JV talks, sort of

[Cavalier]

A brief thought, for all of JV's confessionals, did he ever once apologise to those it affected? Either to fans of the sport, or the very cyclists whose jobs or rightful awards/rewards were lost as a result of his doping? Would seem to me to be an obvious place to start.

The only place I saw the word sorry used seemed to be more in relation to himself and his decision-making process: "I chose to dope. I am sorry for that decision, and I deeply regret it."

 

[Kender]

A brief thought, for all of JV's confessionals, did he ever once apologise to those it affected? Either to fans of the sport, or the very cyclists whose jobs or rightful awards/rewards were lost as a result of his doping? Would seem to me to be an obvious place to start.

The only place I saw the word sorry used seemed to be more in relation to himself and his decision-making process: "I chose to dope. I am sorry for that decision, and I deeply regret it."

well what cyclists should he apologise to? it's pretty clear he believes everyone else was on epo so none of them deserve an apology. any rider he did out of a job would have probably ended up doping as well. It was what had to be done

he has said sorry of a sorts. since 2004 he's stated clean > results to his riders. can't ask for any more than that for athletes that want to ride clean

 

[Cavalier]

I didn't say he had to name individuals. He did likely cheat someone out of a profession though, either directly or indirectly.

And I don't think it's simplistic as clean > results. He's in - like it or not - a results oriented business. Sponsors aren't handing over $ just to be seen to be charitable towards anti-doping. They're there to get publicity and promotion through the team's success. If he had entirely clean riders, but no results, he wouldn't be there very long.

Note that that's not an indictment on his team being clean or not, simply that it's not a case of one over the other, until death. There has to be a cross-over point at which results become very important, or he's doing the new sponsor search on a daily basis.

 

[Avoriaz]

Minutes in a one week stage race? Think you've been smokin" some of Wiggo's gear.

They were all smashing dominate wins. Heck he even won a sprint at Romandie!

Very good. Only Greg Lemond would see an eight second margin as being the equivalent of minutes!

8 seconds, 12 seconds and one minute seventeen seconds are not even "minutes" if combined. Maybe you should try smoking some of Wiggo's gear

 

[sittingbison]

A brief thought, for all of JV's confessionals, did he ever once apologise to those it affected?...

well he has said on several occasions that he has been completely open and honest with anyone who cared to ask.

But he has also had to be very careful with public statements. The NYT op ed is the first time he has PUBLICLY stated he doped, although there have of course been the veiled references.

I would not be surprised that after the Lance/USADA affair he will come forth. It really appears from all his statements that he along with everyone else associated with Lance knows just how powerful and vindictive he is. Until the wicked witch is dead, he must talk in doublespeak or risk being destroyed.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Have you anything else on the guy?

What would your responce have been when a certain Lance Pharmstrong was on that list?

He stated he was privileged to have worked with for instance Beloki, now, if there was one suspicious rider - besides the 'never tested positive' wonderlance - I would call Beloki. He stated there was something going on at Astana, duh, what was going on at the other teams under his 'privilege'?

I judge thinks on there merits - if I associated everyone with which team they worked for it would make it easier to make conclusions.

San Millan too, he is proud of his riders podium finishes and one Tour winner, guess that will be Contador.

He should be an expert on what is possible with PED's. Is it fair to say this doc was right there in the middle of the bloodbag era and saw only something at Astana?

Sorry about my previous tone of voice, was not necessary.

 

[sniper]

Doc M. Reveal your agenda already. I remember you pointing out Sky's shady practice of replacing Palfreeman & Hulze by what you called "dodgy doctors" Leinders and Bartalucci, and now your jumping in the fence for San Millan? How is Leinders any dodgier than San Millan?

 

[sniper]

Am I correct in saying that the only link you have to doping by ISM is the teams that he has worked on?
If so, some more reading for you:

That's funny. I remember you pointing out Sky's shady practice of replacing Palfreeman & Hulze by what you called "dodgy doctors" Leinders and Bartalucci, and now your jumping in the fence for San Millan. Do enlighten me as to how Leinders is any dodgier than San Millan.

 

[sniper]

(...) if I associated everyone with which team they worked for it would make it easier to make conclusions.

in all fairness, this is exactly what you did when you called Leinders a dodgy doctor.

 

[sittingbison]

... Do enlighten me as to how Leinders is any dodgier than San Millan.

in all fairness, this is exactly what you did when you called Leinders a dodgy doctor.

hold it, thats a reversal of logic.

Leinders IS a dodgy doctor, clearly established during his time with Rabobank with the team based doping admission of their DS after ChickenGate and then Leinders subsequent legal problems with Dutch authorities. Franklin did a fair bit of homework on I think the Sky thread. Which makes it suspicious of Sky to hire him.

The only thing dodgy about ISM is the teams he was associated with. The same argument applies to Bassons at Festina and Moncoutie at Cofidis. But guilt by association gets you hanged in any half decent cowboy pic

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What would your responce have been when a certain Lance Pharmstrong was on that list?

When or if?

I stated already I judge things on its merits, if you have something on ISM then share it.

He stated he was privileged to have worked with for instance Beloki, now, if there was one suspicious rider - besides the 'never tested positive' wonderlance - I would call Beloki. He stated there was something going on at Astana, duh, what was going on at the other teams under his 'privilege'?

San Millan too, he is proud of his riders podium finishes and one Tour winner, guess that will be Contador.

He should be an expert on what is possible with PED's. Is it fair to say this doc was right there in the middle of the bloodbag era and saw only something at Astana?

Sorry about my previous tone of voice, was not necessary.

Beloki, certainly a suspicious guy - because of his links to Fuentes.
Why would Beloki (indeed half of the teams) need to go to Fuentes if they had the Doc in-house?

 

[sniper]

hold it, thats a reversal of logic.

Leinders IS a dodgy doctor, clearly established during his time with Rabobank with the team based doping admission of their DS after ChickenGate and then Leinders subsequent legal problems with Dutch authorities. Franklin did a fair bit of homework on I think the Sky thread. Which makes it suspicious of Sky to hire him.

The only thing dodgy about ISM is the teams he was associated with. The same argument applies to Bassons at Festina and Moncoutie at Cofidis. But guilt by association gets you hanged in any half decent cowboy pic

it's not my reverse logic. In the Sky thread Doc M was first in line to call out Bartalucci and Leinders. In this Garmin thread he's the first to rebut that San Millan is dodgy.
To be sure: nobody says San Millan is guilty by association. But hey, even you admit he's dodgy by association.
Leinders isn't guilty. San Millan isn't guilty.
Leinders is dodgy, San Millan is dodgy.

Of course there are degrees of dodgyness. But I don't see how Leinders would come out of this as more dodgy than San Millan? I do hope you agree that San Millan's team history is a tidbit more dodgy than Leinders'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's funny. I remember you pointing out Sky's shady practice of replacing Palfreeman & Hulze by what you called "dodgy doctors" Leinders and Bartalucci, and now your jumping in the fence for San Millan. Do enlighten me as to how Leinders is any dodgier than San Millan.

Your memory is not too good - because you would also remember that a there is a link to doping by Lienders during his time at Rabobank and Bartalucci being questioned in Italy.

I asked you directly upthread - have you anything more on ISM? You went silent.
I have no opinion on San Millan - he may well have a dodgy past, but I do not use your criteria thankfully, otherwise I would got myself in a lather too that Contador would get off because Saxo went training in Israel.

 

[sniper]

by the way, Doc's claim that Bartalucci is dodgy is also based merely on his association with the Mantuva investigation. Bartalucci as far as I know was never found guilty of anything. (But correct me if I'm wrong)

So lot's of guys are called dodgy based merely on association. Not guilty, but dodgy.
And now San Millan's team history isn't dodgy?

 

[sniper]

Your memory is not too good - because you would also remember that a there is a link to doping by Lienders during his time at Rabobank and Bartalucci being questioned in Italy.

I asked you directly upthread - have you anything more on ISM? You went silent.
I have no opinion on San Millan - he may well have a dodgy past, but I do not use your criteria thankfully, otherwise I would got myself in a lather too that Contador would get off because Saxo went training in Israel.

We can't blame Saxo for trying now can we?
(And it did win AC one of three votes, plus a rather mild closing letter in which contamination was considered more plausible than blooddoping.)

What we have on San Millan is one of the most clear-cut team histories a doctor can possibly have.

Which reminds me, I asked you a couple of times (merely because I value your opinion, not because you're obliged to reply): what do you think of JV's marginal gains talk? You agree Sky is dodgy. Sky sells marginal gains as their winning formula.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

by the way, Doc's claim that Bartalucci is dodgy is also based merely on his association with the Mantuva investigation. Bartalucci as far as I know was never found guilty of anything. (But correct me if I'm wrong)

So lot's of guys are called dodgy based merely on association. Not guilty, but dodgy.
And now San Millan's team history isn't dodgy?

Which is precisely why I used the term "dodgy" as opposed to guilty in relation to Bartalucci.
Is there a case against IsM anywhere or has he been named in police reports? Again, if so post it as that would certainly help me call him "dodgy".

 

[sniper]

Which is precisely why I used the term "dodgy" as opposed to guilty in relation to Bartalucci.
Is there a case against IsM anywhere or has he been named in police reports? Again, if so post it as that would certainly help me call him "dodgy".

We know from e.g. Jaksche's testimony that doping was orchestrated at the team level at ONCE. Hardly credible that San Millan did not partake in that. If he didn't, it means he wasn't important. If he wasn't important, why would JV hire him?

Again, if we compare what we have on Leinders/Bartalucci with what we have on San Millan, it's not clear to me why San Millan would come out as less dodgy.

 

[hrotha]

We know from e.g. Jaksche's testimony that doping was orchestrated at the team level at ONCE. Hardly credible that San Millan did not partake in that. If he didn't, it means he wasn't important. If he wasn't important, why would JV hire him?

Again, if we compare what we have on Leinders/Bartalucci with what we have on San Millan, it's not clear to me why San Millan would come out as less dodgy.

It would mean he wasn't important in the doping process. Which would mean they paid him to take care of the other (i.e. legal) medical stuff, which was what was important to JV. One could say it's very telling that this teamwide doping program went through an external doctor. When some rider went over the 50% hematocrit cap (can't remember if it was Nozal), Manolo cut ties with Fuentes, presumably because not getting caught was part of Fuentes's deal package, which could imply the team doctors didn't have anything to do with it.

I agree anyone with his CV is suspicious, and I'd love to hear from JV about this, but the reasoning you're using in this particular post isn't logical.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

When or if?

I stated already I judge things on its merits, if you have something on ISM then share it.


Beloki, certainly a suspicious guy - because of his links to Fuentes.
Why would Beloki (indeed half of the teams) need to go to Fuentes if they had the Doc in-house?

I see a pattern, you clearly don't or do not want to.
San Millan has been promoted as a pro - clean - cycling doctor

His two-year deal with Garmin-Transitions will mark a return to the service of professional cycling teams after a two-year hiatus. San Millán has previously worked with Spanish teams including ONCE and Saunier-Duval, as well as Astana in 2007. While a number of his former employers have been beset by doping scandals, San Millán is widely regarded as an exponent of a clean cycling. He cites US-based Garmin's mentality and acceptance of his methods as a primary reason for his return to the sport.

the question could be asked what the hell he was doing in the dark ages of cycling at those dirtteams? How does that clean lable fit with working at those teams?

On your question, why did Armstrong have to go to Ferrari when he had Del Moral on hand?

We know from e.g. Jaksche's testimony that doping was orchestrated at the team level at ONCE. Hardly credible that San Millan did not partake in that. If he didn't, it means he wasn't important. If he wasn't important, why would JV hire him?

Not just ONCE, do not forget the rise of Vitalicio Seguros in 1998. They had real interesting 'performances'.
Spanish Championships:
1998
1.Oscar Freire Vitalicio Seguros
2.Angel Casero Vitalicio Seguros
3.Angel Edo Kelme-Costa Blanca
4.Juan Carlos Dominguez Vitalicio Seguros
5.Francisco Mancebo Banesto
6.Manuel Fernandez Banesto
7.David Garcia Marquina Vitalicio Seguros
8.Felix Garcia Casas Festina-Lotus
9.Francisco Benitez Vitalicio Seguros
10.Jaime Hernandez Festina-Lotus

1999
1.Roberto Heras Kelme-Costa Blanca
2.Angel Casero Vitalicio Seguros
3.Jon Odriozola Banesto
4.Ramon Gonzalez Arrieta Euskaltel-Euskadi
5.Joseba Beloki Euskaltel-Euskadi
6.Manuel Beltran Banesto
7.Haimar Zubeldia Euskaltel-Euskadi
8.David Etxebarria ONCE-Deutsche Bank
9.Marcos Serrano ONCE-Deutsche Bank
10.Luis Perez ONCE-Deutsche Bank

2000
1.Francisco Cerezo Vitalicio Seguros
2.Miguel Angel Martin Perdiguero Vitalicio Seguros
3.Alvaro Gonzalez De Galdeano Vitalicio Seguros
4.Nacor Burgos Relax-Fuenlabrada
5.Igor Astarloa Mercatone Uno-Albacom
6.Jose Luis Rubiera Kelme-Costa Blanca
7.Jose Luis Arrieta Banesto
8.Francisco Mancebo Banesto
9.Jose Luis Rebollo Vitalicio Seguros
10.Samuel Sanchez Euskaltel-Euskadi

We don't know the precize timeline of ISM's working here but it is interesting in my book.

 

[sniper]

It would mean he wasn't important in the doping process. Which would mean they paid him to take care of the other (i.e. legal) medical stuff, which was what was important to JV. One could say it's very telling that this teamwide doping program went through an external doctor.

I agree anyone with his CV is suspicious, and I'd love to hear from JV about this, but the reasoning you're using in this particular post isn't logical.

like saddle sore?

(of course you're right that that's a possibility, but I still find it far-fetched to assume)

 

[sniper]

It would mean he wasn't important in the doping process. Which would mean they paid him to take care of the other (i.e. legal) medical stuff, which was what was important to JV. One could say it's very telling that this teamwide doping program went through an external doctor. When some rider went over the 50% hematocrit cap (can't remember if it was Nozal), Manolo cut ties with Fuentes, presumably because not getting caught was part of Fuentes's deal package, which could imply the team doctors didn't have anything to do with it.

I agree anyone with his CV is suspicious, and I'd love to hear from JV about this, but the reasoning you're using in this particular post isn't logical.

like saddle sore?

Interesting point about Fuentes/Manolo and of course you're right that the possibility, however far-fetched, that San Millan is a clean crusader exists.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We can't blame Saxo for trying now can we?
(And it did win AC one of three votes, plus a rather mild closing letter in which contamination was considered more plausible than blooddoping.)

What we have on San Millan is one of the most clear-cut team histories a doctor can possibly have.

Which reminds me, I asked you a couple of times (merely because I value your opinion, not because you're obliged to reply): what do you think of JV's marginal gains talk? You agree Sky is dodgy. Sky sells marginal gains as their winning formula.

Main reason i didnt respond is because i am meh about it - marginal gains should yield exactly that - marginal gains.

It's why I bought different wheels for different circumstances - because there is a gain from one over the other.
But marginal gains alone cannot explain significant gains, which is exactly why I look for more to explain a performance.

 

[hrotha]

like saddle sore?

Interesting point about Fuentes/Manolo and of course you're right that the possibility, however far-fetched, that San Millan is a clean crusader exists.

LOL, yes, like saddle sore

Mind you, I don't believe a team doctor in that era could have absolutely nothing to do with doping. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here. JV would probably justify it simply by saying he's turned his back on those days or whatever.

 

[sniper]

Main reason i didnt respond is because i am meh about it - marginal gains should yield exactly that - marginal gains.

It's why I bought different wheels for different circumstances - because there is a gain from one over the other.
But marginal gains alone cannot explain significant gains, which is exactly why I look for more to explain a performance.

agree fully.

Note though that JV isn't meh about marginal gains. In fact his most important claims (1. cycling is getting cleaner, 2. you can now win a GT clean) depend entirely on the notion of marginal gains and, by extension, on the assumption that Sky are indeed doing it all based on marginal gains.
So if Sky turns out to be dirty, then JV's two central claims will turn out to be nothing but hot air.
For now, if Sky is dodgy, JV's two central claims are dodgy.
(imo of course!)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I see a pattern, you clearly don't or do not want to.
San Millan has been promoted as a pro - clean - cycling doctor

I don't see a pattern, I see a list of teams (many which were dirty) that he was with. If that's enough for you, fine.

the question could be asked what the hell he was doing in the dark ages of cycling at those dirtteams? How does that clean lable fit with working at those teams?

Indeed - and the only answer is to stay away from the sport.

On your question, why did Armstrong have to go to Ferrari when he had Del Moral on hand?
Not just ONCE, do not forget the rise of Vitalicio Seguros in 1998. They had real interesting 'performances'.
Spanish Championships:
1998
<snipped out results for brevity>

We don't know the precize timeline of ISM's working here but it is interesting in my book.

Ferrari was essentially Armstrong personal doping doc, del Moral was the teams.

IsM certainly knew what was going on at some of the teams he was with- and he may well have had an active role in that. that's certainly possible.

To the highlighted - sure, interesting and certainly worthy of examination. Which is why I have repeatedly asked for anything regarding him.
I am aware of the history of the teams he was with and the riders on those teams - no need to repeat that.