Vaughters Gets One SI Writer's Nod For Sportsman of the Year

by Chief Commissaire on Nov 30, 2007 12:24 AM EST

[editor's note, by chris] Wow, this is a surprise. Most of the MSM just wants to toss Cycling in the trash...

Sports Illustrated writer Austin Murphy thinks Team Slipstream-Chipotle presented by H30 Team Director Jonathan Vaughters should be the magazine's Sportsman of the Year.

You can log your own nomination for the magazine's highest honor by clicking here. Greg LeMond earned SI Sportsman of the Year in 1989 and Lance Armstrong took the title in 2002.

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I wish Murphy had gone a little farther

and said how much more testing cycling does than any other mainstream sport. That would have been a nice thumb to the eye of the NFL, NBA, MLB, FIFA, etc.

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. "

by Drew on Nov 29, 2007 11:38 AM EST reply actions

Many Mainstream Sports

The testing permitted in some "mainstream" sports is limited by collective bargaining agreements in place between the players and their respective leagues.

by Chief Commissaire on Nov 29, 2007 1:57 PM EST reply actions

Making it much easier

for their players to cheat.

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. "

by Drew on Nov 29, 2007 3:12 PM EST reply actions

linked sans comment:

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2007/nov/29/steroid-testing-detailed/

by R Mc on Nov 29, 2007 5:27 PM EST reply actions

'Roids in schools

When I was in high school (Saint Elmo's Fire era), it was common knowledge that several of our football players were on the juice. I wonder if it is more widespread now.

-K-

by KevinK on Nov 30, 2007 7:30 AM EST up reply actions

There's a report in the UK today that kids are using them just to try and pull. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7120482.stm Chances are that the authors just heard rumours of one or two kids using them and the papers picked up that bit cos it makes juicier headlines, but clearly the problem is getting beyond sports.

by Monty. on Nov 30, 2007 8:16 AM EST up reply actions

My son is 8...

and Cedar and I have had many conversations about sports doping. He often ask me if an athlete was a doper. This includes baseball, football and cycling.

It's not to early to start. I just call them cheaters, without too much detail beyond that, and he knows that's bad.

America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt

by ELVISGOAT on Nov 30, 2007 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

New order era here

And this was the case. Many guys on football team, but just as many for the "look at me" factor.

by CannonDowell on Nov 30, 2007 9:44 AM EST up reply actions

Damn

I don't know what's more frightening, the juice or St. Elmo's Fire. Bad, bad times.

by Chris Fontecchio on Nov 30, 2007 9:42 AM EST up reply actions

The side effects are similar

"Steroids can make the testicles wither and cause sterility."

This line from the article Monty posted caught my attention:

"This stuff isn't being used just by people who want to be athletes, but by people who want to be in boy bands and get girls"

A superhuman boy band--it boggles the mind.

-K-

by KevinK on Nov 30, 2007 10:48 AM EST up reply actions

Definitely

St. Elmo's Fire - for the song alone.

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. "

by Drew on Nov 30, 2007 10:26 AM EST reply actions

Good for Vaughters and Murphy

I will definitely vote for him, but I refuse to accept that I went high school during the "St. Elmo's Fire" era. It was the "American Flyer's" era! Come on people!

by Jimbo... on Nov 30, 2007 12:33 PM EST reply actions

No. NO. NO!

If you have to associate a movie with that era, please don't make it American Flyers. El hideoso.

How about something of lasting cultural value, like, say, Repo Man?

by R Mc on Nov 30, 2007 3:25 PM EST up reply actions

What's your name kid?

Otto

Otto parts?

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. "

by Drew on Nov 30, 2007 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

Also

Does that mean you didn't dig Costner's porn moustache?

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. "

by Drew on Nov 30, 2007 3:59 PM EST up reply actions

Repo Man is a much better movie

But Eddy Merckx is not in Repo Man... and this is a cycling blog... so I will have to stand my ground on this one.

by Jimbo... on Nov 30, 2007 7:42 PM EST up reply actions

Well done Murphy!

OK I finally had time to read the article. While it doesn't contain every detail that we obsess over, I think for SI it's good enough, and the idea itself just has to be commended.

by Chris Fontecchio on Nov 30, 2007 1:33 PM EST reply actions

don't throw him rose petals yet

While I applaud all anti-doping efforts I would feel much better about Vaughters if he would come clear on his own past. Specifically with respect to this quote from the NY Times article back in February 2007:

"I don't have a halo over my head; I made some mistakes when I was a rider," said Vaughters, who would not directly say whether he had used performance-enhancing drugs. "I don't want to have any of the riders under my direction to have to face the decisions I did. I've made that my responsibility."

If he wants to be a leader going forward and increase transparency about the doping subject he should not be so slippery about his past. Maybe the massess - his riders, riders on other team, the public, governing bodies, etc. - could gain from it.

by hj1 on Nov 30, 2007 5:01 PM EST reply actions

respectfully disagree

I'm not sure we need to delve back into everybody's past, at least guys who aren't racing. What does it get us? I think the key distinction is that while he may have doped in an era where everyone is doping, his current stance that people shouldn't dope isn't hypocritical. I don't blame guys for juicing in, say, 1996 whereas now I think it's completely unacceptable. It's a new era, where we're trying to eradicate drugs, not look the other way. If you kick out everyone from the 90s who did anything wrong, you'd run out of people to run the sport.

by Chris Fontecchio on Nov 30, 2007 7:06 PM EST up reply actions

Running The Sport Into The Ground

Unfortunately, the people from the 90s who were doing things they shouldn't have are the ones who keep bringing the black eye to the sport.

You can't tell me that Bjarne Riis doesn't have a dark cloud hanging over his head just because he "came clean" about his own career. Sponsors like T-Mobile don't have their judgment clouded like some longtime fans do (and I'd count myself as one of those longtime fans, having followed the sport for 26 years).

There are plenty of people out there who are not former dopers who are capable of keeping the sport afloat. The sport is better off without the former cheaters. They belong on the sidelines, not in the team cars.

by Chief Commissaire on Nov 30, 2007 7:52 PM EST up reply actions

or

snogging w/an olsen twin?

by R Mc on Nov 30, 2007 8:20 PM EST up reply actions

Snogging

with an Olsen twin IN a team car is the kind of thing that could boost ratings for televised cycling.

by Jens on Dec 1, 2007 3:25 AM EST up reply actions

OK

there are clean guys around. I guess my point is, just because a guy did some PEDs in the age of PEDs, doesn't automatically disqualify him from running a clean team. The problem with future doping concerns is you have to look within the soul of the individual to know for sure if he's going to take you in the right direction or not. Since we can't do that, I'm willing to accept the circumstantial evidence, like Vaughters putting his life savings into a team whose credo is clean sport. To me that says more about his future judgment than any naughty business he did ten years ago.

by Chris Fontecchio on Dec 1, 2007 12:02 PM EST up reply actions

then he should not have run his mouth

my problem is that he opened himself up by making comments about his past. had he said nothing we would not likely have this issue to discuss. but the fact that he said something about his past yet won't be forthright AND he is pointing out the transparency of his current work is problematic from my perspective. or to put it another way...if someone asked you to make an "investment" in their current life and told you they had done made some mistakes in the past that may relate to the current investment, don't you think you would want to know? i know that i would want to know about it. he should step up and tell us what he did. others have and seemed to have survived...Riis, Andreu, etc.

by hj1 on Dec 1, 2007 2:48 PM EST reply actions

What do you want him to do?

I'm speculating, but judging by the famed Vaughters/Andreu transcript, if Vaughters opens up the way you want him to, he probably winds up implicating ye olde USPostal operation, or, at the very least, the way a certain Mr. Armstrong ran things.

How exactly would having to face that legal juggernaut help Vaughters? It certainly would make being in the same caravan with Bruyneel an interesting situation.

by R Mc on Dec 1, 2007 4:57 PM EST up reply actions

talk, that's what he should do

Vaughters can speak to what he did as that was what he alluded to in the article. It may in fact not even have anything to do with Lance/USPS so I do not see the direct "legal juggernaut" he will face. As for his Andreu conversation he does not need to reference that as it really did not pertain to his own behavior. And it is his own behavior that I question (if i recall he said the conversation was speculation not a recounting of actual events. at least that is what i remember but i could be wrong).

Riis spoke, lost his Tour title, and some respect yet he runs the #1 ranked team in the world. Andreu spoke, lost some respect, and he still has a job in cycling. Others have spoken and still hold their jobs in the sport. JV has not won anything remotely as important as the Tour, and while he might lose some respect, he'll likely keep his job and he could then be truly above-board with respect to what has happened.

Again, it was JV's own comments about his own behavior, not me, that opened him up to questioning.

by hj1 on Dec 1, 2007 6:37 PM EST reply actions

that's a good point

I don't subscribe to the "oust all former dopers" point-of-view. I have no problem with Riis. If Bruyneel runs Astana with a strong anti-doping program, I don't even have a problem with that.

I think if Vaughters provided more details on his personal doping story, it would help clean up the sport.

I seem to recall that he admitted to EPO use--although I might be confusing his story with Andreau's.

I don't think Vaughters would have any legal issue if he disclosed his personal doping history. The Lance issue had to do with the hospital room confession, if I recall correctly.

-K-

by KevinK on Dec 1, 2007 9:44 PM EST up reply actions

Andreu

It was Andreu who confessed.

In various press comments, Vaughters has, to my reading, all but said he doped as a pro. Certainly, he's been explicit that one of his main goals in running a team is to ensure that his riders don't make the mistakes or face the pressures that he did. You really don't have to be a genius to imagine what he's talking about there. His public handling of the issue very much resembles pre-confession Riis. He uses very similar language about what happened in the past and what he intends to do with his team.

What matters to me is not whether a DS used in the past, but rather his feelings about that experience and his decisions in the present. Who better than an ex-rider who regrets the decisions he made to help clean up the sport in the present?

I tend to agree with Chris's comment upthread that it matters more that Vaughters has committed his life savings to running a team dedicated to clean racing. I don't need him to be explicit about what he used or when. It really doesn't much matter now. What matters is what he does for the sport tomorrow and the next day and the day after that.

by Jen See on Dec 3, 2007 6:30 PM EST up reply actions