welcomed back.
Alberto welcomed back and defended by Millar and JV.

We do get a guy like Sayar thrown to the wolves, but that has always been the case.

When I said that some dopers are defended, he said this can sometimes boil down to friendship.

As for Ryder and the timeframe of his confession.

 

[blackcat]

Sure. But a 'lost hope' and 'clean' (ahem) Lance beat him.

The marginal gains that are titrated into the Sky transfusions worked better than the pan y aqua that JV had him on.

Just saying. The obvious.

Dave.

but there is a question on the ethics of holding out on Brailsford with the Wiggins contract in 2009/2010 off-season. it really was a krushchev or khrushchev kennedy brinksmanship. bloody cyrillic never know how the spelling translates, python?

his 2009 performance, obviously not legit at the TdF, JV wanted to sell his contract based on a boosted Armstrong like metamorphosis.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Instead of making generalizations about "narratives", why not just add your own tactical analysis of what happened and debate the point? That might fall under the category of "discussion", "respectful discourse" and/or "disagreement" instead of adding nothing but attacks on posters and defense of Froome.

For my part, I kind of agree with Dear Wiggo but not completely. Froome chased down every attack, as well as pulling from the front the whole time. Which is of course, absurd. So he was not only marking Contador. But he did let the group come back when Contador was marking him, which is why Talansky et. al. did come back many times. For sure Contador was doing nothing but seeing if he could match Froome and didn't give Jack Squa****** about winning the stage. Same can't be said for Froome, though clearly Contador was who he was trying to bury.

I personally have never seen a rider use such absurd tactics and still win. While not his most mutant performance in terms of VAM or watts per kilo, or time, it was an incredible display of power as well as tactical ineptitude.

I realize it's probably pointless to try and engage you in an actual discussion, as you seem to be here solely to carp at those who question Froome, but I thought I'd give it a shot.

I completely agree about the strength of Froome's display, and that he paid no heed to Talansky. I brought this up to show an example of a full-on Froome effort that was a whopping 12s faster than Talansky.

It was said that this was not possible. It was then said that Froome wasn't trying, or he didn't care about Talansky. Glad we agree he was riding out of his skin and that Talansky was of no concern.

More generally, you either take performances as an indicator or you don't. And what do you think the power estimates were for Froome and Contador? Same times, but given Froome's obvious tactical naivety, Contador should have saved a few watts. Eh?

As for attacking posters, I remind you that Digger accused me of sending him abusive tweets. He made that up. Thanks for upholding fair play.