Vaughters insinuating Bruyneel knows how to hide doping?

donrhummy

In this month's pro cycling, there's an account of a discussion between Anne Gripper and Jonathan Vaughters of Slipstream. As they're talking about whether teams should be required to do things to procure a ProTour licence, Vaughters asks Anne:

Shouldn't more be required of Astana than any other team, especially now that some pretty intelligent people have joined up with them?

As much as many people might think Floyd Landis' recent interview with Velonews was off-the-wall, it sounds like he just may have been right about Vaughters. Vaughters is clearly claiming that Bruyneel will not only be able to hide doping, but that he WILL do so.

This is particularly interesting when combined with the ASO's recent decision on Astana (which occurred months after Vaughter's comments), as I think it shows a common way of thinking among the cycling administration.

aurelio_-_banned

donrhummy wrote:

Vaughters is clearly claiming that Bruyneel will not only be able to hide doping, but that he WILL do so.

Good on Vaughters! A bit of honesty and a refusal to give in to to the 'mafia' tactics of those determined to preserve the 'omerta' is exactly what professional cycling needs.

andy_wrx

Add those proficient in concealing doping to those willing to dope in order to win and you can see what he means...

drenkrom

Keep talking, JV!

moray_gub

''As much as many people might think Floyd Landis' recent interview with Velonews was off-the-wall, it sounds like he just may have been right about Vaughters. Vaughters is clearly claiming that Bruyneel will not only be able to hide doping, but that he WILL do so.''


So is it fair game now to say that any rider who has not had a positive test in his career has a DS who can hide doping ? Thats seems the way we are going with this these days.

cheers
MG

secretsqirrel

Hmm!

While everybody watches Astana, they will have their backs turned from everybody else. :evil:

Can I take it then that Damsgaard is to be totally discredited, along with CSC?

Kléber

I'm in two minds about Vaughters. He did ride for US Postal and set the record up Mont Ventoux, riding faster than the likes of Mayo and Armstrong. So he knows the score. Times have moved on, and things done in the past are understandable/no longer acceptable, but a bit more explanation.

Still, good luck to him and his team, they're a great idea.

donrhummy

Moray Gub wrote:

''As much as many people might think Floyd Landis' recent interview with Velonews was off-the-wall, it sounds like he just may have been right about Vaughters. Vaughters is clearly claiming that Bruyneel will not only be able to hide doping, but that he WILL do so.''


So is it fair game now to say that any rider who has not had a positive test in his career has a DS who can hide doping ? Thats seems the way we are going with this these days.

cheers
MG

That's my point. He's setting cycling up for a state where everyone's guilty AND more importantly, where presumed guilt (without evidence as Bruyneel's not been caught for it) is enough to kick them out and treat them differently. THAT, I am not comfortable with.

LangerDan

When I read the interview, I took JVs comment differently - the previous format of suitcases full of cash and basket-case management is no longer acceptable. A team needs to be run properly in all its facets. A ProTour licence isn't just about an anti-doping programme.

In a way I'm surprised JV would attack Bruyneel - honour among thieves and all that. But it was pointed out last year at the launch of the high-tech, high-spec Slipstream that their stance would seem to imply that as they were clean, anyone that beat them must be doping.

Richrd2205

donrhummy wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

''As much as many people might think Floyd Landis' recent interview with Velonews was off-the-wall, it sounds like he just may have been right about Vaughters. Vaughters is clearly claiming that Bruyneel will not only be able to hide doping, but that he WILL do so.''


So is it fair game now to say that any rider who has not had a positive test in his career has a DS who can hide doping ? Thats seems the way we are going with this these days.

cheers
MG

That's my point. He's setting cycling up for a state where everyone's guilty AND more importantly, where presumed guilt (without evidence as Bruyneel's not been caught for it) is enough to kick them out and treat them differently. THAT, I am not comfortable with.

Och, I'm so glad that the pro cycling season has started again! Can I just point out that the above is the inference derived from the interpretation of an inference all informed by a convicted doper? The High Road/Slipstream not trying to win stuff has been done before & is quite clearly BS: just look at the results.

Vaughters is not implying anything, merely letting folk infer something to get him mentioned. PR & what's happening on the ground are quite clearly different. If you choose to infer something & then interpret that as an accusation, then this says more about how we, as fans, see cycling just now & maybe this is what we should be talking about? If gossiping like fishwives is preferable, then as you were....

top_bhoy

donrhummy wrote:

That's my point. He's setting cycling up for a state where everyone's guilty AND more importantly, where presumed guilt (without evidence as Bruyneel's not been caught for it) is enough to kick them out and treat them differently. THAT, I am not comfortable with.

Bruyneel may not have been caught for doping but Astana were THE big doping news story of 2007 and given the scale of their misdemeanours, not only the riders but the team, need to be punished for it. Leavng aside other teams, my only slight concern with Astna not riding some of these races is that while it is the right result, it is the wrong road. These 'bans' haven't been sanctioned by the UCI and therefore 'unofficial'. For some reason, UCI haven't done enough to punish Astana as a team.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Pat and Astana seem to have jumped into bed together recently. ASO can invite who they like to their non-protour events, so there's no mystery there. The UCI let them pick and choose, so it's a bit late to then complain when ASO's policy doesn't match what the UCI is thinking. Neither is right in reality, but the UCI is more wrong.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

I'm in two minds about Vaughters. He did ride for US Postal and set the record up Mont Ventoux, riding faster than the likes of Mayo and Armstrong. So he knows the score. Times have moved on, and things done in the past are understandable/no longer acceptable, but a bit more explanation.

Still, good luck to him and his team, they're a great idea.

Shhhhh. Don't mention things like that - JV is keeping his yapper shut just like everyone else. He knows the score, hasn't ever "offically" come out as a user, heck, when the lawyers were set on him he showed as much backbone as a slug and said he meant "caffeine" when he refered to "hot sauce"

aurelio_-_banned

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Pat and Astana seem to have jumped into bed together recently.

Perhaps (hang on a moment whilst I adjust my tin-foil hat...) it's more the case that the UCI and Bruyneel jumped into bed together a long time ago and Bruyneel is now 'leaning' on the UCI who are afraid he just might blow the whistle on his past deeds and the complicity of the UCI. There have certainly been many rumours over the years in the complicity of the UCI with regards preserving the 'omerta' and the culture of doping, especially under Verbruggen. For example, recall all those rumours about the UCI's failure to find Armstrong 'positive' for testosterone when the early stages of his testicular cancer must have been sending the levels of his beta-hGC through the roof. This is something which should have been led to a 'positive' test result, indicating either doping or a major medical problem.

iainf72

aurelio wrote:

For example, recall all those rumours about the UCI's failure to find Armstrong 'positive' for testosterone when the early stages of his testicular cancer must have been sending the levels of his beta-hGC through the roof. This is something which should have been led to a 'positive' test result, indicating either doping or a major medical problem.

Like you, I've got a tin foil hat on with this one. And think much the same. When Lance got the cancer it should've showed up so he holds a massive axe over the heads of the UCI in that regard. Why did they not find it? DId they and just ignore it which was potentially life threatening for the athlete involved? He was the #1 back then, wasn't he? (when the markers should've shown up)

LangerDan

Nearly a decade ago when Tricky Dicky was trying to save his whingeing, skinny hide, J-M Leblanc tried to prevent him taking part in the TdF but was forced to re-admit him by the UCI as it was in breach of the rules.

So UCI siding with ne'er-do-wells against the Tour was a fact of life before Astana and even before Bruyneel had achieved any significant level of managerial success.

iainf72

LangerDan wrote:

So UCI siding with ne'er-do-wells against the Tour was a fact of life before Astana and even before Bruyneel had achieved any significant level of managerial success.

LangerDan, mate, could you get with the program?

As soon as Bruyneel is gone there will be no doping, no bullying and everything will be wonderful. I expect we'll also see a return to wool shorts and lugged frames. There was no badness before him and there will be not a spot afterwards.

LangerDan

iainf72 wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

So UCI siding with ne'er-do-wells against the Tour was a fact of life before Astana and even before Bruyneel had achieved any significant level of managerial success.

LangerDan, mate, could you get with the program?

As soon as Bruyneel is gone there will be no doping, no bullying and everything will be wonderful. I expect we'll also see a return to wool shorts and lugged frames. There was no badness before him and there will be not a spot afterwards.

I'm sorry that I didn't read the original post properly. My Livestrong wristband got knotted up in my "Let Levi Ride" t-shirt and the fecking thing sprang up and hit me in the eye. However I've made an icepack from my Cipo limited-edition tigerskin posing pouch and I can see a little better now.

calvjones

LangerDan wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

So UCI siding with ne'er-do-wells against the Tour was a fact of life before Astana and even before Bruyneel had achieved any significant level of managerial success.

LangerDan, mate, could you get with the program?

As soon as Bruyneel is gone there will be no doping, no bullying and everything will be wonderful. I expect we'll also see a return to wool shorts and lugged frames. There was no badness before him and there will be not a spot afterwards.

I'm sorry that I didn't read the original post properly. My Livestrong wristband got knotted up in my "Let Levi Ride" t-shirt and the fecking thing sprang up and hit me in the eye. However I've made an icepack from my Cipo limited-edition tigerskin posing pouch and I can see a little better now.

lol. This whole thread is utterly non-illuminating, but very amusing.

the doktor

fact is Bruyneel managed Hamilton, Andreu, Heras, Landis and more (anyone) and none of em got caught when they were working for him. Seems like JV's comments are pretty acurate.

iainf72

the doktor wrote:

fact is Bruyneel managed Hamilton, Andreu, Heras, Landis and more (anyone) and none of em got caught when they were working for him. Seems like JV's comments are pretty acurate.

Fact is Andreu did it solo without help from the team, Heras comes from the Spanish system etc.

Bruyneel doesn't have mystical powers.

No one from T-Mobile got "caught" either but no one is suggesting they were run by the love child of satan and Conconi.

DaveyL

So that's not your other name for Uncle Bob then?

the doktor

balls, andreu said in his recent confession that if you weren't EPO'ed up you weren't on the team.

iainf72

the doktor wrote:

balls, andreu said in his recent confession that if you weren't EPO'ed up you weren't on the team.

Maybe he did, but Andreau did his EPO by himself There is an account of it in his own words in the Walsh book. He did the research, drove to Switzerland and bought it and used it.

don key

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Pat and Astana seem to have jumped into bed together recently. ASO can invite who they like to their non-protour events, so there's no mystery there. The UCI let them pick and choose, so it's a bit late to then complain when ASO's policy doesn't match what the UCI is thinking. Neither is right in reality, but the UCI is more wrong.

Dont worry, Pat wouldnt do anything without a condom, single hole variety.

donrhummy

the doktor wrote:

fact is Bruyneel managed Hamilton, Andreu, Heras, Landis and more (anyone) and none of em got caught when they were working for him. Seems like JV's comments are pretty acurate.

Right, because if they doped after joining another team they MUST have doped every year prior to that as well. :roll: I hope you never get called for jury duty.

leguape

the doktor wrote:

fact is Bruyneel managed Hamilton, Andreu, Heras, Landis and more (anyone) and none of em got caught when they were working for him. Seems like JV's comments are pretty acurate.

And with the exception of Andreu, what do the others all have in common? They all went from being domestiques in a very disciplined team focused on one goal to being team leaders in teams with broader focuses and less rigorous organisation (particularly on the road).

Seems to me that there's a substantial change in circumstance which might present a more obvious explanation for where the impetus to dope came from - and it wasn't from being a domestique in the USPS team.

micron

But it doesn't make sense to dope your team leader and then leave him with a weak team - and that was what made USPS/Disco so effective, their strength, especially in the mountains. And there would be plenty of financial motive - Armstrong was a very generous boss by all accounts.

the doktor

Mmm, hope you don't get called for jury duty either mate. Rose tinted specs don't make you see more clearly.

Really, if any of you believe any of them were clean your living in cuckoo land.

donrhummy

the doktor wrote:

Mmm, hope you don't get called for jury duty either mate. Rose tinted specs don't make you see more clearly.

Really, if any of you believe any of them were clean your living in cuckoo land.

That's not the point. Regardless of what you BELIEVE, you need evidence before convicting people. The Duke lacross players would all be in jail if people acted the way ASO and much of pro-cycling has been acting.

Kléber

donrhummy wrote:

That's not the point. Regardless of what you BELIEVE, you need evidence before convicting people. The Duke lacross players would all be in jail if people acted the way ASO and much of pro-cycling has been acting.

Believe what you like. But based on your requirement for evidence, Al Capone wasn't a mafioso, just a tax dodger. Osama Bin Laden is just a cranky cave dweller prone to making inflammatory video tapes. Bjarne Riis never tested positive. And even if you have faith in the law, OJ Simpson's innocent, yes?