Vaughters hints he may have dabbled (in doping)

[washedup]

So the new Cyclingnews story (part 1 of 2) on our good friend Jonathan Vaughters is an interesting look at the way the guy sees the world. Encrypted, even through a journalist, JV as much as hints to his own use and the use of his peers.

Given the JV vs. Clinic convos over the past weeks, is this JV's way of saying "I hear ya"? Or is it a hint of things to come?


Could it be that JV is showing that he does indeed have a spine (JV, you know we love ya!)?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/jonathan-vaughters-the-sleek-geek

 

[washedup]

In regards to his record setting win on Ventoux in 1999, JV stated:

"I felt okay. I wasn't ecstatic," he demurred. "Well, for sure, it was the best form of my life as a bike rider, but I wasn't... I was just sort of... I will leave it at this; I wasn't overly pleased with that victory. It was interesting to me. It answered a lot of questions. But it wasn't the most ecstatic moment of my life by any means."

Of course, such wording is to be expected from our friend.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So the new Cyclingnews story (part 1 of 2) on our good friend Jonathan Vaughters is an interesting look at the way the guy sees the world. Encrypted, even through a journalist, JV as much as hints to his own use and the use of his peers.

Given the JV vs. Clinic convos over the past week, is this JV's way of saying "I hear ya"? Or is it a hint of things to come?


Could it be that JV is showing that he does indeed have a spine (JV, you know we love ya!)?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/jonathan-vaughters-the-sleek-geek

To the highlighted paragraph above I'm afraid the answer is no.

That whole piece is basically a 'cut & paste' of an interview he did in 2002 - Part 1 here and part 2 here - and the interview he did with Kimmage for the Sunday times in 2008, in short there is nothing new here.

I am hoping this is just a background piece to compliment the Part II that CN say is on the way:

In Part II, Vaughters talks about what has happened since 2002: the establishment of his team from fledging development squad to cycling superpower and the environment in which it now exists.

 

[washedup]

It is definitely a rehash of previous statements...... I am a rookie I guess.

Still, the article subheadings stating "hints he may have dabbled..." What to make of that? Is it a soft-pedal into the inevitable? I for one would welcome any honesty about personal "dabbling" by JV, as it would calcify his movement.

 

[Martin318is]

Can I ask that before people rehash the same arguments all over again - please have a look at the following thread:

JV reaches out to anonymous critic

As the whole topic has been quite extensively discussed there

 

[BroDeal]

S
Could it be that JV is showing that he does indeed have a spine (JV, you know we love ya!)?

Nope. He later released this statement:

"Despite what I may have said, implied, or alluded to in that interview, it was all speculation and rumor. I may have been drunk or high. I am not sure. My memory of what went on during that time, especially when I was on Postal, is very hazy. It is almost non-existent actually. Sometimes I am not sure whether I was on that team at all. These turtle necks cut off the flow of blood to my brain, so I cannot be held accountable for what sounds may come out of my mouth. The bottom line is that nothing I say should be believed. Even if it is something said in private where I would have no reason to lie, I will steadfastly deny that I was speaking the truth."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is definitely a rehash of previous statements...... I am a rookie I guess.

Still, the article subheadings stating "hints he may have dabbled..." What to make of that? Is it a soft-pedal into the inevitable? I for one would welcome any honesty about personal "dabbling" by JV, as it would calcify his movement.

The headline used is pointing to the comments JV made in the Sunday Times - if you read the article it is clear that JV was doped for the Ventoux TT.

I would welcome it too, but unless JV is asked directly then I don't expect him to offer too much information especially as he will be a part of the ongoing investigation.

I would be really disappointed with CN though if Part II is another rehash from other interviews - JV is a smart and astute guy with interesting opinions on the sport, not just doping - so I hope its not one of these interviews that focuses on Argyle or sideburns.

 

[washedup]

Can I ask that before people rehash the same arguments all over again - please have a look at the following thread:

JV reaches out to anonymous critic

As the whole topic has been quite extensively discussed there

You can't honestly say that we cannot have a thread about a leading Cyclingnews story because the forum beat the writers to the punch. Clearly, the topic is worth discussing specifically, even if I was misguided in my hasty reading of the article.

I think at this point, very few of us would be mad at JV if the speculation he created proved to be true.

 

[washedup]

I guess my question is... what is the point of the article's speculation (or the article for that matter)... and in turn, how is it out of line to discuss the controversy behind it?

 

[woodie]

I found this paragraph quite interesting.....

(In Francesco Moser's successful 1984 world hour record attempt, cycling trainers Francesco Conconi, Aldo Sassi and Michele Ferrari 'prepared' Moser using autologous blood transfusions. In an interview with La Gazzetta dello Sport this October, Sassi said of his actions: "According to the codes and procedures of the time, that wasn't doping but it did modify fair play and could have been a health risk. We knew that it was a short cut, a trick. At the time, the autotransfusion was considered an application of science in sport." He also told US magazine Bicycling: "The ethical perception of doping then was not the perception we have today. What today is doping, was in that period, science.")

Especially the bolded part.

 

[washedup]

: "The ethical perception of doping then was not the perception we have today. What today is doping, was in that period, science.")

Working over time in Austin? The fuzzy line of cheating/science disappeared in the early 90's.

 

[Martin318is]

Nooo.....

I didn't say that at all.

What I said was, it would be nice if people went and read that thread before posting in this one as unless you have something new to say it has all been said already.... repeatedly..... and in some cases quite loudly.

Please feel free to discuss the article on this thread. I'm just trying to save some people the effort of linking back to the other thread which so far discusses the exact same quotes and their consequences both real and implied.

and your comment about controversy clearly implies you haven't clicked on the link yet.

 

[Martin318is]

From what I gather of the article, I think that Part I is a rehash of the world so far to try to whet our appetites for Part II which will discuss the real new info (I hope).

 

[washedup]

I will take your word on the content of the thread... but too much reading for me today. Still, I think this article likely addresses the more specific past of JV and the struggles he had with LA. Of course, he could simply deny previous statements, but with the degradation of omerta, it may not be worth his time.

I guess at this point, the value in his honest is comes in the form of a window into the world of cycling in years past. If we are to become clean, those leading the so called revolution (and I think this article series proves his platforms existence) should be given the opportunity to clear consciences and make the community ready to move on.

 

[Benotti69]

What was the point of copy and pasting Kimmage's article? Although an excellent article it seems to me lazy journalism and means it avoids paying him for his original work. Was JV not willing to go over the same ground he covered with Kimmage? I hope part II is not another journalists work and publishes something fresh and new!

 

[Berzin]

JV is a smart and astute guy with interesting opinions on the sport, not just doping - so I hope its not one of these interviews that focuses on Argyle or sideburns.

I don't find him particularly smart or astute, argyle notwithstanding.

And adopting the pseudo-intellectual air of a college English professor doesn't change this. Neither do the glasses, the sideburns, the turtlenecks, or the "Masterpiece Theatre" get-ups with the leather elbow patches on the jackets and the smoking pipe.

I think he's an obtuse and evasive chickenshyte. If you have something to say, just come out and say it already.

Organized crime doesn't adhere to the code of omerta like these cyclists do.

What a bunch of wads.

 

[washedup]

If you have something to say, just come out and say it already.

Reminds me of the old academic idea that it is harder to bluntly make your point than it is to spend pages writing it.

Eloquence in truth and honesty go a lot farther than long winded emotional descriptive feelings.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't find him particularly smart or astute, argyle notwithstanding.

And the pontificating demeanor of a college English professor doesn't change this. Neither do the glasses, the sideburns, the turtlenecks, or the "Masterpiece Theatre" get-ups with the leather elbow patches on the jackets and the smoking pipe.

I think he's obtuse and evasive chickenshyte. If you have something to say, just come out and say it already.

Organized crime doesn't adhere to the code of omerta like these cyclists do.

What a bunch of wads.

You know why you don't find JV "particularly smart or astute", don't you?
Because you have never actually met him.

The Professor stuff was put in by the journalist - not JV.

 

[washedup]

You know why you don't find JV "particularly smart or astute", don't you?
Because you have never actually met him.

The Professor stuff was put in by the journalist - not JV.

I do think we would be guiding our own discussion off track by accusing JV of being unintelligent. He is clearly a very smart man (despite being the son of a lawyer).

To keep things on track, will he be following up on his statements about his past or will he continue in limbo?

 

[woodie]

Working over time in Austin? The fuzzy line of cheating/science disappeared in the early 90's.

All I meant was that it's interesting that it was seen as science (if it really was) and that now it is doping. Is it possible that things we see as science now will be seen as doping later? That was my point, I wasn't trying to flog support for Armstrong, my post had nothing to do with him.

I agree that fuzzy line is long gone and I don't support armstrong so I have no idea where you got that idea.

 

[Berzin]

You know why you don't find JV "particularly smart or astute", don't you?
Because you have never actually met him.

The Professor stuff was put in by the journalist - not JV.

I HAVE met him. He didn't strike me as particularly brainy, just an average dude who rides a bike for a living. Then again I didn't attend his symposium on "The Ethics of Platonic Discourse in 17th Century pre-Industrial Equatorial Guinea".

But that's how it is. If you dress the part well enough, you can convince people you're anything.

Give me one Vaughters quote on the state of cycling that is at all illuminating, interesting or any different than what others have said over the years, because I can't think of one.

His reputation for being a brainy academic is seriously overblown and way out of proportion to the truth. His father's a lawyer, so that makes him smart?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I HAVE met him. He didn't strike me as particularly brainy, just an average dude who rides a bike for a living. Then again I didn't attend his symposium on "The ethics of Platonic Discourse in 17th Century pre-Industrial Equatorial Guinea".

But that's how it is. If you dress the part well enough, you can convince people you're anything.

Give me one Vaughters quote on the state of cycling that is at all illuminating, interesting or different than what others have said over the years, because I can't think of one.

Nice strawman - I never said he was "brainy".
I said he was smart and astute, he is not as intelligent as the media try and portray him - but he is smart enough to know that.

Reread the Kimmage piece or perhaps have a read of this article - on the state of the new 'ProTeam' set up by the UCI. I think it is a correct analysis on how the UCI have again got it wrong.

You mentioned in an earlier post how JV is "obtuse" - so I'll return the favour and ask you to get a quote from JV that is "obtuse".

 

[Berzin]

You mentioned in an earlier post how JV is "obtuse" - so I'll return the favour and ask you to get a quote from JV that is "obtuse".

Obtuse-whenever he's responded to questions about his Mont Ventoux performance and that little conversation he had with Frankie Andreu. Never gave a straight answer nor ever explained with any semblance of clarity just what went on.

That's about it for me. I'm not here to either defend nor vilify him. I just think people get carried away with his pseudo-intellectual pretensions and make him out to be something he's not.

His observations about the pro tour have been similar to what other director sportifs and cycling pundits critical of the whole thing have said. Nothing new under the sun.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Obtuse-whenever he's responded to questions about his Mont Ventoux performance and that little conversation he had with Frankie Andreu. Never gave a straight answer nor ever explained with any semblance of clarity just what went on.

That's about it for me. I'm not here to either defend nor vilify him. I just think people get carried away with his pseudo-intellectual pretensions and make him out to be something he's not.

His observations about the pro tour have been similar to what other director sportifs and cycling pundits critical of the whole thing have said. Nothing new under the sun.

The person making him out to be something he is not is you.

Obtuse.

–adjective
1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
2. not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.
3. (of a leaf, petal, etc.) rounded at the extremity.
4. indistinctly felt or perceived, as pain or sound.

 

[M Sport]

All I meant was that it's interesting that it was seen as science (if it really was) and that now it is doping. Is it possible that things we see as science now will be seen as doping later? That was my point.

Yes, that could be entirely possible. I mean we all know what banned products do for performance but I'm equally sure the boundaries of currently legal products are being pushed all the time as well. In my opinion if it's not currently banned and it's improving performance then 'science' is an adequate label.

For the record I have nothing against Moser or anyone else doing transfusions in 1984. Its only post 1986 I have a problem with. That's when it became cheating. I don't see why they felt the need to explain themselves.