A Dave Millar thread

[blackcat]

Re:

Another way to look at it is, is where are the following protour riders before and after bans in 2013/2014:

Dekker > Retired
Di Luca > Lifetime Ban, but went down to Vini Fantini–Selle Italia to get 2013 contract
Tiernan-Locke > Sky/Endura to 2nd Cat Amateur
Iglinsky brothers > Astana to retired/amateur now
Ballan > BMC to being in talks with Pro Continental for his return

Dekker got a shot at Garmin, but he bought the "totally clean" shtick by JayVee hook line and sinker.

Dekker coulda won the Tour, much better rider than Froome and Nibali. But if Dekker had to do AICAR, can you imagine his horse face when he loses all the intrafacial tissue.

Mr Ed, the talking horse

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

I think the point, is, Millar did lose everything because of doping, not that he gained them from doping and retained them after his ban like say an Armstrong, Valverde, Basso etc etc. Any of those mentoring anti-doping to their own National team would be a disgrace.
I think BC are as keen for Millar's road racing craft and contacts with all the pro team managers to get young BC riders into Pro Tour as they are for simply his real-world anti-doping messages to their young riders.
The difference now, is when a rider serves a ban for doping, they don't come back like Millar's generation did. The two year ban is a lifetime ban from Pro Tour now. Sure you can drop down to pro-continental - just about still, but do young riders really want to see doping and eventual pro continental as the pinnacle of the sport they love?

In the context of those three then I guess he did lose. But the fact is he came back afterwards to a nice new contract in the pro-tour and continued to earn money from cycling, so he didn't lose out all that much.

I agree though that nowadays the 2 year ban does seem to have a bigger impact than in the past.

 

[samhocking]

Yeah, Garmin's a bit of an exception. I think generally though, if a rider gets a 2 year ban today, their protour career is over. No doubt there will be some exceptions, but I just don't think the Iglinsky's or Tiernan-Locke type banned riders will be back like Millar was able to or Valverde etc.

 

[blackcat]

but no one mentions if Garmin enters the transfer market and buys riders for unders in mkt terms.

like Armstrong stocked his domestique full of bargain based 70k euro Spanish mtn domestiques and paying Hincapie 800USk the monies that the Spanish domestiques miss out on, and Heras got the big money contract too.

 

[samhocking]

Millar was very fortunate, as was Valverde and Basso. I can't think of any other big name riders who came back in at the very top level after their bans like they did. They were in that crossover period though really where getting banned didn't mean a new sponsor would pull out or your protour career would end when you returned. Funny old sport really.

 

[samhocking]

Re:

but no one mentions if Garmin enters the transfer market and buys riders for unders in mkt terms.

like Armstrong stocked his domestique full of bargain based 70k euro Spanish mtn domestiques and paying Hincapie 800USk the monies that the Spanish domestiques miss out on, and Heras got the big money contract too.

No doubt. Why do you think Pro Continental teams lap up banned Pro Tour riders. Slipstream Sports did it for the same reason, just as a Pro Tour squad.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Millar was very fortunate, as was Valverde and Basso. I can't think of any other big name riders who came back in at the very top level after their bans like they did. They were in that crossover period though really where getting banned didn't mean a new sponsor would pull out or your protour career would end when you returned. Funny old sport really.

Millar was fortunate JV was building a team of known dopers.

 

[samhocking]

Back in 2007, all teams were built of known dopers. Slipstream just made it financial decision instead of a doping one.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re:

Yeah, Garmin's a bit of an exception. I think generally though, if a rider gets a 2 year ban today, their protour career is over. No doubt there will be some exceptions, but I just don't think the Iglinsky's or Tiernan-Locke type banned riders will be back like Millar was able to or Valverde etc.

Especially as a routine ban should be 4 years.

 

[jens_attacks]

Re:

Another way to look at it is, is where are the following protour riders before and after bans in 2013/2014:

Dekker > Retired
Di Luca > Lifetime Ban, but went down to Vini Fantini–Selle Italia to get 2013 contract
Tiernan-Locke > Sky/Endura to 2nd Cat Amateur
Iglinsky brothers > Astana to retired/amateur now
Ballan > BMC to being in talks with Pro Continental for his return
Ubeto > Lampre to assume he'll retire this year after ban?

Danilo came back at katusha.
And it was awesome.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Another way to look at it is, is where are the following protour riders before and after bans in 2013/2014:

Dekker > Retired
Di Luca > Lifetime Ban, but went down to Vini Fantini–Selle Italia to get 2013 contract
Tiernan-Locke > Sky/Endura to 2nd Cat Amateur
Iglinsky brothers > Astana to retired/amateur now
Ballan > BMC to being in talks with Pro Continental for his return
Ubeto > Lampre to assume he'll retire this year after ban?

Schleck > Trek to Trek..........

T Dekker > Garmin, got 3 years

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think now is the proper time to Damn the Hypocrisy and
declare David Millar Cycling's One True Champion.

The people who hate Digger the anti-doper love Millar the dishonest doper.

This is fairly consistent with people who have heroes and ignore their hero's flaws. Which is fine for joe public, but when people like Cookson wander around like fanbois it gets very sad.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There was an informal agreement among the ProTour teams as they were at the time to not pick up riders coming off a doping ban until they'd been back a couple of years, but it began to become more and more permeable. Basso was the first high profile exception, as Liquigas argued that he'd not actually been banned for doping per se. By the time Vino was dictating the terms of his comeback to the same team he'd been banned from, it was over.

Anyway, Millar is one of the worst people in the whole of the sport. Back when JV was still here, I asked whether the sport was really better off for his white knight activities. I understand the argument that it is better to have somebody who was there and did those things to warn people off them, but:

David Millar doped to obtain a prominence in the péloton not afforded to clean cyclist X (you could use, say, Tombak, Bassons or Fédrigo here, Moncoutié is the obvious choice but had more prominent results). This meant that he profited from his doping where clean cyclists could not.
David Millar then got banned, and returned proclaiming his reformation from the rooftops.
David Millar's proclamations of cleanliness while not razing the ground like a Thomas Frei, Michael Rasmussen or Patrik Sinkewitz meant that his attempts to return were not blocked or restricted. This meant that he profited from not rocking the boat where more contrite and helpful dopers could not.
David Millar got given a place on the UCI's panel to talk about how to combat doping in the sport due to his knowledge from the inside. This meant that he profited from his doping where clean cyclists could not.
David Millar got the British policy regarding banned dope cheats overturned so that he could race the Olympic RR. This meant that he profited from his connections where other athletes could not.
David Millar got given a job mentoring young athletes due to his ill-gotten prominence in the sport making him one of the few British talents at the elite level in his generation. This meant that he profited from his doping where a clean athlete could not.

David Millar has never stopped profiting from his doping, and from serving as little more than a mouthpiece of inconsequential anti-doping platitudes as far as the casual fan can see, never ran the risk of damaging his profitability by actually helping the fight against doping. At best, he's cycling's equivalent to one of those East German protest poets or musicians who were also IMs for the Stasi. That anybody still gives a flying one what he has to say is a huge affront to the sport.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

There was an informal agreement among the ProTour teams as they were at the time to not pick up riders coming off a doping ban until they'd been back a couple of years, but it began to become more and more permeable. Basso was the first high profile exception, as Liquigas argued that he'd not actually been banned for doping per se. By the time Vino was dictating the terms of his comeback to the same team he'd been banned from, it was over.

Anyway, Millar is one of the worst people in the whole of the sport. Back when JV was still here, I asked whether the sport was really better off for his white knight activities. I understand the argument that it is better to have somebody who was there and did those things to warn people off them, but:

David Millar doped to obtain a prominence in the péloton not afforded to clean cyclist X (you could use, say, Tombak, Bassons or Fédrigo here, Moncoutié is the obvious choice but had more prominent results). This meant that he profited from his doping where clean cyclists could not.
David Millar then got banned, and returned proclaiming his reformation from the rooftops.
David Millar's proclamations of cleanliness while not razing the ground like a Thomas Frei, Michael Rasmussen or Patrik Sinkewitz meant that his attempts to return were not blocked or restricted. This meant that he profited from not rocking the boat where more contrite and helpful dopers could not.
David Millar got given a place on the UCI's panel to talk about how to combat doping in the sport due to his knowledge from the inside. This meant that he profited from his doping where clean cyclists could not.
David Millar got the British policy regarding banned dope cheats overturned so that he could race the Olympic RR. This meant that he profited from his connections where other athletes could not.
David Millar got given a job mentoring young athletes due to his ill-gotten prominence in the sport making him one of the few British talents at the elite level in his generation. This meant that he profited from his doping where a clean athlete could not.

David Millar has never stopped profiting from his doping, and from serving as little more than a mouthpiece of inconsequential anti-doping platitudes as far as the casual fan can see, never ran the risk of damaging his profitability by actually helping the fight against doping. At best, he's cycling's equivalent to one of those East German protest poets or musicians who were also IMs for the Stasi. That anybody still gives a flying one what he has to say is a huge affront to the sport.

Ms Seguros has put it so brilliantly. Well done!

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

There was an informal agreement among the ProTour teams as they were at the time to not pick up riders coming off a doping ban until they'd been back a couple of years, but it began to become more and more permeable. Basso was the first high profile exception, as Liquigas argued that he'd not actually been banned for doping per se. By the time Vino was dictating the terms of his comeback to the same team he'd been banned from, it was over.

Anyway, Millar is one of the worst people in the whole of the sport. Back when JV was still here, I asked whether the sport was really better off for his white knight activities. I understand the argument that it is better to have somebody who was there and did those things to warn people off them, but:

David Millar doped to obtain a prominence in the péloton not afforded to clean cyclist X (you could use, say, Tombak, Bassons or Fédrigo here, Moncoutié is the obvious choice but had more prominent results). This meant that he profited from his doping where clean cyclists could not.
David Millar then got banned, and returned proclaiming his reformation from the rooftops.
David Millar's proclamations of cleanliness while not razing the ground like a Thomas Frei, Michael Rasmussen or Patrik Sinkewitz meant that his attempts to return were not blocked or restricted. This meant that he profited from not rocking the boat where more contrite and helpful dopers could not.
David Millar got given a place on the UCI's panel to talk about how to combat doping in the sport due to his knowledge from the inside. This meant that he profited from his doping where clean cyclists could not.
David Millar got the British policy regarding banned dope cheats overturned so that he could race the Olympic RR. This meant that he profited from his connections where other athletes could not.
David Millar got given a job mentoring young athletes due to his ill-gotten prominence in the sport making him one of the few British talents at the elite level in his generation. This meant that he profited from his doping where a clean athlete could not.

David Millar has never stopped profiting from his doping, and from serving as little more than a mouthpiece of inconsequential anti-doping platitudes as far as the casual fan can see, never ran the risk of damaging his profitability by actually helping the fight against doping. At best, he's cycling's equivalent to one of those East German protest poets or musicians who were also IMs for the Stasi. That anybody still gives a flying one what he has to say is a huge affront to the sport.

Ms Seguros has put it so brilliantly. Well done!

Agreed. Very well put, as always from LS.

But I think I can put it a little bit better:

David Millar is one of the lowest forms of human life.

How did I do?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

There was an informal agreement among the ProTour teams as they were at the time to not pick up riders coming off a doping ban until they'd been back a couple of years, but it began to become more and more permeable. Basso was the first high profile exception, as Liquigas argued that he'd not actually been banned for doping per se. By the time Vino was dictating the terms of his comeback to the same team he'd been banned from, it was over.

Anyway, Millar is one of the worst people in the whole of the sport. Back when JV was still here, I asked whether the sport was really better off for his white knight activities. I understand the argument that it is better to have somebody who was there and did those things to warn people off them, but:

David Millar doped to obtain a prominence in the péloton not afforded to clean cyclist X (you could use, say, Tombak, Bassons or Fédrigo here, Moncoutié is the obvious choice but had more prominent results). This meant that he profited from his doping where clean cyclists could not.
David Millar then got banned, and returned proclaiming his reformation from the rooftops.
David Millar's proclamations of cleanliness while not razing the ground like a Thomas Frei, Michael Rasmussen or Patrik Sinkewitz meant that his attempts to return were not blocked or restricted. This meant that he profited from not rocking the boat where more contrite and helpful dopers could not.
David Millar got given a place on the UCI's panel to talk about how to combat doping in the sport due to his knowledge from the inside. This meant that he profited from his doping where clean cyclists could not.
David Millar got the British policy regarding banned dope cheats overturned so that he could race the Olympic RR. This meant that he profited from his connections where other athletes could not.
David Millar got given a job mentoring young athletes due to his ill-gotten prominence in the sport making him one of the few British talents at the elite level in his generation. This meant that he profited from his doping where a clean athlete could not.

David Millar has never stopped profiting from his doping, and from serving as little more than a mouthpiece of inconsequential anti-doping platitudes as far as the casual fan can see, never ran the risk of damaging his profitability by actually helping the fight against doping. At best, he's cycling's equivalent to one of those East German protest poets or musicians who were also IMs for the Stasi. That anybody still gives a flying one what he has to say is a huge affront to the sport.

Ms Seguros has put it so brilliantly. Well done!

Agreed. Very well put, as always from LS.

But I think I can put it a little bit better:

David Millar is one of the lowest forms of human life.

How did I do?

You have equalled LS.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re:

There was an informal agreement among the ProTour teams as they were at the time to not pick up riders coming off a doping ban until they'd been back a couple of years, but it began to become more and more permeable. Basso was the first high profile exception, as Liquigas argued that he'd not actually been banned for doping per se. By the time Vino was dictating the terms of his comeback to the same team he'd been banned from, it was over.

Anyway, Millar is one of the worst people in the whole of the sport. Back when JV was still here, I asked whether the sport was really better off for his white knight activities. I understand the argument that it is better to have somebody who was there and did those things to warn people off them, but:

David Millar doped to obtain a prominence in the péloton not afforded to clean cyclist X (you could use, say, Tombak, Bassons or Fédrigo here, Moncoutié is the obvious choice but had more prominent results). This meant that he profited from his doping where clean cyclists could not.
David Millar then got banned, and returned proclaiming his reformation from the rooftops.
David Millar's proclamations of cleanliness while not razing the ground like a Thomas Frei, Michael Rasmussen or Patrik Sinkewitz meant that his attempts to return were not blocked or restricted. This meant that he profited from not rocking the boat where more contrite and helpful dopers could not.
David Millar got given a place on the UCI's panel to talk about how to combat doping in the sport due to his knowledge from the inside. This meant that he profited from his doping where clean cyclists could not.
David Millar got the British policy regarding banned dope cheats overturned so that he could race the Olympic RR. This meant that he profited from his connections where other athletes could not.
David Millar got given a job mentoring young athletes due to his ill-gotten prominence in the sport making him one of the few British talents at the elite level in his generation. This meant that he profited from his doping where a clean athlete could not.

David Millar has never stopped profiting from his doping, and from serving as little more than a mouthpiece of inconsequential anti-doping platitudes as far as the casual fan can see, never ran the risk of damaging his profitability by actually helping the fight against doping. At best, he's cycling's equivalent to one of those East German protest poets or musicians who were also IMs for the Stasi. That anybody still gives a flying one what he has to say is a huge affront to the sport.

Excellent post although the bold part is incorrect, Millar did not campaign to have the ban overturned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/15922346

However, despite the World Anti-Doping Agency ruling against the British stance, Miller has no plans to push for a place at the London 2012 Games.

"In all honesty, I'd written off the Olympics a long time ago," said Millar.

Under British Olympic Association rules, athletes who have tested positive are given a lifetime ban.

However WADA has has told the BOA that its punishment for athletes found guilty of doping is no longer compliant with their rules.

Millar expressed surprise at the speed at which the dispute between the BOA and WADA over the British ban had escalated.

If the UK has the choice of having a lifetime ban for the Olympics, why can't another country just punish six months?

David Millar
"I though it would be something that would more likely happen in the future, maybe even post-Olympics, so to have WADA react so quickly is quite good," he said.

So he thought it was 'quite good' of WADA to rule in favour of dopers? A strange thing to say from such a strong anti doping crusader.

 

[Robert21]

Re: Re:

But I think I can put it a little bit better:

David Millar is one of the lowest forms of human life.

I had thought that, in the wake of 'Femkes' bust for riding a motor bike in a bike race, we were all supposed to be focusing more on the enablers and those responsible for leading young riders astray. David was only 20 when he was thrown into the sewer that is pro bike racing, so who knows what pressures he faced, and it is hard to remake the model once the die has been cast...

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

But I think I can put it a little bit better:

David Millar is one of the lowest forms of human life.

I had thought that, in the wake of 'Femkes' bust for riding a motor bike in a bike race, we were all supposed to be focusing more on the enablers and those responsible for leading young riders astray.

Which from what I heard, is David Millars new job position at BC

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

But I think I can put it a little bit better:

David Millar is one of the lowest forms of human life.

I had thought that, in the wake of 'Femkes' bust for riding a motor bike in a bike race, we were all supposed to be focusing more on the enablers and those responsible for leading young riders astray. David was only 20 when he was thrown into the sewer that is pro bike racing, so who knows what pressures he faced, and it is hard to remake the model once the die has been cast...

yes but he isn't now and he should be self-aware enough to realise that what he demonstrates to riders is not that doping doesn't pay...but that doping does pay...not just financially but in that he is also still within the bosom of the (british) cycling establishment...he also never tested positive and was not half as good as when he returned without the full scale program he was on previously....so he also demonstrates that it pays in performance terms...and you can dope and beat the tests....

the facts on the ground speak louder than any nonsense he can speak......

 

[samhocking]

Millar did not challenge the BOA bylaw Bernie. In fact at the time he said it wasn't a fight he was interested in fighting. Even Moynihan at the time, clearly stated "The reality is it's WADA that have come after us and said 'we deem you to be non-compliant"". The reality was either BOA leave WADA for 2012 or harmonize their anti-doping code the same as every other Country had leading up to 2012.

Also, 'in context' his "quite good" comment was in relation to BOA agreeing to WADA's demands so quickly, not that he thought it was good he would now be in the Olympics. He was very outspoken well before WADA even wanted BOA to harmonize that he felt it not right that a 16 year old kid wouldn't consider redemption if he knew he was banned for life. Obviously not a big deal in Cycling where the Olympics are not the biggest stage, but for athletics and many other sports it clearly is their Tour de France. Clearly ones own view of Millar is if you think a human is capable of redemption. If you don't he's scum, if you do he's the first to attempt it while competing in the same environment he seeks redemption.

 

[sniper]

What is often forgotten is that Millar didn't just dope himself, he also pushed others to dope.

A snippet of what Philip Gaumont said about Millar:

According to L’Equipe Gaumont told the inquiry that Millar exerted his influence as team leader when he asked team doctor Jean-Jacques Menuet to inject Gaumont and Cedric Vasseur with the same substance he had been given before winning the time-trial at Nantes in the 2003 Tour de France.

Gaumont did not specify what the substance was other than being a “clear liquid.”

“If Menuet agreed to give Vasseur and myself the injections it was because Millar asked him to, and as team leader he had a lot of power over the riders and Menuet,” Gaumont was quoted as saying.

velonews.competitor.com/2004/04/news/the-cofidis-affair-gaumont-now-implicates-millar_5848#SUKLc0rA8SWFqoZg.99

Yikes...

Now, here's Millar's reaction:

Gaumont, who won a bronze medal at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, has been described as a loose cannon by Millar and it is believed he has an axe to grind since being sacked by the team.

Millar told Thursday’s edition of the Manchester Guardian that he regarded Gaumont as unstable.

“It’s clear to me,” Millar said. “There are three or four people in the team who have been complete idiots, but if you go into any work-place environment you will find three or four people who do stupid things, take risks.

“It’s scary how a few idiots can put everyone’s jobs in danger.”

“He’s (Gaumont) a nutter, but what’s dangerous is that he’s very gifted at manipulating people; at the moment he seems to be manipulating the judge, the police and the press,” Millar said “He’s behaving like an absolute lunatic. It’s guerilla warfare against the team.”

Now, to think that this guy -- PRE-BAN -- played not a small role in the new BC setup led by Brailsford...
From Ellingworth's Project Rainbow:

David Millar also played a part. Throughout 2003 he was around Manchester, and in and out of the velodrome. Millar is pretty much the last of the old-school British pros in Europe, the ones who’d gone out there and done it on their own.

Then you add in Brailsford holding Millar's hand when the police pulled his pants down in Biarritz 2004...

What did Ullrich say about 1+1 again?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

Millar did not challenge the BOA bylaw Bernie. In fact at the time he said it wasn't a fight he was interested in fighting. Even Moynihan at the time, clearly stated "The reality is it's WADA that have come after us and said 'we deem you to be non-compliant"". The reality was either BOA leave WADA for 2012 or harmonize their anti-doping code the same as every other Country had leading up to 2012.

Also, 'in context' his "quite good" comment was in relation to BOA agreeing to WADA's demands so quickly, not that he thought it was good he would now be in the Olympics. He was very outspoken well before WADA even wanted BOA to harmonize that he felt it not right that a 16 year old kid wouldn't consider redemption if he knew he was banned for life. Obviously not a big deal in Cycling where the Olympics are not the biggest stage, but for athletics and many other sports it clearly is their Tour de France. Clearly ones own view of Millar is if you think a human is capable of redemption. If you don't he's scum, if you do he's the first to attempt it while competing in the same environment he seeks redemption.

I think a human is capable of redemption. I just don't think David Millar is seeking it in a genuine sense, only in a PR sense. He's seeking to continue his career, and acting contrite and dancing around the sideline saying "don't do it!" like Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five makes that much easier than razing the ground and causing others to get busted. Just ask Filippo Simeoni. People who are renowned as clean such as Moncoutié or Fédrigo, and people who have gone out of their way to critique doping, like Pinotti and Engoulvent, don't get to sit on the UCI's anti-doping panel. Because unlike our friend David, they don't have the inside knowledge. So Millar cheats the clean cyclists out of results, then cheats the clean cyclists out of the ability to use that for good. And he also gets preference for those roles over the dopers who talked frankly and helped expose supply chains and root out suppliers and enablers.

For Millar, contrition is pragmatic, whether it be a genuine feeling of remorse or a cynical grab at continued relevance. He returned from his ban nearly a decade ago, and he's still finding new ways to profit from his doping now. I don't consider that to be redemption.

 

[Snapper19]

Re:

[quote="Libertine Seguros"

David Millar has never stopped profiting from his doping, and from serving as little more than a mouthpiece of inconsequential anti-doping platitudes as far as the casual fan can see, never ran the risk of damaging his profitability by actually helping the fight against doping. At best, he's cycling's equivalent to one of those East German protest poets or musicians who were also IMs for the Stasi. That anybody still gives a flying one what he has to say is a huge affront to the sport.[/quote]

Well said. And if I might add something to your list it will be to say that Millar has also been in the habit of insisting that cycling is clean, and that this rider or that rider is clean, and that this team of that team is clean. That is an insult to the intelligence of anybody who follows cycling, particularly when those riders or teams routinely get popped. This is why Millar has no use whatsoever as an adviser to the various 'cycling investigations' which have taken place in recent times. In fact he is a liability. He will do everything he can to protect cycling, in all its filthy glory, lest the sport declines and losers sponsorship. He is the very embodiment of the omerta.

 

[oldcrank]

https://twitter.com/anamunozsp/status/698197583106326528