Vaughters
Comments
-
mfin wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:mfin wrote:The main thing with Vaughters' comments to me is that they seem to go through the rationale of how he/people get caught up in doping, and how he wants to move forward, and the sorries (a bit).
BUT... what id like to hear is a full run down of the doping regime, day in day out what substances were being done, shedding more light on it for casual readers of what drugs were being used, when, on what schedule, the methods and knowledge on how to get round the testing when needed, all described.
These descriptions are what are missing in the confessions from most dopers for me.
Isn't that just voyeurism on your part?
No, I don't think so, I think it should be very public what they have been up to. Get the secrets and the knowledge out in the open air. Myself Id greatly respect anyone who does this as against just admitting theyve doped, with not much detail, and then going straight for the emotional side of it all from their point of view (and that's because I think most of us accept the pressures to dope that have been around by now.
When pushed on Twitter for similar JV's reply was along the lines of 'all in good time, there's nothing you (the public) can do with that info. but the people who need to know have been given the full detail.' Seems fair enough although I'll admit to a prurient interest in the details too.0 -
Thought it was pretty common knowledge.
Watched an hour long documentary on him in the 2nd year of his ban.
He has this discussion again and again with the journalist on camera.0 -
DeadCalm wrote:mfin wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:mfin wrote:The main thing with Vaughters' comments to me is that they seem to go through the rationale of how he/people get caught up in doping, and how he wants to move forward, and the sorries (a bit).
BUT... what id like to hear is a full run down of the doping regime, day in day out what substances were being done, shedding more light on it for casual readers of what drugs were being used, when, on what schedule, the methods and knowledge on how to get round the testing when needed, all described.
These descriptions are what are missing in the confessions from most dopers for me.
Isn't that just voyeurism on your part?
No, I don't think so, I think it should be very public what they have been up to. Get the secrets and the knowledge out in the open air. Myself Id greatly respect anyone who does this as against just admitting theyve doped, with not much detail, and then going straight for the emotional side of it all from their point of view (and that's because I think most of us accept the pressures to dope that have been around by now.
When pushed on Twitter for similar JV's reply was along the lines of 'all in good time, there's nothing you (the public) can do with that info. but the people who need to know have been given the full detail.' Seems fair enough although I'll admit to a prurient interest in the details too.
That's what I'd hope for. My only benefit would be titilation and an "insider" feeling."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Thought it was pretty common knowledge.
Watched an hour long documentary on him in the 2nd year of his ban.
He has this discussion again and again with the journalist on camera.
Any idea what the documentary was called?? From what I read I never found much of the details of the doping regime at all you see.
(there's 2 9min interview parts on youtube but not in english or subtitled)0 -
mfin wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Thought it was pretty common knowledge.
Watched an hour long documentary on him in the 2nd year of his ban.
He has this discussion again and again with the journalist on camera.
Any idea what the documentary was called?? From what I read I never found much of the details of the doping regime at all you see.
(there's 2 9min interview parts on youtube but not in english or subtitled)
I think that's the point.
http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/afleveringen/1105474
No english subtitles though.0 -
"I did read it and I've also read David Millar's book," said Talansky. "It seems that they both came through the sport in a similar time and they were racing their bikes when I didn't even know what bike racing was. What I'm really, really happy about, whatever happened in Jonathan's past, the fact that it led him to creating the Slipstream organisation, creating this clean team and living by that ethos of making sure that riders like myself or Alex Howes or Pete Stetina or any young guy who comes into this sport and joins this team, that that's (doping) never put into the equation. It's never something that we're ever going to have to deal with. We're never going to have to make that choice between following our dreams or cheating to follow our dreams. We just get to follow our dreams and just become the most successful cyclist we can in an extremely positive, extremely clean environment.
"That's what's incredible to me is what he's created with this team is I think one of the most special things in cycling. I think the sport as a whole, I'd venture to say, is the cleanest it's ever been in the last 20 years. The point is now what Jonathan started with this team is really carrying over to a lot of teams, it's not just us anymore. You look at any team and they're all for the most part on the blood passport program and we've made leaps and bounds in the sport. I'm really thankful that I'm coming into it now, especially on a team like this where I never have to make decisions that Jonathan or any other rider [before] may have been faced with."Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:"I did read it and I've also read David Millar's book," said Talansky. "It seems that they both came through the sport in a similar time and they were racing their bikes when I didn't even know what bike racing was. What I'm really, really happy about, whatever happened in Jonathan's past, the fact that it led him to creating the Slipstream organisation, creating this clean team and living by that ethos of making sure that riders like myself or Alex Howes or Pete Stetina or any young guy who comes into this sport and joins this team, that that's (doping) never put into the equation. It's never something that we're ever going to have to deal with. We're never going to have to make that choice between following our dreams or cheating to follow our dreams. We just get to follow our dreams and just become the most successful cyclist we can in an extremely positive, extremely clean environment.
"That's what's incredible to me is what he's created with this team is I think one of the most special things in cycling. I think the sport as a whole, I'd venture to say, is the cleanest it's ever been in the last 20 years. The point is now what Jonathan started with this team is really carrying over to a lot of teams, it's not just us anymore. You look at any team and they're all for the most part on the blood passport program and we've made leaps and bounds in the sport. I'm really thankful that I'm coming into it now, especially on a team like this where I never have to make decisions that Jonathan or any other rider [before] may have been faced with."
And this is Talansky who was very quick to jump to Armstrong's defence on Twitter when news of USADA's charges went public? He acknowledges his own boss and team mate's doping pasts, yet Armstrong is somehow outside of all that? Bizarre.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:
And this is Talansky who was very quick to jump to Armstrong's defence on Twitter when news of USADA's charges went public? He acknowledges his own boss and team mate's doping pasts, yet Armstrong is somehow outside of all that? Bizarre.
He answers that at the clinic.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.p ... tcount=172Yes, I do talk to all of my riders very honestly when it comes to my past. And I gave Andrew a freecking earful after that comment. You have to remember, they have their own minds, own opinions, and I don't expect them to be my puppets.
I think Andrew is just tired of cycling past trumping cycling present for headlines. He expressed that the wrong way, he knows that now, but he's learning. He's a stubborn *** hole. But that's just the reason he'll be an excellent rider one day.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:
And this is Talansky who was very quick to jump to Armstrong's defence on Twitter when news of USADA's charges went public? He acknowledges his own boss and team mate's doping pasts, yet Armstrong is somehow outside of all that? Bizarre.
He answers that at the clinic.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.p ... tcount=172Yes, I do talk to all of my riders very honestly when it comes to my past. And I gave Andrew a freecking earful after that comment. You have to remember, they have their own minds, own opinions, and I don't expect them to be my puppets.
I think Andrew is just tired of cycling past trumping cycling present for headlines. He expressed that the wrong way, he knows that now, but he's learning. He's a stubborn *** hole. But that's just the reason he'll be an excellent rider one day.
Ah, good, thanks for this. I cant go anywhere near the Clinic - any time I've looked at it I've feared for my sanity remaining intact.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:
Ah, good, thanks for this. I cant go anywhere near the Clinic - any time I've looked at it I've feared for my sanity remaining intact.
I no longer have to worry about that.0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
iainf72 wrote:
Team time trialling to catch the grupetto :shock: Really demonstrates EPO's effectiveness!
--
Take two riders of the same age, height, and weight, says Vaughters. They have identical VO2max at threshold—a measure of oxygen uptake at the limit of sustainable aerobic power. But one of them has a natural hematocrit of 36 and one of 47. Those riders have physiologies that don’t respond equally to doping.
It’s not even a simple math equation that, with the old 50 percent hematocrit limit, one rider could gain 14 percent and another only three. Even if you raise the limit to the edge of physical sustainability, 60 percent or more, to allow both athletes significant gains, it’s not an equal effect, Vaughters says.
He goes on to explain that the largest gains in oxygen transport occur in the lower hematocrit ranges—a 50 percent increase in RBC count is not a linear 50 percent increase in oxygen transport capability. The rider with the lower hematocrit is actually extremely efficient at scavenging oxygen from what little hemoglobin that he has, comparatively. So when you boost his red-cell count, he goes a lot faster. The rider at 47 is less efficient, so a boost has less effect.
“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.”
- I think the above is great. This is basically what people should understand when they say about Armstrong: well they all doped so he was still the best. Actually Lance would be one of those that respond best to doping because his natural levels are not very high at all.
--
ASO puts less than 1 percent of its profits to anti-doping
More prosaically, the teams (and race organizers) don’t trust the UCI because they feel the organization is working against them—imposing sponsor-unfriendly regulations, and forcing teams to spend money and extend the season to do races the UCI itself organizes and makes money off of, like the Tour of Beijing, which compete with independent events.
F the UCI
--
Two of the kids on that 2004 TIAA-CREF/5280 team were Alex Howes and Peter Stetina, both of whom will race for Garmin in the upcoming USA Pro Challenge. A third, Timmy Duggan, will ride for Liquigas-Cannondale. A fourth, Craig Lewis, will co-captain Champion System.
Nice!Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.” [/i]
- I think the above is great. This is basically what people should understand when they say about Armstrong: well they all doped so he was still the best. Actually Lance would be one of those that respond best to doping because his natural levels are not very high at all.
I reckon it's crap. Vaughters thinks he can distinguish between just riding a lot and doping, in that doping, as a training device, is illegitimate. Not because doping is against the rules and cycling isn't, but because doping is unnatural, or something like that and whateverthefuck that means, and works better for some. But the former argument is as completely fatuous as any against anything on grounds of its naturality. No, sport is not a special situation; it has a bunch of arbitrary rules, perforce valid in that they permit 'sport' to exist at all, whereas life does not, but Vaughters doesn't seem to mind. His argument is about a sort of fairness, which, it seems, is independent of whatever the UCI has to say. See the allusion to Darwinism, which, incidentally, was lulz. Come on, man. If you're in a doping environment, a word Vaughters used himself, you'll have to adapt - that is, dope - to survive. Otherwise you might have to retire and start a cycling team. Anyway - if doping is natural, or it isn't but nor is anything else, or, and I prefer this, naturality is a meaningless, useless concept; the details are a minor, irrelevant matter; what's pivotal is that it's a shit argument - what remains? That in a doping environment some are fitter than others, as it were. But that's a bit like, say, a non-doping bike riding environment. Or any other sport or pursuit. So the argument's been rendered a bit dickless now.
Frankly (this is the surely long-awaited new paragraph) I think that a similar argument, with the UCI's rules and the necessity of rules as a base, could work quite well. When people say, 'well they were all doing it' they intimate that it's sort of irrelevant. But, while everyone from Lance through to the one hundredth placer may have cheated, it doesn't alter the fact that Lance cheated and won. His cheating altered the results, and thus broke the sport. If that's how we want to play, just wait; I'm going to become a Tour winner too. I'm going to rob Bradley Wiggins and take his fooking trophy.
1968, human content on bitumen.0 -
Outsider art by Loan wrote:Barely coherent rant
Vaughters is right that some people respond better to doping than not, and because of that and people's differing willingness to risk their health for success, doping doesn't lead to a level playing field. That doesn't seem like a particularly difficult concept to grasp.
Andy0 -
Read harder, I addressed that, uh, simple concept. Turns out it's flawed!ratherbeintobago wrote:Outsider art by Loan wrote:Barely coherent rant
Vaughters is right that some people respond better to doping than not, and because of that and people's differing willingness to risk their health for success, doping doesn't lead to a level playing field. That doesn't seem like a particularly difficult concept to grasp.
Andy1968, human content on bitumen.0 -
Outsider art by Loan wrote:
Read harder, I addressed that, uh, simple concept. Turns out it's flawed!ratherbeintobago wrote:Outsider art by Loan wrote:Barely coherent rant
Vaughters is right that some people respond better to doping than not, and because of that and people's differing willingness to risk their health for success, doping doesn't lead to a level playing field. That doesn't seem like a particularly difficult concept to grasp.
Andy
I'm a bit slow today, could you point that bit out for me please.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
Nonsense.
Some people respond better to doping. Some people do not. If everyone responded the same, then level playing field. If not, then it's not. Training and human adaptations are different - No one expects there to be a level playing field. Some people have better natural gifts than other.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
don't forget as well if all the teams stopped or eased back on doping and EPO after the Festina scandal of 98 but one team ramped up their efforts then again you don't have a level playing field. If once the test comes out a team is able to get a positive result overturned then again the playing field still isn't level0
-
I don't feel more or less inclined to cheer a rider for his doping or lack of it, its the panache and style they bring that I enjoy; consequently Vino, Millar, Contador and further back the belgians in the mud of Roubaix and Ulrich in the mountains, further back still with Lemonds duels, its always been about the dream.
As in real life, I detest ugly bullying and double standards (doping is not double standards because they all have access even if a few chose not to) hence I despise the way Armstrong has dealt with things because its not about human endeavour with associated success and failure its more about money and corruption. That to my mind is the cancer in the sport. I would prefer clean sport but out of preference I would like to see the corruption addressed first.
As outsiders we will never have the full picture but even so, McQuaids latest efforts are bizarre at best.
AVE TESTOSTERONE CALVES0 -
Outsider art by Loan wrote:frenchfighter wrote:“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.” [/i]
- I think the above is great. This is basically what people should understand when they say about Armstrong: well they all doped so he was still the best. Actually Lance would be one of those that respond best to doping because his natural levels are not very high at all.
I reckon it's crap. Vaughters thinks he can distinguish between just riding a lot and doping, in that doping, as a training device, is illegitimate. Not because doping is against the rules and cycling isn't, but because ing is unnatural, or something like that and whateverthefuck that means, and works better for some. But the former argument is as completely fatuous as any against anything on grounds of its naturality. No, sport is not a special situation; it has a bunch of arbitrary rules, perforce valid in that they permit 'sport' to exist at all, whereas life does not, but Vaughters doesn't seem to mind. His argument is about a sort of fairness, which, it seems, is independent of whatever the UCI has to say. See the allusion to Darwinism, which, incidentally, was lulz. Come on, man. If you're in a doping environment, a word Vaughters used himself, you'll have to adapt - that is, dope - to survive. Otherwise you might have to retire and start a cycling team. Anyway - if doping is natural, or it isn't but nor is anything else, or, and I prefer this, naturality is a meaningless, useless concept; the details are a minor, irrelevant matter; what's pivotal is that it's a shoot argument - what remains? That in a doping environment some are fitter than others, as it were. But that's a bit like, say, a non-doping bike riding environment. Or any other sport or pursuit. So the argument's been rendered a bit dickless now.
Frankly (this is the surely long-awaited new paragraph) I think that a similar argument, with the UCI's rules and the necessity of rules as a base, could work quite well. When people say, 'well they were all doing it' they intimate that it's sort of irrelevant. But, while everyone from Lance through to the one hundredth placer may have cheated, it doesn't alter the fact that Lance cheated and won. His cheating altered the results, and thus broke the sport. If that's how we want to play, just wait; I'm going to become a Tour winner too. I'm going to rob Bradley Wiggins and take his fooking trophy.
With the best will in the world bud, that s not the clearest but of writing in the thread!
I think what your saying is that because people respond better to training than others, in the same way that some people respond better to doping than others, Vaughters arguments about not having a level playing field are irrelevant (as the playing field is NEVER level)
Is that correct? Its an interesting view if so...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I understand the argument from Outside Art.
It's basically valid. Yes, some riders respond better to doping than others. But if doping is just part of the environment of sport then that's no different to some riders having a natural advantage due to their physiology. Sport is inherently unfair, some people will always have a natural advantage over others. the playing field is never, and has never been level.
Of course, if there is a suspicion that some riders were protected by the powers that be and thus were allowed access to more and better doping then we have a seriously skewed playing field.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
From the article:
Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.”
So he's clarifying the difference between training, natural ability and doping.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
0
-
TheBigBean wrote:
Thanks for that, another good read!"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
I hadn't heard of Jose Luis Nunez before. Seems like he was a decade or more before his time.0
