Sour grapes from Vaughters?

[La Pandera]

Thanks.

My apologies if you think i'm an idiot.

I just wonder why no other teams have ever called themselves "test" teams.

To me it seems quite rude to treat the competition as your own private laboratory rat, that's all. No offence to you or anyone else was intended. I still think it was rude of them to do that.

Priority number one is your products rather than the competition? Even their adverts stated "Winning is not the only thing". Subjectively, it seems to me and a few others i've spoken to, that it brings the competition into disrepute to a degree.

Just quietly, this idiot feels glad no other teams are so blatant and presumptuous as to blatantly name themselves a bunch of glorified product testers.

PS - I appreciate this is not the subject of this thread. It was a 'brain fart' more than anything.

You'd have to ask yourself how many teams primary sponsor is a bicycle manufacturer and then compare that company with Cervelo who only manufacture bikes for use in competition. They don't make cruisers, hybrids,
comfort bikes, touring frames etc... What I can't understand is your issue with the name of the team and testing their's and the other teams sponsors' products as if it is some form of disrepect to the sport and the other teams.

 

[luckyboy]

Spanish Dr who was video taped disposing of USPS "medical waste" by French police

Is this video available to watch anywhere? Can't seem to find it.


Also, a little side-note - I know it's early days, but if GreenEdge get to the ProTour, Katusha, QST, Garmin, Lotto and Saxo's licenses expire at the end of this year. Unless Retirement Shack folds.

 

[LugHugger]

You'd have to ask yourself how many teams primary sponsor is a bicycle manufacturer and then compare that company with Cervelo who only manufacture bikes for use in competition. They don't make cruisers, hybrids,
comfort bikes, touring frames etc... What I can't understand is your issue with the name of the team and testing their's and the other teams sponsors' products as if it is some form of disrepect to the sport and the other teams.

Like I said....

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

Is it Tommy D?

He looks tough...

+1 That was VERY funny. You made me fall out of my chair laughing. Thanks for that

 

[gerard@cervelo.com]

Cervelo TestTeam

Thanks.

To me it seems quite rude to treat the competition as your own private laboratory rat, that's all. No offence to you or anyone else was intended. I still think it was rude of them to do that.

Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, I would just like to point out that:

1) The riders didn't mind at all being part of a TestTeam rather than a TeamTeam, in fact most relished it (it was interesting to see how riders appreciated their time on the TestTeam, and not just those you would expect it from and who moved to Garmin but also riders like Gustov, Tondo and Bos).

2) There is a difference between not finding winning important and not doing what you can (within the rules) to win. We have always said that we want to give the riders the best support to race as well as they possibly can, but if at the end that means victory, second or tenth is something nobody can control and something I don't care too much about.

3) So in the end it is not about whether we want to win or not, for sure I prefer a win over coming second. But the point is, why would you put that pressure on the riders (a la Sky)? The relaxed atmosphere towards winning has proven to be a success, not only on the product development side but also in team performance. 7th and 12th in the World Ranking with a modest budget, highest ranked Continental team, invitations to all the major races (Geox shows this year that this is not as easy as people thought). Maybe we didn't win enough, but at least we did better than some with twice the budget.

4) You seem to be offended that we find product feedback more important than winning and see that as a disrespect towards the concept of winning. In a year of built-in engines, Vino winning LBL, Contador the Tour and everybody and their dog using Hexa-whatever at the Vuelta, it is a little tough to take winning too seriously.

5) Before you call me arrogant again (matter of opinion I guess, though I don't believe we know each other), I am not trying to say we ran a perfect team here. We didn't, and our big failure is certainly that we didn't sign that title sponsor. We were close, but that doesn't count in sponsorship.

Cheers,

Gerard.

 

[euanli]

As always Gerard, it is refreshing seeing you coming onto a forum to give your view point regardless of the topic.

 

[ingsve]

4) You seem to be offended that we find product feedback more important than winning and see that as a disrespect towards the concept of winning. In a year of built-in engines, Vino winning LBL, Contador the Tour and everybody and their dog using Hexa-whatever at the Vuelta, it is a little tough to take winning too seriously.

Cheers,

Gerard.

You didn't take the whole deal with built in engines serious, did you?

 

[needasmoke]

From the "comments" -
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/news/20232/Garmin-Cervelo-sacks-White

"That's rich. The team had Alan Lim, Floyd's dope doctor on the payroll when Brad Wiggins magically transformed from mediocre track specialist to 20lb lighter podium pretender. Funny, that was in 2009 as well. He left in 2010 to join RadioShack taking his wonder rice cakes with him. One suspect and known supporter of doping is hired but outsourcing to another is not alright? I forgot...it's ok if JV does it. Maybe most of the people here need to look up his MSN messenger transcript with Franke Andreu and it's contents covering their doping days at UPS. JV doesn't despise doping. He simply wants to be the big man in charge. He's on an ego trip, has been for quite a while. Vaughters media tricks are getting old. This is spite, nothing more. Garmin have no morals should be the headline. At least some people are loyal. Their loss."

hahahahaha

 

[Night Rider]

Sour grapes from Vaughters?

In view of Matt Whites appointment at GreenEdge Cycling, is this sacking a classic case of sour grapes?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/garmin-cervelo-dismiss-matt-white

How many other skeletons are in the Slipstream closet?

Firstly, let’s clear up the GreenEdge appointment. There wasn’t one. If that was announced at any point by GreenEdge or White he would have been instantly dismissed. Of course the speculation was out there that he would go next year but as yesterday there was no appointment.

So, to answer your question, yes I would say a small part sour grapes but it was more of an intelligent business decision. You can’t have someone strongly rumoured to be moving to a start up team with bundles of cash poaching your riders from within. He would just have been made to look a fool later this year.

The reason used though (Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral and Trent Lowe) is just smoke and mirrors and a convenient reason to get rid of White. Vaughters would have known about that long ago. He’s also being less than truthful about the real reason Lowe would have visited him as well but we can’t go into further details here.

So to summarise, if I was Vaughters I would have done the same thing. But he should be a little careful the way he’s gone about it doesn’t come back and bite him on the back side.

 

[hfer07]

The reason used though (Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral and Trent Lowe) is just smoke and mirrors and a convenient reason to get rid of White. Vaughters would have known about that long ago. He’s also being less than truthful about the real reason Lowe would have visited him as well but we can’t go into further details here.
So to summarise, if I was Vaughters I would have done the same thing. But he should be a little careful the way he’s gone about it doesn’t come back and bite him on the back side.

What bothers me about this mess is how JV is acting exactly like Bruyneel! He found out that White was leaving, so he just wanted to make sure that all well kept secrets on how Garmin's "clean program" works remain intact to the public, so he basically exposed White before the rumors spread out. As far as Lowe going to Del Moral... Who doesn't?-What happens is that Garmin's program is done "in-House" and when someone goes elsewhere to get the extra boost-they just create an internal conflict where the medical assistants cannot defend the athlete if something goes wrong....

 

[BroDeal]

What bothers me about this mess is how JV is acting exactly like Bruyneel! He found out that White was leaving, so he just wanted to make sure...

You are making the assumption that White's plan to leave came first. It is just as likely, maybe even more so, that White has been looking for a job because he knew that he would soon be sacked since Lowe had let the cat out of the bag.

 

[Ingenerius]

Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, I would just like to point out that:

1) The riders didn't mind at all being part of a TestTeam rather than a TeamTeam, in fact most relished it (it was interesting to see how riders appreciated their time on the TestTeam, and not just those you would expect it from and who moved to Garmin but also riders like Gustov, Tondo and Bos).

2) There is a difference between not finding winning important and not doing what you can (within the rules) to win. We have always said that we want to give the riders the best support to race as well as they possibly can, but if at the end that means victory, second or tenth is something nobody can control and something I don't care too much about.

3) So in the end it is not about whether we want to win or not, for sure I prefer a win over coming second. But the point is, why would you put that pressure on the riders (a la Sky)? The relaxed atmosphere towards winning has proven to be a success, not only on the product development side but also in team performance. 7th and 12th in the World Ranking with a modest budget, highest ranked Continental team, invitations to all the major races (Geox shows this year that this is not as easy as people thought). Maybe we didn't win enough, but at least we did better than some with twice the budget.

4) You seem to be offended that we find product feedback more important than winning and see that as a disrespect towards the concept of winning. In a year of built-in engines, Vino winning LBL, Contador the Tour and everybody and their dog using Hexa-whatever at the Vuelta, it is a little tough to take winning too seriously.

5) Before you call me arrogant again (matter of opinion I guess, though I don't believe we know each other), I am not trying to say we ran a perfect team here. We didn't, and our big failure is certainly that we didn't sign that title sponsor. We were close, but that doesn't count in sponsorship.

Cheers,

Gerard.

You didn't take the whole deal with built in engines serious, did you?

Wow, I guess he does. I've always been annoyed that omerta protects Spartacus from something like that too, but hopefully the truth will come out at some point.

This was enough confirmation for me at least Keep fighting the good fight Gerard.

 

[skidmark]

3) So in the end it is not about whether we want to win or not, for sure I prefer a win over coming second. But the point is, why would you put that pressure on the riders (a la Sky)? The relaxed atmosphere towards winning has proven to be a success, not only on the product development side but also in team performance. 7th and 12th in the World Ranking with a modest budget, highest ranked Continental team, invitations to all the major races (Geox shows this year that this is not as easy as people thought). Maybe we didn't win enough, but at least we did better than some with twice the budget.

I definitely felt, from an optics point of view at least (as someone who is only exposed to cycling from what I read on the internet and see in races, with no inside knowledge), that Cervelo Test Team was refreshing for this. Picking up on the comparison to Sky: to the attentive outside viewer, at least, there is a world of difference between early 2009 (with Haussler emerging from relative obscurity, solid performances from Rollin, Roulston, Hushovd, etc) and 2010 (with Boasson Hagen taking the lead in February and then losing the jersey because the peloton didn't like Sky's attitude of 'manifest destiny' and attacked them at an inopportune time). Thinking of those 2 anecdotes, at least, seems to reinforce to me what is respected in the peloton and in cycling circles and what is not.

It is certainly more complex than that, but I appreciated Cervelo's approach, as a fan, and could cheer for them without resentment.

 

[hfer07]

You are making the assumption that White's plan to leave came first. It is just as likely, maybe even more so, that White has been looking for a job because he knew that he would soon be sacked since Lowe had let the cat out of the bag.

Wasn't JV complaining a couple of days ago about some Aussies breaking their contracts to join GreenEdge team and threatened with lawsuits? maybe White was going to walk away from Garmin with more than a simple job offer after all......

 

[Bailey]

Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, I would just like to point out that:

4) You seem to be offended that we find product feedback more important than winning and see that as a disrespect towards the concept of winning. In a year of built-in engines, Vino winning LBL, Contador the Tour and everybody and their dog using Hexa-whatever at the Vuelta, it is a little tough to take winning too seriously.

5) Before you call me arrogant again (matter of opinion I guess, though I don't believe we know each other), I am not trying to say we ran a perfect team here. We didn't, and our big failure is certainly that we didn't sign that title sponsor. We were close, but that doesn't count in sponsorship.

Cheers,

Gerard.

Thanks for posting. Often look yourself up online, do you?

You are correct when you say we haven't met; I don't know you, but we're all blessed with the ability to draw inferences from a person's decisions and their conduct while in the public spotlight. And from any Twitter outbursts from time to time.

Incidentally, i note that back in 2007 you strongly supported Bjarne Riis after he confessed to having been a part of the sport's doping problem, yet now you've been very quick to express your relief that Matt White got the sack on a ridiculously strict technicality - even though Vaughters has very clearly and explicitly stated that he has "no doubt whatsoever" that, while at Garmin, White was not and is not involved in any doping activities whatsoever. Confusing at best, hypocritical at worst.

Anyway.

Here's an analogy, speaking for myself only, to demonstrate what i meant earlier:

F1 fans generally don't pay to sit at a Formula One team's testing circuit to watch its test driver(s) putting their sponsor's parts through their paces (engines, tyres, wings, etc) for the purposes of the competition. Similarly, television networks don't bother televising that aspect of the sport; even though it's an important aspect. Most parts manufacturers understand this and don't try to pull the focus onto themselves during the F1 season.

F1 fans do pay their hard earned savings to travel around the world and watch Formula One races or qualifying sessions. That's what the sport of Formula One is about. I also think that's what cycling is about.

By the time a team is competing at the highest level, it should not be about any product testing apart from the rider testing his physical limits and skills.

The sport's team licences don't exist for testing purposes. No offence, but as i've stated, i think it's quite arrogant to presume otherwise (whether i know you or not).

As someone said earlier, all teams test their sponsor's products (BMC, Leopard-Trek, etc). Only yours presumed to make that fact its mantra AND its name.

It's not about the testing. That's just how i feel. I appreciate others disagree - and they've said so (some in no uncertain terms). That's fine, too.

Again, thanks for posting as you did.

 

[Bailey]

4) You seem to be offended that we find product feedback more important than winning and see that as a disrespect towards the concept of winning. In a year of built-in engines, Vino winning LBL, Contador the Tour and everybody and their dog using Hexa-whatever at the Vuelta, it is a little tough to take winning too seriously.

If your are seriously suggesting your team lost races due to opposing teams' products using built-in engines, then you are a very arrogant chap indeed. In fact, you're taking arrogance to another level!

 

[Sanitiser]

Maybe Cancellara's built-in engine was running on something else?

 

[LugHugger]

Thanks for posting. Often look yourself up online, do you?

You are correct when you say we haven't met; I don't know you, but we're all blessed with the ability to draw inferences from a person's decisions and their conduct while in the public spotlight. And any Twitter outbursts from time to time.

Here's an analogy, speaking for myself only, to demonstrate what i meant earlier:

F1 fans generally don't pay to sit at a Formula One team's testing circuit to watch its test driver(s) putting their sponsor's parts through their paces (engines, tyres, wings, etc) for the purposes of the competition. Similarly, television networks don't bother televising that aspect of the sport; even though it's an important aspect. Most parts manufacturers understand this and don't try to pull the focus onto themselves during the F1 season.

F1 fans do pay their hard earned savings to travel around the world and watch Formula One races or qualifying sessions. That's what the sport of Formula One is about. I also think that's what cycling is about.

By the time a team is competing at the highest level, it should not be about any product testing apart from the rider testing his physical limits and skills.

The sport's team licences don't exist for testing purposes. No offence, but as i've stated, i think it's quite arrogant to presume otherwise (whether i know you or not).

As someone said earlier, all teams test their sponsor's products (BMC, Leopard-Trek, etc). Only yours presumed to make that fact its mantra AND its name.

It's not about the testing. That's just how i feel. I appreciate others disagree - and they've said so (some in no uncertain terms). That's fine, too.

Again, thanks for posting as you did.

Formula 1 is a constant test environment. There is even a regulation in place limiting the amount of time that a team can spend on the track between races. Want the evidence? Red Bull running two separate front wings at one race this year which they swapped between drivers on final practice to the benefit of the eventual World Champion. Add to that a mulitple world champion (Schumacher) complaining that his F duct was not competitive - Mercedes still ran it so that they could get more test laps and data into their computers so they could develop the product.

You claim to be a fan or F1 and cycling. You appear to know very little about either.

 

[Ferminal]

The sport's team licences don't exist for testing purposes. No offence, but as i've stated, i think it's quite arrogant to presume otherwise (whether i know you or not).

Obtaining such licenses is a difficult and inconsistent process. In order to obtain a license one must have the contracts and the finances. The owner of the license (in this case Cervelo) can do whatever they want within the rules of the sport after that. But do you really think riders and secondary sponsors would be happy in a team that turned up and rode 5min behind the bunch just to gather testing data? Cervelo needed invites - how do you think they would have got these if they weren't interested in racing? Do you think Haussler would have beaten Cav if Cervelo weren't interested in the technical aspect?

Maybe you can tell us which particular race days you saw the CTT not interested in racing, only technical research. You make it sound as though the team wasn't there to race, when in reality they were fiercely competitive in every discipline. But where can you test your equipment better than Sastre in the mountains, or Haussler and Hushovd over the cobbles? This kind of technical support is not one-way. The manufacturer gets data and feedback from their riders, and in-turn they enhance the development of their products which theoretically results in better performance on the road.

Have you watched the CTT documentaries?

 

[Sanitiser]

Isn't BMC the same thing? With a bit more emphasis on marketing.

 

[Ferminal]

Isn't BMC the same thing? With a bit more emphasis on marketing.

BMC is Rihs wanting glory more than anything else I think.

 

[Sanitiser]

BMC is Rihs wanting glory more than anything else I think.

From Cadel?

 

[Ferminal]

From Cadel?

From Finny.

 

[BroDeal]

Thanks for posting. Often look yourself up online, do you?

You are correct when you say we haven't met; I don't know you, but we're all blessed with the ability to draw inferences from a person's decisions and their conduct while in the public spotlight. And from any Twitter outbursts from time to time.

Incidentally, i note that back in 2007 you strongly supported Bjarne Riis after he confessed to having been a part of the sport's doping problem, yet now you've been very quick to express your relief that Matt White got the sack on a ridiculously strict technicality - even though Vaughters has very clearly and explicitly stated that he has "no doubt whatsoever" that, while at Garmin, White was not and is not involved in any doping activities whatsoever. Confusing at best, hypocritical at worst.

Anyway.

Here's an analogy, speaking for myself only, to demonstrate what i meant earlier:

F1 fans generally don't pay to sit at a Formula One team's testing circuit to watch its test driver(s) putting their sponsor's parts through their paces (engines, tyres, wings, etc) for the purposes of the competition. Similarly, television networks don't bother televising that aspect of the sport; even though it's an important aspect. Most parts manufacturers understand this and don't try to pull the focus onto themselves during the F1 season.

F1 fans do pay their hard earned savings to travel around the world and watch Formula One races or qualifying sessions. That's what the sport of Formula One is about. I also think that's what cycling is about.

By the time a team is competing at the highest level, it should not be about any product testing apart from the rider testing his physical limits and skills.

The sport's team licences don't exist for testing purposes. No offence, but as i've stated, i think it's quite arrogant to presume otherwise (whether i know you or not).

As someone said earlier, all teams test their sponsor's products (BMC, Leopard-Trek, etc). Only yours presumed to make that fact its mantra AND its name.

It's not about the testing. That's just how i feel. I appreciate others disagree - and they've said so (some in no uncertain terms). That's fine, too.

Again, thanks for posting as you did.

This has to be one of the stupidest posts ever made on this forum, and that is saying a lot. Your whole rant boils down to complaining about the word "test" in the team's name. Cervelo testing stuff is no different than the bike sponsor of any other team. They all test their stuff at the pro level so they can use it in their marketing campaigns. The team could have been just as well have been named the Cervelo Happy Go Fantastic Cycling Team.

Psssst, every single race in Formula 1 is used by teams to test new components and gather data for the next round of component testing.

 

[Bailey]

Obtaining such licenses is a difficult and inconsistent process. In order to obtain a license one must have the contracts and the finances. The owner of the license (in this case Cervelo) can do whatever they want within the rules of the sport after that. But do you really think riders and secondary sponsors would be happy in a team that turned up and rode 5min behind the bunch just to gather testing data? Cervelo needed invites - how do you think they would have got these if they weren't interested in racing? Do you think Haussler would have beaten Cav if Cervelo weren't interested in the technical aspect?

Maybe you can tell us which particular race days you saw the CTT not interested in racing, only technical research. You make it sound as though the team wasn't there to race, when in reality they were fiercely competitive in every discipline. But where can you test your equipment better than Sastre in the mountains, or Haussler and Hushovd over the cobbles? This kind of technical support is not one-way. The manufacturer gets data and feedback from their riders, and in-turn they enhance the development of their products which theoretically results in better performance on the road.

Have you watched the CTT documentaries?

I recall MANY races in which the team was hardly there supporting Thor by way of a train or positional protection before Thor launched himself from behind the HTC train! It was practically a one man team at nearly every single finish! Cervelo Thor Team! Even when Thor pushed through the mountain to secure his green jersey he was on his own.

Even Haussler was often left to his own devices at the final dash for the line during the Spring classics. No wonder the dude got injured. His stage win in the TdF was a lone attack, too. Face it, the team stunk at racing like a team. Maybe it was really, really good at testing Gerard's products and producing slick documentaries, but...well you get the idea.

Does anyone recall a successful CTT lead out for Thor in any of the grand tours? It was excruciating to watch him have to fight against the full HTC train all on his own. If everyone was busy testing their boss's equipment, then little wonder! Maybe teams need to focus on getting their train right sometimes?

No doubt the test certainly provided Cervelo with nice frames. And their kits looked quite nice. But winning and getting results is a Pro Team's bread and butter. That attracts major sponsors.

And yes. I recall all the documentaries. So many documentaries. Not many results. Not much well-drilled cohesion when it counted. But the documentaries and products were fabulous!