dbrower said:The absence of response fom Lowe and Hardie might mean they are working on their own spin, or it might mean they are giving Vaughters a lot of rope before dropping the platform out from underneath him.
-dB
dbrower said:The absence of response fom Lowe and Hardie might mean they are working on their own spin, or it might mean they are giving Vaughters a lot of rope before dropping the platform out from underneath him.
-dB
the moonlighting is BS. JV sent Contador Felts before the 2009 Tour.L'arriviste said:I see it like this:
1. Lowe may have been fired for an unknown number of reasons, but two of them were a) his "moonlighting" with Pegasus and b) seeing the dodgy Doc in violation of contract, though I think this latter did not come up initially.
seems only a tad mealy mouthed with pursuit of Contador and Dekker methinks2. Lowe appoints Hardie who responds to each of the unknown reasons and concludes that with a settlement offer. We don't know how he responded to the moonlighting thing but to Lowe's seeing the dodgy doc, he presents the PDF, saying you had notice of this and you said nada at the time.
JV is the master of narrative. Should be working on K Street.3. Vaughters has to fire White as a matter of principle over the dodgy doc.
ambit claim, lets see how it plays out when it goes to trial.4. Hardie's offer to Slipstream is $500,000 which would be calculated to cover a number of aspects of the damages alleged by Lowe.
more like they were not ready to play their hand at once. Drip feed.5. Slipstream decides to put the story out there, probably omitting that one of the reasons it fired Lowe was because of the visit to the dodgy doc.
Colm.Murphy said:Wait, first it was a V02 Max test, now its a UCI Health Check (blood panel?)...
Those are terrifically different things.
In the initial response, JV states that at first White told him he took his wife and kid to Del Moral. Was this some kind of excuse? Or that he considered it no big deal to bring Lowe there, as he'd already taken his family there.
My understanding is the lab clinic is called Performa, not necessarily a place for wives and babies.
All the simplest excuses and way to handle this are totally muddied because JV babbles whatever rattles in his head.
If this was quite easy to explain, then it would appear that way and the result would be a sufficient response that clearly shows all the steps, errors, and a commitment to fixing it for the future. Ridding themselves of White (right or wrong) and them not renewing Lowe make it look like so much more.
blackcat said:wanna ask Whitey if he took his wife Del Moral in 2000 before the Sydney Olympics?
blackcat said:And... Del Moral of the story is Ferminal?
BroDeal said:From the new info in the FLandis-Kimmage transcript I think we can safely say that Vaughters has sold out--if he ever had something to sell out in the first place. He is officially part of the problem. He is now the peloton's consigliere who gives advice on how to maintain omerta.
ingsve said:Well, it's clear that JV has his own view on how to best combat doping in the sport and he feels that airing everything out in the media is not constructive. I'm not sure I agree with that completely but I can at least understand the position. While it does go in line with Omerta as far as the media goes, I'm still not convinced that JV is dishonest in his efforts to clean up the sport. I think he is sincere but his methods are not the methods that the fans would want.
BroDeal said:So what is the difference between Vaughters and McQuaid? They both want to handle problems in secret. Someone who embarrasses cycling or just p!sses off the wrong person will be quietly kicked to the curb by backchannel warnings and threats unless he is popular enough that it will cost the sport money. Decisions will be made in a smoky backroom by the same bunch of fat old men, now with counsel from one skinny guy in a turtle neck. The only difference I see is that Vaughters gets to stick his snout in the trough.
ingsve said:I get your point. Though the diffrence to me is that McQuaid seems to go to extreme lengths to keep people from talking while I have a hard time seeing Vaughters doing anything substantial to keep others from talking other than sharing his opinion. I'm also not convinced that McQuaid is interested in cleaning up the sport as long as the image of the sport gets cleaner. I believe Vaughters does want the sport to actually get cleaner but he's simply using an unfortunate tactic that plays into the hands of the UCI.
BroDeal said:So what is the difference between Vaughters and McQuaid? They both want to handle problems in secret. Someone who embarrasses cycling or just p!sses off the wrong person will be quietly kicked to the curb by backchannel warnings and threats unless he is popular enough that it will cost the sport money. Decisions will be made in a smoky backroom by the same bunch of fat old men, now with counsel from one skinny guy in a turtle neck. The only difference I see is that Vaughters gets to stick his snout in the trough.
BroDeal said:I think 131313 put it well when he wrote that JV has moved into the territory of "go along to get along."
BroDeal said:I think 131313 put it well when he wrote that JV has moved into the territory of "go along to get along."
ingsve said:Well, that's certainly part of his motivation for sticking with his current tactic rather than going down the Kimmage/Landis route.
A slight problem I have however is that people now seem to think that the "go along to get along" attitude must mean that Slipstream is dirtier than the dirtiest which I think can't be further from the truth. I think that JV is doing a good job with keeping his own team clean and he should get some credit for that and the only parts that they should be critized for is the silent approach.
TexPat said:Slipstream may be clean. They've certainly gone to some length to create the image as a clean team.
Perhaps they are trying to make amends at past errors. The fact is that there are some questionable associations and obfuscations which make it easy for the cynics to levy doubt.
thehog said:Hincapie is rolling out the standard quotes:
“I haven’t spoken to him recently,” Hincapie said. “He just had a baby, so obviously I say congratulations. He’s got a growing family and is obviously very busy with his foundation and with racing and I really hope that he’s doing well right now and it looks like he is.”
“I think if you ask anybody that’s close to me, they’ll all say that I’m a good person and that I have a good character and at the end of the day, my family and close friends are what matter to me,” he said. “If they were to say I was a bad person or had a bad character, then that would affect me. But the other stuff [media and internet speculation], I’m not going to let that affect me.”
Benotti69 said:was he dying to say i'm too nice and done too much good for this crock of sh!te![]()
thehog said:That’s what he’s saying. At least Floyd can say he doped but is a nice guy. George wants everyone to know he’s a nice guy but doesn’t want to say that he doped.
The hypocrisy of it all.
Benotti69 said:the difference in all this is these guys Hincapie, Barry, Zabriskie and JV know what's coming and can prepare for it, ie put money away for rainy days in Europe or Switzerland and have something to fall back on after the dust has settled, should they be victims of the investigation
fatandfast said:the bigger difference is none of these other guys decided to go down the do or die legal path to hold on to a prize achieved on fraud. If all the riders here criticized for acting differently from the Landis example, they are praised by even more from learning a lesson from history. If you don't want to hold on to your money,family,future and dignity by all means adopt the Landis method of problem solving. Logic and history dictate that doing everything different from Landis while not a sure thing is still a better bet than accepting his path.