Team Slipstream



You guys are so cynical. Slipstream has the best anti-doping program of any team. It's is way more comprehensive and intrusive than what the French teams have to ride under, and the French have not exactly been tearing up the ProTour races. It's a model for what the UCI should require.

Vaughters himself seems to be very ****** off that he was deceived by Armstrong and essentially tricked into doping. He appears determined to run his team so that riders are not pressured to dope. If he cannot succeed then no one can.
 
Given the history of cycling, I would say that cynical describes it perfectly, and no it is not a bad term or an insult:

From wikipedia.org: Currently, the word 'cynicism' generally describes the opinions of those who maintain that self-interest is the primary motive of human behaviour, and are disinclined to rely upon sincerity, human virtue, or altruism as motivations.

Yep, I would say that self-interest seems to be the primary motive of most (all?) involved in cycling at this point, riders, managers, owners, UCI, ADA, ASO, team doctors, team staff.....

Bro Deal said:
You guys are so cynical. Slipstream has the best anti-doping program of any team. It's is way more comprehensive and intrusive than what the French teams have to ride under, and the French have not exactly been tearing up the ProTour races. It's a model for what the UCI should require.

Vaughters himself seems to be very ****** off that he was deceived by Armstrong and essentially tricked into doping. He appears determined to run his team so that riders are not pressured to dope. If he cannot succeed then no one can.
 
Bro Deal said:
You guys are so cynical. Slipstream has the best anti-doping program of any team. It's is way more comprehensive and intrusive than what the French teams have to ride under, and the French have not exactly been tearing up the ProTour races. It's a model for what the UCI should require.

Vaughters himself seems to be very ****** off that he was deceived by Armstrong and essentially tricked into doping. He appears determined to run his team so that riders are not pressured to dope. If he cannot succeed then no one can.
Hey! Didn't I say it was "the devil" who said all that cynical stuff? :p

I will wait and see. But remember, if Slipstream contests a positive test because of their program, you heard it here first. ;)
 
nns1400 said:
I will wait and see. But remember, if Slipstream contests a positive test because of their program, you heard it here first. ;)
When was the last time a team contested the positive of one of its riders? The usual response now is to quickly toss the rider overboard and let him sink or swim by himself.

No program will be able to stop use of products like insulin or HGH. You have a better chance of detecting testosterone use, but that will still be difficult if the rider is smart. If a longitudinal testing program can greatly reduce use of EPO and blood transfusions then that will go a long way to getting rid of these unbelievable performances that make the sport a joke.
 
To fight doping I think we need enough testing and laws against suppliers, advisors, or everyone who facilitates riders to dope.
When a rider or an athletes is caught with AAF, he would have to explain to police how it was possible, where he buys his products, where he stores them,...

So it's become very difficult to run an advanced doping program without help, and it could be risky for family, friends,... It's raises the stake and the costs of doping.
 
nns1400 said:
This will be interesting. Two Americans already, so that will have me watching. I'm torn as to what to think. I know many will see a USPS doctor and be quite skeptical.

I have a little angel on my right shoulder, and it's telling me that this will be the test -- we will see if clean riders can compete. Even if they doped before, maybe they didn't want to, and are looking for this chance to ride clean.

THEN, the little devil on my left shoulder says, well, this is quite a plan. Lots of loud noises about in-house testing and never letting a suspicious rider start a race. Soooo, if their rider tests positive, they can indignantly point to their own testing, question the validity of the French labs, etc, etc, etc. The problem is, no one can verify these in-house tests.

Either way, it will be intriguing to watch.
The ex USPS doctor in question, Prentice Stefan, as i have said has a very big anti-doping reputation. He was sacked by Bruyneel because he refused to carry out doping. You can guarantee there will be no organised team doping programme with this guy as head doctor.

Also i agree that we can never be sure that tests will find the cheats. However, you would have to ask yourself why a cyclist who is doping, would want to join team slipstream in the firstplace. Where they know they will have no assistance medicaly, where they know they will be tested more than any other team. Where they know they will constantly have to look over there shoulder the whole time, and where they arent all that likely to win big races anyway.

It just doesnt make sense to me that anyone who is doping would join this team. Surely the only reason you would want to join Slipstream is if you were an ardent anit-doper.

Sure you might be cynical and say all this is just publicity for the team, but hell they have to make money somehow, if they arent doping they arent gonna be winning big races. So shouting about how they are leading the fight on doping is the only way for them to generate that publicity for their sponsor.
 
yeloooooo said:
The ex USPS doctor in question, Prentice Stefan, as i have said has a very big anti-doping reputation. He was sacked by Bruyneel because he refused to carry out doping. You can guarantee there will be no organised team doping programme with this guy as head doctor.

Also i agree that we can never be sure that tests will find the cheats. However, you would have to ask yourself why a cyclist who is doping, would want to join team slipstream in the firstplace. Where they know they will have no assistance medicaly, where they know they will be tested more than any other team. Where they know they will constantly have to look over there shoulder the whole time, and where they arent all that likely to win big races anyway.

It just doesnt make sense to me that anyone who is doping would join this team. Surely the only reason you would want to join Slipstream is if you were an ardent anit-doper.

Sure you might be cynical and say all this is just publicity for the team, but hell they have to make money somehow, if they arent doping they arent gonna be winning big races. So shouting about how they are leading the fight on doping is the only way for them to generate that publicity for their sponsor.
100% agree. If we don't give this team the benefit of the doubt then we might as well start injecting ourselves with EPO and give up on caring about clean cycle sport.
 
wolfix said:
[size=-1] Johnathan Vaughters is a individual who is trying to capitolize on whatever he can to get a team. He will fit nicely with the biggest phoney in cycling .. David Millar

[/size]
[size=-1] When asked about the Landis situation......

[/size]
This is what I've heard as well, and the union with Millar confirms it in my mind. Why doesn't Vaughters admit his past offenses?
 
yeloooooo said:
The ex USPS doctor in question, Prentice Stefan, as i have said has a very big anti-doping reputation. He was sacked by Bruyneel because he refused to carry out doping. You can guarantee there will be no organised team doping programme with this guy as head doctor.

Also i agree that we can never be sure that tests will find the cheats. However, you would have to ask yourself why a cyclist who is doping, would want to join team slipstream in the firstplace. Where they know they will have no assistance medicaly, where they know they will be tested more than any other team. Where they know they will constantly have to look over there shoulder the whole time, and where they arent all that likely to win big races anyway.

It just doesnt make sense to me that anyone who is doping would join this team. Surely the only reason you would want to join Slipstream is if you were an ardent anit-doper.

Sure you might be cynical and say all this is just publicity for the team, but hell they have to make money somehow, if they arent doping they arent gonna be winning big races. So shouting about how they are leading the fight on doping is the only way for them to generate that publicity for their sponsor.
I think it's great. I just don't want to get my hopes up and then be disappointed. I can't help being somewhat skeptical , even though I like the idea very much. If Stefan really got fired for not agreeing to doping, then I have a little more to believe in.

That being said, there is probably someone who would want to join Slipstream to appear as an ardent anti-doper. Time will tell. I hope for the best.
 
nns1400 said:
I think it's great. I just don't want to get my hopes up and then be disappointed. I can't help being somewhat skeptical , even though I like the idea very much. If Stefan really got fired for not agreeing to doping, then I have a little more to believe in.

That being said, there is probably someone who would want to join Slipstream to appear as an ardent anti-doper. Time will tell. I hope for the best.
Prentice Steffan was finally fired in 1996 after being replaced by Pedro Celaya. He was fired for refusing to conduct a team doping programme for USPS after they had been getting destroyed in european races not long after their creation. (Due to them not all being on EPO)

wolfix said:
[size=-1] Johnathan Vaughters is a individual who is trying to capitolize on whatever he can to get a team. He will fit nicely with the biggest phoney in cycling .. David Millar

[/size]
[size=-1] When asked about the Landis situation......


[/size]
[size=-1]
I believe Floyd is innocent. The majority of T/E tests are over-turned at the CAS level. The guy will probably be proven innocent in eight months time, but in the short-term, the media is killing him. Floyd is basically paying for the sins of all the morons who came before him, who have denied, denied, denied. He's going to take the fall for everyone who has cried wolf before him. He's going to be the guy who gets his head cut off and that's a real tragedy.
Johnathan Vaughters
[/size]
Yeh i dunno why Vaughters said that about Landis. However, here is a quote by Emma O'reilly who was head soigner at USPS in the late 90's. From "L.A confidential" by David Walsh. Note that in much of the book O'Reilly accuses Lance Armstrong of participating in a doping medical programme run by USPS.

For O'Reilly, Vaughters' lively intelligence was more of a handicap in the European peloton. "Jonathon was a talented rider, there's no doubt about it. He was just too intelligent for his environment. He didn't give his body up to doctors like most others did. He didn't go to the truck for products. He asked questions about the things they gave him. He wanted to know if they were necessary and legal. Of course he took things to help him recover but he wanted to know exactly what they were and deep down he wasn't into that sort of culture. Jonathan didn't have the mentality of a European cyclist. On the other hand, he has a sports manager, Bruyneel, whose point of view was simple: he should ride, ride and ride some more. He has less esteem for riders who were not prepared to make great sacrifices for the sport. Jonathan wasn't like that - not like Lance, "poor Jonathan" we would moan to each other. I was the *****, who was nasty to Johan's poor wife and he was the bad rider who didnt do all he should to climb higher. I thought he was really unique in a positive way."

Vaughter's professional background is full of irony. Genetically, Jonathon has a high red blood cell count. The average count for an athlete practicing an endurance sport is 41 or 42. Vaughters' was 48 or 49. His father's was similiar.... When he was cycling as an amateur on the American continent, Vaughters' natural red cell count was an advantage to him because his blood could circulate more oxygen. However he lost this advantage when he became a professional cyclist competing with riders who increased their red cell count artifically with EPO. If Vaughters had wanted to cheat during his career, which was not the case, his high red blood cell count would have been a disadvantage, becuase even if he had taken very small quantities of EPO, his cell count would have exceeded the 50% threshold laid down by the official cycling authorities.
I think this speaks for itself, you can certainly see why a man like this would have a vested intrest in pushing the anti-doping agenda.
 
yeloooooo said:
Prentice Steffan was finally fired in 1996 after being replaced by Pedro Celaya. He was fired for refusing to conduct a team doping programme for USPS after they had been getting destroyed in european races not long after their creation. (Due to them not all being on EPO)

I think this speaks for itself, you can certainly see why a man like this would have a vested intrest in pushing the anti-doping agenda.
Are you dates correct? In 1996 LA was riding for COFIDIS before his cancer diagnosis wasn't he?
 
helmutRoole2 said:
This is what I've heard as well, and the union with Millar confirms it in my mind. Why doesn't Vaughters admit his past offenses?
Vaughters could be the Rolf Aldag of the USA.
 
Serafino said:
Are you dates correct? In 1996 LA was riding for COFIDIS before his cancer diagnosis wasn't he?
Yes he was, but i didn't say anything about LA. USPS was going in 1996, only LA hadn't joined yet. Actually i don't think LA ever actually rode for COFIDIS (correct me if im wrong). He was diagnosed soon after joining, then they bankrolled him all the way through cancer, then he left for USPS as soon as he got fit again.

and wtf, you've totally misquoted me here, cutting out the majority of my post.

I think this speaks for itself, you can certainly see why a man like this would have a vested intrest in pushing the anti-doping agenda.
this applies to Vaughters. Not Prentice Steffan, the way you have cut it, implies i was talking about Steffan.
 
u need to give this idea the benefit as everything else is so messy. Also though this really does look like a team that is making a stand in the quagmire - futile maybe but noble yes!
 
yeloooooo said:
Yes he was, but i didn't say anything about LA. USPS was going in 1996, only LA hadn't joined yet. Actually i don't think LA ever actually rode for COFIDIS (correct me if im wrong). He was diagnosed soon after joining, then they bankrolled him all the way through cancer, then he left for USPS as soon as he got fit again.

and wtf, you've totally misquoted me here, cutting out the majority of my post.

this applies to Vaughters. Not Prentice Steffan, the way you have cut it, implies i was talking about Steffan.
I thought LA said that COFIDIS cut him loose while he was still sick (in his book).
 
nns1400 said:
I thought LA said that COFIDIS cut him loose while he was still sick (in his book).
I think Cofidis didnt cut him until after the Cancer was cured. I am assuming because of the contract they had to pay the bill but I could be wrong.
You have to understand that most of what is posted on this forum is sensationalism at its best. This is the perfect example. It doesnt get any better than this one.

yeloooooo said:
then he left for USPS as soon as he got fit again.
actually means.......
Cofidis released him during/after the cancer.;)
 
cyclingheroes said:
I thought this thread was about Slipstream.....
Slipstream is a cycling team, this is not a cycling forum anylonger. This is a forum where bitter old men come to babble .... This is the cynicalingforums.com, if you really want to talk cycling go to www.cyclingheros.info, very good site.

Yah! said the people ! Yah! Slipstream!

lw
 
Stolen shamelessly from another forum:
The Golden Rule of Flaming

Flames should be witty, insulting, interesting, funny, caustic, or sarcastic, but NEVER, EVER, should they be boring.

The Twelve Commandments of Flaming

1. Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly." "Clearly, doctor.house is a liar, and a dirtball to boot."

2. Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you're qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. "Polly Purebread, by using the word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case of penis envy."

3. Cross-post your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal! From the Apple II RoundTable to X-10 Powerhouse RoundTable, they're all holding their breath until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.

4. Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason can't *possibly* be that you're a shithead. There's obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it. (cough cough casa cough)

5. Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the Yin & Yang of Flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in good form. "By saying that I've posted to the wrong group, Bertha has libeled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Bertha."

6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Harry's pasta preferences, then Harry's obviously lying.

7. Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca of flaming. You should use the words "ad hominem" at least three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are "ad nauseum," "veni, vidi, vici," and "fettuccini alfredo."

8. Tell 'em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them? State that you're a member of Mensa, or Mega, or Dorks of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school. "I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word 'premeiotic' ."

9. Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed by the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your cross-posting or move a flame war to email is either a communist, a fascist, or both.

10. Doubt their existence: You've never actually seen your opponent, have you? And since you're the center of the universe, you should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore, THEY DON'T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers' logic.

11. Lie, cheat, steal, leave the toilet seat up.

12. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 11 rules, remember this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a Flamer you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there's only one thing to do: INSULT THE DIRTBAG!!! "Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange things with vegetables."

Cycling Forums Corollary:
1. All threads will revert to a LA is a doper - LA is not a doper flame war after two pages.

2. Musette lives in her own little cocooned world where Bruyneel is infallible.

 

Similar threads