Vandevelde interview - hope for a clean peloton

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
thehog said:
I'm reading my post again. Where's is this claim you claim I made?
Well then why are you too jaded and cyclical if you do not believe that the sport is still affected to a reasonable degree by doping?
What other factors are influencing your opinion?
 
Froome19 said:
Well then why are you too jaded and cyclical if you do not believe that the sport is still affected to a reasonable degree by doping?
What other factors are influencing your opinion?
Oh please. Don't insert yourself into a 487 page thread and shriek OMG stop trying to destroy cycling.

Keep up!

My comments weren't that the sport is "riddled" with doping or that its rotten to the core. Far from it.

The thread is about cyclists proclaiming that by winning the Giro its a victory for "clean cycling".

Be that as it may we're still coming out the other end 13 years of "never tested positive' and "won those Tour clean".

That's why the fans are jaded. They've heard this before. They heard in 1999 that cycling had cleaned up its act. They heard it in 2006 etc.

Hearing it again 2012 well you get my drift.... it takes time to digest it the 14th time over.

Now Tour time is upon us. Careers are made a broken. If I see team Sky paceline a track rider up mountains to win by 8 minutes then where will we be?

If Andy Shelck goes a little crazy and puts 9 minutes into the peloton to erase his time trial loses after dropping out all season where will we be?

If you want to believe then fine. I won't burst your bubble. But my opinion is my own after seeing it time and time again. It will end in tears. Always does.

Thats why the fans are cynical. And that's why we don't reason well with "victory for clean cycling" type statements.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
JV1973 said:
These values all exist - and have for over 20 yrs. Luis Herrera used to break 1600VAM quite frequently in mid-80's Giros. I actually use this as a yardstick a bit..
Thx for the response...you're getting a myriad of questions from all sides, yikes.

I am aware of most parameters being tested/researched for in cycling physiology. But, what I was trying to describe was the possibility combining all factors ( Biometric(VO2, power), urine, plasma, VAMs...) together, over the course of a Grand tour and then compiling a growing registry over the years...which would be a formidable set of numbers after say 10 yrs. That may seem daunting but if done for 3 GTs, by say 5 teams, year by year an illuminary collection of data would be at your, and devoted cycling fans, 'shifters'. The more data the higher the specificity and precision of 'real' results, blah blah blah, you know all this.

If that is what you meant by they all exist, then I'm sorry. And getting the UCI to empower such a registry may be daunting or just plain bloody impossible with all that sickening corruption (no response to that is expected of course). Maybe GB, Spidertech, TT1, BMC(?), GreenEdge(?)...would do it?

Cheers, and good luck in July.

NW
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
JV1973 said:
When I say stuff is cleaning up, I'm not basing that on "the racing looks different" or whatever crap people sometimes spew. It's based on numbers and keeping track of those numbers for a long time.
That is one of the reasons I am against Race Radio's. The technology exists today where an unscupulous team mathmatician could montor the numbers from the team car and crunch the numbers - and advise a juiced rider to ease up before alarm bells start ringing in forum clinics around the world. "Put on a Pain Cave Face and slow down a bit mayday mayday".

Let the riders do the maths in their own heads please. Same thing with chasing down breakaways. Let the riders do the math. Let the riders decide when to pee too fcol.

Going off tangent a bit - how do you feel about reconning the climbs/descents on the tough stages? I was flabbergasted last year to hear Tommy D admit he never rode the galiber. What is that all about?

Or better yet, since the DS's are so important in the mix via race radios - how about having the DS's reconn ride the stages themselves in order to impart better info.

Anyway, I hope we are seeing the end of race radios. In the TdF at least.

ps...I agree with you on the effectiveness of lower gearing and higher cadences duh. Seeing Alberto in a 32 tooth last year was beautiful. Apex rear deraileur IIRC.
 
thehog said:
Oh please. Don't insert yourself into a 487 page thread and shriek OMG stop trying to destroy cycling.

Keep up!

My comments weren't that the sport is "riddled" with doping or that its rotten to the core. Far from it.

The thread is about cyclists proclaiming that by winning the Giro its a victory for "clean cycling".

Be that as it may we're still coming out the other end 13 years of "never tested positive' and "won those Tour clean".

That's why the fans are jaded. They've heard this before. They heard in 1999 that cycling had cleaned up its act. They heard it in 2006 etc.

Hearing it again 2012 well you get my drift.... it takes time to digest it the 14th time over.

Now Tour time is upon us. Careers are made a broken. If I see team Sky paceline a track rider up mountains to win by 8 minutes then where will we be?

If Andy Shelck goes a little crazy and puts 9 minutes into the peloton to erase his time trial loses after dropping out all season where will we be?

If you want to believe then fine. I won't burst your bubble. But my opinion is my own after seeing it time and time again. It will end in tears. Always does.

Thats why the fans are cynical. And that's why we don't reason well with "victory for clean cycling" type statements.
Well said Hog.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
JV1973 said:
Bikes don't have 6 speed regina freewheels with a 13-21 anymore either. Wake up and smell the progress.
Don't be a Fred. We used Maillard.

Here you are, three weeks before the tour, trying to convince a bunch of message board puds that cycling is clean again? Why do you need us to believe?

JV, the UCI underground PR guy.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Froome19 said:
I dont post in the clinic much yet I really dont understand what evidence you have to claim that the sport is still riddled with doping.
The doping cases have almost ceased and this is certainly not due to riders being more crafty as the officials will also have picked up their game with the development of more advanced technology.
That is an ignorant statement. Did you miss the conversation about the lack of biopass testing in general from e.g. Vroomen? Or the lack of testing of Carlos 9/10 Baredo? Or the lack of testing at ToC? Do you even know what the 9/10 reffers to? How about the odd delay in announcing Contador's AAF? Do you know what an AAF is? Did you also miss the fact that the UCI promised to report quarterly on the number tests but that they haven't done it?

One of a number of reasons I give Vaughters and Garmin the benefit of the doubt (over and above other "clean" teams) is that JV is frequently locking horns with the UCI. No team manager hoping for special treatment for their riders is going to do that.

Much of the wailing and gnashing of teeth is about people feeling insulted or disappointed by being duped in the past.

Vaughters gets a lot of flack for not "telling all" on the record. But I don't share that view. Firstly, some people seem to make the assumption that JV could effect more change in cycling by making risky public statements than he could by offering some possibilities of a different future within the peloton. I doubt they are right, but they could be. So what? It's possible that Vaughters has made a mistake in believing he can do the most from the inside. But as long as he genuinely is working towards the values he says he is working towards, that's ok by me. Secondly, no other DS has voluntarily come close to admitting anything like as much as Vaughters did. So I don't see it as a lack of honesty on his part, just a decision to avoid going into the detail that could see a whole load of **** rain down on his head for nothing.

I am surprised by the comment that most people think cycling is clean though. I often raise the subject of cycling with random people to see what they will say, and the overwhelming majority say they are all dopers. I did meet a cardiologist who thought Armstrong was clean though. Hopefully she knows more about cardiology:eek:. It really wasn't till I started reading the clinic I realized that it was possible that not every cyclist dopes.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
thehog said:
Oh please. Don't insert yourself into a 487 page thread and shriek OMG stop trying to destroy cycling.

Keep up!

My comments weren't that the sport is "riddled" with doping or that its rotten to the core. Far from it.

The thread is about cyclists proclaiming that by winning the Giro its a victory for "clean cycling".

Be that as it may we're still coming out the other end 13 years of "never tested positive' and "won those Tour clean".

That's why the fans are jaded. They've heard this before. They heard in 1999 that cycling had cleaned up its act. They heard it in 2006 etc.

Hearing it again 2012 well you get my drift.... it takes time to digest it the 14th time over.

Now Tour time is upon us. Careers are made a broken. If I see team Sky paceline a track rider up mountains to win by 8 minutes then where will we be?

If Andy Shelck goes a little crazy and puts 9 minutes into the peloton to erase his time trial loses after dropping out all season where will we be?

If you want to believe then fine. I won't burst your bubble. But my opinion is my own after seeing it time and time again. It will end in tears. Always does.

Thats why the fans are cynical. And that's why we don't reason well with "victory for clean cycling" type statements.
Your claim is identical to claiming that all the GT winners are doping.

Why should you be cynical if it is obvious that the doping cases have ceased and likewise the bans and controversy, (though they have not totally stopped).
That they are making these claims in an era which is different to the previous one should not incite such cyncism because it is evident that in 06 you heard these claims yet the doping was still rife.
It is a simple logic of looking at it in a chronological order where cycling has slowly weaned itself off drugs and it was evident that it wasnt up to that standard in 06.
As you admitted yourself we are coming out of the 13 years of these shenanigans and therefore rather than being in the middle of it as in 06etc the level is obvious to your eyes and everybody elses that it is considerably lower and therefore such cycncism is not justified.
It wouild be understandable if there were still doping cases but since 10 and Contador there havent really been high profile ones (maybe Galimzyanov) and this is obviously down to a decline in doping which means that it is more likely that when these riders say they win the Giro clean they actually have.
 
Froome19 said:
Why should you be cynical if it is obvious that the doping cases have ceased and likewise the bans and controversy, (though they have not totally stopped).
Good god, are you for real?

You should let JV handle this. He obviously doesn't appreciate our cynicism, but he understands perfectly well why we became cynics, and why changing our minds is not that easy. That should give you a clue not to get into the debate with such inane comments.

By the way, JV, kudos on taking this one straight on. You've posted in similar threads before, but never got so involved. While I'm still a bit of a cynic (not as much as others here though), maybe you'll like to hear the openness with which you're discussing this does help making me see you and your team in a better, more believable light. I'm still not sold because 20 years of following the sport have left some pretty gruesome scars, but what can you do, right.

About the believable W/kg ratios and VAM numbers, would you agree that, if the top riders were clean(ish) or weren't getting much of a boost not to exceed the red flag figures that would pretty much automatically identify them as dopers, that still leaves room for less talented riders to get themselves up to those levels? Their performances would be consistent with what you can expect from a clean top level athlete and GT contender and from the Herreras of the past, but they would still be unnaturally boosted. And the result of that would be less differences between the top riders, closer races, relative nobodies beating or being close to seasoned GT contenders in stage races throughout the year. Which is consistent with what we're seeing now
 
Jan 10, 2012
452
0
0
hrotha said:
that still leaves room for less talented riders to get themselves up to those levels? Their performances would be consistent with what you can expect from a clean top level athlete and GT contender and from the Herreras of the past, but they would still be unnaturally boosted. And the result of that would be less differences between the top riders, closer races, relative nobodies beating or being close to seasoned GT contenders in stage races throughout the year. Which is consistent with what we're seeing now
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. It's also consistent with the fact that you can micro-dose EPO quite safely, especially if you're not too high profile. If you don't overdo it, you won't get tested that often (to say the least). And if you make sure that you never give away your (first) morning urine (A.K.A. let your wife open the door and hurry to the bathroom if the doorbell rings early in the morning) there is definitely some room left to unnaturally boost your level and contribute to today's leveling..
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
hrotha said:
You should let JV handle this. He obviously doesn't appreciate our cynicism, but he understands perfectly well why we became cynics, and why changing our minds is not that easy. That should give you a clue not to get into the debate with such inane comments.

By the way, JV, kudos on taking this one straight on. You've posted in similar threads before, but never got so involved. While I'm still a bit of a cynic (not as much as others here though), maybe you'll like to hear the openness with which you're discussing this does help making me see you and your team in a better, more believable light. I'm still not sold because 20 years of following the sport have left some pretty gruesome scars, but what can you do, right.
So your answer is that you guys are finding it difficult to adapt and change your way of thinking.
Of course you can become cynics, but remaining cynics is just a manifestation of a narrow mindset.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
That is an ignorant statement. Did you miss the conversation about the lack of biopass testing in general from e.g. Vroomen? Or the lack of testing of Carlos 9/10 Baredo? Or the lack of testing at ToC? Do you even know what the 9/10 reffers to? How about the odd delay in announcing Contador's AAF? Do you know what an AAF is? Did you also miss the fact that the UCI promised to report quarterly on the number tests but that they haven't done it?

One of a number of reasons I give Vaughters and Garmin the benefit of the doubt (over and above other "clean" teams) is that JV is frequently locking horns with the UCI. No team manager hoping for special treatment for their riders is going to do that.

Much of the wailing and gnashing of teeth is about people feeling insulted or disappointed by being duped in the past.

Vaughters gets a lot of flack for not "telling all" on the record. But I don't share that view. Firstly, some people seem to make the assumption that JV could effect more change in cycling by making risky public statements than he could by offering some possibilities of a different future within the peloton. I doubt they are right, but they could be. So what? It's possible that Vaughters has made a mistake in believing he can do the most from the inside. But as long as he genuinely is working towards the values he says he is working towards, that's ok by me. Secondly, no other DS has voluntarily come close to admitting anything like as much as Vaughters did. So I don't see it as a lack of honesty on his part, just a decision to avoid going into the detail that could see a whole load of **** rain down on his head for nothing.

I am surprised by the comment that most people think cycling is clean though. I often raise the subject of cycling with random people to see what they will say, and the overwhelming majority say they are all dopers. I did meet a cardiologist who thought Armstrong was clean though. Hopefully she knows more about cardiology:eek:. It really wasn't till I started reading the clinic I realized that it was possible that not every cyclist dopes.
I never cliamed that the officials were more efficient rather I said that they have the capabilities of using much better techniques etc all of whch will contribute to them being able to catch dopers more. And even if they are ineficient it doesnt mean that they wontcatch dopers as they regardless still test in situations which could just as likely involve doping and they do not come out with any positive tests. Effectively some may slip out of the new due to ineficiency but yet if you are not catching any then it is evident that none are slipping out of the net.
 
Froome19 said:
So your answer is that you guys are finding it difficult to adapt and change your way of thinking.
Of course you can become cynics, but remaining cynics is just a manifestation of a narrow mindset.
So what is this evidence that these "narrow minds" are supposedly ignoring?
 
Froome19 said:
The number of riders having been caught, for doping in the past 2 years..
So you figure that the only influence on the number of positive tests is the number of people doping? A decrease in the number of positives is the result of an equally proportionate decrease in the number of cyclists using banned substances/methods?

Might be wise to look at your own assumptions before you start calling other people narrow minded.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
thehog said:
. . .

Moving on... you need to stop referring to "the 12 guys in the Clinic". Why post here if there's only 12 guys! :roll eyes: You know as well as most here a lot of people read the Clinic as a news site. Its just that many don't post.. . .
Yeah - last count I got was 22! :D

I think he is just trying to say this is a very small group - and I have to agree.

I've noticed that these forums can be that way. The group might be 12, or it might be 200 - it is still very small - and often they are dominated by a few personalities. I imagine you are probably quite aware of this, but I couldn't pass up the chance for the humor!
 
Froome19 said:
So your answer is that you guys are finding it difficult to adapt and change your way of thinking.
Of course you can become cynics, but remaining cynics is just a manifestation of a narrow mindset.
Yes, it's hard to think differently when there's little evidence to suggest things have changed. I don't see where you're seeing this decrease in doping cases, honestly. What we *are* seeing though is a decrease in controls.
 
May 9, 2012
46
0
0
JV1973 said:
These values all exist - and have for over 20 yrs. Luis Herrera used to break 1600VAM quite frequently in mid-80's Giros. I actually use this as a yardstick a bit. There was no oxygen vector doping at the time, and Herrera was the most talented climber out there.
Of course there were oxygen vector doping in the 1980's. There certainly were no EPO or Cera. Which I would term synthetic oxygen vector doping. But blood doping methods were being widely used to increase the amount of oxygen carrying red blood cells which increased the athlete's aerobic capacity and endurance. And there is currently no accepted testing method that can detect an autologous blood transfusion.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Stravoski said:
Of course there were oxygen vector doping in the 1980's. There certainly were no EPO or Cera. Which I would term synthetic oxygen vector doping. But blood doping methods were being widely used to increase the amount of oxygen carrying red blood cells which increased the athlete's aerobic capacity and endurance. And there is currently no accepted testing method that can detect an autologous blood transfusion.
Please share with us any evidence of a rider using transfusions during a Grand Tour in the 80's.

thanks
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
hrotha said:
Yes, it's hard to think differently when there's little evidence to suggest things have changed. I don't see where you're seeing this decrease in doping cases, honestly. What we *are* seeing though is a decrease in controls.
From 2006 to 2010 you saw a massive increase in controls. The past 18 months has seen a 30% decrease as the UCI pushes money toward races in China and team drop their internal testing programs. Regardless OOC testing is still 10X what it was in the early 2000's.

There is clearly a decrease in climbing speeds for the majority of riders. in 1997 60 riders broke 45 minutes on Alp d'Huez. Last years short stage saw 18 riders crack 45.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Don't be a Fred. We used Maillard.

Here you are, three weeks before the tour, trying to convince a bunch of message board puds that cycling is clean again? Why do you need us to believe?

JV, the UCI underground PR guy.
You have got to be joking. The UCI would rather I be put out to pasture...face down.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
That is an ignorant statement. Did you miss the conversation about the lack of biopass testing in general from e.g. Vroomen? Or the lack of testing of Carlos 9/10 Baredo? Or the lack of testing at ToC? Do you even know what the 9/10 reffers to? How about the odd delay in announcing Contador's AAF? Do you know what an AAF is? Did you also miss the fact that the UCI promised to report quarterly on the number tests but that they haven't done it?

One of a number of reasons I give Vaughters and Garmin the benefit of the doubt (over and above other "clean" teams) is that JV is frequently locking horns with the UCI. No team manager hoping for special treatment for their riders is going to do that. .

Much of the wailing and gnashing of teeth is about people feeling insulted or disappointed by being duped in the past.

Vaughters gets a lot of flack for not "telling all" on the record. But I don't share that view. Firstly, some people seem to make the assumption that JV could effect more change in cycling by making risky public statements than he could by offering some possibilities of a different future within the peloton. I doubt they are right, but they could be. So what? It's possible that Vaughters has made a mistake in believing he can do the most from the inside. But as long as he genuinely is working towards the values he says he is working towards, that's ok by me. Secondly, no other DS has voluntarily come close to admitting anything like as much as Vaughters did. So I don't see it as a lack of honesty on his part, just a decision to avoid going into the detail that could see a whole load of **** rain down on his head for nothing.
Agree with everything you say - but just to the highlighted, I was one of those who thought JV should reveal his past, and by the flack I got I would say mine was the minority viewpoint.

Also, my view at the time was mainly because I thought the Blue Train was about to be derailed by the Feds, and that in the view of ordinary sports fans (not just the 12 here in the Clinic :) ) would be to divide the former riders in to "repentant doper" (people who made public admissions) and everyone else, and JV would have been thrown in with the latter group, meaning in the general sports view he would be viewed no differently then Riis or JB.
I Watch Cycling In July said:
I am surprised by the comment that most people think cycling is clean though. I often raise the subject of cycling with random people to see what they will say, and the overwhelming majority say they are all dopers. I did meet a cardiologist who thought Armstrong was clean though. Hopefully she knows more about cardiology:eek:. It really wasn't till I started reading the clinic I realized that it was possible that not every cyclist dopes.
Very true- when talking sports to others who follow other sports they are quick to say "they are all on drugs" when discussing cycling, and these people are involved in sports like tennis, rugby etc.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Stravoski said:
Of course there were oxygen vector doping in the 1980's. There certainly were no EPO or Cera. Which I would term synthetic oxygen vector doping. But blood doping methods were being widely used to increase the amount of oxygen carrying red blood cells which increased the athlete's aerobic capacity and endurance. And there is currently no accepted testing method that can detect an autologous blood transfusion.

You are correct. However, due to misinformation regarding its efficacy and lack of knowledge for execution, I don't think Cafe de Colombia were using it back then. Low probability anyhow.

Its like the '84 US Olympic team. The track guys did it, the road guys didn't...because it didn't work great for road racing. HAH!
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Agree with everything you say - but just to the highlighted, I was one of those who thought JV should reveal his past, and by the flack I got I would say mine was the minority viewpoint.

Also, my view at the time was mainly because I thought the Blue Train was about to be derailed by the Feds, and that in the view of ordinary sports fans (not just the 12 here in the Clinic :) ) would be to divide the former riders in to "repentant doper" (people who made public admissions) and everyone else, and JV would have been thrown in with the latter group, meaning in the general sports view he would be viewed no differently then Riis or JB.


Very true- when talking sports to others who follow other sports they are quick to say "they are all on drugs" when discussing cycling, and these people are involved in sports like tennis, rugby etc.

So, Riis' book is about gardening?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY