JV talks, sort of

[JV1973]

I know it has - thanks for the appreciative comments.

What was slanderous?

I said you spoke to Travis in 2004...eventhough it was extremely general by all accounts...whether Frankie got suspended or not has no relevance to you. Why did you never get a suspension...
You rationalise you getting no suspension by bringing Frankie into this...awesome!
as regards Jeff - doesn't matter whether you contacted him first or not - he was going to contact you, something you know full well...

Elsewhere you said you waited for the right opportunity to come forward!! How brave...without Floyd what would you and your boys have done...

you sing the praises of your team...Christian vilified Floyd, millar did the same, Weltz did the same and a former rider of yours, Wiggins, also did the same...and talanksy said there was no evidence against lance...
If this was standing by landis, god help the guy if you had decided not to 'support' him.


JV, I see through the bull and see you for what you are.

But stop taking that out on me.

And if Floyd is so hurt by me, then why do we still speak? Why did Floyd drop by and borrow my bike a few months ago? If he feels hurt by me, he should tell me. Because your version does not ring true, as with most of what you say.

JV

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I can only tell you the rules we function with at Slipstream JV

Thanks (10 characters)

 

[Digger]

But stop taking that out on me.
And if Floyd is so hurt by me, then why do we still speak? Why did Floyd drop by and borrow my bike a few months ago? If he feels hurt by me, he should tell me. Because your version does not ring true, as with most of what you say.

JV

I think we both know you showed your true colours Friday night with that tweet...which is fine by me...because it just backs up my thoughts on you.

My version doesn't ring true - are you denying that Christian, wiggins, millar, weltz all vilified landis?
And your boy Andrew saying there was no evidence against lance.
It's all there on google

Anyway - not a day ban for you...justice.

 

[JV1973]

I know it has - thanks for the appreciative comments.

What was slanderous?

I said you spoke to Travis in 2004...eventhough it was extremely general by all accounts...whether Frankie got suspended or not has no relevance to you. Why did you never get a suspension...
You rationalise you getting no suspension by bringing Frankie into this...awesome!
as regards Jeff - doesn't matter whether you contacted him first or not - he was going to contact you, something you know full well...

Elsewhere you said you waited for the right opportunity to come forward!! How brave...without Floyd what would you and your boys have done...

you sing the praises of your team...Christian vilified Floyd, millar did the same, Weltz did the same and a former rider of yours, Wiggins, also did the same...and talanksy said there was no evidence against lance...
If this was standing by landis, god help the guy if you had decided not to 'support' him.


JV, I see through the bull and see you for what you are.

BTw - there were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in professional cycling that didn't support Floyd. While I regret my people made those comments (and I have duly reprimanded them) that does not mean that when the bullet hit the bone, we didn't support Floyd. Because unlike the many, many, many that knew what he was saying rang true and said nothing, we spoke up. Not as you would have liked, and imperfectly, I admit, but the result was the same.

The timeline I gave you is 100% accurate - and you know that, which is why you don't address it and sneakily try and change the topic. Subversive and typical for you.

Floyd would be a lone wolf shot by a sniper named LA if not for the people you choose to berate and hate on a daily basis. That is wrong.

As I've said before, if Floyd has a problem with me, he should call me up or drop by my house and say so. So far, he has not - and he lives about 20 minutes from me these days, so it wouldn't be hard.

JV

 

[JV1973]

I think we both know you showed your true colours Friday night with that tweet...which is fine by me...because it just backs up my thoughts on you.

My version doesn't ring true - are you denying that Christian, wiggins, millar, weltz all vilified landis?
And your boy Andrew saying there was no evidence against lance.
It's all there on google

Anyway - not a day ban for you...justice.

Yes, Digger, it's perfectly acceptable for you to berate, hate, and publicly slander me on a 24/7 basis, but when I call you Fugly, it shows my true colors.

You upset me, Digger, I'm the first to admit it. And I fought back by calling you fugly on twitter.

 

[JV1973]

I think we both know you showed your true colours Friday night with that tweet...which is fine by me...because it just backs up my thoughts on you.

My version doesn't ring true - are you denying that Christian, wiggins, millar, weltz all vilified landis?
And your boy Andrew saying there was no evidence against lance.
It's all there on google

Anyway - not a day ban for you...justice.

Anyhow, I'm done. Please, by all means, continue your crusade against me.

It hurts my feelings. On a daily basis. And that sucks.(I know, I'm a wuss)

But life goes on.

Now to watch Tour of Utah!

JV

 

[hrotha]

2. Willingness to be honest to authorities. This is a key component to what we felt was the best overall solution. While this upsets some, as publicly we have been guilty of some bull****, with those that can truly change anti-doping (authorities, scientists) we felt 100% honesty and zero bull**** was a necessity to be a member of our team.
JV

My problem with this is that I simpy can't bring myself to believe Danielson's affidavit regarding his Saturn and Fassa days. Do you have any suspicions about that? If you don't, why? What makes you think he told the truth to the authorities?

 

[Digger]

BTw - there were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in professional cycling that didn't support Floyd. While I regret my people made those comments (and I have duly reprimanded them) that does not mean that when the bullet hit the bone, we didn't support Floyd. Because unlike the many, many, many that knew what he was saying rang true and said nothing, we spoke up. Not as you would have liked, and imperfectly, I admit, but the result was the same.

The timeline I gave you is 100% accurate - and you know that, which is why you don't address it and sneakily try and change the topic. Subversive and typical for you.
Floyd would be a lone wolf shot by a sniper named LA if not for the people you choose to berate and hate on a daily basis. That is wrong.

As I've said before, if Floyd has a problem with me, he should call me up or drop by my house and say so. So far, he has not - and he lives about 20 minutes from me these days, so it wouldn't be hard.

JV

You said your boys spoke up - in public your boys discredited him...that was awesome!!

Jeff was the guy - so let's not rewrite history here

You talk subversive...yet you never answered one thing - would you or your boys ever have confessed without Floyd or jeff...
You talk subversive but you're the chap who tried to sign contador after Puerto..just one example.

 

[Digger]

My problem with this is that I simpy can't bring myself to believe Danielson's affidavit regarding his Saturn and Fassa days. Do you have any suspicions about that? If you don't, why? What makes you think he told the truth to the authorities?

Or Ryder's....

 

[Afrank]

Please don't bring outside the forum issues with people into the forum. Let's stay on topic.

And JV, please use a posters forum username to address them. As revealing real life info about a poster is against the rules.

 

[JV1973]

My problem with this is that I simpy can't bring myself to believe Danielson's affidavit regarding his Saturn and Fassa days. Do you have any suspicions about that? If you don't, why? What makes you think he told the truth to the authorities?

The interviews with usada were typically 8 hours long. the affidavits were 8-14 pages. They didn't cover everything discussed. Now, i have no idea what Tom said in his interview, I do know plenty of stuff wasn't in my affidavit.

 

[JV1973]

Please don't bring outside the forum issues with people into the forum. Let's stay on topic.

And JV, please use a posters forum username to address them. As revealing real life info about a poster is against the rules.

Thanks. Did not realize that.

 

[JV1973]

Or Ryder's....

Once again, an inaccurate statement. There is no Ryder affidavit.... So, whatever you're suggesting is "in" his affidavit, is by default an inaccurate statement on your part, as no affidavit exists.

creating a narrative for your own benefit. Typical "Digger"

You never answered my question: Why doesn't Floyd come on over to my house and complain about how I treated him?

 

[JV1973]

My problem with this is that I simpy can't bring myself to believe Danielson's affidavit regarding his Saturn and Fassa days. Do you have any suspicions about that? If you don't, why? What makes you think he told the truth to the authorities?

In addition to my previous answer, to more precisely address your answer of "what makes me think he told authorities the truth?" Pretty simple: Why wouldn't he? The agreement he signed basically said "tell the truth and you get 6 mos, tell a lie and we catch you, lifetime ban" ....So, by default it would be really stupid not to tell the full truth. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

 

[Digger]

Once again, an inaccurate statement. There is no Ryder affidavit.... So, whatever you're suggesting is "in" his affidavit, is by default an inaccurate statement on your part, as no affidavit exists.

creating a narrative for your own benefit. Typical "Digger"

You never answered my question: Why doesn't Floyd come on over to my house and complain about how I treated him?

Ryder's 'confession' timeline -something anyone would half a brain would seriously question...but yeah it's not like you to hide behind semantics - SCA trial anyone...

As for Floyd - I will say this - have you ever known Floyd to berate you for the last number of years...whether he's at your house or not...

 

[pmcg76]

Yeah I agree. My post was more directed towards the people who have this bad/good doper attitude and not just Gaimon.

Everybody is guilty of that. It is easier to vilify someone you don't know personally. A different thing when you know someone personally unless they are in fact a ****. Even Kimmage is guilty of this, he is more believing in Dan Martin for example. Why? Because he spent quite a bit of time talking to Martin and his family, therefore he has more faith based on personal interaction. I gurantee every poster on here would behave exactly the same if they knew the people involved. That is not unusual.

I know quite a few guys in the US were ****ed at Mancebo coming to race in the States but when some of them actually got to know Mancebo a little, they realised he was a decent person regardless of his past. Because of that, they were more likely to believe he was racing clean whilst in the US.

 

[JV1973]

Ryder's 'confession' timeline -something anyone would half a brain would seriously question...but yeah it's not like you to hide behind semantics - SCA trial anyone...
But yeah let's all hide behind semantics - because that will really address the issue....
As for Floyd - I will say this - have you ever known Floyd to berate you for the last number of years...whether he's at your house or not...

Floyd has never once complained about how I've treated him to my face. Phone, house, email, otherwise... And I've been in touch with him plenty.

 

[JV1973]

Everybody is guilty of that. It is easier to vilify someone you don't know personally. A different thing when you know someone personally unless they are in fact a ****. Even Kimmage is guilty of this, he is more believing in Dan Martin for example. Why? Because he spent quite a bit of time talking to Martin and his family, therefore he has more faith based on personal interaction. I gurantee every poster on here would behave exactly the same if they knew the people involved. That is not unusual.

I know quite a few guys in the US were ****ed at Mancebo coming to race in the States but when some of them actually got to know Mancebo a little, they realised he was a decent person regardless of his past. Because of that, they were more likely to believe he was racing clean whilst in the US.

That is embedded human nature. We're pack animals, just like many other mammals.

 

[Digger]

Once again, an inaccurate statement. There is no Ryder affidavit.... So, whatever you're suggesting is "in" his affidavit, is by default an inaccurate statement on your part, as no affidavit exists.

creating a narrative for your own benefit. Typical "Digger"

You never answered my question: Why doesn't Floyd come on over to my house and complain about how I treated him?

You talk of inaccurate statements - Lance is an all American hero - remember that one?

Alberto Contador

Stuart O'Grady

 

[Digger]

Floyd has never once complained about how I've treated him to my face. Phone, house, email, otherwise... And I've been in touch with him plenty.

He's never given out to you via text or anything?

 

[JV1973]

You talk of inaccurate statements - Lance is an all American hero - remember that one?

Alberto Contador

Stuart O'Grady

Answer the question, "Digger", as opposed to alway trying to weasel into a different topic. Again, normal behavior for you.

 

[Benotti69]

That is embedded human nature. We're pack animals, just like many other mammals.

And since anti-doping is still a joke, all the enablers still 'enable' in the sport, the pack still dopes.

 

[JV1973]

He's never given out to you via text or anything?

Has floyd been upset with me? sure. but so has my wife, son, and dog...you know someone long enough, you'll be upset with them....

But not once has he ever complained about how I treated him. never. text too.

 

[Digger]

Has floyd been upset with me? sure. but so has my wife, son, and dog...you know someone long enough, you'll be upset with them....

But not once has he ever complained about how I treated him. never. text too.

That will do. Now that didn't take long....


Semantics and 'weaseling' aside.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

1. We don't judge people on their past, to a point. That point, for us, is the inception of the WT level Slipstream Sports team in 2008. By 2008, it was very apparent that doping was no longer a case of "everyone is doing it"... Too many issues (puerto, festina, hamilton, etc) made it impossible to even attempt to justify doping with "everyone is doing it". Once you're past 2008, you really have to be rather hardened to continue to dope. So, our line in the sand was Jan 1st, 2008. Before that, we were open to forgiveness, redemption, and a path forward, after that, we felt zero tolerance was the best way forward. It's a composite solution that we feel re-incorporates guys who got sucked into the system and made bad choices with worse influences, while excluding more hardened "I'll find a way to dope, no matter what" types. It's imperfect, but we felt it was as close as we could get.

Noting 2008, I am assuming you mean WT level in respect of performance level, as 2009 was the first ProTour Garmin outfit iirc? However much like Cervélo in 2009-10 the Garmin outfit could more or less hold its own at any ProTour event in 2008; I remember quite a lot of media fuss about the Giro TTT win as a wildcard team.

But my question is more about the use of 2008 as a line in the sand. It seems to be quite common belief that, although far from clean, the 2008 Tour was arguably the cleanest in a long time (and with AFLD in charge of testing, at least the more egregious dopers were caught, and the CERA test had been held on to so that not everybody was aware of its existence (which due to the long-tail nature of CERA meant quite a few were caught). Speeds were down, relatively speaking.

But then in 2009, AFLD were dismissed from their testing position, and the speeds were back up (VAM record on Verbier etc.), although I accept that this was exacerbated by an absolutely abysmal course design that made it extremely easy for Astana to control throughout and without many obstacles to mean riders were arriving at major mountains fatigued. It seems now from what we have found out in retrospect that your explanation of it taking a hardened doper to continue doping past 2008 that in retrospect, 2008 was something of a false dawn in terms of the péloton in general, is that a reading you would disagree with? I mean, of the 2009 top 10, 4 have served bans (1 of which is CVDV admittedly), 1 further looks like being about to be banned (Kreuziger), and another is Andreas Klöden. Levi would be there too if he hadn't crashed out. It seems alarming that after a year where we could feel that the cheats were getting caught (a number of names thrown out of 2008 Tour for doping or caught later), we would see such a shady top 10 (also, Fränk was of course named in Puerto, and obviously is a hardened doper by your definition since he continued to dope, as he was caught in 2012).

Did you ever consider any need to revisit or revise your policy on that deadline date (I will assume Dekker is excepted as, though his ban stemmed from 2008, that was on retests of 2007 samples), much as Sky have had to re-assess their zero tolerance policy? For example, if they had shown full commitment to clean cycling and were able to convince you they had the talent to ride at the WT level clean, would you take on a rider like, say, Emanuele Sella, who has by most accounts been frank and honest with the authorities and whose evidence has led to a number of subsequent positives and discoveries in Italy, but whose offences were in 2008? What would your stance be on a guy like Rui Costa, who has a ban in his history but is officially cleared of any wrongdoing?