Pul Kimmage Interview : Jonathan Vaughters

[limerickman]

Good interview in yesterdays Sunset Times Newspaper

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article4232249.ece

 

[Drongo]

Thanks Lim.

Very interesting. What's not said, of course, as much as what is.

Interesting that Vaughters is the subject of so much vitriol from some cycling fans. I've seen nothing to give me anything but a positive view of him.

Cheers,

Drongo

 

[Eldron]

Thanks Lim.

Very interesting. What's not said, of course, as much as what is.

Interesting that Vaughters is the subject of so much vitriol from some cycling fans. I've seen nothing to give me anything but a positive view of him.

Cheers,

Drongo

I'm still undecided about Vaughters...

I like the idea of a transpaently clean team but quotes like this just pi$$ me right off:

"Sleep did not come easily that night to the 29-year-old American. Here he was, trying to compete clean against rocket machines, juiced on (undetectable) EPO, growth hormone and testosterone and he was the guy at risk of being exposed as a cheat! The irony was sickening. "

There is nothing more pathetic than a "I was the only one not taking drugs, me innocent - everyone else guilty - that's why I didn't succceed oh boo hoo me" story...

 

[RAGT]

There is nothing more pathetic than a "I was the only one not taking drugs, me innocent - everyone else guilty - that's why I didn't succceed oh boo hoo me" story...

I think Vaughters has the third fastest ascent of the Ventoux, only Mayo (hmm...) and Hamilton (hmmm...) has been faster.

He DID succeed - during his "no comment"-period:

“Did it feel massive? Did you feel happy?”
“I felt okay. I wasn’t ecstatic.” “That doesn’t make sense?” “Well, for sure, it was the best form of my life as a bike rider, but I wasn’t . . . I was just sort of . . . I will leave it at this; I wasn’t overly pleased with that victory. It was interesting to me. It answered a lot of questions. But it wasn’t the most ecstatic moment of my life by any means.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article4232249.ece

 

[Crankyfeet]

Thanks Lim. Maybe you could post it in the "Interviews" thread as well.

The threat of litigation (or just the uneccessary bother of being an Armstrong enemy) is evident in his evasive answers to the USPS doping question.

 

[fscyclist]

I'm still undecided about Vaughters...

I like the idea of a transpaently clean team but quotes like this just pi$$ me right off:

"Sleep did not come easily that night to the 29-year-old American. Here he was, trying to compete clean against rocket machines, juiced on (undetectable) EPO, growth hormone and testosterone and he was the guy at risk of being exposed as a cheat! The irony was sickening. "

There is nothing more pathetic than a "I was the only one not taking drugs, me innocent - everyone else guilty - that's why I didn't succceed oh boo hoo me" story...

I would agree with your post. I'm conflicted on Vaughters as well. His team is an interesting mix. Sure, you have guys like Danny Pate on the team, but then you have, well let's just say...others. I also feel that the press and many cycling fans give them a free ride because of their 'anti doping' media campaign.

I'm also upset about his inability to come clean. Bjarne Riis did (giving up his Yellow Jersey nonetheless), and he is still able to act as DS of CSC. Why not Vaughters? I don't think it is fear of litigation from USPS/Armstrong if he only tells of his personal involvement and not that of others. Does he fear a ban from the UCI? Maybe, but as mentioned, Riis, Zabel, and others have been able to come forward and continue with their cycling careers.

 

[thunder]

I would agree with your post. I'm conflicted on Vaughters as well. His team is an interesting mix. Sure, you have guys like Danny Pate on the team, but then you have, well let's just say...others. I also feel that the press and many cycling fans give them a free ride because of their 'anti doping' media campaign.

I'm also upset about his inability to come clean. Bjarne Riis did (giving up his Yellow Jersey nonetheless), and he is still able to act as DS of CSC. Why not Vaughters? I don't think it is fear of litigation from USPS/Armstrong if he only tells of his personal involvement and not that of others. Does he fear a ban from the UCI? Maybe, but as mentioned, Riis, Zabel, and others have been able to come forward and continue with their cycling careers.

I think he feels he has said it all off the record, and implied as much in interviews.

No need to spit in the face of the UCI or ASO unnecessarily

As it is, he fits a nice niche, the UCI and ASO can point at his team as a beacon, while nothing really changes. But he can't put his head above the parapet too high

 

[fscyclist]

I think he feels he has said it all off the record, and implied as much in interviews.

No need to spit in the face of the UCI or ASO unnecessarily

As it is, he fits a nice niche, the UCI and ASO can point at his team as a beacon, while nothing really changes. But he can't put his head above the parapet too high

There's a difference between implying things and coming out and saying them, but I do understand your point, and think it has valid arguments. However, if you are going to hold yourself up as a beacon of anti-doping I think you need to first hold yourself accountable.

I still think they get a free pass. High Road and CSC (along with other teams) have similar programs, but don't enjoy the positive press. Additionally, Slipstream is as saddled with doping baggage as the other teams, but again, it is overlooked.

 

[thunder]

There's a difference between implying things and coming out and saying them, but I do understand your point, and think it has valid arguments. However, if you are going to hold yourself up as a beacon of anti-doping I think you need to first hold yourself accountable.

I still think they get a free pass. High Road and CSC (along with other teams) have similar programs, but don't enjoy the positive press. Additionally, Slipstream is as saddled with doping baggage as the other teams, but again, it is overlooked.

well, he has said it all off the record I think. (supposition)

You are right tho, wrt CSC and High Road.

There are a ew differences however, to complete a culture ****, you need to be transparent. CSC and HR cannot be, because if they come out and admit they ran an internal systematic program, they are out of business. HR did well to deflect the controversy, but they were on last legs.

Vaughters can institute a new culture, from scratch. He is not encumbered by the baggage. Effectively Zabriskie, Millar, Vande Velde, Dean, Magnus, the other dopers who come in, buy in to the new culture. Yes, individually, they have never made amends publicly, apart from Millar.

 

[fscyclist]

well, he has said it all off the record I think. (supposition)

You are right tho, wrt CSC and High Road.

There are a ew differences however, to complete a culture ****, you need to be transparent. CSC and HR cannot be, because if they come out and admit they ran an internal systematic program, they are out of business. HR did well to deflect the controversy, but they were on last legs.

Vaughters can institute a new culture, from scratch. He is not encumbered by the baggage. Effectively Zabriskie, Millar, Vande Velde, Dean, Magnus, the other dopers who come in, buy in to the new culture. Yes, individually, they have never made amends publicly, apart from Millar.

I don't think he has said it off the record unless you consider private text messages to Andreu 'off the record'. What I'm saying is that if you are going to present yourself as the beacon of anti-doping then you need to say such things 'on the record'. Otherwise, I don't see him any different than the others. In fact I think Riis, Zabel, and others have more credibility at this point. Anti-doping is popular in its own way and has a certain niche. Maybe his anti doping media campaign is nothing more than a way to appeal to certain companies and individuals to secure funding for a team in a highly competitive market. Just another way of looking at things...

 

[thunder]

I don't think he has said it off the record unless you consider private text messages to Andreu 'off the record'. What I'm saying is that if you are going to present yourself as the beacon of anti-doping then you need to say such things 'on the record'. Otherwise, I don't see him any different than the others. In fact I think Riis, Zabel, and others have more credibility at this point. Anti-doping is popular in its own way and has a certain niche. Maybe his anti doping media campaign is nothing more than a way to appeal to certain companies and individuals to secure funding for a team in a highly competitive market. Just another way of looking at things...

FS

I just read that interview. Vaughters is a little different.

 

[fscyclist]

FS

I just read that interview. Vaughters is a little different.

Explain...I'm not reading between your lines.

 

[TheDarkLord]

I would agree with your post. I'm conflicted on Vaughters as well. His team is an interesting mix. Sure, you have guys like Danny Pate on the team, but then you have, well let's just say...others. I also feel that the press and many cycling fans give them a free ride because of their 'anti doping' media campaign.

I'm also upset about his inability to come clean. Bjarne Riis did (giving up his Yellow Jersey nonetheless), and he is still able to act as DS of CSC. Why not Vaughters? I don't think it is fear of litigation from USPS/Armstrong if he only tells of his personal involvement and not that of others. Does he fear a ban from the UCI? Maybe, but as mentioned, Riis, Zabel, and others have been able to come forward and continue with their cycling careers.

But wouldn't his admission of doping in USPS be a clear pointer to a systematic doping program, especially when taken in tandem with his comments of "racing clean" prior to joining USPS? Perhaps, he knows that some people don't want that to happen, especially with USPS/Disco being teams whose asses are covered by UCI?

 

[thunder]

Explain...I'm not reading between your lines.

oh, I read the interview in its entirety, only after I responded abover, until thaqt last post.

So, "Vaughters is different" was me having finished the interview. I should have said "I can take back what I said, it is a little different after reading that interview".

I agree with you know. It is a little mealy mouthed.

 

[fscyclist]

But wouldn't his admission of doping in USPS be a clear pointer to a systematic doping program, especially when taken in tandem with his comments of "racing clean" prior to joining USPS? Perhaps, he knows that some people don't want that to happen, especially with USPS/Disco being teams whose asses are covered by UCI?

If he only talks about his personal involvement he doesn't open himself to libel/slander charges against the team or other individuals, just as Andreu did. As you probably noticed, no one is sueing Andreu (as far as we know). Sure...it implies something, but that's much different than saying something. He can't sue himself for slander/libel. If he says he doped, to be sued for libel/slander, someone would have to prove that he didn't dope. How would they do that?

 

[fscyclist]

oh, I read the interview in its entirety, only after I responded abover, until thaqt last post.

So, "Vaughters is different" was me having finished the interview. I should have said "I can take back what I said, it is a little different after reading that interview".

I agree with you know. It is a little mealy mouthed.

Thunder,
I'd add to this in saying that Kimmage's questions were spot on and given Vaughter's position on doping need to be answered. Vaughters' non-answer answers imply doping but don't allow for any real discussion on the problem and how his personal involvement, or lack thereof, affect his current decisions as a DS.

 

[thunder]

Thunder,
I'd add to this in saying that Kimmage's questions were spot on and given Vaughter's position on doping need to be answered. Vaughters' non-answer answers imply doping but don't allow for any real discussion on the problem and how his personal involvement, or lack thereof, affect his current decisions as a DS.

agree

 

[Bro Deal]

But wouldn't his admission of doping in USPS be a clear pointer to a systematic doping program, especially when taken in tandem with his comments of "racing clean" prior to joining USPS? Perhaps, he knows that some people don't want that to happen, especially with USPS/Disco being teams whose asses are covered by UCI?

I think it is an indication that omerta is alive and well and Vaughters knows it. The powers that be do not want anyone talking about the systemic nature of the doping. The ASO does not even want anyone to admit they doped during the Tour. Riis fesses up to what everyone not only knew but made jokes about, and the ASO punishes him for it.

Vaughters has said that he won't speak clearly about his past history and that won't satisfy many people. He must have his reasons. It will be interesting to see if he changes his mind after his team becomes more established or when/if he eventually leaves the sport.

 

[fscyclist]

I think it is an indication that omerta is alive and well and Vaughters knows it. The powers that be do not want anyone talking about the systemic nature of the doping. The ASO does not even want anyone to admit they doped during the Tour. Riis fesses up to what everyone not only knew but made jokes about, and the ASO punishes him for it.

Vaughters has said that he won't speak clearly about his past history and that won't satisfy many people. He must have his reasons. It will be interesting to see if he changes his mind after his team becomes more established or when/if he eventually leaves the sport.

Then at least he should tell us why he can't answer the question. Something like "Answering that question would open me up to litigation by (insert name)" or "If I answered that question, the UCI may take action that would (insert harmful action)."

Riis did fess up, took his ceremonial beating, and because of it both he and his team are in much better shape. Who had/has more to lose, Riis, a Tour Champion and DS of arguably the best team in Pro Cycling, or Vaughters? I give credit to Riis, and he can now move forward with some semblance of integrity.

I got nothing against Slipstream, per se, and I'm very excited that guys like Pate and Frischkorn get to race the Tour. As I said earlier though, if you are going to found a team on the "anti doping" message, you need to confront your own past first so at least you can talk openly about doping and it's affect both on the sport and individual.

 

[Bro Deal]

Then at least he should tell us why he can't answer the question. Something like "Answering that question would open me up to litigation by (insert name)" or "If I answered that question, the UCI may take action that would (insert harmful action)."

Riis did fess up, took his ceremonial beating, and because of it both he and his team are in much better shape. Who had/has more to lose, Riis, a Tour Champion and DS of arguably the best team in Pro Cycling, or Vaughters? I give credit to Riis, and he can now move forward with some semblance of integrity.

Riis only fessed up because he was days away from being outed by the german investigation. He had no choice.

How happy will the ASO be if Vaughters comes out and says, "I'd like to talk about what I did on Postal but then the embarassment to the ASO will prevent my team from being selected for the TdF."? Anything along that line will embarrass the ASO or the UCI or whatever almost as much as an actual admission.