Vandevelde interview - hope for a clean peloton

[blackcat]

2. I really dislike the general philosophy of B-M. Would never hire them as a PR agency. you've really got to speculate better going forward.

re: Burson Marstellar
I was using the tobacco industry weapon of choice, more metaphor, as largescale newspeak and disinformation.

I never used it in terms, 1+1= 2. That was miscalculation to believe I was speaking gospel, instead of with licence.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

and you need to reconcile Contador. Really. And when Ricco was doing funny things back in 2008 or whenever SSChipotle debuted, that first hilltop finish, CvdV was off the front too, before Kirchen and Schumacher were juggling the win.

Please, tell us again how you know Moncoutie is a doper.

 

[blackcat]

Please, tell us again how you know Moncoutie is a doper.

Wrong Question.

Right question is, how do I know he is clean?

I know Moncoutie is clean, because we are told so. Like Millar talked about how crazy Gaumont was. Orwell told me Moncoutie is clean and I believe him.

Evans is clean. Moncoutie is clean.

these folks, and Christian Vandevelde, and Ryder.

All bread and water. They are pure. If you wish to believe

Alot believed in Tyler. He was a very nice person, by all reports.

 

[blackcat]

Wiggins too

 

[Polish]

three things, Mr. Cat:

1. You're a sociopath. Truly. One who believes his own created misinformation to a degree that he actually believes it to be reality = You. Not a criticism, just factual.

2. I really dislike the general philosophy of B-M. Would never hire them as a PR agency. you've really got to speculate better going forward.

3. You consistently spread untruthful information. This is ethically repugnant. Perhaps you should consider that in the future.

Mr Cat is a sociopath? Truly?
Has he tested positive for that?
Sure, if you connect the dots and consider who Mr Cat hangs around with - yikes he is a sociopath. But we in the Clinis like links. Do you have a link proving Mr Cat really IS a sociopath?

Look JV, if you are going to dish it out, please learn to take it too. If you are going to dish out a clean team mantra, expect to hear lots of dirty team stuff too. Expect a lot of the dirty team stuff to be aimed at your team. If you are going to hold yourself up as a clean team - what do you expect? Extra extra scutiny. Not a free pass. I would say HTFU, but then someone would post the bee-sting picture grrrr ouch.

 

[MarkvW]

I actually prefer it when riders don't say anything about 'cleaner cycling'. To pretend that the sport has made any kind of moral shift with regards doping does nothing but insult the people who are in some way knowledgeable about the professional milleu.

Professional cycling has been (and still is) about not getting caught. Any sport which is happy to have Johan B. or Riis as a DS is not a sport that's policing itself. To start giving it hi-fives cause you can apparently win clean is a premature - cycling is nowhere near where it needs to be in order to have ANY credibility as a clean sport.

CVV must think we've all just fallen out of a tree. We can't take professional cycling's word for it because professional cycling has done nothing but lie to us for 20+ years.

VdV is actually saying something constructive here. He is telling young riders that there is a chance of success now for people who do not dope.

 

[blackcat]

Polish, brings clarity. Ta mate.

<nonexistantthumbsupconningemotion>

 

[BroDeal]

Slipstream is one of the main reasons that I have no faith at all in pro cycling these days. I have a hard time watching it anymore. Tommy D I could understand. If he put together a consistent three week performance to win a GT then I could probably buy that. But Vandevelde? Ryder winning a GT? Freaking Wigans being a genuine bet to win the Tour? We have entered the bizzaro world. They all come out of the program of a man who goes to bed every night reading The Big Book of a 1001 Ways to Avoid Telling the Truth. When he is not garnering free publicity by playing the clean team card, he is telling guys like Landis not to name names. I cannot have any faith in this man or anyone associated with him.

I cannot have faith in a bunch of English speaking schmoes who unexpectedly turned themselves into grand tour contenders nor a sport that seems intent on courting media dollars from outside continental Europe by manipulating race courses to produce a replacement for Armstrong.

 

[rhubroma]

I can't see how cycling, or any pro sport for that matter, is cleaner, when it is a business. One which has gone into a nefarious liaison with science and all the pharmacological revelations. It's the market, it's human nature, it's implacable.

For sport to be cleaner we need at least one of these last three facets to change, but this isn’t possible and never has been. Only an earth shattering catastrophe might have a chance.

 

[blackcat]

JV. Who gives a crap if you are clean.

We dont care.

We care on the meta. You say clean. But we then get the truth, =/= clean. Lets buy Contador. Lets buy Cav.

I think most in this forum, me included, could not care if riders dope. As long as we get the truth about it. Naive? Definitely, manifest naivety.

If everyone rides on the same plane, I am happy for that. But I dont want Russian riders getting done, and Rasmussen getting pulled when he wins the Tour, when they are doing nothing differently, but we have some teams preaching.

Dont preach. Dont necessarily do a mea culpa. Just dont make your strategic positioning, as Armstrong is to Cancer, Slipstream is to ethical cycling, when ethical = clean -> clean plus not doping. One thing counts in pro sport. The W.

Compete on even terms. But dont position yourself as the holier than thou team. Cos that is not the truth.

When I see Russians and Rasmussen pay the price as fall guys and caped goats, I get indignant and resentful.

Not at McQuaid. I get resentful at being sold the bill of goods by a team marketing itself into the equivalent of Armstrongs cancer niche.

The irony is, Trent Lowe, may just be one of the clean guys, and was jettisoned and held out as a guy to take the fall for Matt White. White was the one who took him to the doping doc. Lowe is by my mail, on the up. (I will willing cop the allegation of hypocisy here, and this seeming (actually) a shift in my usual position when I have jumped at shadows. But I got good mail, from a few sources on TL.

Stop the talk. Just win on the road. I will not rag on you. But pop your head above the parapet and talk about ethics in the terms of clean and not doping, then I will villify.

Also, I cant reconcile a position, where I can approve riders taking androgens and off label pharmaceuticals, and smuggling them cross borders. I dont want pro sports athletes, having to dope, and having to break the law, to compete. But the jingoism, and the mythology and nationalism that enters the sphere when you have olympics and internation professional sports, is promoting athletes as winning. Or only recognising the W. Motivation and incentivising. Effectively underwriting and endorsing doping. So how is this then illegal on an ethical level, when you have the entire world come olympics only giving a hoot about a W. Not how the sausage was made.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

How long did Íñigo San Millán stay on as team doctor there? I know he was hired in 2009, and he's now at United Healthcare. He was hired on recommendation from Allen Lim, and is reputed as a key exponent of clean cycling (most of that seems to tie back to a Cyclingnews article of 2009) - though his team history before Garmin was ONCE-Eroski, Saunier Duval and the 2007 Astana team, which isn't the most encouraging.

If you ever want to truly cringe at the whole Garmin clean cycling thing, read through this - it's excruciating.

"Allen (Lim) did a lot of work to develop this programme - this is a continuation of that," said San Millán.

"It's a far more modern team than other squads. To me, it's a whole new concept of cycling team. I think the anglo-saxon mentality towards cycling is completely different to the European one; [anglo-saxon riders] are very, very open to gaining new information on their bodies and physiology over time, so that they can improve their performance.

"They're very well educated in a lot of concepts such as power, lactate thresholds and heartrate. It makes it much easier to work with them as opposed to Europeans, who it can be more difficult to educate in these methodologies."

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.

"Overall, one of the reasons Garmin has been so successful has been because of that modern mentality. Because of that, they're always on the same page in terms of modern technologies, innovation and, ultimately, information. Compared to European teams, who do have a different, more traditional mentality," said San Millán.

San Millán stayed in Colorado but made several trips to the team's base in Girona (mmm, that is very inauspicious); the in-house guy there was Dr Carlos González Haro. He was involved in the Olympic Training Centre in Barcelona and as an applied physiologist for Real Madrid in 2008-9, but I don't know anything else about him.

Garmin are obviously very keen on the sports science side of things, but to be honest, finding people with no doping taint whatsoever is always going to be difficult, as Sky found very quickly, quietly dropping their "nobody involved in doping ever" philosophy - maybe they can find riders who haven't been involved, but finding experienced DSes and doctors who haven't been involved in the bad old days is pretty difficult.

 

[rhubroma]

How long did Íñigo San Millán stay on as team doctor there? I know he was hired in 2009, and he's now at United Healthcare. He was hired on recommendation from Allen Lim, and is reputed as a key exponent of clean cycling (most of that seems to tie back to a Cyclingnews article of 2009) - though his team history before Garmin was ONCE-Eroski, Saunier Duval and the 2007 Astana team, which isn't the most encouraging.

If you ever want to truly cringe at the whole Garmin clean cycling thing, read through this - it's excruciating.




San Millán stayed in Colorado but made several trips to the team's base in Girona (mmm, that is very inauspicious); the in-house guy there was Dr Carlos González Haro. He was involved in the Olympic Training Centre in Barcelona and as an applied physiologist for Real Madrid in 2008-9, but I don't know anything else about him.

Garmin are obviously very keen on the sports science side of things, but to be honest, finding people with no doping taint whatsoever is always going to be difficult, as Sky found very quickly, quietly dropping their "nobody involved in doping ever" philosophy - maybe they can find riders who haven't been involved, but finding experienced DSes and doctors who haven't been involved in the bad old days is pretty difficult.

What utter BS about Europeans not being up on the science bit of sport physiology. Obviously he hasn't heard of Conconi, Ferrari, the Mapei clinic.

Why is it that the Brits (strange, as I thought Anglo was European ) and the Americans have this sense of "other," where other means more enlightened, more prepared, more progressive, cutting edge and, of course (but how could we forget), more wholesome.

 

[Eusebio Kino]

JV. Who gives a crap if you are clean.

We dont care.

We care on the meta. You say clean. But we then get the truth, =/= clean. Lets buy Contador. Lets buy Cav.

I think most in this forum, me included, could not care if riders dope. As long as we get the truth about it. Naive? Definitely, manifest naivety.

If everyone rides on the same plane, I am happy for that. But I dont want Russian riders getting done, and Rasmussen getting pulled when he wins the Tour, when they are doing nothing differently, but we have some teams preaching.

Dont preach. Dont necessarily do a mea culpa. Just dont make your strategic positioning, as Armstrong is to Cancer, Slipstream is to ethical cycling, when ethical = clean -> clean plus not doping. One thing counts in pro sport. The W.

Compete on even terms. But dont position yourself as the holier than thou team. Cos that is not the truth.

When I see Russians and Rasmussen pay the price as fall guys and caped goats, I get indignant and resentful.

Not at McQuaid. I get resentful at being sold the bill of goods by a team marketing itself into the equivalent of Armstrongs cancer niche.

The irony is, Trent Lowe, may just be one of the clean guys, and was jettisoned and held out as a guy to take the fall for Matt White. White was the one who took him to the doping doc. Lowe is by my mail, on the up. (I will willing cop the allegation of hypocisy here, and this seeming (actually) a shift in my usual position when I have jumped at shadows. But I got good mail, from a few sources on TL.

Stop the talk. Just win on the road. I will not rag on you. But pop your head above the parapet and talk about ethics in the terms of clean and not doping, then I will villify.

Also, I cant reconcile a position, where I can approve riders taking androgens and off label pharmaceuticals, and smuggling them cross borders. I dont want pro sports athletes, having to dope, and having to break the law, to compete. But the jingoism, and the mythology and nationalism that enters the sphere when you have olympics and internation professional sports, is promoting athletes as winning. Or only recognising the W. Motivation and incentivising. Effectively underwriting and endorsing doping. So how is this then illegal on an ethical level, when you have the entire world come olympics only giving a hoot about a W. Not how the sausage was made.

Never really had the concept that cycling, nor professional sports were ethical. I don't need to have a magnifying glass to see the truth, whether it be JV, Millar, Armstrong, etc.
However, I disagree about Rassmusson. He already had been implicated earlier, having a friend transport PEDs surreptitiously. Missing drug tests, and lying about his whereabouts I would call Rassmusson a 3 striker. Not as many strikes as Betini, or DiLuca, but nevertheless, Rassmusson deserved the boot from the Tour, even if his competition was dirty.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Tommy D I could understand. If he put together a consistent three week performance to win a GT then I could probably buy that. But Vandevelde? Ryder winning a GT? Freaking Wigans being a genuine bet to win the Tour? We have entered the bizzaro world.

But couldn't their successes demonstrate that the peloton is cleaner? If the peloton were clean, which riders do you think would be winning GTs? It would be interesting to know?

They all come out of the program of a man who goes to bed every night reading The Big Book of a 1001 Ways to Avoid Telling the Truth.

I feel that is an unnecessary attack on a fellow forum member.

 

[Stravoski]

I can't see how cycling, or any pro sport for that matter, is cleaner, when it is a business. One which has gone into a nefarious liaison with science and all the pharmacological revelations. It's the market, it's human nature, it's implacable.

For sport to be cleaner we need at least one of these last three facets to change, but this isn’t possible and never has been. Only an earth shattering catastrophe might have a chance.

Clean sport belongs in the realms of mythology. Cycling and numerous other sports have, and will always have a certain element of an individualistic and systematic approach to chemical enhancement in order to achieve victory, fame and fortune.

 

[blackcat]

You don't speak for everyone on this forum so don't be playing to it. You say you don't give a crap if they are clean. Should'nt you hope they are clean? For you the answer is no because like you said above you don't care if riders dope. So why are you talking about the issue if you have this position?

You then say everyone compete on even terms. So if everyone is doping you would'nt care one bit because "everyone is then competing on even terms"? Again what a load of rubbish.

Just don't come on here with some hullabaloo speech and call out JV and Garmin and then say a load of nonsense that you don't care if riders dope.

I know that riders use means.

Now I do.

What I resent, is the bill of goods.

You pass thru many stages. One of them is the disenchantment, and disillusion. You then think, "oh, just stop taking us for lackeys"

My preference is for none to dope. See my conflict with prosport inviting athletes to a domain where they are valued on victory. And given every motivation and affirmation to "do what is required" (anything).

I dont wanna see athletes have to compromise themselves by the law.

Now, just ignore that for this thought experiment, and your entry position is they are all charging (at the pointy end) and they are given every validation in their pursuit of excellence and performance and the W.

At that point, I dont want to be given a fluff about ethics and clean cycling.

But, I am quite realistic, my POV and position I just iterated is just as deluded, as anyone I have criticised. I dont think I speak from a sound position in terms of the logic clarity. Certainly NOT.

 

[hrotha]

But couldn't their successes demonstrate that the peloton is cleaner? If the peloton were clean, which riders do you think would be winning GTs? It would be interesting to know?

It's a bit surprising when so many of those new achievers that can do better in a cleaner peloton (despite their own dirty past) ride for the same team.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

It's a bit surprising when so many of those new achievers that can do better in a cleaner peloton (despite their own dirty past) ride for the same team.

Not really. It's where the talented riders who think they can do it without dope wanted to be, so as the peloton gets cleaner it's no surprise Garmin and Sky have the edge.

I'd like to put that question out there again. If the peloton were clean, which riders would you expect to win?

 

[Polish]

But couldn't their successes demonstrate that the peloton is cleaner? If the peloton were clean, which riders do you think would be winning GTs? It would be interesting to know?
.

I don't think it matters. The same riders would be winning.

If the 90's were 100% clean, the top50 riders would be pretty much the same as they were. Silly to think otherwise imo. Although maybe Big Mig would have won 6 TdF's in a row. Maybe seven. He was truly awesome. Beast.

 

[blackcat]

no one knows.

but fair supposition. The pure climber who can compete for GC makes a comeback.

The light guy weighing 60 kgs dripping wet.

Apart from Ricco and Contador, there have been few who have really lit it up on the queen stages in the last two decades.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

I don't think it matters. The same riders would be winning.

If the 90's were 100% clean, the top50 riders would be pretty much the same as they were. Silly to think otherwise imo. Although maybe Big Mig would have won 6 TdF's in a row. Maybe seven. He was truly awesome. Beast.

Perhaps, but only if everybody was doping. If you have a peloton that is half clean, then goes to clean, I think the clean riders would be up there.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'd like to put that question out there again. If the peloton were clean, which riders would you expect to win?

 

[Eusebio Kino]

Getting back to R. Hysjedal, Garmin, seeing how they as a team, and how the competion rode the race, including the DNFs, who were non crashers, I saw the cleanest team, with the best tactics, and the most deserving winner in the 2012 Giro. It was a Giro that I believed to be a fair race.
So, the way I see it JV, the dope testers, and the pro peloton are doing their job, a nicely done Giro. Look at Bassos' 2012 Giro placing for instance, exactly where he should be considering his age and all the other aspects of his career.

 

[hrotha]

Not really. It's where the talented riders who think they can do it without dope wanted to be, so as the peloton gets cleaner it's no surprise Garmin and Sky have the edge.

I'd like to put that question out there again. If the peloton were clean, which riders would you expect to win?

There's only 30 riders per team, including neo-pros. Just how much of that "true talent" happens to be in those two teams and speak English?

These arguments are circular. Garmin (and Sky) say they're clean, therefore if they win the sport is cleaner.

 

[blackcat]

and the anglophone fan may bring a more puritan pov, without knowing the history of the sport, and then project this expectation on their nations riders eh? And this boxes the riders of teams from those nations, UK/US. Sky, Garmin, Brailsford, JV into a corner. We have boxed JV into a corner. thru hypocrisy, ignorance, and lack of clarity. The fan this is.

like one blackcat. he acts like that.

Caveat: fan and professional athlete is a gestalt, cant say its only fan.