The BikeZilla Jonathan Vaughters interview PtII

[Zinoviev Letter]

When Floyd confessed, all the LA supporters said Floyd was a cheater and a liar, with no credibility.

When Tyler confessed, he was likewise a cheater and a liar with no credibility.

When 60m reported that George confessed, all the LA supporters said 60m either lied or misrepresented the facts.

With that as the background, how can people possibly think that JV’s public confession wouldn’t have had real value, particularly since he apparently has not yet been to the GJ (and therefore doesn’t have to be careful about what he says)? He would have been the most credible accuser of LA so far. An insider who was there when it was going on, never tested positive, has since spent several years trying to develop a clean team. His words on TV would have been golden. Even Fabiani would have had trouble with a “Vaughters is not Credible” attack.

I think that this illustrates something else important.

For many people here, the War on Doping and the War on Lance are one and the same thing, or at the very least are so closely linked that they may as well be. It's important to remember that for Vaughters that quite simply is not the case.

His interest, at least if we believe him (and I tacitly, tenuously, conditionally tend to), is in eliminating doping in the present and future. He is not looking for a Great Reckoning, in which all the wrongs of the past are righted, all the villains brought low, the righteous exalted and the eggs unscrambled. This sets him distinctly apart from the agendas of many of the people who post here.

I do not believe that he cares if the casual cycling fan starts to understand what most here regard as the settled truth about the 1990s and early 2000s, so arguments grounded in the importance of driving that home to Joe Public simply have no resonance for him. That is not his agenda and that's another reason why he aggravates quite a lot of people here.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

The bottomline is that he doesn't want to do anything that will harm his team or his bank balance.

I don't think that very many people are in the business of damaging their own livelihoods. I don't think that this makes everyone a fraud. People are complex and they often have contradictory interests - As I've pointed out in previous posts, being dependent on professional cycling to pay your mortgage certainly predisposes people to prefer working for reform within the system rather than more drastic "destroy the village to save the village" solutions.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

'...'His interest, at least if we believe him (and I tacitly, tenuously, conditionally tend to), is in eliminating doping in the present and future.'...'

Well put. Great posts in this thread. It's not reasonable to assume bad faith because one disagrees with the method of achieving the objective. JVs words do make sense and are consistent with his stated objectives, in the context of a decision to work within the system. You have explained all this far better than I ever could.

I do not believe that he cares if the casual cycling fan starts to understand what most here regard as the settled truth about the 1990s and early 2000s, so arguments grounded in the importance of driving that home to Joe Public simply have no resonance for him. That is not his agenda and that's another reason why he aggravates quite a lot of people here.

I speculate that there is an additional reason someone in JV's position might not like to put a confession on a billboard in Time Square. Cyclist reconcile doping with their conscience though the belief that everyone is doing it; it's not cheating; it's just part of cycling. The dumb kids that try to mimic their heroes have had the message that real cyclist are hard out dopers, loud and clear. What they need and cycling needs, is a balanced message.

It's true that many if not most pro cyclists still dope, but that's an incomplete truth. Even in the thick of the EPO era, we have reason to believe there was at least one exception. People need to know there are exceptions to the rule. Then they have an obvious choice of what they want to be. Do they want to be just another doper? Or do they want to be exceptional?

Obviously I can only guess if this concept is part of what motivates JV to make the comments he does. But I can say that, in the context of people making choices based on beliefs, his comments are consistent with his stated objectives. I can also say that it's this context which has encouraged me to emphasise the possibility of a cleaner peloton or clean riders in the past, so that's why I find it plausible.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think that this illustrates something else important.

For many people here, the War on Doping and the War on Lance are one and the same thing, or at the very least are so closely linked that they may as well be. It's important to remember that for Vaughters that quite simply is not the case.

To be fair most of the posters on this thread have shown that they are able to make that distinction.
People here are talking about his own personal doping, not LA's.

His interest, at least if we believe him (and I tacitly, tenuously, conditionally tend to), is in eliminating doping in the present and future. He is not looking for a Great Reckoning, in which all the wrongs of the past are righted, all the villains brought low, the righteous exalted and the eggs unscrambled. This sets him distinctly apart from the agendas of many of the people who post here.

Again - I doubt many here do that.

JV is only responsible for his own decisions and ultimately can be only responsible for his own team. He is not nor cannot sort all cycling's problems.

I
I do not believe that he cares if the casual cycling fan starts to understand what most here regard as the settled truth about the 1990s and early 2000s, so arguments grounded in the importance of driving that home to Joe Public simply have no resonance for him. That is not his agenda and that's another reason why he aggravates quite a lot of people here.

He cares for his own team. And he cares enough to discuss it frequently.
Perhaps he has not as much faith in the 'casual cycling' fan as he should. Most people understand the pressures on riders to achieve results and do their jobs. JV can -and indeed has - articulated that very well.

I do see part of your point though - that came through in the interview that he is looking at this solely as a team owner and not at the sport as a whole.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

To be fair most of the posters on this thread have shown that they are able to make that distinction.
People here are talking about his own personal doping, not LA's.

I was quite careful to say "many people here", as opposed to "all of us here" or even "most people here".

I fully agree with the point you were making in the other thread today about this place not being a monolith. It is certainly not the case that for everyone here the War on Doping is synonymous with the War on Lance, but there is no shortage of contributors who do leave that impression of their attitude. The post I was responding to was by no means a frothing diatribe about Lance The Great Satan, but even it did seem to me to conflate the two issues in ways which I strongly suspect Vaughters does not.

 

[Deagol]

... The post I was responding to was by no means a frothing diatribe about Lance The Great Satan, but even it did seem to me to conflate the two issues in ways which I strongly suspect Vaughters does not.

My guess is that you might be refering to my post :

....... The confession of an "untarnished" former LA team member would go a long way in breaking the wall of ignorance surrounding the casual fan. It would help seperate them from the talking points that have been spoon-fed to them for so long.

?

And I agree with you RE: Vaughters not conflating the two issues.
For me, the timing of this latest interview (being a reminder of JV's MO) and the Lance thing brings a compelling reason for him (JV) to change his MO since, just maybe, this could be a watershed moment for cycling. A proverbial straw to break the camel's back, perhaps...

But you are probably right, that's not his goal. I posit that some fans believe that he could be in a unique situation to do that, or at least significantly help it along, without sabotaging his own enterprise. I believe Garmin and JV would survive, and maybe be better off for it ...

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I don't think that very many people are in the business of damaging their own livelihoods. I don't think that this makes everyone a fraud. People are complex and they often have contradictory interests - As I've pointed out in previous posts, being dependent on professional cycling to pay your mortgage certainly predisposes people to prefer working for reform within the system rather than more drastic "destroy the village to save the village" solutions.

I don't disagree, but I think that Vaughters should be a bit more honest about this fact. He is on the inside, he has a very large financial and personal stake in maintaining the current regime. It isn't in his interests to see the UCI etc fall, media withdraw. But IMO this is wrong. He is ending up between two stools.

I think saying 'trust me' and his evasiveness is a little bit patronising to fans. He needs to stop playing the anti-doping coquette. Either he is anti-doping, which means he has to completely break omerta, or he isn't.

As I see it, you can not be anti-doping and maintain omerta, but his refusal to speak out publicly means to me that he is upholding omerta, and despite all of his claims, he is no better than Horner or Bottle.

If the village needs to be burnt down then so be it.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

My guess is that you might be refering to my post :

I think that I might actually have been confusing aspects of two different posts, one from you and one from someone else.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

It isn't in his interests to see the UCI etc fall, media withdraw.

I actually wouldn't be so sure about the UCI part.

If the UCI could be replaced relatively painlessly with something better, I don't think that it would necessarily be contrary to the interests of a team owner. And whatever else you can say about Vaughters, he clearly does not have a cosy and comfortable relationship with the UCI top brass. The UCI going down in flames, in the midst of a cataclysm which drives most major sponsors from the sport, wipes out many races and leaves the rest with much less coverage, well that's a different matter.

If the village needs to be burnt down then so be it.

To be blunt about it, that's an easy attitude for you or I to hold. I doubt if there's even one clean rider in the peloton who feels that way however, what with there being mortgages to pay and families to feed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My guess is that you might be refering to my post :

?

And I agree with you RE: Vaughters not conflating the two issues.
For me, the timing of this latest interview (being a reminder of JV's MO) and the Lance thing brings a compelling reason for him (JV) to change his MO since, just maybe, this could be a watershed moment for cycling. A proverbial straw to break the camel's back, perhaps...

But you are probably right, that's not his goal. I posit that some fans believe that he could be in a unique situation to do that, or at least significantly help it along, without sabotaging his own enterprise. I believe Garmin and JV would survive, and maybe be better off for it ...

To the highlighted, I agree.
I think JV would personally benefit from it.
Look at Frankie Andreu, only the LA apologists look badly at him and he does not get continued questions relating to his time at USPS.

The 'Blue Train' is derailed - it is only a matter of time before we hear the full story of what went on in USPS and that will include JV.

I'd very much doubt Garmin are not aware of JVs past - nor did they make any moves to distance themselves from when Zabriskie etc were named by Landis last year.

 

[hektoren]

I don't disagree, but I think that Vaughters should be a bit more honest about this fact. He is on the inside, he has a very large financial and personal stake in maintaining the current regime. It isn't in his interests to see the UCI etc fall, media withdraw. But IMO this is wrong. He is ending up between two stools.

I think saying 'trust me' and his evasiveness is a little bit patronising to fans. He needs to stop playing the anti-doping coquette. Either he is anti-doping, which means he has to completely break omerta, or he isn't.

As I see it, you can not be anti-doping and maintain omerta, but his refusal to speak out publicly means to me that he is upholding omerta, and despite all of his claims, he is no better than Horner or Bottle.

If the village needs to be burnt down then so be it.

My gripe with JV boils down to this, really: I refuse to acknowledge leaders who are economical about the truth. Probably overly naive and simplistic, but I just hope truth doesn't go out of fashion.

I don't really care that much whether JV doped or not. Or LA for that matter (I believe they did). What I do care about is a purgatory, a watershed moment where some of the facilitators are exposed. The networks, the money, the managers, the suppliers, the doctors.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I actually wouldn't be so sure about the UCI part.

If the UCI could be replaced relatively painlessly with something better, I don't think that it would necessarily be contrary to the interests of a team owner. And whatever else you can say about Vaughters, he clearly does not have a cosy and comfortable relationship with the UCI top brass. The UCI going down in flames, in the midst of a cataclysm which drives most major sponsors from the sport, wipes out many races and leaves the rest with much less coverage, well that's a different matter.



To be blunt about it, that's an easy attitude for you or I to hold. I doubt if there's even one clean rider in the peloton who feels that way however, what with there being mortgages to pay and families to feed.

I think these two go hand in hand. You can not get rid of the UCI without burning down the village. I don't think you can have minor reform because the sport is too far gone.

Either you have deep root and branch change, or you maintain the status quo.

I would suggest that if you are a clean rider then you almost certainly want a purge because you are currently being denied what is rightfully yours - wins, places, money, status, recognition.

If you are truly interested in seeing clean cycling I fail to see how you can want a reform which may leave the old guard still in place - ie get rid of McQuaid but Riis still hangs around.

Afterall, the worst case scenario is cycling ending up like Russia or Romania after Communism where you have a 'revolution' and all that ends up happening is that second tier Communists and their mates end up taking over.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I think these two go hand in hand. You can not get rid of the UCI without burning down the village. I don't think you can have minor reform because the sport is too far gone.

That's a perfectly reasonable position. In the context of this thread though, it's worth pointing out that you can disagree with it as a matter of tactics and strategy without being a fraud, a cynic, or pro-doping.

I would suggest that if you are a clean rider then you almost certainly want a purge because you are currently being denied what is rightfully yours - wins, places, money, status, recognition.

That's just the thing. If you are a clean rider you will certainly feel aggrieved at being cheated. But if the village is burnt to the ground, the likely effect is less in the way of wins, money, status, recognition because there are no sponsors, no TV coverage, few races, few or no professional contracts. And while something would probably rise from the ashes, it would be something smaller, with markedly less money to go around.

A sweatshop worker is all too aware that he's being ripped off. That doesn't mean that he'd thank you if you took a match to his place of work.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I agree that it is entirely a matter of tactics. I am a golani and remain hardline about these things. That is just my take on these things.

I think though you can be accused of being a fraud if you say one thing in public and do another in private. The Ketman of doping in professional side of the sport is one of the biggest problems (here I include riders, administrators, management and media).

Sweatshop workers is interesting. In my experience, (with landless peasants) they are the ones who form the shock troops of any radical movement that emerges when the revolution comes.

The flip-side is the inherent conservatism in normal circumstances which is borne of a permanently precarious economic and social position. ie don't do anything against the status quo in case we suffer.

 

[RigelKent]

Burn down the village? So debathification is the only answer? I've seen how that works out.
Absolutist garbage.

 

[pmcg76]

It is far to easy to say burn it to the ground but I have seen precious little evidence of how this would happen or how long it would take.

I know one of the conditions would be the removal of all current DSs who have been former riders but who is going to replace them, surely none of the current riders as the 'everyone dopes group' dont believe in them either.
What about the mechanics, masseurs, PR men. Surely they all have to go as well as they are part of the system. The question is, who is gonna replace all these people. The forumites?

Basically everyone involved in the current system would have to be purged, like Pol Pot, reverse it back to year zero no traces left and as a result we would have to wait 10-20 years maybe longer before they could all be replaced and the pro side of the sport could be re-started again. By then it would be so dead it would be unrevivable.

I would actually like to hear some idea of what this burning it to the ground BS would consist of. At least then we could actually comment on it.

My reccomendation would be a one year amnesty to let everyone get their **** sorted. Then 3-5 years of draconian zelo tolerance anti doping rules, one strike your gone along with the DS of the team. Of course this would necessitate removing anti-doping entirely from the UCI. Thing is no system is perfect and by human nature, people will return to cheating.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Not to be rude but why bother? You've already decided that anything other than your POV is BS and you aren't really very receptive to different ideas, so it'd be a bit of a waste of time trying to discuss the idea with you.

 

[pmcg76]

Not to be rude but why bother? You've already decided that anything other than your POV is BS and you aren't really very receptive to different ideas, so it'd be a bit of a waste of time trying to discuss the idea with you.

Forget what I think, put it out there for other forumites to see so they can see what comes next after the burn it to the ground.

Are you really that insecure about someone criticising your opinions?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

No, I just have better things to do than talk to people who aren't listening or interested in listening.

 

[tubularglue]

It is possible his lips are sewn shut, per investigation.

He is open to dialogue, not many in that position

Nice to read about it unfolding

For those who watch something built, it usually follows a deconstruction

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

We expect anyone in our organization who is contacted by any cycling, anti-doping, or government authority will be open and honest with that authority. In that context, we expect nothing short of 100% truthfulness

Well, that's fine, because I'm not going to be dishonest. I mean, if people ask me a direct question I'm not going to be dishonest about it.

Now explain the SCA deposition and "I believe Floyd is innocent".

 

[AussieGoddess]

I honestly thing people expecting him to come out and confess to all publicly simply to appease them are expecting too much.

He has not denied doping in his days at USPS. He simply avoids the question or refuses to answer. That isnt a lie ....

He is in a position to be ABLE to make some of the changes we are all calling for. He wont be in that position if he comes out and expressly admits things.

He is able to have a clean team. He is able to promote it as being clean, trying to assist and promote riders who are willing to ride clean. Trying to SHOW that its possible in this sport .... to make a difference so that the new crop coming through (cyclists, DS's and everyone else working with the team) CAN possibly have a chance at doing it differently.

Just taking down the UCI wont do it. The cyclists themselves have to see that everyone taking PED's isnt good. The cyclists themselves have to want to change .....

and JV can help in ways that we - who are not insiders - cannot.