JV talks, sort of

[fishtacos]

I feel like a nicer and less cynical person already.

I had to lie down for a minute.

Thanks, JV.

 

[TheInternet]

....and not one mention of Lance.

I thought, perhaps, the exception listed in the last paragraph might have hidden meaning:

Almost every athlete I’ve met who has doped will say they did it only because they wanted a level playing field.

Does that means at least one athlete he's met doped for a reason other than to level the playing field?

 

[Hugh Januss]

I find all of the hooray and attaboys ridiculous about Vaughters, and every other cyclist who admits later, after their career is over, how they doped and then admit to it.

Doesn't take much character to admit it once you are caught, or after you competitive days are over.

Real character is to avoid the temptation to begin with and not dope at all.

Atta boy, spoken like a true believer in the official UCI "only a few bad apples are doping" line. Congratulations on being more of the problem than the cure, doofuss.

 

[lean mean &green]

Stationary Cycling?

I just read the NY Times article. I had high hopes. I was underwhelmed. It's a trite appeal to emotion and it's extremely vague. It will accomplish nothing. No, sorry, it does get some clinicians off his back who strangely demanded a more "complete" confession which I never totally understood anyway.

Insiders need to stop talking about drugs/methods to the general public like they are school children. They need to know how tests are defeated so easily (false negatives), the merits of OOC controls (windows of detection), the financials and conflicts of interest for federations, the need for passport based testing, transparency in anti-doping, the merits of independent testing/results management, etc, etc...

Write that article and speak publicly and openly about real issues and I'll get on board. Until then you are WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME!

 

[JA.Tri]

I just read the NY Times article. I had high hopes. I was underwhelmed. It's a trite appeal to emotion and it's extremely vague. It will accomplish nothing. No, sorry, it does get some clinicians off his back who strangely demanded a more "complete" confession which I never totally understood anyway.

Insiders need to stop talking about drugs/methods to the general public like they are school children. They need to know how tests are defeated so easily (false negatives), the merits of OOC controls (windows of detection), the financials and conflicts of interest for federations, the need for passport based testing, transparency in anti-doping, the merits of independent testing/results management, etc, etc...

Write that article and speak publicly and openly about real issues and I'll get on board. Until then you are WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME!

I understand your view. I too believe the above information is crucial to establishing a better cycling competition.

Viewed another way: However small the step, it is an important move in the above direction. I am no superman and with many faults. Therefore I appreciate the step, however small it may be, that JV has taken.

Hopefully JV will provide more of your request at a later date.

js

 

[BotanyBay]

If this was his big "I'll tell you all when the time is right" moment, I am also underwhelmed.

It reeks of "Yada yada yada". Like fast forwarding on Cox Digital Cable during the Tour.

 

[BotanyBay]

I just read the NY Times article. I had high hopes. I was underwhelmed. It's a trite appeal to emotion and it's extremely vague. It will accomplish nothing. No, sorry, it does get some clinicians off his back who strangely demanded a more "complete" confession which I never totally understood anyway.

Insiders need to stop talking about drugs/methods to the general public like they are school children. They need to know how tests are defeated so easily (false negatives), the merits of OOC controls (windows of detection), the financials and conflicts of interest for federations, the need for passport based testing, transparency in anti-doping, the merits of independent testing/results management, etc, etc...

Write that article and speak publicly and openly about real issues and I'll get on board. Until then you are WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME!

Absolutely +1 here.

 

[Berzin]

I know many amateur dopers who don't suffer any pangs of guilt over cheating. I can only assume this is par for the course in the professional ranks as well.

This may be because so many bike riders are meatheads, but it seems to be one of the conditions that keeps omerta firmly in place.

As for the Vaughters NYT article, the pseudo-intellectual soul searching adds nothing to the subject at hand, which is why I feel the melodramatic tone is a bit overdone and again, too vague to answer any specific questions many people have been asking for years.

If this offends anyone I apologize. I'm just being straight.

 

[magoo34]

IMO he knows what is going to come out of the USADA Armstrong thing and wants to get out in front of the pending ****storm by pining for sympathy.

 

[Neworld]

I feel like a nicer and less cynical person already.

You're a good man/person BroDeal!

I'm having a beer for you right now.

 

[python]

jv, i am one of the clinic regulars who read all post by you and about you.

i understood you all along.

don’t know for how many i speak but kudos for not letting us down.

 

[mthead14]

Thanks Hog. How did you know?

One can only assume The Race Radio told you....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hi everybody,
I am late to the party - but don't worry I am already drunk.

So,

I just read the NY Times article. I had high hopes. I was underwhelmed. It's a trite appeal to emotion and it's extremely vague. It will accomplish nothing. No, sorry, it does get some clinicians off his back who strangely demanded a more "complete" confession which I never totally understood anyway

Insiders need to stop talking about drugs/methods to the general public like they are school children. They need to know how tests are defeated so easily (false negatives), the merits of OOC controls (windows of detection), the financials and conflicts of interest for federations, the need for passport based testing, transparency in anti-doping, the merits of independent testing/results management, etc, etc...

Write that article and speak publicly and openly about real issues and I'll get on board. Until then you are WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME!

Indeed you do have high hopes - and if you ever reach them you should be subjected to a dope test.

Le me help you - you wrote "I just read the NY Times article.".
New York Times article. A lot of reach, a lot of clout.
Indeed it was an appeal to emotion because it was written in the first person about how the thought and rationalized the issue.

To the blue - and how can anyone do that without first establishing their own past?

 

[sniper]

the central problem cycling has is that ex-dopers who never got caught, i.e. those who know best how to fool the system and how to implement a successful program, continue to occupy important positions within cycling, mainly as DS.
JV obviously can't address this point, because he symbolizes it.

 

[ghostofjoy]

Hi everybody,

Fantastic, I read that in your avatar's voice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGYpsNpg1bw

to the staunch holdout jv critics: jesus tap-dancing christ, every other doper who's come clean is lauded for the courage and commitment to clean sport. i'm not sure what you feel like jv owes you, but let's run through what the guy has done, shall we?

a) admitted to quitting cycling in order to escape the temptation to dope,
b) set up a team with the explicit goal of being completely clean,
c) assisted in the implementation of internal and peloton-wide testing measures AGAINST the status quo/omerta pushback,
d) (presumably) testified both in the federal and USADA investigations into USPS/Lance,
e) given us a team that has animated nearly every race they've been a part of.

outside of a self-serving, voyeuristic desire to peek behind the curtains and learn the secrets of the peloton, i'm not sure what jv can do for his critics, who are in a position to do jack s--t should he give them the tell-all, fly-on-the-wall perspective they want.

i think it's right to be cynical of his motives. i think he cares very much about his image, but as someone who serves as the public face of slipstream, i also think that's completely fair. i also think that it's fair to compare him to frankie andreu, who had the cajones to speak up years ago, well before momentum was in his favor. but (i suspect) frankie sought to atone for his misdeeds in a way that suited his personality, brash, bold and outspoken. jv (again, imo) seems far more reserved and cautious, and went about it in a roundabout, but potentially more efficacious way. apples and oranges, as it were.

 

[sniper]

...
to the staunch holdout jv critics: jesus tap-dancing christ, every other doper who's come clean is lauded for the courage and commitment to clean sport. ...

nope. very untrue, as far as the clinic and more critical news outlets are concerned in any case.

the uncritical (and thus majority) of media outlets: yes, they laud the likes of Riis and Millar for coming clean, and will now also laud JV.

 

[Roland Rat]

To JV's defense, some guys definitely got the message. One guy a few years ago who had on his blog a sonnet expressing his love for LA learned the reality pretty soon after joining the team, and promptly removed it. JV telling him the truth about his hero was the reason. In this guy's defense, he was pretty young and led a very sheltered life...

To JV, great job to the boys at Utah today.

I presume you are talking about a certain Mr Phinney?

I never understood the move to The Shack and would love to know whether JV had the "Talansky Talk" with him beforehand.

 

[DirtyWorks]

They need to know how tests are defeated so easily (false negatives),

On the cheating side, If I can figure out how to pass a test, then very many can. Check the Idiot Masters Fattie thread for more proof. On the WADA side there are many issues. Some of them by good design, others by accident.

Write that article and speak publicly and openly about real issues and I'll get on board. Until then you are WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME!

Except most of this has been covered. Admittedly most of it is in more scholarly research and won't digest well for a broader audience.

As has been repeated ad-nauseum, the UCI and more remotely the IOC is the cause of all of this chaos.

IMHO, it reads like JV is trying to position himself as the "not doping" guy so if the Armstrong story breaks to his advantage, he can gain more power. Imagine

 

[TexPat]

I thought, perhaps, the exception listed in the last paragraph might have hidden meaning:

Almost every athlete I’ve met who has doped will say they did it only because they wanted a level playing field.

Does that means at least one athlete he's met doped for a reason other than to level the playing field?

That's a big 10-4 there, pardner.

 

[sniper]

JV's cleancoming, though not as spectacular as we had hoped, does definitely further undermine UCI's credibility.
Here is another doper who was able to fly below the UCI 'radar'. And since the timing of the admission coincides with the USADA vs. LA case, even the dumbest tool can figure out that the admission relates to that case.

 

[ExRower]

to the staunch holdout jv critics: jesus tap-dancing christ, every other doper who's come clean is lauded for the courage and commitment to clean sport. i'm not sure what you feel like jv owes you, but let's run through what the guy has done, shall we?

a) admitted to quitting cycling in order to escape the temptation to dope,
b) set up a team with the explicit goal of being completely clean,
c) assisted in the implementation of internal and peloton-wide testing measures AGAINST the status quo/omerta pushback,
d) (presumably) testified both in the federal and USADA investigations into USPS/Lance,
e) given us a team that has animated nearly every race they've been a part of.

outside of a self-serving, voyeuristic desire to peek behind the curtains and learn the secrets of the peloton, i'm not sure what jv can do for his critics, who are in a position to do jack s--t should he give them the tell-all, fly-on-the-wall perspective they want.

i think it's right to be cynical of his motives. i think he cares very much about his image, but as someone who serves as the public face of slipstream, i also think that's completely fair. i also think that it's fair to compare him to frankie andreu, who had the cajones to speak up years ago, well before momentum was in his favor. but (i suspect) frankie sought to atone for his misdeeds in a way that suited his personality, brash, bold and outspoken. jv (again, imo) seems far more reserved and cautious, and went about it in a roundabout, but potentially more efficacious way. apples and oranges, as it were.

very well said. +1

 

[JA.Tri]

JV may have many reasons for "coming clean" now. In addition there may well be many anticipated and unexpected benefits and outcomes resulting.

To the positive, being honest is good for JV and the sport. He could have said more, but may have judged the timing as premature.

Pat has indicated that JV is no politician...well thank goodness. Most of thetime the label "politician" has negative connotations for me. However, JV may well be far more astute and capable than Pat gives him credit for.
Communication skills: tick. Pat?... Fail
Transparency: improving. Pat?...Fail
Consulting: yes. Pat?...no....seems to act unilaterally
Poise: yes. Pat? ...no
Prudence: yes. Pat? acts impulsively...without consideration of long term consequences.

Pat and LA seem to share more than a few attributes...one implies he is a politician the other has/had aspirations.

JV seems to have "soft skills" far exceeding Pat and LA. He, JV would likely do a better job than Pat of managing the UCI.

Which gets me back on track...

JV's past/current/future actions may well facilitate change within the Cycling world/UCI:

Including demise of Pat?
JV heads up UCI?
UCI lives up to its stated articles?
UCI has seperate regulatory authority?
Independent Super Tour?
Independent Testing truly?

Previously flagged
SEE: http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/how-do-we-fix-the-uci/

Now depending on your view of JV you could accuse him of being truly Machiavellian, a saint...or my view... a decent person seeking a sport better than he entered it.

 

[roundabout]

JV may have many reasons for "coming clean" now. In addition there may well be many anticipated and unexpected benefits and outcomes resulting.

To the positive, being honest is good for JV and the sport. He could have said more, but may have judged the timing as premature.

Pat has indicated that JV is no politician...well thank goodness. Most of thetime the label "politician" has negative connotations for me. However, JV may well be far more astute and capable than Pat gives him credit for.
Communication skills: tick. Pat?... Fail
Transparency: improving. Pat?...Fail
Consulting: yes. Pat?...no....seems to act unilaterally
Poise: yes. Pat? ...no
Prudence: yes. Pat? acts impulsively...without consideration of long term consequences.

Pat and LA seem to share more than a few attributes...one implies he is a politician the other has/had aspirations.

JV seems to have "soft skills" far exceeding Pat and LA. He, JV would likely do a better job than Pat of managing the UCI.

Which gets me back on track...

JV's past/current/future actions may well facilitate change within the Cycling world/UCI:

Including demise of Pat?
JV heads up UCI?
UCI lives up to its stated articles?
UCI has seperate regulatory authority?
Independent Super Tour?
Independent Testing truly?

Previously flagged
SEE: http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/how-do-we-fix-the-uci/

Now depending on your view of JV you could accuse him of being truly Machiavellian, a saint...or my view... a decent person seeking a sport better than he entered it.

Woah there. It's great that Vaughters got the message out like this, but you may be too optimistic here at least for the near future.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

i think it's right to be cynical of his motives. i think he cares very much about his image, but as someone who serves as the public face of slipstream, i also think that's completely fair. i also think that it's fair to compare him to frankie andreu, who had the cajones to speak up years ago, well before momentum was in his favor. but (i suspect) frankie sought to atone for his misdeeds in a way that suited his personality, brash, bold and outspoken. jv (again, imo) seems far more reserved and cautious, and went about it in a roundabout, but potentially more efficacious way. apples and oranges, as it were.

And that's WHY there are still holdout critics. Why was he not talking years ago? Carefully protecting his own hide. Now that it's in his interest to talk (and it's neatly buried under the Olympics in the press) he'll confess. Common sense? Sure. Conducive to being totally believable and the cuddly friend of the Clinic? Not so sure.

The guy is so concerned with his image and looking like one of the good guys, who will save cycling, that it makes it very difficult to trust him. He's like Bono - every positive act, every nicety, every exhortation to charity, just seems like it was carefully orchestrated so that you see that Bono is "a good person".

A truly good person doesn't do the right thing because of reward (in the form of positive PR or whatever), but simply because it's the right thing to do. Has Vaughters done this? Possibly. But because he's stalled on it so long I find it hard to consider that he has, which makes me inherently distrustful of his motives, notwithstanding that his overly corporate, self-aggrandizing PR persona makes him seem untrustworthy.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I find all of the hooray and attaboys ridiculous about Vaughters, and every other cyclist who admits later, after their career is over, how they doped and then admit to it.

Doesn't take much character to admit it once you are caught, or after you competitive days are over.

Real character is to avoid the temptation to begin with and not dope at all.

You really seem not to be hampered with historical knowlegde, oh boy.

Nice article, but, how about hiring Allen Lim JV? And letting him go? Or were Landis' acussations incorrect? How about Thrive HFM?