JV talks, sort of

[DirtyWorks]

So what do we mean exactly by "crazy adaptive physiology," and what's the hypothesis for explaining CF's transformation?

The other thing left unexplained by the JV hypothesis, why did it stop? Because, while he has fantastic power, he doesn't seem to have more than last year. Does it restart? What mechanism would take an elite athlete whose progress totally defies the human (pan y agua) norm?

JV's explanation is convenient, but not useful. Get Ed Coyle to publish an analysis. Quick!!!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Then why go out of his way to clarify, explicitly and unambiguously, that he thinks Froome is clean?

We now know for sure the UCI has delivered some marginal gains to Froome. JV1973 conveniently confirmed the UCI is **very** involved in team operations.

Therefore, the JV1973 explanation avoids the wrath of the UCI.

 

[thehog]

Then why go out of his way to clarify, explicitly and unambiguously, that he thinks Froome is clean?

What else can he say?

He's not in a postion as a team owner/manger to start calling out riders on other teams. He can't say anything but a rider is clean.

Agree he's probably better in saying nothing but we so berate him to give an opinion on the matter. We do have a begrudging respect for Vaughters even though he can be full of *** at times and does some very odd things.

So I'd take what he says with a grain of salt or read between the lines.

 

[Digger]

Well seen as JV reads this and it's not behind his back.
I will keep it simple. It's my opinion that he plays politics and doesn't honestly believe many of the things he says. You have to sell the idea that winning clean is possible, otherwise no sponsors.

A person as long as him in the sport, no way can he believe what he says - and that surmises why i get so angry with him. I honestly feel he's defending guys he feels, in private, are doping.
He can't possibly be that naive - so that leaves us with the other option....

JV at a Yale lecture used a watts/kg figure as a borderline indication for clean and doping - yet when froome went over this, he was also clean.
Wiggins - machine calibration
And on and on...science and numbers are used to show cycling is cleaner...when the numbers suggest otherwise in a particular instance, it's ignored.

That's my view.

 

[thehog]

Well seen as JV reads this and it's not behind his back.
I will keep it simple. It's my opinion that he plays politics and doesn't honestly believe many of the things he says. You have to sell the idea that winning clean is possible, otherwise no sponsors.

A person as long as him in the sport, no way can he believe what he says - and that surmises why i get so angry with him. I honestly feel he's defending guys he feels, in private, are doping.
He can't possibly be that naive - so that leaves us with the other option....

This I agree with.

Probably in the time that JV was selling real estate that he realized that people don't jut buy houses but they buy a "story". And he tells a good story.

So building a cycling team under the guise of "cleanness" and that it started a "movement" in clean cycling and continues to do so sells well.

He has some fine sponsors on board and most have been in or are in for the long haul.

Telling the world that the Dawg is a mutant from planet Badzhilla does nothing for the "image" he's done so well to create. (even though behind closed doors I'm sure he admits Froome is mutant).

I think thats fairly obvious. We'd all probably be in the same boat. Building a 20million dollar team which has provided a very good life style you're not about to start calling out other teams for doping.

 

[D-Queued]

Knowing JV speaks in riddles and with a sense of irony I don't doubt when he uses a term like "crazy adaptive physiology" he actually means "doping".

Considering that JV is under a different set of circumstances than anonymous forum posters it is his only real way of saying "the guy is a super freak and is most likely doping".

He just can't come out and say "Froome is doping". Not possible.

I'm sure if you shared a bottle of merlot with JV after glass 2 he'd just smile and say, "yeah, he's friggin doping!".

But you'll never get a press statement to that effect. Why would someone cause themselves that much trouble? JV only remembers too well the vindictiveness of McQuaid so he's not going to get on the wrong side of the Cookson Family and find Dan Martin all of sudden has a Passport letter to explain.

I'm sure when Froome finally gets popped JV will say he knew all along

JV is really bright, and he has tons and tons of insight well beyond what most of us can aspire to.

While he could be talking in riddles, and while he may be going as far out on a limb as he can with respect to a rider on another team, he may also believe that Froome can be explained by natural means.

Judging from past comments, I have developed a reputation here of being pretty cynical and as a 'hater'.

Even so, once upon a time, at all kinds of different times, I believed - or at least hoped - that Lance was clean; that Floyd was clean; that Barry was clean, etc.

Even someone as knowledgeable and bright as JV could easily be letting hope cloud his vision.

If/when Froome is exposed, JV will/would not be the only person who may claim to have known all along. If/when that happens, we can be certain he will be in very good company.

It's just the way these things seem to go.

Dave.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Then why go out of his way to clarify, explicitly and unambiguously, that he thinks Froome is clean?

He has to lead a team that competes against Froome. To say "Yep, he's super doped, we have no chance" would not be very good motivation.

 

[hrotha]

You guys are missing the point. I'm not asking him to say "Yep, he's doped". But he made a post where he didn't accuse Froome of doping, and THEN added another one that unambiguously said he believed Froome to be clean. It's like the difference between keeping your mouth shut and defending Armstrong all over again.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You guys are missing the point. I'm not asking him to say "Yep, he's doped". But he made a post where he didn't accuse Froome of doping, and THEN added another one that unambiguously said he believed Froome to be clean. It's like the difference between keeping your mouth shut and defending Armstrong all over again.

Yeah he could be far more circumspect and say nothing. Would be far more believable.

I am guessing the forum is read despite the denigration it receives, and someone had to salve a potential wound.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Then why go out of his way to clarify, explicitly and unambiguously, that he thinks Froome is clean?

He has to lead a team that competes against Froome. To say "Yep, he's super doped, we have no chance" would not be very good leadership.

This plus - JV would perhaps not like to be sued. IIRC, Cound has already made a fool of herself on twitter threatening the likes of La Flo and Mew (I think I'm remembering who it was she threatened) with a suit under the ridiculous British libel laws. It isn't a big stretch that, if someone with stature in the sport, like a JV type, were to speak out publicly, that he might receive an unhappy response from Froome Inc or the Sky folks.

Plus - JV has shown in the past a tendency to push in one direction and then retreat (thinking here of Lance and the Frankie/IM exchange & SCA stuff). It's one thing to engage in a bit of informal gossip, and another to formally defend your views when pressed.

And also - JV very likely can't prove, doesn't have evidence about anything Froome might be doing. So can only offer his opinion. That's easier done for a Kimmage or a Vayer than somebody still working in the sport, as Izzy's post points out.

 

[Race Radio]

Since when do you believe Armstrong weighed 71 kg!? You've spent years claiming the weight loss was BS and his actual weight was around 75 kg. Ferrari told Coyle LA's TdF weight was 74-75 kg. He climbed the madone @ 495 W prior to the -99 Dauphine if I'm not mistaken, so probably above Tour weight.

Not sure which Coyle you are referring to. Dan or Ed. Off season weight recorded by Ed was 76 kilo. In season weight cited in the study was 71, this would mean 6.95 w/kg. I have never said his his TDF weight was 75kilo, 71-72 sounds about right. He was 72 in the 1995 Tour. The Madone time was right before the Tour.

Regardless, this is the JV thread and lance has been discussed to death

 

[Benotti69]

You guys are missing the point. I'm not asking him to say "Yep, he's doped". But he made a post where he didn't accuse Froome of doping, and THEN added another one that unambiguously said he believed Froome to be clean. It's like the difference between keeping your mouth shut and defending Armstrong all over again.

I think JV toys with the clinic for fun. His twitter has for a while been something not to be taken seriously and i take most of what he posts in here in similar vein.

Saying Froome has a "crazy adaptive physiology" seemed to be saying 'super responder' another way and then when called on it he seemed to back track. If he deleted the post it would look worse so JV does what he usually does talks in riddles, drops hints and when having to give a definitive answer does the only thing he can do and declare Froome to be clean.

At the end of the day JV gives very little insight into pro cycling in here.

I think JV tried hard to push the rest of the peloton into better managing the sport by encouraging them to adapt the 'being seen to be doing the right things' rather than doing the right things. MPCC is probably the outcome of that.

 

[Benotti69]

Yeah he could be far more circumspect and say nothing. Would be far more believable.

Yes he would be better off giving quotes and interviews (instead of insults on titter) to credible journalists than coming in here and messing.

I am guessing the forum is read despite the denigration it receives, and someone had to salve a potential wound.

This is what makes me believe he toys with us, maybe because he knows so many of the anglosaxons in the sport read it and also it maybe a personal dig at the likes of Armstrong that JV can post as JV and those others dare not.

 

[Netserk]

And instead of that being a real difference, it was simply Coyle's guess at what his body weight was. Now, interestingly enough, during the proceedings, not just the allegation of misconduct but in the arbitration hearing itself, when people are sworn under oath, even Lance Armstrong himself acknowledged that his body weight had never dropped to 72 kg. So it was factually wrong.

Does anyone know under which hearing LA acknowledged that?

 

[thehog]

JV is really bright, and he has tons and tons of insight well beyond what most of us can aspire to.

While he could be talking in riddles, and while he may be going as far out on a limb as he can with respect to a rider on another team, he may also believe that Froome can be explained by natural means.

Judging from past comments, I have developed a reputation here of being pretty cynical and as a 'hater'.

Even so, once upon a time, at all kinds of different times, I believed - or at least hoped - that Lance was clean; that Floyd was clean; that Barry was clean, etc.

Even someone as knowledgeable and bright as JV could easily be letting hope cloud his vision.

If/when Froome is exposed, JV will/would not be the only person who may claim to have known all along. If/when that happens, we can be certain he will be in very good company.

It's just the way these things seem to go.

Dave.

I never presumed anyone to be clean. But it also doesn't cloud whether I like a rider or not. I disliked Lance never because he was a doper but because of the cynical use of cancer to support his profitability.

I just laughed at the lengths some would go to defend him. And I see the same with Froome/Sky. I never understand why its so important for some to protect a rider, like its a religious war or something.

When I was 14 (or so) we were jacking up on baking soda looking for an advantage. I look around the local acing scene now and its the same. Everyone has their own recovery aid, drinks, supplements etc. to assist them. Doping was just the next stage of this. If you're taking random supplements herbal or otherwise then popping cortisone or a T-drop on the tongue then you don't even think of crossing a line.

Also cycling is such a stupid hard sport. Its so dumb the expectations on athletes. So you need a medical program to keep you going season to season to perform. You cannot be a Pro and not be supplemented in one form or another. Its simply not possible. This goes for legal and non-legal methods.

JV knows this. He may have some insight into Froome's numbers but truth be told JV hasn't been at a race in a couple of years apart from corporate appearances. He has as much idea about Froome as we do. Using a ridiculous term like "crazy adaptive physiology" is just another way of saying about Armstrong's extra large heart or thighbone. Just a cop out because you can't or don't want to explain the obvisous truth.

The problem is the fans, especially since the sport went on its global initiative into new markets. The new fans have his idealistic view that cycling is somehow clean and that riding 60km on the weekend is the same as doing back to back stages of 200km+ over 3 mountain passes. They don't get it and for some reason nobody really wants to present the reality of the sport especially for stage racing.

In saying all that Froome is the most obvious doper I've seen in the history of the sport. Not seen anything worse than him. Its almost comedy and we're already beginning to see the signs of it cracking and falling apart.

The trick that Vaughters has missed is that he takes the view that the views need not know about watts, watts etc. because we won't understand or misinterpret them. The sport has a rich and amazing collection of statistics would should be presented live and in retrospect would add so much value to the sport.

Watching 5 hours of cycling is boring. Presenting statistics during live coverage would make the sport very exciting and a much easier sell to sponsors and fans.

Now a days you already have, watts, wind readings, gear selections, speed etc. collected into the teams databases. We are just scratching the surface on this data. They won't be able to hold it back forever. Its only going to take someone to start building APIs, apps into the junior and amateur races for this cream to push through the top.

 

[blackcat]

come on folks, when JV invokes the euphemism, "crazy adaptive physiology" he is using the term crazy as in, yo brah, check this dawg out, he has crazy hops. this dude has crazy game yo.

its talk from highschool, the hood, and schoolyard.

 

[JV1973]

I never presumed anyone to be clean. But it also doesn't cloud whether I like a rider or not. I disliked Lance never because he was a doper but because of the cynical use of cancer to support his profitability.

I just laughed at the lengths some would go to defend him. And I see the same with Froome/Sky. I never understand why its so important for some to protect a rider, like its a religious war or something.

When I was 14 (or so) we were jacking up on baking soda looking for an advantage. I look around the local acing scene now and its the same. Everyone has their own recovery aid, drinks, supplements etc. to assist them. Doping was just the next stage of this. If you're taking random supplements herbal or otherwise then popping cortisone or a T-drop on the tongue then you don't even think of crossing a line.

Also cycling is such a stupid hard sport. Its so dumb the expectations on athletes. So you need a medical program to keep you going season to season to perform. You cannot be a Pro and not be supplemented in one form or another. Its simply not possible. This goes for legal and non-legal methods.

JV knows this. He may have some insight into Froome's numbers but truth be told JV hasn't been at a race in a couple of years apart from corporate appearances. He has as much idea about Froome as we do. Using a ridiculous term like "crazy adaptive physiology" is just another way of saying about Armstrong's extra large heart or thighbone. Just a cop out because you can't or don't want to explain the obvisous truth.

The problem is the fans, especially since the sport went on its global initiative into new markets. The new fans have his idealistic view that cycling is somehow clean and that riding 60km on the weekend is the same as doing back to back stages of 200km+ over 3 mountain passes. They don't get it and for some reason nobody really wants to present the reality of the sport especially for stage racing.

In saying all that Froome is the most obvious doper I've seen in the history of the sport. Not seen anything worse than him. Its almost comedy and we're already beginning to see the signs of it cracking and falling apart.

The trick that Vaughters has missed is that he takes the view that the views need not know about watts, watts etc. because we won't understand or misinterpret them. The sport has a rich and amazing collection of statistics would should be presented live and in retrospect would add so much value to the sport.

Watching 5 hours of cycling is boring. Presenting statistics during live coverage would make the sport very exciting and a much easier sell to sponsors and fans.

Now a days you already have, watts, wind readings, gear selections, speed etc. collected into the teams databases. We are just scratching the surface on this data. They won't be able to hold it back forever. Its only going to take someone to start building APIs, apps into the junior and amateur races for this cream to push through the top.

I really think I qualified my thoughts of Froome quite a bit by saying that I may, very well, be wrong. I am always hopeful. Sometimes stupidly so. Not naively, but flat out stupidly.

Anyhow, I was just stating if I was asked to make a bet that entailed a bullet to my head if I got it wrong, that's the way I'd bet. It's really not more than that. "Crazy adaptive physiology" is not a stupid term, it is the only plausible reason for Froome's performance, if he is clean. If he is not clean, then its just stupid excuse...agreed (btw - Hog, pretty much every Tour winner has extra long thigh bones and large left ventricles.... funny enough, Lance was one of the few who did not have a long femur....take a look at a photo of Hinault or LeMond sometime...the long femur thing was a much greater advantage when you're limited to a 42*23 - it also, as a function of a short tibia, gives an aerodynamic advantage as you are able to lean over further before the knee hits the chest.)

I may not go to every race these days, but you might be surprised as to how much I've tried to study and analyze all of the factors you guys discuss here.



JV

 

[JV1973]

come on folks, when JV invokes the euphemism, "crazy adaptive physiology" he is using the term crazy as in, yo brah, check this dog out, he has crazy hops. this dude has crazy game yo.

its talk from highschool, the hood, and schoolyard.

Werd, muthafugga

 

[blackcat]

long femur, that a euphemism too brah?

 

[blackcat]

orchiectomy, short femur, qui tam

ledger is stacking up against prance

 

[Granville57]

JV,

Might you be so kind as to address this most curious of points raised here.

Thanks.

Interesting comments by JV on Froome, but some things he missed:

1) Porte was nearly as fast as Froome up Madone, so if Froome is an absolute, never-seen-before freak, with > 90 V02max, 90% lactate threshold, 23-24% efficiency, so is Porte. If the odds that Froome is are miniscule, what are the odds that both are?

 

[thehog]

I really think I qualified my thoughts of Froome quite a bit by saying that I may, very well, be wrong. I am always hopeful. Sometimes stupidly so. Not naively, but flat out stupidly.

Anyhow, I was just stating if I was asked to make a bet that entailed a bullet to my head if I got it wrong, that's the way I'd bet. It's really not more than that. "Crazy adaptive physiology" is not a stupid term, it is the only plausible reason for Froome's performance, if he is clean. If he is not clean, then its just stupid excuse...agreed (btw - Hog, pretty much every Tour winner has extra long thigh bones and large left ventricles.... funny enough, Lance was one of the few who did not have a long femur....take a look at a photo of Hinault or LeMond sometime...the long femur thing was a much greater advantage when you're limited to a 42*23 - it also, as a function of a short tibia, gives an aerodynamic advantage as you are able to lean over further before the knee hits the chest.)

I may not go to every race these days, but you might be surprised as to how much I've tried to study and analyze all of the factors you guys discuss here.



JV

I agree "crazy adaptive physiology" is the only plausible reason if he's clean /U] because nothing else explains his performances - if clean.

So the CAP is a nice way of saying "no fuc^ing idea how he does it" (I'm teasing).

Problem with cycling is these data points get throw around without qualification, like Walsh does. Or similar to Armstrong which a large and far reaching fairytale took hold.

Probably goes someone to suggesting people will believe anything.

'Why are humans so gullible' might be a better research paper than one on 'crazy adaptation physiology'

Armstrong also possesses a heart that is approximately 30% larger than that of a sedentary person. His resting pulse rate during his peak years of competition was 32 beats per minute. Armstrong's femurs (thigh bones) are longer than found in a typical male of his height, a distinction that permits Armstrong to develop better leverage on the pedal with each stroke, rendering his pedaling motion more biome-chanically efficient.

 

[blackcat]

Interesting comments by JV on Froome, but some things he missed:

1) Porte was nearly as fast as Froome up Madone, so if Froome is an absolute, never-seen-before freak, with > 90 V02max, 90% lactate threshold, 23-24% efficiency, so is Porte. If the odds that Froome is are miniscule, what are the odds that both are?

cap^2

crazy adaptive physiology to the power of2

 

[webbie146]

I agree "crazy adaptive physiology" is the only plausible reason if he's clean /U] because nothing else explains his performances - if clean.

So the CAP is a nice way of saying "no fuc^ing idea how he does it" (I'm teasing).

Problem with cycling is these data points get throw around without qualification, like Walsh does. Or similar to Armstrong which a large and far reaching fairytale took hold.

Probably goes someone to suggesting people will believe anything.

'Why are humans so gullible' might be a better research paper than one on 'crazy adaptation physiology'

Well let's be honest Lance is the youngest world champion ever. Compared to Froome Armstrong is a hugeee talent.

 

[blackcat]

Well let's be honest Lance is the youngest world champion ever. Compared to Froome Armstrong is a hugeee talent.

huge talent, short femur