JV talks, sort of

[D-Queued]

That is a ridiculous assumption, if a cat 4 rider started doping by your logic anyone who finished above him would be doping in any race.

Aren't you simply stating conventional wisdom for Cat 4 35+ at the typical local four-corner-industrial-park crit?

Dave.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

lets see: 2009 tour clean podium update

1: Wiggins - Garmin 2009
2: Vandevelde + 6 minutes - Garmin 2009
3: Le Mevel + 8 minutes - Garmin 2011

Seems legit.

I see a pattern there!

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I don't know it was 70%. And I didn't in 2005. But if you ask me to define a percentage that I think were riding the Tour clean in 2005, then that's what I'd answer, because that's my belief. And in 2005, at the moment I was asked this question, my belief was 80-85%.

But my belief carries no more weight than yours.

From the RK thread.

Do you really believe that you have no more ingluence over the aport than an anonymos foum poster?

One frustrating aspect of your conversation is repeating that "it is just what I believe" and "I may be wrong." Or statements to that effect. That you are so content to be wrong, when you are in a position of influence with pro riders, the professional structure, and media of the tour is holding the sport back.

This post feels like a personal attack, but I have no other way to explain the slow progress the sport has made against doping than from your carelessness for accuracy and rigor. If you're not sure, do more research until you are sure. And if you are convinced, then don't waffle between positions. It does the sport a disservice.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I think to be fair to JV he just want to be another ****er with a side burn who doesn't have time to do some research for posting on cn forum and just want to have fun at this forum, sometimes.

 

[Benotti69]

I think to be fair to JV he just want to be another ****er with a side burn who doesn't have time to do some research for posting on cn forum and just want to have fun at this forum, sometimes.

should've posted using a better name then JV1973 then

 

[hrotha]

should've posted using a better name then JV1973 then

"Dr. Maserati" not good enough for you?

 

[JV1973]

From the RK thread.

Do you really believe that you have no more ingluence over the aport than an anonymos foum poster?

One frustrating aspect of your conversation is repeating that "it is just what I believe" and "I may be wrong." Or statements to that effect. That you are so content to be wrong, when you are in a position of influence with pro riders, the professional structure, and media of the tour is holding the sport back.

This post feels like a personal attack, but I have no other way to explain the slow progress the sport has made against doping than from your carelessness for accuracy and rigor. If you're not sure, do more research until you are sure. And if you are convinced, then don't waffle between positions. It does the sport a disservice.

The research on this does not exist. a definitive accounting is not available. To anyone.

And I have zero to do with the governance of this sport. I run one team. That's it.

 

[Benotti69]

"Dr. Maserati" not good enough for you?

zam posted 'having fun' not satisfying a pedantic affliction

 

[DirtyWorks]

The research on this does not exist. a definitive accounting is not available. To anyone.

And I have zero to do with the governance of this sport. I run one team. That's it.

Be fair to JV1973, he's got to satisfy the UCI and probably ASO and who knows who else on the sports production side in his daily business, a sponsor who seems satisfied for now, but who knows what tomorrow brings. The UCI's sports administration is a joke and he's still trying to put on a good show.

I don't agree with some of his rhetorical tactics, but if we could choose people to be in the sport, I'd take a JV1973 over an Och or Hog.

 

[D-Queued]

Be fair to JV1973, he's got to satisfy the UCI and probably ASO and who knows who else on the sports production side in his daily business, a sponsor who seems satisfied for now, but who knows what tomorrow brings. The UCI's sports administration is a joke and he's still trying to put on a good show.

I don't agree with some of his rhetorical tactics, but if we could choose people to be in the sport, I'd take a JV1973 over an Och or Hog.

...Riis, Saiz...

Venga, Venga, Venga!

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

Be fair to JV1973, he's got to satisfy the UCI and probably ASO and who knows who else on the sports production side in his daily business, a sponsor who seems satisfied for now, but who knows what tomorrow brings. The UCI's sports administration is a joke and he's still trying to put on a good show.

I don't agree with some of his rhetorical tactics, but if we could choose people to be in the sport, I'd take a JV1973 over an Och or Hog.

I wouldn't. I wouldn't take any of them, JV, Riis, Och, Hog.......Give me guys like Bassons, Mercier, Obree and the like to run teams in the sport.

 

[BYOP88]

Just ban all ex-dopers from the sport forever, period! Oh and make them pay back every cent they made during their career too.

 

[Granville57]

From the Kreuziger thread:

For a a large number of guys it stopped after 1998 - and they were angry about all the guys who kept doing it until 2001 when the EPO test came out, and then there were another group of guys who stopped, who then became angry about those who found a way around the old EPO test...then another large group stopped in the 2005-2006 range, as the homologous transfusion test came out and puerto broke - and those guys then became really angry about those guys who tried to keep doping. Then when the passport came out, another group stopped.... and on it goes.

you could call each and every group that once doped and then stopped, hypocrites for being angry about the guys who kept doping. but, in the end, that's how progress is made, not some massive watershed event. takes a while to unravel 100 years of culture.

please, don't oversimplify my thoughts or opinions.

Interesting that the common denominator seemed to be nothing more than improved testing, as opposed to a cleansing of the conscious, as is so often the explanation put forward by the riders themselves.

"until 2001 when the EPO test came out."

"2005-2006 range, as the homologous transfusion test came out."

"Then when the passport came out, another group stopped"

I mean, I get it. I do. It seems like a valid and obvious explanation. But it pleasantly contradicts so much of the BS put forth by CVV, George, ETCETERA, ETCETERA.

 

[pmcg76]

Just ban all ex-dopers from the sport forever, period! Oh and make them pay back every cent they made during their career too.[/QUOTE

What about the Indurain's of this world. Got away completely unharmed and no real evidence that he doped other than circumstantial performance based evidence. How you gonna get money back of them or punish them, oh thats right, you cannot so once again there is no logic to such an idea.

If JV had not admitted to doping and testified to USADA, would there be any evidence that he doped other than the same circumstantial evidence as for Indurain?

Taking the hardcore line would just make coming forward less likely anyway, would we have seen Armstrong or Bruyneel et al exposed by that approach? No. Countless others. No. There is no way USADA could have taken Lance down with just Tyler/Floyd. So the alternative is we would still see JV running a team. still without any consequences and without ever admitting to anything. How would that be an improvement? For example, Andrei Tchmile is at Katusha, what is the evidence of his doping(other than being successful in the 90s) but is he anymore trustworthy/believable than JV? So really you are talking about punishing just those who were stupid enough to get caught or admit whilst letting many more dopers off the hook. Hardly seems fair or logical.

So then the next line is to get people from outside the sport to run teams. Ok.

I posted this elsewhere but Iwan Van Sperewink(a non pro cycling related guy) runs Giant-Shimano with a leadership made up mostly of people from outside the world of pro cycling. Who here believes they are a clean team? Do people think one person (Kemna) corrupted an entire team made up of 60+ people? Kemna doped himself to Pro continenal level. I think if a PT team were hiring someone for their doping expertise, they would go for someone higher up the food chain than Rudi Kemna.

What about Bob Stapelton at High Road? Another guy from outside the sport who ran a team. Again, how many believe High Road were clean? I know there are posters who admire Gerard Vroomen for his outspokeness but for how many years did Cervelo back Riis/CSC and again, who thinks Cervelo were clean? So really Vroomen could be just another hypocrite.

Is it the people that corrupts the sport or the sport that corrupts the people?

People can put forward Bassons, Mercier, Obree but that is 3 people to run how many teams. It is amazing that Moncoutie is never included in that list even though he had the same type of outing as these guys. Is it because Moncoutie actually had success that distorts the everyone dopes mantra and please dont bother with that RR said rubbish, RR heard a story that he later backtracked on so was clearly trading on pure rumours and obvioulsy heard conflicting rumours and has said nowt since.



Bassons et al running a team could not gurantee anymore cleanliness than any other person because as Di Luca has said, doping has become a very private affair. It would be more of the perception is reality stuff that you guys hate about Garmin.

I think Eric Boyer, the former Cofidis DS had a good rep as being anti-doping but he didn't seem to know that Moreni was doping within his own team in 07.

Another example would be Jonas Carney, DS at Optum-Kelly Benefit in the US. I know from talking to a few US Pros and hearing a few things, that this team have a very clean reputation and that Carney is seen as very anti-doping. Carney plus JV, Danny Pate, Mike Creed, Alex Candelario(the latter 3 all have clean reps too) were all at Prime Alliance together along with Matt DiCanio who said the team were 90% clean. On a team of 12-14 guys that is likely one guy but then Horner was there also. Back to Carney and Kelly Benefit, they were the team of Sebastian Salas, the Canadian rider who tested positive last year.

I would also like to point out that when Thomas Frei was caught, he said that no DS or manager ever proposed doping to him and he was at Astana, the team considered by many to likely have a team-wide doping plan. I guess Frei wasn't in on it or at BMC. He did say that management chose to ignore the signs but that is very different from team managers encouraging riders to dope as is so often claimed around here. If the DS is not actively encouraging doping, I guess they are being employed for other non-doping related reasons then, like actual normal DS responsibilities.

It takes a lot more to run a team than just not having doped.

Frei said he didn't dope before he got to Astana but I thought Benotti said there was no way teams would sign a guy who wasn't doping. So why did Astana(THE major doping team) sign Frei?? Mind boggles.

 

[pmcg76]

From the Kreuziger thread:



Interesting that the common denominator seemed to be nothing more than improved testing, as opposed to a cleansing of the conscious, as is so often the explanation put forward by the riders themselves.

"until 2001 when the EPO test came out."

"2005-2006 range, as the homologous transfusion test came out."

"Then when the passport came out, another group stopped"

I mean, I get it. I do. It seems like a valid and obvious explanation. But it pleasantly contradicts so much of the BS put forth by CVV, George, ETCETERA, ETCETERA.

Well people always make fun of all these guys stopping in 2006 and no I don't fully believe they all stopped then. However, people are always wondering why they would just stop in 2006 and everytime I just think what major event happened in 06? Oh, that's right Puerto, an event that didn't come to much fruition but implicated up to 60 riders. I am sure that served as a bit of a reality check for many guys.

 

[Granville57]

Well people always make fun of all these guys stopping in 2006 and no I don't fully believe they all stopped then. However, people are always wondering why they would just stop in 2006 and everytime I just think what major event happened in 06? Oh, that's right Puerto, an event that didn't come to much fruition but implicated up to 60 riders. I am sure that served as a bit of a reality check for many guys.

Well of course, as JV's quote includes:

2005-2006 range, as the homologous transfusion test came out and puerto broke.

I chose not include the obvious part of that line due its obviousness. "These guys" that are making the 2006 claim of cleanliness are usually citing moral and ethical reasons for their change of blood, er, heart. But I agree with you, if what you are suggesting is that much more "practical" matters were in play, and those were the basis for the deterrent. Not Hincapie's conscience. That's for sure.

 

[pmcg76]

Well of course, as JV's quote includes:
I chose not include the obvious part of that line due its obviousness. "These guys" that are making the 2006 claim of cleanliness are usually citing moral and ethical reasons for their change of blood, er, heart. But I agree with you, if what you are suggesting is that much more "practical" matters were in play, and those were the basis for the deterrent. Not Hincapie's conscience. That's for sure.

I think there were many who were reluctant dopers who just went with the cranberries tune, but perhaps Puerto made then realise that they were playing with fire and had a real chance of getting burned if they didn't stop. I don't believe many of them just went 'doping is bad, I will just stop'. Mabve Dave Z did but not the rest.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

From the RK thread.

Do you really believe that you have no more ingluence over the aport than an anonymos foum poster?

One frustrating aspect of your conversation is repeating that "it is just what I believe" and "I may be wrong." Or statements to that effect. That you are so content to be wrong, when you are in a position of influence with pro riders, the professional structure, and media of the tour is holding the sport back.

This post feels like a personal attack, but I have no other way to explain the slow progress the sport has made against doping than from your carelessness for accuracy and rigor. If you're not sure, do more research until you are sure. And if you are convinced, then don't waffle between positions. It does the sport a disservice.

I think all JV is saying is that because he is substantially closer to the sport and the cyclists themselves, and based on his own experience, his intuition leads him to believe most of cycling in 2005 was clean by 80-85%.

While not scientific his opinion is based on more credible factors than most of the opinions in the Clinic. And he has the guts to identify himself as opposed to hiding behind anonymity as do most posters here!

 

[JV1973]

Well of course, as JV's quote includes:
I chose not include the obvious part of that line due its obviousness. "These guys" that are making the 2006 claim of cleanliness are usually citing moral and ethical reasons for their change of blood, er, heart. But I agree with you, if what you are suggesting is that much more "practical" matters were in play, and those were the basis for the deterrent. Not Hincapie's conscience. That's for sure.

Exactly.

Anti-doping has always and will always be a pragmatic battle. Show guys they can win clean and they happily will, no risk. Show the opposite, and it'll be full doping again, at least until the risk becomes too high. These are skinny type A warriors that were picked on in high school and want to go get some revenge on the world.

Not many of these guys come from/married into wealthy families like some of the aforementioned moral heroes above in this thread. Most are scrappy *******s from blue collar and broken backgrounds. A whole lot easier to step away from being a professional athlete when the financial consequences are low to none. Now try those high ideals when your option is unemployment or digging latrines.

If anti-doping authorities want to win, they need to understand the sociology of professional athletes. These are not people choosing between Yale and Brown. They are kids that can be easily influenced, one way or the other. But money talks and BS walks, so if you want to win at anti-doping, better show that the money follows an anti-doping ethos. Better base their paycheck, implicit and explicit, on living up to that ethos. No double talk of "we need to be clean, BUT, we really need to win"...Then you just gave them a double message and permission to dope. Winning is a joyous thing that happens when all goes right, not a job to get done because sponsors expect it.

That's a tough line to hold in managing a team, but there's no other way. Why? Because, pragmatically, the business of cycling will fail, my business will fail, if that ethos is not practiced every minute of every day. If you don't win, well, that could cause failure too, but it's only a possibility. Continued degradation of cycling via doping is guaranteed failure. It's really pretty simple.

The battle has to be kept on a pragmatic level. High ideals are nice, but if you want the job done here, make it real. Otherwise you will fail.

 

[JV1973]

I think there were many who were reluctant dopers who just went with the cranberries tune, but perhaps Puerto made then realise that they were playing with fire and had a real chance of getting burned if they didn't stop. I don't believe many of them just went 'doping is bad, I will just stop'. Mabve Dave Z did but not the rest.

Good insight

 

[Merckx index]

Exactly.

Anti-doping has always and will always be a pragmatic battle. Show guys they can win clean and they happily will, no risk. Show the opposite, and it'll be full doping again, at least until the risk becomes too high. These are skinny type A warriors that were picked on in high school and want to go get some revenge on the world.

Not many of these guys come from/married into wealthy families like some of the aforementioned moral heroes above in this thread. Most are scrappy *******s from blue collar and broken backgrounds. A whole lot easier to step away from being a professional athlete when the financial consequences are low to none. Now try those high ideals when your option is unemployment or digging latrines.

If anti-doping authorities want to win, they need to understand the sociology of professional athletes. These are not people choosing between Yale and Brown. They are kids that can be easily influenced, one way or the other. But money talks and BS walks, so if you want to win at anti-doping, better show that the money follows an anti-doping ethos. Better base their paycheck, implicit and explicit, on living up to that ethos. No double talk of "we need to be clean, BUT, we really need to win"...Then you just gave them a double message and permission to dope. Winning is a joyous thing that happens when all goes right, not a job to get done because sponsors expect it.

That's a tough line to hold in managing a team, but there's no other way. Why? Because, pragmatically, the business of cycling will fail, my business will fail, if that ethos is not practiced every minute of every day. If you don't win, well, that could cause failure too, but it's only a possibility. Continued degradation of cycling via doping is guaranteed failure. It's really pretty simple.

The battle has to be kept on a pragmatic level. High ideals are nice, but if you want the job done here, make it real. Otherwise you will fail.

Can't argue with that at all.

Thanks for coming into this snake pit (where we wait, jaws drooling, for someone to throw us a bunny rabbit to devour), and extra credit for not being anonymous. I think you have a more optimistic view of the change occurring than I do, but I can't prove you're wrong, and I hope you return from time to time. We're really not a monolithic bunch, there is a lot of disagreement among posters here--and I mean among regulars, not just those who drop in to defend their favorite rider.

 

[pmcg76]

Good insight

JV I have never had an issue with the cycling getting cleaner mantra but I have to say that claiming 85% pf the entire peloton were clean in 2005 seems very unlikely to me. If that were the case, I would wager that 90% of that figure were on continental/Pro-continental teams of which there were over 100 at the time. Top level I cannot imagine apart from a few of the French teams.

Also who are the aforementioned moral heros? Bassons, Obree, Mercier? I don't know much about Bassons or Mercier but Obree wasn't from a wealthy background I don't think. But then Obree joined pro cycling in the peak EPO years when you had no options other than dope or quit.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Exactly.

Anti-doping has always and will always be a pragmatic battle. Show guys they can win clean and they happily will, no risk. Show the opposite, and it'll be full doping again, at least until the risk becomes too high. These are skinny type A warriors that were picked on in high school and want to go get some revenge on the world.

Not many of these guys come from/married into wealthy families like some of the aforementioned moral heroes above in this thread. Most are scrappy *******s from blue collar and broken backgrounds. A whole lot easier to step away from being a professional athlete when the financial consequences are low to none. Now try those high ideals when your option is unemployment or digging latrines.

If anti-doping authorities want to win, they need to understand the sociology of professional athletes. These are not people choosing between Yale and Brown. They are kids that can be easily influenced, one way or the other. But money talks and BS walks, so if you want to win at anti-doping, better show that the money follows an anti-doping ethos. Better base their paycheck, implicit and explicit, on living up to that ethos. No double talk of "we need to be clean, BUT, we really need to win"...Then you just gave them a double message and permission to dope. Winning is a joyous thing that happens when all goes right, not a job to get done because sponsors expect it.

That's a tough line to hold in managing a team, but there's no other way. Why? Because, pragmatically, the business of cycling will fail, my business will fail, if that ethos is not practiced every minute of every day. If you don't win, well, that could cause failure too, but it's only a possibility. Continued degradation of cycling via doping is guaranteed failure. It's really pretty simple.

The battle has to be kept on a pragmatic level. High ideals are nice, but if you want the job done here, make it real. Otherwise you will fail.

THIS.
is huge..no options that seem like a life at all..
Over here in the States we see rich kids and upper economic level as the ones who succeed..at least this is what I see.
Mom & Dad can buy the best and several bikes and gear, $$ for travel to races cross country..some to Europe to develop skills....they have options and there is not economic stress that compares to what JV points out in other countries.

 

[JV1973]

JV I have never had an issue with the cycling getting cleaner mantra but I have to say that claiming 85% pf the entire peloton were clean in 2005 seems very unlikely to me. If that were the case, I would wager that 90% of that figure were on continental/Pro-continental teams of which there were over 100 at the time. Top level I cannot imagine apart from a few of the French teams.

Also who are the aforementioned moral heros? Bassons, Obree, Mercier? I don't know much about Bassons or Mercier but Obree wasn't from a wealthy background I don't think. But then Obree joined pro cycling in the peak EPO years when you had no options other than dope or quit.

In retrospect, I overshot that one a bit. But the theme of what i was saying I stand by, which was "it's getting better for guys who do want to race clean"....and I do believe 2005 was much better than 1996.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

It is a all about the risk/reward calculation.

Change that and you change doping behaviour. Most of us prefer to see the issue in moral or ethical terms, and it is certainly true that these considerations effect riders. But ultimately the decision to dope is mostly pragmatic. When the risk/reward calculation changes most of the guys who first change their behaviour will be the ones who are most conflicted about the whole thing, but some will be the most ruthless "realists". You will have your Zabriskies but you will also have your Leipheimers. That annoys people, but it's not something that can be avoided.