JV talks, sort of

[DominicDecoco]

Come on Lance, you are next. See how friendly people have reacted to Jonathan over twitter. I'm sure it'll be the same situation with you

 

[The Hitch]

Come on Lance, you are next. See how friendly people have reacted to Jonathan over twitter. I'm sure it'll be the same situation with you

Lol no doubt.

 

[Race Radio]

Some may see JV's solution of more testing as simplistic but remember the UCI cut BioPassport testing by 30% last year. They used the money ProTour teams gave for the BioPassport and spent it on organizing a race in China

Now is not the time to take your foot off the gas

 

[hrotha]

Some may see JV's solution of more testing as simplistic but remember the UCI cut BioPassport testing by 30% last year. They used the money ProTour teams gave for the BioPassport and spent it on organizing a race in China

Now is not the time to take your foot off the gas

Reading reports about how the police found traces of EPO in hair samples of the Festina riders already in 1998, years before EPO was detectable in standard blood and/or urine tests, I always thought even with the current level of antidoping science and tech much more could be done to catch cheaters if only the will existed. The UCI obviously doesn't have the will.

 

[thehog]

The comments beneath the VeloNews article are most complementary. Even an appearance from Betsy and subsequent support for her.

On VeloNews. Never thought I'd see the day.

 

[mastersracer]

Reading reports about how the police found traces of EPO in hair samples of the Festina riders already in 1998, years before EPO was detectable in standard blood and/or urine tests, I always thought even with the current level of antidoping science and tech much more could be done to catch cheaters if only the will existed. The UCI obviously doesn't have the will.

Vaughters is more admonishing than that - he charges that they don't have the will to even enforce existing rules. The subtext of the OP-ed is an implicit, but scathing, indictment of the UCI (and by implication support for USADA's investigation). That's why he chose to focus on the lack of enforcement of existing rules rather than programs to detect emerging PEDS etc.

 

[Gregga]

Reading reports about how the police found traces of EPO in hair samples of the Festina riders already in 1998, years before EPO was detectable in standard blood and/or urine tests, I always thought even with the current level of antidoping science and tech much more could be done to catch cheaters if only the will existed. The UCI obviously doesn't have the will.

That doesn't sound correct to me, the french police found traces of steroids in the hair samples and an hematocrit of 52-54% in the blood of several Festina riders, but I don't remember at all EPO in their hair.

 

[JRTinMA]

Vaughters is more admonishing than that - he charges that they don't have the will to even enforce existing rules. The subtext of the OP-ed is an implicit, but scathing, indictment of the UCI (and by implication support for USADA's investigation). That's why he chose to focus on the lack of enforcement of existing rules rather than programs to detect emerging PEDS etc.

I don't defend the UCI, its clear they are a mess and they are very possibly corrupt. The problem is blaming the UCI is easy, actual solutions are hard. I have defended JV throughout this and believe he walks the talk, however, you must keep in mind he may have an agenda with the UCI. I think his op ed is half admission that he felt he needed to do and half agenda, an agenda for a new governing body. This is the best first step to saving the sport.

 

[Race Radio]

Reading reports about how the police found traces of EPO in hair samples of the Festina riders already in 1998, years before EPO was detectable in standard blood and/or urine tests, I always thought even with the current level of antidoping science and tech much more could be done to catch cheaters if only the will existed. The UCI obviously doesn't have the will.

Do you have a link for this? I cannot image how they can test for EPO in hair

 

[lean mean &green]

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

So,

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

That's the problem. It's 2012 and the discussion needs to evolve. We need to move toward specifics. My hopes aren't very high, they're grounded in current events and are a linchpin to the immediate future.

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.

Nevermind your arrogance in suggesting that I need help from you, it's likely the reverse. You see a lot of reach but you need to go a step further, it's for this same reason I see a huge opportunity wasted.

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

I think this could have been done more succinctly and besides, EVERYONE who cared knew JV's past. His past isn't nearly as important as addressing needed reform. This piece is about JV, not antidoping. Sob stories aren't helping athletes of tomorrow. Open dialogue about what needs to happen next DOES!

 

[JRTinMA]

Do you have a link for this? I cannot image how they can test for EPO in hair

EPO can not be reliable tested in hair samples. Hair sampling works best for analytes not naturally occurring in the body and then only provides a yes no answer.

 

[Merckx index]

just wanted to pop in here and say it takes balls for a person in the spotlight like JV to come here and jump in amongst the sharks to be judged by them and engage in the debate.

That shows a lot of character and commitment and i applaud him for it.

This expresses my feelings perfectly. Probably most subjects of Clinic discussions lurk here, and a few may post anonymously. Whatever one thinks of JV and his confession, his willingness to identify himself is refreshing.

And he doesn’t just show up, but spars gracefully. I find his posts here neither overly aggressive nor overly defensive. He’s not afraid to admit mistakes—and I don’t mean just doping—but neither does he just roll over and suck up to anyone here who criticizes him. He seems very real to me.

JV, I have a question for you. You know that many on this forum don’t buy Wiggins’ claims to be racing clean. The Clinic case against him is not based on any positive tests nor suspicious passports, but primarily on what seems a too-good-to-be-true increase in performance, going from a track star who couldn’t climb to winner of this year’s TDF. Do you think this kind of criticism, made public, is fair?

Another example you may be aware of was provided at the Olympics, when John Leonard, a U.S. Olympic official, called into question the performance of Ye Shiwen, a 16 year old Chinese swimmer who won the women’s 400 IM with a final freestyle leg faster than Ryan Lochte’s. Leonard emphasized that he was not criticizing the entire Chinese program—he contrasted Ye with Sun Yang, a record-smashing male swimmer whose performances he had no problem with—but based his remarks solely on the fact that Ye did not exhibit a “normal progression” in her athletic accomplishments. This is basically the same criticism the Clinic is making of Wiggins.

Do you support this kind of criticism, or do you think an athlete has to be considered clean (publicly, regardless of one’s personal reservations) until testing positive? For example, would you become suspicious of one of your own riders—and convey those suspicions to him—if (despite passing all your internal team tests) he pulled off a performance that seemed to you far better than what you could have predicted? Like a Chris Froome, for example?

And expanding on this, do you think that eventually the science of athletic performance may become so sophisticated that we can indeed determine beyond any reasonable doubt that someone had to dope in order to achieve a certain performance? That just as the passport is based on the notion that certain fluctuations in physiological parameters can’t be purely natural or endogenous, so a new science may be based on the notion that certain fluctuations in external, behavioral performance can’t be purely natural?

 

[lean mean &green]

What purpose does it serve to detail methods of avoidance, etc., to the general public?

Do I really need to explain this?

The general public doesn't demand change or improvement because they have faith in the present system.

 

[ChrisE]

Let me interpret this post: "I didn't read the editorial before posting, but I'm going to comment on this in a contrarian manner because everyone I flame here seems to be lining up on the other side."

He answered your questions right there in the post. I won't give away the answers as you should do your own heavy lifting. Have fun reading, or you could just go with your general nature and not read it and continue to sling mud pies from the sidelines.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. I did read the article. Here is my translation:

-I rode in the cold in high school and didn't go to the prom.
- He was 98% to stardom before he was told he had to dope the last 2%
- He 'knows' winners in other sports such as 100m sprinting and swimming are clean, then goes on to say that winning is not possible unless anti-doping rules are in place. Apparently they are in place since "the early 2000's", so WTF? What is he really saying? He is all over the map.
- He has some "save the children" episodes now
- Some clean athletes walked away, he didn't. Duh. Cheating "killed his soul" lol.
-Don't dope! Don't dope!
-Finally, he has bought into the "if you dope, it is a level playing field". Clearly he doesn't read the clinic and know about Ferrari's special "don't take EPO!" phone calls. lol.

I think that sums it up.

I was responding to BB and Lean green about this being a fluff piece, with no meat. I stand by that opinion. YMMV. This is just pre-emptive PR *** saving in light of the recent USADA events.

This type of article does zero except to further publicly paint cycling in a bad light, when in reality it is probably no worse than alot of other sports.

To be fair, if JV started spilling beans and names he would be in hot water legally so I get that.

Again, how does his 'clean' team compete against dopers? He says in the article that it is not possible to win clean, so that means the majority of the rest of the peleton is clean, which again goes against the wisdom in here.

JV writing articles like this that have no value, and then running around touting his 'clean' team IMO have a detrimental effect on the sport. YMMV also on that. Good for you.

I actually envy your etal abilities to twist all of these little contradictions and PR stunts to rationalize you rabid hypocritical views. JV writes something we all knew and says "save the kids" and you and your buddies faint. Carry on. This interesting subject may up my post count a bit before I once again grow bored.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's the problem. It's 2012 and the discussion needs to evolve. We need to move toward specifics. My hopes aren't very high, they're grounded in current events and are a linchpin to the immediate future.

You say the discussion needs to evolve - and I would agree, but for JV to be outspoken, he needed to (IMO) address his own past.
His op-piece is a necessary step - not the final step.

Nevermind your arrogance in suggesting that I need help from you, it's likely the reverse. You see a lot of reach but you need to go a step further, it's for this same reason I see a huge opportunity wasted.

Again - its one step at a time.

I think this could have been done more succinctly and besides, EVERYONE who cared knew JV's past. His past isn't nearly as important as addressing needed reform. This piece is about JV, not antidoping. Sob stories aren't helping athletes of tomorrow. Open dialogue about what needs to happen next DOES!

Sure, anyone who follows cycling knew JVs past - that is why I welcome that his admission was delivered to a much wider audience.

As for specifics about how to get around dope tests etc, well that is going to get a very public airing soon.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This is just pre-emptive PR *** saving in light of the recent USADA events.

Again, how does his 'clean' team compete against dopers?

Agree with that.

Public admissions are quite common, even Riis did it.

And, if your team is supposed to be so clean, is clean the new 'green, eco neutral'?, why hire a tainted doctor like Lim?

 

[ChrisE]

Agree with that.

Public admissions are quite common, even Riis did it.

And, if your team is supposed to be so clean, is clean the new 'green, eco neutral'?, why hire a tainted doctor like Lim?

I'm not even going into details about who he hires, but point taken. I also could care less about his admission of doping cuz most of us know that. As vortex says upthread "we knew it, but others didn't". Yippeee, now more meat for the general public to paint cycling in a bad light.

He contradicts himself all the time about doping, to the detriment of the sport IMO. He pines for a clean sport, then his rider wins a GT. Then he writes this article. If he would have just written it and said "I doped, don't go there" then that would have been different.

His implications of running a clean team implies the sport is dirty and he is the exception, and he writes articles such as this imploring rules be in place. I wonder how many other DS's just want him to STFU, for all the right reasons? I would.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

While I can see where Chris is coming from, and have been critical of JV in the past, I applaud him for making this admission, especially at this time.

Having said that, what I really hope is that he told the entire truth to USADA, regarding everything he knew about doping. That's what is paramount, that will help curb doping, much more than a public confession.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not even going into details about who he hires, but point taken. I also could care less about his admission of doping cuz most of us know that. As vortex says upthread "we knew it, but others didn't". Yippeee, now more meat for the general public to paint cycling in a bad light.

He contradicts himself all the time about doping, to the detriment of the sport IMO. He pines for a clean sport, then his rider wins a GT. Then he writes this article. If he would have just written it and said "I doped, don't go there" then that would have been different.

His implications of running a clean team implies the sport is dirty and he is the exception, and he writes articles such as this imploring rules be in place. I wonder how many other DS's just want him to STFU, for all the right reasons? I would.

*Newsflash* The sport is dirty.
JV doesn't need to imply it - the sport is perfectly capable of showing what a cesspool it has become all by itself.

 

[Race Radio]

While I can see where Chris is coming from, and have been critical of JV in the past, I applaud him for making this admission, especially at this time.

Having said that, what I really hope is that he told the entire truth to USADA, regarding everything he knew about doping. That's what is paramount, that will help curb doping, much more than a public confession.

He has been talking to USADA for over 5 years

 

[ChewbaccaD]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. I did read the article. Here is my translation:

-I rode in the cold in high school and didn't go to the prom.
- He was 98% to stardom before he was told he had to dope the last 2%
- He 'knows' winners in other sports such as 100m sprinting and swimming are clean, then goes on to say that winning is not possible unless anti-doping rules are in place. Apparently they are in place since "the early 2000's", so WTF? What is he really saying? He is all over the map.
- He has some "save the children" episodes now
- Some clean athletes walked away, he didn't. Duh. Cheating "killed his soul" lol.
-Don't dope! Don't dope!
-Finally, he has bought into the "if you dope, it is a level playing field". Clearly he doesn't read the clinic and know about Ferrari's special "don't take EPO!" phone calls. lol.

I think that sums it up.

I was responding to BB and Lean green about this being a fluff piece, with no meat. I stand by that opinion. YMMV. This is just pre-emptive PR *** saving in light of the recent USADA events.

This type of article does zero except to further publicly paint cycling in a bad light, when in reality it is probably no worse than alot of other sports.

To be fair, if JV started spilling beans and names he would be in hot water legally so I get that.

Again, how does his 'clean' team compete against dopers? He says in the article that it is not possible to win clean, so that means the majority of the rest of the peleton is clean, which again goes against the wisdom in here.

JV writing articles like this that have no value, and then running around touting his 'clean' team IMO have a detrimental effect on the sport. YMMV also on that. Good for you.

I actually envy your etal abilities to twist all of these little contradictions and PR stunts to rationalize you rabid hypocritical views. JV writes something we all knew and says "save the kids" and you and your buddies faint. Carry on. This interesting subject may up my post count a bit before I once again grow bored.

I don't envy your continued need to pretend to you are any different from that statement. Then again, I never have appreciated someone with the inability to show introspection.

And you can save the post count if you want, I will post the only real point you ever make: "The haters here can hate because haters are stupid and I hate haters and don't care if anyone who dopes gets away with it so long as I can come in with my facade of superiority and sarcastically and childishly admonish the haters because haters are hate filled hatemongers and I love to increase my post count by pointing out the stupid hatred of the hate filled haters."

You're welcome.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

While I can see where Chris is coming from, and have been critical of JV in the past, I applaud him for making this admission, especially at this time.

Having said that, what I really hope is that he told the entire truth to USADA, regarding everything he knew about doping. That's what is paramount, that will help curb doping, much more than a public confession.

If with his help 'the big catch' is done I will applaud that too, but I still have questions for the guy. You can hire known anti doping doctors like Adrie van Diemen and Prentice Steffen but why Allen Lim? Was he out of rice crackers?

He admitted before so this might be seen as a PR move, just like his sudden appearance on this forum?

Anyways, I don't have anything against the guy, and if he is the real deal in terms of cleaning up cycling I would be very happy. But stating pro-cycling is clean, what JV has done, now because the watts are 'believable' is a non argument.

 

[Merckx index]

His implications of running a clean team implies the sport is dirty and he is the exception, and he writes articles such as this imploring rules be in place. I wonder how many other DS's just want him to STFU, for all the right reasons? I would.

Chris, you're assuming doping is an all-or-none affair, either that it occurs at a level that makes it impossible for a clean rider to win, or that it doesn't occur at all.

The view of many today--and it may not be correct, but it does have some support in power data on climbs--is that doping continues, but to a lesser extent, primarily because of the passport. The passport doesn't prevent riders from raising their HT, but arguably it does make it more difficult to raise it to the degree that was possible prior to the passport. If the doping edge is significantly less than it used to be, it improves the chances of clean riders. It's also conceivable that fewer riders dope than before, because some may be sufficiently worried about getting caught that they decide it's not worth taking the risk.

Again, I emphasize no one knows for sure, but Vaughters' position is not logically untenable as you imply.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm not even going into details about who he hires, but point taken. I also could care less about his admission of doping cuz most of us know that. As vortex says upthread "we knew it, but others didn't". Yippeee, now more meat for the general public to paint cycling in a bad light.

He contradicts himself all the time about doping, to the detriment of the sport IMO. He pines for a clean sport, then his rider wins a GT. Then he writes this article. If he would have just written it and said "I doped, don't go there" then that would have been different.

His implications of running a clean team implies the sport is dirty and he is the exception, and he writes articles such as this imploring rules be in place. I wonder how many other DS's just want him to STFU, for all the right reasons? I would.

Yea, it's only people like JV who make cycling look bad. We were all wrong, Pat McQuaid isn't BPC, he is ChrisE...

And I don't think you can read. He clearly suggests that the current sport is much cleaner than in his time. You are aware that people are still being busted for doping though...don't answer, it will **** up your point... He believes in his riders and the fact that they are riding clean...SHOCKER...he knows there are still dirty riders out there (check cyclingnews.com for further confirmation of that point), and thinks his team winning races is proof that the era of that being possible (unlike the Armstrong era, you know, the guy you hope doesn't get busted so you can continue to be petty and childish to people on an intertubes forum) even when there are some still doping is developing. How terrible of him. Horrific hypocrisy...

 

[ChrisE]

*Newsflash* The sport is dirty.
JV doesn't need to imply it - the sport is perfectly capable of showing what a cesspool it has become all by itself.

And you said upthread that all didn't know it. Is it possible for sport to change without making a cynical public even more cynical, further painting cycling in a bad light while doped up 300 lb linemen running sub 5 40's get cheered wildly on Sundays?