• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Vandevelde interview - hope for a clean peloton

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 13, 2012
262
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
I am a negative kind of guy, especially in places that been degraded by trolls like you.

JV is what he is. If he does not want people to question his veracity then he should start talking straight and stop dancing around the truth like he is playing a school debating game.

I get the feeling everybody is a troll to you who doesn't accept all the top riders are doping and Vaughter's is lying through his teeth. lol. You're entitled to believe that, just as Armstrong is entitled to believe it, but you should be more tolerant of people who accept doping was a major part of the sport but agree with Vaughters and Vandevelde that we're seeing a positive change. We're not trolling, we think there is increasing hard evidence to support this case. We don't have to be enemies about it. Or is that not cynical enough? lol. I'll leave this here before it distracts from the discussion.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,639
0
0
Visit site
TechnicalDescent said:
They are proven right by being cynical about everybody, thus at some point they will be right about someone. It's a cynical process of elimination.



The doping of riders in the past was an open secret in the peloton. If there was twitter around then, it would be have been broadcast what doctors they are seeing, what they are up to. There is plenty of opportunity for leaks in the camp. But you just don't see that with Evans, Wiggins and Hesjedal and many other leading riders nowadays. There is not a whiff of anything.

I think cycnism for cycnism's sake can be negative for the sport if it sends the message that riders have to dope to succeed. Strangely, there is a kindof an alliance between the likes of Armstrong and the ultra cynics in this regard - you're both pushing essentially the same 'everybody is doing it' message, and you seem to hate some of the clean riders more than the dopers.

All those Twitter rumours flying around about Galimzyanov's EPO usage, eh?

There is a difference between "hating" riders because they're clean and hating them because you think they aren't. Stop peddling these stupid little lines.
 
joe_papp said:
Do you think it would fly if teams/riders just refused to discuss doping at all? Who's to say it would be any worse than forcing them to regurgitate such inanities?

It would be better than JV's half admissions, allusions, and intimations. All done with an accountant's view of the value of media exposure but with careful consideration not to produce any fallout or consequences.

I have asked this question before. How can we trust a man who has kept Armstrong's secrets to not do the same for his own riders who step outside the rules?

The suspicion people have about Slipstream's GT achievers flows from not being able to trust the man at the top of the organization. He dug the hole his team is in. People cannot be blamed for pointing it out.
 
May 13, 2012
262
0
0
Visit site
Caruut said:
There is a difference between "hating" riders because they're clean and hating them because you think they aren't. Stop peddling these stupid little lines.

You're right. You're obviously making the determination that they're doping so are not in fact clean.

I think the point I was making is Armstong likes to chide the clean riders. He laughs at them for thinking they can do it clean, pretends they're not clean as a way to get at them. I think it would be terrible if anti doping advocates made the same mistake and gave clean riders the same distain and criticism as the people who used to laugh at LeMond. When I see that happening it does rile me somewhat. I think, what a terrible thing to happen. Cynicism is generally a good thing, but there is a point where it does more damage than good. I think we should be more careful about throwing things around unless there are good grounds for doing so.
 
May 21, 2010
581
0
0
Visit site
Oh ... who am I kidding ...

A Hesjedal giro/tour double would be fun. JV (if you're still reading this) make it so!!

Oh, and what Polish said-you definitely need to lighten up.
 
TechnicalDescent said:
I think the point I was making is Armstong likes to chide the clean riders. He laughs at them for thinking they can do it clean, pretends they're not clean as a way to get at them.

Yup. I think we can all agree that this is quite the turnaround indeed. I have to throw the "indeed" in there to make it more understandable to those who follow British pro cycling.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,639
0
0
Visit site
TechnicalDescent said:
You're right. You're obviously making the determination that they're doping so are not in fact clean.

I think the point I was making is Armstong likes to chide the clean riders. He laughs at them for thinking they can do it clean, pretends they're not clean as a way to get at them. I think it would be terrible if anti doping advocates made the same mistake and gave clean riders the same distain and criticism as the people who used to laugh at LeMond. When I see that happening it does rile me somewhat. I think, what a terrible thing to happen. Cynicism is generally a good thing, but there is a point where it does more damage than good. I think we should be more careful about throwing things around unless there are good grounds for doing so.

It would be terrible if it were happening, what I think is slimey is your insinuation that people are actually doing that.

On the bolded part, if I ever know of a dictator in need of a media relations guy, I'll drop in a word for you.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Grejales has to know the difference There are some fantastic interviews with him on a website, the name of which slips my mind at the moment. I learned some interesting stuff from those, like Santiago Botero is a deadbeat who has stolen money from numerous people in the sport.

He has to have a good feel for what consitutes a "credible" and not credible performance. So during stage races in the U.S., when the Pro Tour guys come to California, Utah, and Colorado, he should gain quite a bit of insight as to what is going on, even without Leipheimer sidling up to him and announcing, "Yeah, I'm on the sauce."

To the bolded.....I assume you are talking about the difference in performance that comes with usage. Brasstown Bald 2004. That was a show to remember.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Don't worry, I don't take this stuff too seriously. In the end, i care, on a personal level, that there are people here who do not trust what is factual. I know they are wrong, but don't have enough empirical data to prove them wrong (or they lack the knowledge to understand they've been proven wrong already.) However, I also very much understand why they don't trust - and don't blame them. It's just frustrating knowing they are wrong.

So, despite the fact I come here once in a while to try and resolve some misunderstandings, believe me, the broader picture is not affected by a little angry man who hides under a wet cat avatar. It'd be pretty sad if I got my panties in a bunch about that.

Still, to address the wet white kitty's concerns: Any of you who have ever taken the time to speak with me in person, know I don't have any issue with being very truthful and detailed about my colorful past. So, not sure why one would say I only half confront the past? Buy me a beer, I'll confront it 6 times over if it makes you happy and allows you to trust the current riders on my team. I just don't feel any need to create a teary eyed hubbaloo with the media. It's a waste of my energy, quite frankly.

Ask the question, i'll answer. WADA, USADA, etc all know that. Have since 2004. Media? Nope. not interested in making a story. I'm interested in imparting lasting change.

xoxo, JV

btw - You guys are using Cesar Grajales as an inside source? Good lord. That's like thinking the folks on Hollywood squares are really truly insiders in show biz. People who can't make it in the bigs like to ***** and moan. i know, I once did it too.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
no, no... I'm just saying that I used to complain when I couldn't make it to the next level. So, I know the line of thought. That's all. I've been there and done the same thing. I still do, quite frankly.

Cesar is a super nice guy. But he has no idea what top level cycling is. He did a great ride up brass town bald 8 yrs ago, and I'm sure has plenty of stories from Colombia, but he doesn't have any knowledge of World Tour level racing. Inside knowledge or otherwise.

Thats not a knock against him, it's just a fact.
 
JV1973 said:
Don't worry, I don't take this stuff too seriously. In the end, i care, on a personal level, that there are people here who do not trust what is factual. I know they are wrong, but don't have enough empirical data to prove them wrong (or they lack the knowledge to understand they've been proven wrong already.) However, I also very much understand why they don't trust - and don't blame them. It's just frustrating knowing they are wrong.

So, despite the fact I come here once in a while to try and resolve some misunderstandings, believe me, the broader picture is not affected by a little angry man who hides under a wet cat avatar. It'd be pretty sad if I got my panties in a bunch about that.

Still, to address the wet white kitty's concerns: Any of you who have ever taken the time to speak with me in person, know I don't have any issue with being very truthful and detailed about my colorful past. So, not sure why one would say I only half confront the past? Buy me a beer, I'll confront it 6 times over if it makes you happy and allows you to trust the current riders on my team. I just don't feel any need to create a teary eyed hubbaloo with the media. It's a waste of my energy, quite frankly.

Ask the question, i'll answer. WADA, USADA, etc all know that. Have since 2004. Media? Nope. not interested in making a story. I'm interested in imparting lasting change.

xoxo, JV

btw - You guys are using Cesar Grajales as an inside source? Good lord. That's like thinking the folks on Hollywood squares are really truly insiders in show biz. People who can't make it in the bigs like to ***** and moan. i know, I once did it too.

Where this falls down, as I've said repeatedly to you, is the following.
You presuppose that WADA and USADA ALL have the sports interests at heart, and have not been corrupted in any way by political forces.
The reality is that cycling needs media exposure to clean itself up. The best sea changes in cycling have come about through the Police and the media, not by the organisations.
I believe completely and totally in what Floyd and Tyler have said. However, as much as it pains me to say it, it's too easy for people to throw their past at them.
You on the other hand don't have that problem. You know full well, and again we've argued this point repeatedly, that certain people from your past, are very much prominent in cycling to this day. They are not irrelevant. In fact they are very powerful. Speaking out publicly, about what you did, but the part played by certain others, would help massively and would also show some solidarity with people you seemingly have good time for. I get annoyed when you say you are about making long term change but the one thing, which would stir the sh** (something that is needed), you refuse to do. Well get those people out of the sport then, and i'm not just talking about Johan here.

For the record, I don't care about you telling you over a beer what went on. That's the easy option. Anyone with half a brain knows what went on and what you did. It's not about creating a media story or feeding them, it's about doing something you don't want to do, to better the sport. I think in your heart of hearts you know you should do it but other reasons have stopped you. Reasons much more relevant than the media....
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
joe_papp said:
But what matters is how WADA defines doping, and they make it very clear that the status of a substance as illegal/legal/prescribed/OTC/effective/performance-enhancing/placebo is immaterial to whether or not the act in question is doping or not. Doping is dependent upon what's proscribed by the WADA Code.



This is the crux of the issue - the most effective deterrent to doping would be to elevate the costs, and likelihood, of getting caught to such a level that the risk no longer becomes acceptable or manageable. But paradoxically, from a business perspective - at least in the short-term - the cost of doing so from the perspective of the governing body, the promoters, and perhaps the teams themselves is waaaaay too great! And so we end-up back at the point of token busts, sacrificial lambs and inanities mouthed repeatedly to complicit journalists for the benefit of naive (or intentionally self-deluded?) fans.



I believe the actual survey question (at least for the survey I recall being familiar w/) read, "Would you want to win a gold medal, and enjoy all the "benefits" stemming from such an achievement, even if it meant you'd be dead after 12mos?" (paraphrasing)

I would accept the Giro - Tour - Worlds triple even if it meant death after 2 years, I think... :rolleyes:

Glad to see ya pitchin' in, Joe!

Now, as to the meaning of the word doping. You have a point, but by the WADA definition, EPO in 1993 was not doping, true? For the purpose of prosecuting, banning, or such, WADA's definition is indeed a good standard. That is not necessarily what another person might mean when they are using the word in casual conversation. However, I think I will accept the assumption that you are a good indicator of what Grajales intent was. If I read between your lines, you would be saying that Grajales was referring specifically to WADA-prohibited doping efforts.

I will also accept that what you say about the current condition of the peloton:
token busts, sacrificial lambs and inanities mouthed repeatedly to complicit journalists for the benefit of naive (or intentionally self-deluded?) fans
But if this is the current condition, what about Ricco? How did he end up ephing himself up so badly doing things himself? And, another bit of "proof" - power meter readings, and mountain climbing times. If we are still thick into dopage, how do we account for the reduction in the power meter readings etc?

I would like to think we have achieved a positive level of control already. If the WADA and like efforts have forced those who would cheat into micro-dosing, then we have indeed achieved some success. A .5% benefit is much smaller than a 10% benefit, yes?

As for the death-wish quote, you could be right - it has been many years since I first saw a news-blip about that. I imagine the survey has been repeated in other formats since.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
JV1973 said:
Don't worry, I don't take this stuff too seriously. In the end, i care, on a personal level, that there are people here who do not trust what is factual. I know they are wrong, but don't have enough empirical data to prove them wrong (or they lack the knowledge to understand they've been proven wrong already.) However, I also very much understand why they don't trust - and don't blame them. It's just frustrating knowing they are wrong.

So, despite the fact I come here once in a while to try and resolve some misunderstandings, believe me, the broader picture is not affected by a little angry man who hides under a wet cat avatar. It'd be pretty sad if I got my panties in a bunch about that.

Still, to address the wet white kitty's concerns: Any of you who have ever taken the time to speak with me in person, know I don't have any issue with being very truthful and detailed . . .

btw - You guys are using Cesar Grajales as an inside source? Good lord. That's like thinking the folks on Hollywood squares are really truly insiders in show biz. People who can't make it in the bigs like to ***** and moan. i know, I once did it too.
Nobody who likes argyle could have any issues about standing out in a crowd! :D :D

Your point about Grajales is interesting. I think it is a good one.

We have a lot of people in this forum who like to argue. Lots of folks here like to bandy words about with some variation of "I'm right, you're wrong". And, I guess that is the function of a forum, yes? I am glad to see folks discuss the issues, but I find little in the discussion to radically change my view that, today, there is a better chance a rider who wants to perform without banned substances has a better chance of performing at the top level than they did 5, 10, or 15 years ago.

What is also obvious from this discussion is that there is still a lot of scepticism in the air on this subject, and that scepticism was earned. Unfortunately, I don't think most of the sceptics here would ever be convinced, short of living inside the team bus, and some wouldn't be convinced then.

My thanks to all who have participated in this discussion, and all who continue to do so. :)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
hiero2 said:
Glad to see ya pitchin' in, Joe!

Now, as to the meaning of the word doping. You have a point, but by the WADA definition, EPO in 1993 was not doping, true? For the purpose of prosecuting, banning, or such, WADA's definition is indeed a good standard. That is not necessarily what another person might mean when they are using the word in casual conversation. However, I think I will accept the assumption that you are a good indicator of what Grajales intent was. If I read between your lines, you would be saying that Grajales was referring specifically to WADA-prohibited doping efforts.

True only because WADA was not in existence in 1993, they came along in 1999 after Festina. :)
But EPO was added to the IOC prohibited list in 1990.

Unless Grajales is a lawyer I am going with the logical assumption of what he meant, regardless of whether he is correct or not.
hiero2 said:
I will also accept that what you say about the current condition of the peloton: But if this is the current condition, what about Ricco? How did he end up ephing himself up so badly doing things himself? And, another bit of "proof" - power meter readings, and mountain climbing times. If we are still thick into dopage, how do we account for the reduction in the power meter readings etc?

I would like to think we have achieved a positive level of control already. If the WADA and like efforts have forced those who would cheat into micro-dosing, then we have indeed achieved some success. A .5% benefit is much smaller than a 10% benefit, yes?

As for the death-wish quote, you could be right - it has been many years since I first saw a news-blip about that. I imagine the survey has been repeated in other formats since.

Ricco?
He was caught by AFLD because they had a test for CERA and unlike the UCI didn't give the riders a heads up about it.
Second time he was "caught" was because he botched his transfusion.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
JV1973 said:
xoxo, JV

btw - You guys are using Cesar Grajales as an inside source? Good lord. That's like thinking the folks on Hollywood squares are really truly insiders in show biz. People who can't make it in the bigs like to ***** and moan. i know, I once did it too.

Heavens to Betsy NO - we are NOT using Mr Grajales as an inside source, we are using his former room mate.

But seriously - what do YOU know that Cesar does not? Is doping different in the Bigs? Does the USADA and WADA and the UCI have different rules? Of course not. You and Cesar follow the same rules. Sure, you get to share a few beers with the UCI and WADA and USADA. And Cesar does not waa. Who am I kidding, "a few beers" lol.

Do the Pro's know proper Cat Avatars? Is the kitty litter better in the Bigs? When you guys "**** and moan" does it clump better? Lucky!!

You do realize that the fans are in charge of Pro cycling right? Money ultimately derives from the fans, not from some farcical hydration system or fancy navigatory device. And the fans KNOW more about Pro Cycling than you do JV. Outsider Knowledge is much deeper and older than Insider Knowledge. And I mean "Outsider" figuratively - it IS possible to post from a mother's basement and still have outsider knowledge. Perception is reality. Fans perception is reality.

One thing I didn't understand was that snarky "karma" comment you made after Alberto turned down your offer and then was busted. Does slipstream have insider karmic connections? That would be neat.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Is that like shoe polish? or nationality Polish?

Anyhow, I agree that fans run the sport. Have stated that publicly. However, I do not consider you a fan. i consider you someone who feels a certain sense of power anonymously writing crap about people who's work ethic, doping or not, that have far outstripped your own. Making harsh critiques about things you'd never have the balls to say in person is a rush for you. That's not being a fan or being helpful to any problem. It's just a self serving addiction to a sense of power. Not being a fan or being constructive in any sense.

On Contador, check your quotes, never said anything about Karma ever.... Oh, and Contador didn't turn down our offer. We could never afford him or anywhere close, but when Astana was blowing up in 2009, we were a temporary place that he might have went. As soon as their payroll was rectified, he had a valid contract, and we were no longer an option.

It was good fun for a few weeks though. Put some panties in a wad. And, no I never saw Alberto's bio-pass records, because we never got that far in the process. So, I don't have any INSIDER knowledge on that front.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
Yes, you did the same, but didn't you turn out to be completely right, back in the Santa Clara days and all the way down to Crédit Agricole and when you called it quits?


Thats's partially true. Agreed. But partially not. There were many reasons I didn't go as far as some thought I could in the sport. One of them was a very active sense of guilt. But there were many other reasons. Just to be fair to the situation and not blame it all on one element.
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,196
0
0
Visit site
Digger said:
Where this falls down, as I've said repeatedly to you, is the following.
You presuppose that WADA and USADA ALL have the sports interests at heart, and have not been corrupted in any way by political forces.
The reality is that cycling needs media exposure to clean itself up. The best sea changes in cycling have come about through the Police and the media, not by the organisations.
I believe completely and totally in what Floyd and Tyler have said. However, as much as it pains me to say it, it's too easy for people to throw their past at them.
You on the other hand don't have that problem. You know full well, and again we've argued this point repeatedly, that certain people from your past, are very much prominent in cycling to this day. They are not irrelevant. In fact they are very powerful. Speaking out publicly, about what you did, but the part played by certain others, would help massively and would also show some solidarity with people you seemingly have good time for. I get annoyed when you say you are about making long term change but the one thing, which would stir the sh** (something that is needed), you refuse to do. Well get those people out of the sport then, and i'm not just talking about Johan here.

For the record, I don't care about you telling you over a beer what went on. That's the easy option. Anyone with half a brain knows what went on and what you did. It's not about creating a media story or feeding them, it's about doing something you don't want to do, to better the sport. I think in your heart of hearts you know you should do it but other reasons have stopped you. Reasons much more relevant than the media....


You and I have discussed this before and at length. It's not that I don't respect your position, I just don't agree.
 
JV1973 said:
Anyhow, I agree that fans run the sport. Have stated that publicly. However, I do not consider you a fan. i consider you someone who feels a certain sense of power anonymously writing crap about people who's work ethic, doping or not, that have far outstripped your own. Making harsh critiques about things you'd never have the balls to say in person is a rush for you. That's not being a fan or being helpful to any problem. It's just a self serving addiction to a sense of power. Not being a fan or being constructive in any sense.

The clinic is full of people claiming to be fans, but never have a good word to say about any rider or team who is sucessful. Polish isn't actually one of those guys.

However, trying to convince posters here that there are clean riders performing at the highest level, is frankly, a waste of time. Every action just fuels the "proof" that all riders dope. What you know, and anyone close to the sport knows, is that doping is still a major part of the sport, but there are clean riders performing at the highest level regardless. The real challenge is promoting the clean side of the sport, without tainting every communication with reference to the dirty side of the sport.

The truth is, the majority of the posters demanding proof of clean performances will never believe any of the evidence presented to them anyway, so as I say, its frankly a waste of time.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
JV1973 said:
Is that like shoe polish? or nationality Polish?

Anyhow, I agree that fans run the sport. Have stated that publicly. However, I do not consider you a fan. i consider you someone who feels a certain sense of power anonymously writing crap about people who's work ethic, doping or not, that have far outstripped your own. Making harsh critiques about things you'd never have the balls to say in person is a rush for you. That's not being a fan or being helpful to any problem. It's just a self serving addiction to a sense of power. Not being a fan or being constructive in any sense.

On Contador, check your quotes, never said anything about Karma ever.... Oh, and Contador didn't turn down our offer. We could never afford him or anywhere close, but when Astana was blowing up in 2009, we were a temporary place that he might have went. As soon as their payroll was rectified, he had a valid contract, and we were no longer an option.

It was good fun for a few weeks though. Put some panties in a wad. And, no I never saw Alberto's bio-pass records, because we never got that far in the process. So, I don't have any INSIDER knowledge on that front.

"Polish" as in Kielbasa. Or Crullers.

And you are right about me being an anonymous crap writer. I confess. What gave it away - my avatar?

But as you know, there are quite a few ethically repugnant sociopaths hanging out on these forums. It's best to be safe on the interwebs.

Not just a crap writer - I am also a fanboy. Been a fan of cycling for longer than you maybe. Been a fan since well before the turn of the century you know. Can appreciate that the years 2000-2005 were much cleaner than 1995-1999. Backslid a bunch 2006-2009. But seems to be getting cleaner 2010 onward. YMMV.

The future is much more important though. Much more important. Lots of nasty doping potential on the horizon. On the bright side, it will come from Medical "Wonder Drugs" and Medical "Wonder Techiniques". That is the important stuff. Finding cures and helping quality of life for those less fortunate.

ps....Love it when you get peoples panties in a wad, JV. Funny!
 
JV1973 said:
Don't worry, I don't take this stuff too seriously. In the end, i care, on a personal level, that there are people here who do not trust what is factual. I know they are wrong, but don't have enough empirical data to prove them wrong (or they lack the knowledge to understand they've been proven wrong already.) However, I also very much understand why they don't trust - and don't blame them. It's just frustrating knowing they are wrong.

So, despite the fact I come here once in a while to try and resolve some misunderstandings, believe me, the broader picture is not affected by a little angry man who hides under a wet cat avatar. It'd be pretty sad if I got my panties in a bunch about that.

Still, to address the wet white kitty's concerns: Any of you who have ever taken the time to speak with me in person, know I don't have any issue with being very truthful and detailed about my colorful past. So, not sure why one would say I only half confront the past? Buy me a beer, I'll confront it 6 times over if it makes you happy and allows you to trust the current riders on my team. I just don't feel any need to create a teary eyed hubbaloo with the media. It's a waste of my energy, quite frankly.

Ask the question, i'll answer. WADA, USADA, etc all know that. Have since 2004. Media? Nope. not interested in making a story. I'm interested in imparting lasting change.

xoxo, JV

btw - You guys are using Cesar Grajales as an inside source? Good lord. That's like thinking the folks on Hollywood squares are really truly insiders in show biz. People who can't make it in the bigs like to ***** and moan. i know, I once did it too.

Are things at the point now where you could unreservedly encourage a loved one to participate in the sport at the highest level?