Pul Kimmage Interview : Jonathan Vaughters

[fscyclist]

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.

Maybe true about Riis, but he and his team are much better off having come clean, regardless of motive.

The ASO or UCI will not be embarrased by any personal admission of Vaughters, and if they think so they are foolish. They've already been embarsssed and continue to be by their own actions, not by anyone else. That's what is so juvenile about the current situation. If Vaughters has a valid reason for not answering the questions, then he should clearly state it, or answer the question. Otherwise, he should quit promoting himself and team as the paragon of anti-doping virtue.

 

[Malkmus]

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...

There is the conundrum. If he says something on the record he will get suspended by Hein Verbruggen & Co. It is the institutionalized omerta.

 

[fscyclist]

There is the conundrum. If he says something on the record he will get suspended by Hein Verbruggen & Co. It is the institutionalized omerta.

Verbruggen's gone and that day is over. The institutionalized omerta will continue to exist as long as people fear it. I don't think either ASO or UCI would be stupid enough to ban Slipstream and/or Vaughters for a personal admission, especially if he approached them beforehand. I'm not saying there wouldn't be some consequences, but that is part of the reality of coming clean.

 

[Malkmus]

Verbruggen's gone and that day is over. The institutionalized omerta will continue to exist as long as people fear it. I don't think either ASO or UCI would be stupid enough to ban Slipstream and/or Vaughters for a personal admission, especially if he approached them beforehand. I'm not saying there wouldn't be some consequences, but that is part of the reality of coming clean.

Verbruggen isn't gone. He is controlling the strings.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Verbruggen's gone and that day is over. The institutionalized omerta will continue to exist as long as people fear it. I don't think either ASO or UCI would be stupid enough to ban Slipstream and/or Vaughters for a personal admission, especially if he approached them beforehand. I'm not saying there wouldn't be some consequences, but that is part of the reality of coming clean.

One only has to look at the inconsistent treatment of Jaksche and Basso to know that the institutionalised omerta still exists.

 

[Bro Deal]

Verbruggen's gone and that day is over.

Verbruggen is UCI vice president. He also has a high position in the ProTour. He will probably be more active than ever as soon as the Olympics end.

 

[fscyclist]

One only has to look at the inconsistent treatment of Jaksche and Basso to know that the institutionalised omerta still exists.

Yes, you are correct. But as I pointed out as long as people fear it and don't speak out it will always exist.

 

[fscyclist]

Verbruggen is UCI vice president. He also has a high position in the ProTour. He will probably be more active than ever as soon as the Olympics end.

I didn't know Verbruggen was still officially involved in the UCI, but thanks for the heads up. I just looked it up and it seems he's one of three VP's. I thought he was just doing IOC stuff nowadays. Wow...to think he's still officially involved in the UCI....what can you say?

 

[Crankyfeet]

Yes, you are correct. But as I pointed out as long as people fear it and don't speak out it will always exist.

Agreed. But if you if you take on the king... you have to kill him... lest you be killed.

Not condoning weakness here... but the strategy should be to kill the king... and no other result acceptable. But who is the institutional omerta king? If you kill H-V (politically speaking), does the omerta die? I don't think so. Too many have a vested interest in it's existence. It's like Al Qaeda. You could kill Bin Laden... but 5 more Bin Ladens could be waiting to take his place...

 

[Crankyfeet]

Yes, you are correct. But as I pointed out as long as people fear it and don't speak out it will always exist.

I'm not so sure that the pros really have confidence in a clean peloton. They know it's easy to beat the tests. They know that any state of "cleanliness" is just going to be based on the word of a rider and the word of team management. But everyone wants to win. It's the glory/money that drives professional sport. And some of these pros may not even be that confident that they could compete in a clean peloton.

I think they want to be able to dope with the protection that once existed. But what has changed dramatically is that since Festina and OP... the institutions have lost their ability to be able to cover all the sordid activities with a blanket. For the UCI to proclaim that cycling is clean ... like they are effectively doing with Contador... and then have another Festina/police bust... would effectively be the final sword IMO.

 

[fscyclist]

Agreed. But if you if you take on the king... you have to kill him... lest you be killed.

Not condoning weakness here... but the strategy should be to kill the king... and no other result acceptable. But who is the institutional omerta king? If you kill H-V (politically speaking), does the omerta die? I don't think so. Too many have a vested interest in it's existence. It's like Al Qaeda. You could kill Bin Laden... but 5 more Bin Ladens could be waiting to take his place...

I think an equal number, and many equally powerful, have an interest in ending the omerta. I understand Vaughter's approach, and as I stated many posts ago, there are valid reasons for it. I just don't agree with it, not given the anti doping media campaign surrounding him and his team. Either way, it's his decision - not one I would envy making.

 

[fscyclist]

I'm not so sure that the pros really have confidence in a clean peloton. They know it's easy to beat the tests. They know that any state of "cleanliness" is just going to be based on the word of a rider and the word of team management. But everyone wants to win. It's the glory/money that drives professional sport. And some of these pros may not even be that confident that they could compete in a clean peloton.

I think they want to be able to dope with the protection that once existed. But what has changed dramatically is that since Festina and OP... the institutions have lost their ability to be able to cover all the sordid activities with a blanket. For the UCI to proclaim that cycling is clean ... like they are effectively doing with Contador... and then have another Festina/police bust... would effectively be the final sword IMO.

I think any pro that trusts in a clean peloton is nuts. If you decide to race clean, you have do it for your own inner satisfaction and with the realization that you are probably in a small minority. Wins will likely elude you.

I disagree that pros want to be able to dope as before. I think many would love to give it up, but they feel they can't because every one else continues, and evidence remains that that is truly the case. It's like trying to obtain world peace. How do you disarm everyone when we know there will always be someone who will remain armed? I think most people would love to live in a world without arms, they just don't want to be the only guy without them.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I think any pro that trusts in a clean peloton is nuts. If you decide to race clean, you have do it for your own inner satisfaction and with the realization that you are probably in a small minority. Wins will likely elude you.

I disagree that pros want to be able to dope as before. I think many would love to give it up, but they feel they can't because every one else continues, and evidence remains that that is truly the case. It's like trying to obtain world peace. How do you disarm everyone when we know there will always be someone who will remain armed? I think most people would love to live in a world without arms, they just don't want to be the only guy without them.

I agree. Perhaps I wasn't very clear with my point/opinion. Ideally they would love a scenario where testing was 100% effective and everyone was clean (that's what we would all love)... but since that seems like a pipe dream at present... in the real world of doping with little risk of detection... they would like to be able to do it with less risk of their lives collapsing ala Landis etc. They also may not be 100% confident that the testing process is completely precise, competent and arbitrary.

 

[fscyclist]

I agree. Perhaps I wasn't very clear with my point/opinion. Ideally they would love a scenario where testing was 100% effective and everyone was clean (that's what we would all love)... but since that seems like a pipe dream at present... in the real world of doping with little risk of detection... they would like to be able to do it with less risk of their lives collapsing ala Landis etc. They also may not be 100% confident that the testing process is completely precise, competent and arbitrary.

Got it. To be honest if I were a pro, I'd just be worried about pissing off the wrong person, whether I doped or not, out of fear of a positive test. I believe Landis doped, but I also think that there is a reason (unknown to me) as to why he was outed.

 

[Eldron]

Agreed. But if you if you take on the king... you have to kill him... lest you be killed.

Not condoning weakness here... but the strategy should be to kill the king... and no other result acceptable. But who is the institutional omerta king? If you kill H-V (politically speaking), does the omerta die? I don't think so. Too many have a vested interest in it's existence. It's like Al Qaeda. You could kill Bin Laden... but 5 more Bin Ladens could be waiting to take his place...

Personally I feel cycling is in a transition stage - the omerta is/are still strong enough to stop a professional cyclist/team from "ever working in this town" again. At the same time the trend toward riding clean is gathering momentum.

I think Vaughters is stuck between a rock and a hard place - if he spills the beans on previous doping the omerta will make life hard for him and as long as he doesn't spill the beans there will always be a bit of a dark cloud surrounding his uber clean team status.

Either way I applaud his efforts to make his team as clean and transparent as possible. It can only help.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Personally I feel cycling is in a transition stage - the omerta is/are still strong enough to stop a professional cyclist/team from "ever working in this town" again. At the same time the trend toward riding clean is gathering momentum.

I think Vaughters is stuck between a rock and a hard place - if he spills the beans on previous doping the omerta will make life hard for him and as long as he doesn't spill the beans there will always be a bit of a dark cloud surrounding his uber clean team status.

Either way I applaud his efforts to make his team as clean and transparent as possible. It can only help.

Agreed.

And ironically... the worse they do... the better it will be for cleaning up the sport. But I'm not sure the sponsors will be happy continually paying to just make a statement: that riding clean means you can't compete for much more than prologues.

They are certainly getting a lot of press though. So that makes the sponsors happy. As that's what they want, in the end, in any case.

 

[Eldron]

Agreed.

And ironically... the worse they do... the better it will be for cleaning up the sport. But I'm not sure the sponsors will be happy continually paying to just make a statement: that riding clean means you can't compete for much more than prologues.

They are certainly getting a lot of press though. So that makes the sponsors happy. As that's what they want, in the end, in any case.

That's probably the worst byproduct of doping - every "extra ordinary" performance is questioned - sadly with good reason - Landis's TdF winning break - Vino's TT - Rasmussen's constant hill efforts - Tyler's broken scapula win - Armstrong's 7 year perfection etc etc.

Innocence lost.

 

[limerickman]

Verbruggen is UCI vice president. He also has a high position in the ProTour. He will probably be more active than ever as soon as the Olympics end.

Verbruggen is No 3 in the IOC power structure, presently.

Dear old Pat has an eye on a place on the IOC board as well.


Dilemma.

I love this sport but my faith has been rocked, especially in recent years.
Part of me says that Verbruggen/McQuaid are the cause of this rot and that
their presence in any sporting organisation brings clear health warnings.
But do we know that other IOC members are clean?

Personally, I wouldn't let McQuaid or Verbruggen be in charge of anything.

 

[TheDarkLord]

I disagree that pros want to be able to dope as before. I think many would love to give it up, but they feel they can't because every one else continues, and evidence remains that that is truly the case. It's like trying to obtain world peace. How do you disarm everyone when we know there will always be someone who will remain armed? I think most people would love to live in a world without arms, they just don't want to be the only guy without them.

I don't agree with you here. Maybe it is true for a fraction of the peloton, but it is human tendency to try to cheat for the sake of glory, especially when there is a good chance that you can get away with it (since tests are limited anyway). Goes back to the points of risk taking that Cranky mentioned in the Landis thread.