# Why JV needs to come clean.



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Lance Armstrong: the end | Cycle Sport

The only other option is full catharsis. Cycling needs to lance the boil.

And the tainted generation have to be the ones to do this. Too many people working in cycling today have secrets in their pasts which might compromise their integrity. Many have privately renounced their past, *including individuals who have done extremely well in team management or other aspects of the sport*, and whose success is partly down to the contacts and reputations they gained as riders. *Putting up a nice building on shaky foundations is bad architectural practice.*


This is where the USADA witnesses come in. They’ve been granted anonymity in the process. “USADA sought to give riders an opportunity to be a part of the solution in moving cycling forward by being truthful and honest regarding their past experiences with doping in cycling,” the letter stated. Armstrong’s lawyers predictably made hay with this. “

These riders’ testimonies will be key to the case against Armstrong,* but their own debt to cycling doesn’t end with a resolution of the case*. If he’s found guilty, they will be open to the accusation that there is one rule for one guilty person, and another for others. If he’s not, and they have testified truthfully against him, can they keep a clear conscience about continuing to hide the past while simultaneously enjoying success in a career that is built on their achievements in cycling?

*Fans* who have stood for hours in boiling sunshine or pouring rain to see their heroes, or bought the sponsor’s product, *are owed an explanation.* Come out and tell us what you did, *why you understand it was wrong*, *and then we can get on with the sport.
*


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

It's just a matter of time.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Thanks for posting that article. It was a great read.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

JV came clean years ago and he supported and encouraged others to do the same. He took the official route and it is paying off. 

When the history of this episode is written JV will be one of the prime people, more important then Floyd or Tyler.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

I have moved on. I didn't need an explanation from JV, Big George, DZ, Levi, or anyone else that was on Postal to do so.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Omerta*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> JV came clean years ago and he supported and encouraged others to do the same. He took the official route and it is paying off.
> 
> When the history of this episode is written JV will be one of the prime people, more important then Floyd or Tyler.


A lot of people got hurt in the interim.

In my mind, coming clean means making unambiguous statements and he just made allusions. 

If Armstrong didn't come back, we wouldn't be at this point right now. Armstrong would still have been huge in cycling if not for his megalomania.

The guys arrogance did him in more than anything. 

At any rate, I think JV tried to have it both ways which I don't believe is possible. 

We probably disagree here though.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

JV,.. I thought you meant Jens Voigt.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Jonathan Vaughters Interview: Postscript: The Article About the Article « Bikezilla

Interesting and I think fair analysis of JV. 

The Ventoux record was set in '99 and he's still touting it on his Garmin Sharp bio.

Jonathan Vaughters – Team Garmin-Sharp-Barracuda

I think JV is generally trying to do the right thing but I do think that Pickering makes great points about transparency. 

One thing Armstrong is right about is that he takes almost the entire fall in this?

There is either truth and reconciliation, or there is bs.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

This entire "come out, make a full confession" business sounds like alcoholics anonymous or some such silly program.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Chris-X said:


> A lot of people got hurt in the interim.
> 
> In my mind, coming clean means making unambiguous statements and he just made allusions.
> 
> ...


Yes, I know some very good people who were burned by telling the truth but JV saw the bigger picture. When you go into battle you do not send in one solider at a time, you go as an Army. JV brought the army this time


----------



## juno (Jul 18, 2008)

JV is an ass. (not Jens!!!) I have lost all respect for him, not that my respect for him matters for anything.

10 thumbs up for what he was trying to do when he decided to go clean and push a clean program. Mucho respect.

But why drag down a bunch of other folks. it's one thing to make a stand about yourself and for yourself, it is another to feel like you have to turn everybody in.

Probably because so many folks are riding clean now that his 'stand' isn't front page news anymore.

He is spineless. If he did make a testimony he and the others should stand up and admit it and withdraw from the tour.

What is next? Spend his Sundays knocking on racer's doors with pamphlets to get them to repent?

Scumbags, all of them. Make a stand and man-up and admit it or STFU.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

juno said:


> But why drag down a bunch of other folks. it's one thing to make a stand about yourself and for yourself, it is another to feel like you have to turn everybody in.
> 
> .


Those folks he is trying to bring down, del Moral, Ferrari, Marti, Ceyla, and Bruyneel, have caused great damage to the sport for over a decade. Getting them out of the sport so they are unable to poison another generation of riders is a good thing


----------



## juno (Jul 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Those folks he is trying to bring down, del Moral, Ferrari, Marti, Ceyla, and Bruyneel, have caused great damage to the sport for over a decade. Getting them out of the sport so they are unable to poison another generation of riders is a good thing


That is a very good point. But LA also?

If the testimony allegations are true I still believe the testifiers should man-up and admit it...and consider dropping from the tour for a self-inflicted exile.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

juno said:


> That is a very good point. But LA also?
> 
> If the testimony allegations are true I still believe the testifiers should man-up and admit it...and consider dropping from the tour for a self-inflicted exile.


LA had the choice of aiding the investigation or being a target. He chose to be a target and started with the smoke and mirrors campaign to confuse the public and make the witnesses life as difficult as possible. 


The "Testifiers" have already "Man-up" and told the truth. Lance should do the same.


----------



## juno (Jul 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The "Testifiers" have already "Man-up" and told the truth. Lance should do the same.


Based on their evasiveness yesterday we have different definitons of 'man-up". 

It is sad to think that these individuals would rather avoid admitting they spoke out just so they can finish the tour. If you are going to take a stand then take it standing up, not squirming in your chair (or bicycle seat or passenger seat as it applies)

Maybe they think admitting it will hurt the actual case, but I think they are more self-serving then that.

It is a steaming pile of dogpoop anyway you look at it and anybody involved on anyside of it will still have the smell of it on them for a long time, if not forever.

As usual, the counsels will be the only ones who make out...$$$$$


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

juno said:


> Maybe they think admitting it will hurt the actual case, but I think they are more self-serving then that.


Yes, it is better that this is not play out in the media. It is far better for the evidence to be presented in a proper forum. As we have seen from lance, press releases and media statement often have little connection to the truth


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Those folks he is trying to bring down, del Moral, Ferrari, Marti, Ceyla, and Bruyneel, have caused great damage to the sport for over a decade. Getting them out of the sport so they are unable to poison another generation of riders is a good thing


Something I'm interested in getting your insight on is if these guys are representing the evils of cycling in this day and age why would you ride for them? If it is known in the peloton that you must dope to ride for Johan and to do so you must play nice with his clown squad you're putting your career at risk as the spotlight would be on you and any solid performance, personal or by the team. It certainly is encouraging to see TP, TVG, TD, and other future stars of American cycling going with different teams. Now we need to get Ben King away from RS and we stand a chance to get through this. So in your circle of friends why would you ride for Johan?


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

*So off base.*



juno said:


> JV is an ass. ...
> 
> But why drag down a bunch of other folks. it's one thing to make a stand about yourself and for yourself, it is another to feel like you have to turn everybody in.
> 
> ...


Wow. Your statement is rambling and inconsistent.

From what I see, he didn't try to tear anyone down - he's resisted saying outright that he used PEDs at Postal, though he's said everything but those actual words. But he chose not to fight that way, rather create a clean team with clear rules and change cycling from within. 

However, his directive was clear - if you are on his team and asked by a regulatory agency to testify, be truthful and we will support you. That's a stand. That's also not knocking on doors and asking people to repent. 

He's done more for the sport that most, and done it the right way.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

*Or...*



juno said:


> Based on their evasiveness yesterday we have different definitons of 'man-up".
> 
> It is sad to think that these individuals would rather avoid admitting they spoke out just so they can finish the tour. If you are going to take a stand then take it standing up, not squirming in your chair (or bicycle seat or passenger seat as it applies)
> 
> Maybe they think admitting it will hurt the actual case, but I think they are more self-serving then that.



...as they were asked to comment on an action currently in arbitration, whose final outcome - and penalty to them - has yet to be decided, that they can't speak about it? 

The fact that the 'story' was leaked to the Dutch paper for which Johann contributes to speaks volumes. This wasn't the USADA trying to turn the heat up on Armstrong. This was an attempt by someone to make life for the witnesses miserable, question their motives, and mock the apparent fact that they would be granted an off-season suspension in turn for testifying. Armstrong is the only one with any chance to gain from it.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Is this coming clean enough?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/o...f-sports.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-share


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

The Tedinator said:


> Is this coming clean enough?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/o...f-sports.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-share


Clean enough for me. But, then I have been a long time admirer of JV.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

I'm glad he finally got that off his back. More of this is needed to truly change the mindset of this sport. This certainly helps. Bravo JV.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

The Tedinator said:


> Is this coming clean enough?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/o...f-sports.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-share


Nonspecific, but I'm not a fan of Jimmy Swagger-style, self-serving confessions.

But there really isn't any more information than he's already alluded to in the past. If anyone thought JV _didn't_ dope before this opinion piece, they hadn't been paying attention the last 5 years.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> Nonspecific, but I'm not a fan of Jimmy Swagger-style, self-serving confessions.
> 
> But there really isn't any more information than he's already alluded to in the past. If anyone thought JV _didn't_ dope before this opinion piece, they hadn't been paying attention the last 5 years.


It appears you missed the point. 

This was not about where, when, and how JV doped. That will be covered some day. This was about how the sport can insure that fewer young riders have to face that same choice in the future


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Self serving?*



jorgy said:


> *Nonspecific, but I'm not a fan of Jimmy Swagger-style, self-serving confessions.
> *
> But there really isn't any more information than he's already alluded to in the past. If anyone thought JV _didn't_ dope before this opinion piece, they hadn't been paying attention the last 5 years.


Clearing up the ambiguity of what doping regimens are required to be competitive is hardly self serving.

A frank discussion of *exactly* what he was doing and his understanding of what he was doing and how it benefitted his performance and his belief of what others were doing would end a lot of the bs that is going on now.

We're still getting the true believers in Armstrong doubting that Armstrong doped.

JV stated in the article something about 2% performance improvement. Was that just hypothetical or a realistic assessment of the gains realized.

I guess we'll have to wait until Tyler's book and hope he comes clean about his doping schedules and all of the drugs he was on in addition to the blood.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Chris-X said:


> JV stated in the article something about 2% performance improvement. Was that just hypothetical or a realistic assessment of the gains realized.


It was hypothetical. JV has talked in detail about the significant gains that can be had through doping and how it effects each athlete differently


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you missed the point.
> 
> This was not about where, when, and how JV doped. That will be covered some day. This was about how the sport can insure that fewer young riders have to face that same choice in the future


I don't know. I think that being specific helps accomplish the goal of ending rampant doping.

The way it's currently portrayed seems harmless enough,,,,, they're doping. 

When people realize the extremes a lot of these guys are going to in order to get results, they're repulsed by the doping process.

Most of the public doesn't believe that doping can really have extreme effects and JV played into that by using the 2% figure which I think is bs.

People come up to me all the time and say stuff regarding LA like, 'even if he doped, he is still a great bike rider.' 

I don't believe that's a fair statement at all. Compared to Joe Average, LA is a great rider but is that really saying anything?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It was hypothetical. JV has talked in detail about the significant gains that can be had through doping and how it effects each athlete differently


Ok but when I saw the amount of crap that people like TH and Manzano were consuming I was blown away.

I realized that these guys were just as crazy as bodybuilders and any other drug addicts.

It's a real sickness and the generic doping label seems to sweep a lot of the insanity under the rug.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Interesting article:

*Vaughters admits to doping during career

*Vaughters Admits To Doping During Career | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Sugarfoot said:


> It wasn't about anything, really. It was just an emotional excuse for doping.
> 
> It didn't provide any solution.
> 
> Mainly just hogging the limelight a little.


You didn't read it did you? 

He writes about what drove him to dope and how to insure today's athletes do not face the same choice



> If the message I was given had been different, but more important, if the reality of sport then had been different, perhaps I could have lived my dream without killing my soul.





> They must know, without doubt, that they will have a fair chance by racing clean. And for them to do that, the rules must be enforced, and the painful effort to make that happen must be unending and ruthless.* Antidoping enforcement is 1,000 percent better than in my era of competition, and that brings me great satisfaction. But we must support these efforts even more.*





> Almost every athlete I’ve met who has doped will say they did it only because they wanted a level playing field. That says something: everyone wants a fair chance, not more. So, let’s give our young athletes a level playing field, without doping. *Let’s put our effort and resources into making sport fair, so that no athlete faces this decision ever again*. We put so much emotion into marketing and idolizing athletes, let’s put that same zeal into giving them what they really want: the ability to live their dreams without compromising their morals.


Increased, more precise, testing. Teams that enable riders to race clean instead of push them to dope.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Sugarfoot said:


> It wasn't about anything, really. It was just an emotional excuse for doping.
> 
> It didn't provide any solution.
> 
> Mainly just hogging the limelight a little.


C'mon, the guy retired from racing during the prime of his career after basically being sent back down to the "minors."



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You didn't read it did you?
> 
> He writes about what drove him to dope and how to insure today's athletes do not face the same choice
> 
> ...


I generally agree but the lack of specificity on JV's part enables the simple fanboy to start in with nonsense hypothetical questions about things like caffeine being illegal.

Drinking half a pot of coffee is light years away from getting a couple of shots a day, infusing bloodbags, and using creams, gels, and patches for good measure.

Without delineating exactly what a lot of these guys are doing enables the Armstrong myth to persist and there needs to be a time when this insanity is completely on the table and not just in a book by Voet or about Pantani.

The same bs is going on with the NFL and the dysfunction there as well as the idea reported in the media about Whitney Houston's death; that her drug problem wasn't as bad as it was. When you keep taking drugs until all your upper teeth fall out, you have major mental health issues.

In the same way, the casual sports fan doesn't understand the incredibly demented nature of sport at the highest level, and then on top of that we get the hyper critical media commentary of imbeciles who have never played a game in their lives.


----------



## C6Rider (Nov 15, 2008)

*Good article*

Thanks for posting.




The Tedinator said:


> Is this coming clean enough?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/o...f-sports.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-share


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

The Tedinator said:


> Is this coming clean enough?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/o...f-sports.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-share


It reminds me of his "open letter to Roger Legeay." Speaking of which, Legeay deserves credit for running a clean team. JV said he was totally flabbergasted at this fact, in his AIM chat transcript from 2005. 

Of course, Legeay failed to find a new sponsor after Credit Agricole didn't renew their sponsorship, and none of this was mentioned in the article.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

I think you are missing something, and no offense your argument sounds like a t-shirt I see on occassion..."stop snitchin."

Basically it comes down to one of two things. 

1. Confessing for the sake of easing your own conscience but NOT actually doing anything to help solve the problem means little

2. If you are confronted by the authorities and told " we have enough evidence to penalize you but if you come clean against people we see as "bigger" evils, we will take that into consideration" what would you do.

Number 2 is like the biggest issue. He already in forming Slipstream and how it operates was doing a lot to make up for what he did. In the end though he was a guy who was using. Others were allegedly dealers and facilators to multiple athletes. Without the ability to make deals and people to take them the CJ system would certainly grind to a halt and the same general principle applies to actually making a dent in sports doping.

Look at the real world. What kind of a dent does going after a crack head make in a neighborhood? Zero. However if you do a big sweep based on info provided by crack heads and scoop the dealers and the like, you can have a quiet neighborhood for a while. That is what the USADA is trying to do here. The same has occurred in a lot of the Euro cases. The difference there is that the leg work has often been done by Gov't authorities since in many of the countries in question doping in sport is a crime in and of itself. 

I may have reservations about some technical issues with the USADA case, but the use of witness or informants, so long as the testimony is truthful, should be welcomed and not questioned.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Pretty much. If you are a lone voice in the wilderness, you usually end up having your voice crack as you die of neglect. I think part of the reason JV did everything he did with Slipstream was to make amends. He knew that if he was to speak out loudly back then, he would be out of the sport withg no opportunity to make something better of it. Waiting allowed him to do a lot of good in a subtle fashion and now by coming clean in a far more open fashion he can send it home.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

_I generally agree but the lack of specificity on JV's part enables the simple fanboy to start in with nonsense hypothetical questions about things like caffeine being illegal.

Drinking half a pot of coffee is light years away from getting a couple of shots a day, infusing bloodbags, and using creams, gels, and patches for good measure.

Without delineating exactly what a lot of these guys are doing enables the Armstrong myth to persist and there needs to be a time when this insanity is completely on the table and not just in a book by Voet or about Pantani._

Chris-X; remember, this is just an op-ed piece in the NY Times. IMO, this isn't the venue for the specificity that you are speaking of. My guess is that JV has been real specific in his interviews/testimony with USADA. Once, if ever, the USPS case goes to arbitration, a lot of nauseating details will come to light.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

orange_julius said:


> It reminds me of his "open letter to Roger Legeay." Speaking of which, Legeay deserves credit for running a clean team. JV said he was totally flabbergasted at this fact, in his AIM chat transcript from 2005.
> 
> Of course, Legeay failed to find a new sponsor after Credit Agricole didn't renew their sponsorship, and none of this was mentioned in the article.


Just want to say that at that time running a clean team and having clean athletes are two different things. I honestly think the first team that could be called clean even vaguely is Garmin and that is because of the internal testing they set up. If you have the money at C/A there was nothing to prevent you from hiring your own personal prepatore.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Pretty much. I think he may have had a liability concern. To name names that may have a financial impact outside of litigation he could, even in the US be subject to a liable suit. So he is vague on names in an Op/Ed and then waits until he is called to testify to name names, because before the AAA panel he will have immunity from such suits.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

JV named names.....along with times, dates, and practices.......to the people who mattered. He did not need to come clean. His doping is outside of SOL. He is in the clear. He took the opportunity to help the sport. Good for him


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> JV named names.....along with times, dates, and practices.......to the people who mattered. He did not need to come clean. His doping is outside of SOL. He is in the clear. He took the opportunity to help the sport. Good for him


The only thing is, using the conspiracy theory maybe not. If the USADA had not cut a deal with him, or anyone else for that matter, as long as he was part of the conspiracy with the accused during the alleged time frame he is a co-conspirator and the SOL can, in theory, be broken. That is the thing that makes conspiracy cases so damn powerful. So long as the conspiracy continues, the time of our exit from the conspiracy is not necessarily relevant. 

Hell if not for that some of the people would likely have not testified. Not trying to be cynical here but do you think riders and team managers would have risked the damage of such admissions if it wasn't under the threat of penalties. Some? Sure, an idealist or guilt ridden person can be born. As many as this case seems to have? Not likely.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

As if the evidence on the face of it wasn't enough but it's still nice to hear a rider from the "Armstrong" era say it, the testing was a joke. That's the most important point in the whole thing as far as doping in that time period goes and yet again illustrates why Armstrong's testing claims even if true are meaningless.

It would have been nice if JV would have laid out how the testing wasn't enforced.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

badge118 said:


> The only thing is, using the conspiracy theory maybe not. If the USADA had not cut a deal with him, or anyone else for that matter, as long as he was part of the conspiracy with the accused during the alleged time frame he is a co-conspirator and the SOL can, in theory, be broken. That is the thing that makes conspiracy cases so damn powerful. So long as the conspiracy continues, the time of our exit from the conspiracy is not necessarily relevant.
> 
> Hell if not for that some of the people would likely have not testified. Not trying to be cynical here but do you think riders and team managers would have risked the damage of such admissions if it wasn't under the threat of penalties. Some? Sure, an idealist or guilt ridden person can be born. As many as this case seems to have? Not likely.


Vaughters first told USADA everything he knew over 5 years ago. He did not have a deal, he told them because he wanted to help the sport. He has little on Armstrong, but a lot on the UCI and del Moral. 

The SOL issue is more a concern for what the UCI will do. There is a legitimate fear that they will do everything in their power to harass anyone who tells the truth


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

And that was before the conspiracy case was born. It happens all the time in legal circles. You get info, it has a certain relevance, then you get more info that permits a new theory to be put forward and the older info you had gains new relevance.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

cda 455 said:


> Interesting article:
> 
> *Vaughters admits to doping during career
> 
> *Vaughters Admits To Doping During Career | Cyclingnews.com


And an interesting counter-point, courtesy of Bill Strickland's twitter feed.
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2012/08/14/vaughters-is-no-victim/


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

orange_julius said:


> And an interesting counter-point, courtesy of Bill Strickland's twitter feed.
> Another Cheater Confesses : The Last Word On Nothing


So I'm not the only one who views JV's confession as a preemptive strike to inoculate the public in his favor before more details are revealed.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

HikenBike said:


> So I'm not the only one who views JV's confession as a preemptive strike to inoculate the public in his favor before more details are revealed.


If Credit Agricole had used doping, and if Vaughters could continue to perform at the highest levels, will he have retired?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*I agree*



HikenBike said:


> So I'm not the only one who views JV's confession as a preemptive strike to inoculate the public in his favor before more details are revealed.


with this take.

_This is an opportunity for Vaughters to take actions that match his words. Tell us exactly when your doping began, what you did, and which seasons you doped–then remove your name from those ranks. Give back the ill-gotten prizes. If that Mont Ventoux ascent record you set was done on dope, give that back too. Stop excusing your wrong choices and start owning them. Now is your chance to show your true character_.

I sent a twitter msg to him about his reference to the Ventoux record on his Garmin bio. He responded something to the effect of; 'I'll take it down if it makes you happy...' 

Hey JV, I've stood up for my convictions in my life to the detriment of my "career" and financial well being.

Don't turn this around on me....


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

HikenBike said:


> So I'm not the only one who views JV's confession as a preemptive strike to inoculate the public in his favor before more details are revealed.


I found it self-serving as well. From the article you linked:

_In 2003, I interviewed Vaughters for a Bicycling article about doping....That interview was my introduction to the mindset of dopers and their self-justifying excuses—it’s not cheating if everyone’s doing it. They can convince themselves that everyone’s doing it, because a culture that insists that cheating is obligatory for success becomes self-perpetuating—everyone in the sport really is doping, because the dopers are the only ones left. The people who refuse to cheat never reach the top echelon. 
...
All things considered, doping seems to have paid off handsomely for Vaughters. It helped him win records and prizes on the race circuit, and that gave him the name recognition he needed to build a successful team franchise. He has made a fair sum of money along the way. As a cautionary tale against doping, his story holds little power.

By waiting until now to fess up, Vaughters confirms that he continued to choose his own ambitions over the core values he was espousing. Rather than risking his own reputation or his relationship with those who protected the doping culture, he used the status that he’d achieved by cheating to build his program (and his salary). He may as well have used money stolen from little old ladies to fund a crusade against purse snatching.
_

Vaughters didn't want to be a pro cyclist if he was going to be middle-of-the-peloton. He absolutely _*actively*_ chose the route of cheating, but instead portrays himself as a victim of doping culture. He was one of the bullies instead of the bullied.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*oh c'mon!*



jorgy said:


> I found it self-serving as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaughters didn't want to be a pro cyclist if he was going to be middle-of-the-peloton. He absolutely _*actively*_ chose the route of cheating, but instead portrays himself as a victim of doping culture. *He was one of the bullies *instead of the bullied.


I'm not a JV fan but where do you get this from? How about a link?

JV's a bully now? Yeah, ok!


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

This is just "reap what you sowed" time for all. There is no good excuse for any of this.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> I found it self-serving as well.
> 
> _In 2003, I interviewed Vaughters for a Bicycling article about doping....That interview was my introduction to the mindset of dopers and their self-justifying excuses—it’s not cheating if everyone’s doing it. They can convince themselves that everyone’s doing it, because a culture that insists that cheating is obligatory for success becomes self-perpetuating—everyone in the sport really is doping, because the dopers are the only ones left. The people who refuse to cheat never reach the top echelon.
> ...
> ...



You didn't read the article did you? 

Would JV have been able to influence the sport in a positive way if his team was shut down 6 years ago? Lance made very clear threats that if JV said a word that he would contact his sponsors and get them to drop. Forced him to sign an absurd affidavit. Sometimes the most important thing is staying in the game

Now that the game is drawing to a close who is winning? JV or the guy burning all his cash on lawyers?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Some juniors are happy that they will not face the same choice JV had


----------



## Sasquatch (Feb 3, 2004)

JV for UCI President


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

While I will give props to Vaughters for finally (after years of effectively admitting it without actually admitting it) saying he doped in plain English, I cannot escape the feeling that he is a giant wuss. He seems overcome with guilt, or at least he says he is, for doping to a fairly minimal degree compared to others in the sport. It is like a minor member of Murder Incorporated crying about how he cheated on his taxes. 

That he would give up the last two years of a contract at 500K per year to a team where he not only did not have to dope but the team manager was adamantly against doping says something. I am not sure what it says, but he has some sort of issue that goes beyond doping.

I have the thought that he does not sound like he was cut out to be a cyclist whether there was doping or not.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> That he would give up the last two years of a contract at 500K per year to a team where he not only did not have to dope but the team manager was adamantly against doping says something. I am not sure what it says, but he has some sort of issue that goes beyond doping.
> 
> I have the thought that he does not sound like he was cut out to be a cyclist whether there was doping or not.


He was sicking of working his ass off and barely getting the top 10 in week long Tours because he rode clean. He was sick of falling into the dark hole of the 3rd week of a GT while others boasted their Hct to 50 on the 2nd rest day

I know many guys who have done the same thing. After a while working insanely hard and getting no results can be very frustrating..... especially if it is just getting worse.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I do not accept that argument that a rider "had to dope to keep up" as he could have chosen to settle for mediocrity in cycling like the rest of us. Claiming that he needed drugs to stay competitive in cycling is claiming that he needed drugs to preserve his superiority complex. 

I don't care if being a pro cyclist was the guy's childhood dream. If wasn't good enough to make it without drugs he could have gone back to school. 

JV's "victim" confession is hollow. All that said, I have no ill-will towards JV or any of the dopers. I don't really care. They can say they doped because they were victims or they doped because they were obsessed with hurting feelings -- it makes no difference to me.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

I can understand JV wanting to be in with the in crowd. It's human nature. It's Pride, a deadly sin. Nobody 'makes' anybody dope.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

David Loving said:


> I can understand JV wanting to be in with the in crowd. It's human nature. It's Pride, a deadly sin. Nobody 'makes' anybody dope.


Really? No one has ever done anything that they felt was morally wrong or accepted great personal health and safety risks for their job because they wanted to keep it?

Not sure what your relegion has to do with any of this.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

JV stated that it was a childhood fantasy to be a pro athlete. That's why I don't buy the reasoning that a cyclist had to dope to _keep his job_. That comparison is hollow and condescending, as an athlete who can no longer be a pro gets relegated to a real job, like the rest of us.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I do understand David Loving's point, as a character defect is a defect, whether the guy is doping to fit in or doping to put the hurt on the peloton and establish dominance. 

That said, I tend to buy the argument that a guy dopes because he wants to win. I don't think the thoughts "I am doing this just to keep up" because "everyone else is doing it" enters a cyclist's mind when he launches a cheeky solo attack.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> I do understand David Loving's point, as a character defect is a defect, whether the guy is doping to fit in or doping to put the hurt on the peloton and establish dominance.
> 
> That said, I tend to buy the argument that a guy dopes because he wants to win. I don't think the thoughts "I am doing this just to keep up" because "everyone else is doing it" enters a cyclist's mind when he launches a cheeky solo attack.


One first dopes to win, or to be the best in one's racing category. Then, once upgrade or accolade is earned, one dopes to "keep up." Sounds just like David Anthony, the guy who got caught at Gran Fondo NJ. First it was just to win as a Cat 5. Then he upped the method to win as a Cat 4, then Cat 3, then Cat 2. 

At the same time that JV decided to call it quits because he couldn't keep up with the top riders, the top rungs he moved up to by doping, Christophe Moreau was slogging it out every damn day and he netted top ten. Notably, Moreau was nabbed at Festina, but if we are to believe the JV/Andreu AIM transcript Moreau was riding clean at Credit Agricole. 

When the "old guard" left the stage, Moreau came in swinging in 2006 while riding for Ag2R. He was second in Dauphiné (behind a dope-fueled Levi Leipheimer if we are to believe Leipheimer's then-manager Holczer), and was looking strong in the TdF. He finished 8th behind teammate Cyril Dessel. 

I wonder if JV would have called it quits if he had gone to another team where doping wasn't frowned upon.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> I do not accept that argument that a rider "had to dope to keep up" as he could have chosen to settle for mediocrity in cycling like the rest of us. Claiming that he needed drugs to stay competitive in cycling is claiming that he needed drugs to preserve his superiority complex.
> 
> I don't care if being a pro cyclist was the guy's childhood dream. If wasn't good enough to make it without drugs he could have gone back to school.
> 
> JV's "victim" confession is hollow. All that said, I have no ill-will towards JV or any of the dopers. I don't really care. They can say they doped because they were victims or they doped because they were obsessed with hurting feelings -- it makes no difference to me.


Can't wait for your reaction to Armstrong's "exit strategy.":wink:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> I do not accept that argument that a rider "had to dope to keep up" as he could have chosen to settle for mediocrity in cycling like the rest of us. Claiming that he needed drugs to stay competitive in cycling is claiming that he needed drugs to preserve his superiority complex.
> 
> I don't care if being a pro cyclist was the guy's childhood dream. If wasn't good enough to make it without drugs he could have gone back to school.
> 
> JV's "victim" confession is hollow. All that said, I have no ill-will towards JV or any of the dopers. I don't really care. They can say they doped because they were victims or they doped because they were obsessed with hurting feelings -- it makes no difference to me.


Not everyone is as comfortable with mediocrity as you are. Many would have ridden out the last 2 years of his contract (@500,000 Euros per year) then walked.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not everyone is as comfortable with mediocrity as you are. Many would have ridden out the last 2 years of his contract (@500,000 Euros per year) then walked.


While I think he's trying to do the right thing at this point in time, he's also trying to control the narrative. The deal is he effed up, and on a pretty big public stage at that. A lot of people do, and while I'm sure there are excuses and mitigating factors, a lot of people face similiar dilemmas. For some that are fortunate to have very strong characters, they resist these types of temptations, and don't even consider going to the dark side. Well, JV did go to the dark side and he's going to have to take his lumps. It's kind of sad but why should he be exempt?

There comes a point when the guy has to stand on his own somewhat. It's not like he's going to go to prison over this and there are many in prison who were raised in awful circumstances and could argue they were sucked into a very effed up life. It's a terrible tragedy.



goloso said:


> Really? No one has ever done anything that they felt was morally wrong or accepted great personal health and safety risks for their job because they wanted to keep it?
> 
> Not sure what your relegion has to do with any of this.


Agreed and a very positive thing that JV has done is to try to create a climate which gives very ambitious cyclists a positive, moral option so they don't feel compelled to make very bad choices.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not everyone is as comfortable with mediocrity as you are. Many would have ridden out the last 2 years of his contract (@500,000 Euros per year) then walked.


In 2001 he won the Dauphiné stage on Mont Ventoux to set a record that stood until Iban Mayo broke it. And in 2001 he was part of the team that won the TTT in TdF. He had to abandon because of the famous wasp sting incident. The previous year in 2000 he abandoned because of a crash, so it can be argued the injury wiped out the rest of the 2000 season. The next year in 2002 he abandoned also because of a crash. 

Looking at those two years it seems the apparent mediocrity is more due to bad luck more than anything else. 

In addition, when CA hired Vaughters surely Roger Legeay was aware that USPS was doping. We'll never know for sure, but could Vaughters have piled too much pressure onto himself? It seems to me he was, and could have been a successful rider in terms of climbing ITTs and short stage races. 

Why did he leave USPS in the first place, was it so that he could be his own GC leader in the TdF?


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

If JV is a victim he is a victim of his own pride. What is the saying, goes before a fall?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

http://www.roadcycling.com/articles/Vaughters-Doping-Confession_005058.shtml

Vaughters has hired riders that have served a suspension for doping, but curiously Landis wasn't included. I asked Floyd and he told me, "I asked JV for a job and he told me he can't hire me."

Why couldn't he hire Landis? Probably it would have made entry into European races that much harder as Landis had been very vocal about corruption in the higher echelon of the sport. Remember, this was before Slipstream Sports (the company behind Garmin-Sharp) was a Grand Tour and classic winning squad and they were considered the underdogs. Vaughters did what he thought was best for himself and the team, didn't hire Landis and didn't mention his own doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

orange_julius said:


> In 2001 he won the Dauphiné stage on Mont Ventoux to set a record that stood until Iban Mayo broke it. And in 2001 he was part of the team that won the TTT in TdF. He had to abandon because of the famous wasp sting incident. The previous year in 2000 he abandoned because of a crash, so it can be argued the injury wiped out the rest of the 2000 season. The next year in 2002 he abandoned also because of a crash.
> 
> Looking at those two years it seems the apparent mediocrity is more due to bad luck more than anything else.
> 
> ...


The Ventoux record stage came in 1999, when he rode on Postal. 

Roger was very much aware but he knew that JV could ride top 10 of week long Tour clean and that was OK with him. Given the amount of work he had to do it was not OK with JV. 

JV left the sport and started a junior team with his own cash. He worked on many different levels to change the environment of the sport so that others would not be faced with the same choice he had.....for this he is called a victim. 

The sport needs more victims


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

*Splitting Hairs*

I have Falsetti on timeout because I find his personal attacks boring. I see his comment only now that someone else quoted it: 

_Not everyone is as comfortable with mediocrity as you are._

Clearly, this is not part of a coherent argument from Falsetti, but a pathetic attempt to insult me personally by saying that I am _comfortable with mediocrity_. 

As a matter of fact, I am. I had childhood aspirations of becoming a professional athlete. Alternatively, I fantasized about being a Navy SEAL or fighter pilot. Or a movie star. When I matured I accepted alternatives in life. We cannot all be superstars. 

*Just because someone wants to be a pro doesn't mean that they can be a pro. Having a childhood dream doesn't give someone entitlement. *

This doesn't mean that non-pros are listless or lazy. I walk around every day feeling bad to the bone and I'm proud of what I've accomplished but ultimately, _I'm just some f*cking guy_. Even the amateur state champ (or national champ for that matter) is a mediocre cyclist. 

For dopers, "not being comfortable with mediocrity" is tantamount to what I said in an earlier post:

_Claiming that he needed drugs to stay competitive in cycling is claiming that he needed drugs to preserve his superiority complex. _

And if he outright said that, I would accept it. I can identify with a guy saying, "I just really like winning. Being out there and kicking their teeth in gives me a rush." I get that. I too like to win. 

What I don't get is a guy saying, "everyone else was doing it" and "I had to do it to keep up." I cannot identify with a blatant appeal to weakness and insecurity.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> snip.


Instead of continuing to be part of the problem JV walked away and focused his efforts on changing the sport so that others would not face the same choice. 

You are welcome to think this is a sign of weakness but most would not agree with you


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Might makes right tho?*




Local Hero said:


> *I have Falsetti on timeout because I find his personal attacks boring. I see his comment only now that someone else quoted it*:
> 
> _Not everyone is as comfortable with mediocrity as you are._
> 
> ...


So an unapologetic dope fiend/scumbag like Lance gets your props!

I actually agree with some of your post but it's all over the map as are a lot of your previous opinions.

Also who gives a rats a$s as to who you're ignoring? Just ignore them but that wouldn't fit into your "game plan."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Here is a good article JV wrote a decade ago

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56420890/Drugs-Vaughters


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Ventoux record stage came in 1999, when he rode on Postal.
> 
> Roger was very much aware but he knew that JV could ride top 10 of week long Tour clean and that was OK with him. Given the amount of work he had to do it was not OK with JV.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the correction. 

JV left the sport because he is a victim of his own ambition. If he hadn't had access to USPS' doping regime, will he have been propelled to the top Euro ranks he thought he should be riding in? 

That he is today running a team that in theory is promoting a clean sport, I applaud. Hell, that he was able to start a junior team and grow that into a top-level team, I definitely applaud and admire that. 

You are saying the two sides of him, that of a rider and that of a team manager, are one and the same. I think they are not. His preferred narrative is that the doping culture when he was a rider made him a victim, and that led directly to his fight against doping today. 

With the NYT piece he missed an opportunity for a sincere apology. And that's really too bad for everybody who cares about the damn sport, not just him and for his riders. He failed to address the addiction aspect of doping, that it had allowed him a taste of what it was like to be at the top. That's an important lesson for everybody, including a recent member of the busted dopers squad David Anthony. 

Your link to the Cycling Weekly article for 2005 was very good, thanks for that. It is also very telling he said that dopers aren't evil, they are human and they are just like us, that we shouldn't point fingers. I disagree with this.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Your Timing Stinks Jonathan


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Chris-X said:


> Your Timing Stinks Jonathan


The responses so far, both positive and negative, reminds me of when Bjarne Riis finally admitted he had doped. Blahblahblah, "I'm atoning for it by running a clean team now, Basso is like my son but wait I had no idea he was doping." And now look at where Riis is now, staying strong by Contador's side.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

orange_julius said:


> Thanks for the correction.
> 
> JV left the sport because he is a victim of his own ambition. If he hadn't had access to USPS' doping regime, will he have been propelled to the top Euro ranks he thought he should be riding in?
> 
> ...


I don't see him claiming to be a victim but I do think that many who chose to ride clean in the 90's and early 00's were victims. The sport had little room for them. Guys like Christophe Bassons, Martial Gayant, Charly Mottet, Alvaro Pino, Luis Herrera, Urs Zimmermann, Andy Hampsten, Greg LeMond, Frans Maasen, Niki Ruttimann, Eduardo Chozas, Jean-Francois Bernard, Steve Bauer, Anselmo Fuerte, Martin Earley, Eric Boyer, Laudelino Cubino, Eddy Bouwmans. Their careers were ruined when EPO came onto the scene

While some may call it weakness I can't image that after dedicating your life to something that when you find out organized cheating is a key part of it that most would be disappointed

I have seen the sport change greatly in the past 5 years. Yes, JV was still successful clean. He had some good results on CA, but he would be huge today

Doping has never been the sole measure of a person for me.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

goloso said:


> Really? No one has ever done anything that they felt was morally wrong or accepted great personal health and safety risks for their job because they wanted to keep it?
> 
> Not sure what your relegion has to do with any of this.


I didn't mean it religiously. I meant that it's just bad mojo. Why?: we got a whole forum devoted to these losers. There is a great difference between lying/cheating/stealing, which is what the dopers in the sport are doing, and accepting health and safety risks for their jobs, which is what our combat troops are doing.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

David Loving said:


> There is a great difference between lying/cheating/stealing, which is what the dopers in the sport are doing, and accepting health and safety risks for their jobs, which is what our combat troops are doing.


Do you really want to compare the magnitude and consequences of the moral lapses of some athletes to those of some military personnel? Why don't you just drop it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

David Loving said:


> I didn't mean it religiously. I meant that it's just bad mojo. Why?: we got a whole forum devoted to these losers. There is a great diff*erence between lying/cheating/stealing, which is what the dopers in the sport are doing, and accepting health and safety risks for their jobs, which is what our combat troops are doing*.


this is ridiculous


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

asgelle said:


> Do you really want to compare the magnitude and consequences of the moral lapses of some athletes to those of some military personnel? Why don't you just drop it.


On a tangential note, I've known more than one military guy on the sauce. But I suspect the percentage of military personal on steroids is lower than the percentage of law enforcement officers who juice. And nothing comes close to the rampant use of steroids among prison guards.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> this is ridiculous


Just posted this to remind that there are people really taking risks in dangerous situations in this world. JV and his colleagues are just bicycle riders for chrissake.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

David Loving said:


> Just posted this to remind that there are people really taking risks in dangerous situations in this world. JV and his colleagues are just bicycle riders for chrissake.


“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." 

Matthew 7:1-5


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

It's a miracle.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Good read. Thanks!


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

JV talks, sort of - CyclingNews Forum

Including at present about 125 posts by JV himself.

Very interesting reading.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Much more detail in this interview with Joe Lindsey

Jonathan Vaughters Talks More About His Doping and His New York Times Op-Ed | Bicycling Magazine



> “Obviously, I’m not a victim,” he says. “The decision (to dope) was mine and mine alone.”


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

That's a very fine interview. Good for JV.:thumbsup:


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

More self-serving tripe. I actually started all this as a JV fan. Not so much anymore.


----------

