Dave Millar - anti doping hero

[Race Radio]

"Riccos arrogance and the episode at Flanders had tipped me over thee edge. I contacted the UCI saying that I had my suspicions about doping within my team, and that I wanted them to be aware of this. They told me they were looking in to it.

But there were issues. Marco Zorzoli, the UCI's chief medical officer, is a good friend of Mauro Gianetti. I am not suggesting that this affected Zorzoli's work, but it was indicative of a wider conflict of interests. The UCI's positioning, as both promoters of cycling and guardians of its ethics, has always been controversial."

This is very, very disturbing.

 

[Jeanne]

I have just read Dave's book - I have here in my home a collection of some 400-500 cycling books. His is number one. It is a brilliant, brilliant read. I speak to many people about cycling and some (cycling friends) will dismiss the pro sport by saying "they are all at it" - a stance with which I fundamentally disagree.
Reading Dave's book gives the doubters very little room for their views. Dave's honesty is so unbelievably revealing that no one (except the most cynical) can doubt just one word. He even swung Paul Kimmage over to his cause and that was after Paul had taken every opportunity to rubbish Dave in his articles.
David Millar is a giant amongst men, of that I have no doubt. His honesty, his intelligence and the way he reveals his emotions certainly opened my eyes to the inside world of cycling.
Listen. I've been in love with this sport for 50 years. I'm not an old fogey - I have a modern attitude, I ride every day, I still race at times. I've been a cycling journalist in the dim and distant past, so I know a thing or two about this sport. I am disappointed with the administration of the sport at the highest level and one of the UCI's recent moves in particular. They want to ban those convicted of doping offences from taking any future management role once their punishment is finished.
I think Dave would agree that it is people like him who are making the difference. Having experienced the bad times in our sport, he has worked relentlessly towards getting the sport cleaned up. He has never been in denial (a la Hamilton, Armstrong & Landis to name but 3) and as such he could wield enormous influence over the younger generation of riders. He's already done a lot of good work on behalf of a clean sport. We will need him in a management role in the future.
Dave: You are my sporting hero. Love your book. Long may you ride.

what exactly did you want or expect by writing this? Just wonder But I'm glad that you found your hero!

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I'm just at a bit of a loss as to how Millar's an "Anti-Doping Hero"...

 

[Lucky1]

I have just read Dave's book - I have here in my home a collection of some 400-500 cycling books. His is number one. It is a brilliant, brilliant read. I speak to many people about cycling and some (cycling friends) will dismiss the pro sport by saying "they are all at it" - a stance with which I fundamentally disagree.
Reading Dave's book gives the doubters very little room for their views. Dave's honesty is so unbelievably revealing that no one (except the most cynical) can doubt just one word. He even swung Paul Kimmage over to his cause and that was after Paul had taken every opportunity to rubbish Dave in his articles.
David Millar is a giant amongst men, of that I have no doubt. His honesty, his intelligence and the way he reveals his emotions certainly opened my eyes to the inside world of cycling.
Listen. I've been in love with this sport for 50 years. I'm not an old fogey - I have a modern attitude, I ride every day, I still race at times. I've been a cycling journalist in the dim and distant past, so I know a thing or two about this sport. I am disappointed with the administration of the sport at the highest level and one of the UCI's recent moves in particular. They want to ban those convicted of doping offences from taking any future management role once their punishment is finished.
I think Dave would agree that it is people like him who are making the difference. Having experienced the bad times in our sport, he has worked relentlessly towards getting the sport cleaned up. He has never been in denial (a la Hamilton, Armstrong & Landis to name but 3) and as such he could wield enormous influence over the younger generation of riders. He's already done a lot of good work on behalf of a clean sport. We will need him in a management role in the future.
Dave: You are my sporting hero. Love your book. Long may you ride.

I've read the book and I was also impressed (though perhaps not quite as impressed as you obviously have been - but that's just a subjective thing). I'm afraid that you may find little sympathy in The Clinic however. You would probably have to post something much more negative for that.

Lucky

 

[Lucky1]

i imagine his big ego would agree with you.



Where does it in his book slam the likes of Armstrong and Vino etc...please can you provide a quote. As i remember he wasn't to happy to hear Landis speaking out.



Pity he never helped the AFLD with information on how to avoid positives since he never tested positive, the police found empty vials of epo in his bathroom cabinet.

Can you provide any instances of how he has helped the sports anti doping apart from blowing his own trumpet.



glad he has one fan.

To respond to a couple of your questions:

1. As an example of how he has helped the sports anti-doping. Millar is on the WADA athletes committee - I believe the only cyclist and only ex-doper to have been invited. He also brought the authorities attention to the Saunier Duval team abuse before they were caught.

2. He doesn't 'slam' the likes of Armstrong and Vino in his book - though he does address them. One of the themes in the book is that doping isn't as black and white as many people on this forum would like to think. He deals with things more objectively than just 'slamming' people.

 

[Lucky1]

Since you have read the book, perhaps you could give us some more details on the particular objections raised by others in this thread.

Does Millar expose other dopers, or does he maintain what many here call "omerta"?
Does Millar describe his co-operation with AFLD, WADA or other anti-doping agencies?

Specific examples would help make your point and encourage others to read the book.

I don't believe Millar's book exposes dopers who have not yet been exposed. He certainly provides plenty of detail of the activities of those who have (Gaumant, VDB, etc, etc.) So no he doesn't go that far which is a fair point. Of course being fair to him he would also need to be careful about making accusations which he can't back up with objective evidence (as he and the publisher could get sued). I have also read Kimmage's book and of the two I prefer Millar's. Millar comes across as less evangelical, more revealing on the detail (who did Kimmage name and shame and how much detail do posters say he revealed that wasn't already known) and more insightful thank Kimmage's black and white stance.

Yes he does describe his cooperation - for example his activities as a member of the WADA athletes committee and the cooperation he gave to the authorities when he was caught.

 

[Lucky1]

Any chance you could fill us in on 'the episode at Flanders'? edit: Oh, never mind, I hadn't read the whole of the PodiumCafe article

I'll be getting the book along with Slaying the Badger for my birthday in two months probably.
Best cycling book I've read is Le Metier by Michael Barry.

I was surprised reading that PodiumCafe article that his neo-pro contract was €80k

I've just read Slaying the Badger and the Millar book. I think both are good. If you haven't seen detailed coverage of the 1986 Tour you'll probably get a lot more from Slaying the Badger than if you have (to me it didn't really reveal a lot more than I already knew).

 

[Benotti69]

To respond to a couple of your questions:

1. As an example of how he has helped the sports anti-doping. Millar is on the WADA athletes committee - I believe the only cyclist and only ex-doper to have been invited. He also brought the authorities attention to the Saunier Duval team abuse before they were caught.

They were not caught in 2008, Ricco and Piepoli tested positive during the TdF 2008 when Millar wasn't on the team. The team hasn't folded and Giannetti stil in the sport with new sponsors. It wasn't hard to catch Ricco, now was it? he was practically brandishing it in everyones face!

2. He doesn't 'slam' the likes of Armstrong and Vino in his book - though he does address them. One of the themes in the book is that doping isn't as black and white as many people on this forum would like to think. He deals with things more objectively than just 'slamming' people.

He did have a go at Landis. But he doesn't mind slamming Ricco along with the rest of the peloton. That there is really fighting doping in the peloton, slam the one guy everyone hates. Brave, very brave.

Millar shopped Ricco, bet it was for personality reasons rather than doping. and if he was getting nowhere with the UCI why did he not go to the police after all it was the police who busted him? As if he expected the UCI to do anything, that's a joke.

I'm afraid that you may find little sympathy in The Clinic however. You would probably have to post something much more negative for that.

Lets have a go at brandishing the clinic as one huge pre-concetpion that every cyclist dopes why dont we. The opinons in the clinic are as varied as every poster.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To respond to a couple of your questions:

1. As an example of how he has helped the sports anti-doping. Millar is on the WADA athletes committee - I believe the only cyclist and only ex-doper to have been invited. He also brought the authorities attention to the Saunier Duval team abuse before they were caught.

2. He doesn't 'slam' the likes of Armstrong and Vino in his book - though he does address them. One of the themes in the book is that doping isn't as black and white as many people on this forum would like to think. He deals with things more objectively than just 'slamming' people.

You mean he doesnt "slam people" in the way you just did with what you say in the blue? Duly noted.

Of course it's not 'black & white', its an institutional problem and one that has often (but not always- as this forum is open to all opinions) been articulated by members here.

The responses here are quite an interesting read. They say a lot about the psychology of the posters! Firstly it shows to me that most people posting on this particular forum are the rottweilers who jump to conclusions and are totally 'anti' without ever finding evidence to back that up.

And what interesting about the psychology of your posts is that you do not address any of the points raised by other posters here and more alarmingly appear to have taken Millars book unquestionably to hail Millar as some sort of "anti-doping hero".

Secondly some of you are so anxious to jump down my throat that you even misread and misquote my posts (ie the expression to 'rubbish' someone means to say bad things about them; get it?). Thirdly, no matter how clean the riders are you somehow need to always be on the attack. Whether this is to display how politically correct you are, or what good jolly cyclists you are, I have no idea. But 90% of the replies above are nonsensical.

I did not misquote you - in fact I used the exact word in the context you used.

If it wasn't what you meant to say that is your problem, not mine - particularly as you have told us here that you have written books or publications before.

Read Millar's book with an open mind and then comment.

I have.

The 'peasant' reference was also (deliberately?) misunderstood.
(Strangely enough the one guy locally who sounds like you lot must have two strong coffees in the cafe before the daily ride and every evening his addiction is a load of beers otherwise he can't survive. I use neither.)
I also think it is appalling and vile that you bring people who have fought to clean up the sport into this discussion. What has got into you folks?

The "peasant reference" was not misunderstood - it was rightly pointed out as having no bearing on Millar.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Millar is a whiny hypocrite. If you're going to call him a hero, then the Pope's going to have to turn up and beatify Emanuele Sella. Sella > Millar, in pretty much everything except height and time trialling.

 

[The Hitch]

Wonderlance. Is that you?

 

[sniper]

(...)

And its another example of where you are wrong.
You hadn't read the full Kimmage piece from the ST before you wrote in the other thread and now you are happy to take "Ianfras" word on David the "anti-doping hero", without reading the book.
Ask Contador or Riis if Kimmage lost his touch.

Well, he did state in an interview with the ARD that he believes Millar is now clean (based on what?) and that the peloton is getting cleaner. I just don't see why he believes the peloton is getting cleaner. The tour may have been cleaner, but I haven'T seen any indications that the peloton is cleaning up or in any way changing its mindset regarding doping. They aren't.
But don't get me wrong, I love Kimmage, and you're right, he did put the pressure on Contador and Riis. (By the way, is there footage of that pressconference?)

Link to ARD interview:
http://www.sportschau.de/sp/tour2011/aktuell/kw28/interview_kimmage_20110714.jsp

 

[ludwig]

For the 10 years or more he's been prominent in cycling, the one thing most consistent about Millar is his vocal hatred of whistle-blowers and/or anyone who would compromise omerta. Whether its Jaksche or Kohl or Landis, Millar had mean and misleading things to say about them.

If you're for omerta, then David Millar is your man!

 

[spetsa]

I'm just at a bit of a loss as to how Millar's an "Anti-Doping Hero"...

+1

He cried like a baby because the police knocked his door down. Even our man LA may be capable of such heroics one day!

 

[Lucky1]

They were not caught in 2008, Ricco and Piepoli tested positive during the TdF 2008 when Millar wasn't on the team. The team hasn't folded and Giannetti stil in the sport with new sponsors. It wasn't hard to catch Ricco, now was it? he was practically brandishing it in everyones face!


.

As I said - he contacted the authorities about them BEFORE Ricco and Piepoli were caught - ie before he left Saunier Duval. Contacting the authorities about your own team while you are still in it is a big deal - it exposes you to no small risk.

Anyway - I'm no apologist for David Millar. He has plenty of faults (as he admits in his book) and he isn't "my hero". His book however is well written and has plenty of valuable contributions to make. I am impressed by it and by quite a few of the things that he has done. Reading it may also help those who like to jump to conclusions and see things in black and white to have a greater appreciation of the shades of grey that permeate this area.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

A bigger or smaller hypocrite than DaveB? I'm trying to fig out how he can say no to Sean Kelly and Neil Stephens and yes to Sean Yates and Max Sciandri. Funny how few in Brit media even want to ask that Q (see the ans in this one: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/7/27/2295560/Richard-Moore )

Moore is even more of an **** than Will Fotheringham.

I think David Millar has done enormous good as an anti-doping campaigner, and I think that people like Rolf Aldag, Brian Holm and Allan Peiper are hugely positive influences.

There aren't enough roll eye smilies in the world for that quote.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, he did state in an interview with the ARD that he believes Millar is now clean (based on what?) and that the peloton is getting cleaner. I just don't see why he believes the peloton is getting cleaner. The tour may have been cleaner, but I haven'T seen any indications that the peloton is cleaning up or in any way changing its mindset regarding doping. They aren't.
But don't get me wrong, I love Kimmage, and you're right, he did put the pressure on Contador and Riis. (By the way, is there footage of that pressconference?)

Link to ARD interview:
http://www.sportschau.de/sp/tour2011/aktuell/kw28/interview_kimmage_20110714.jsp

I don't get your Kimmage argument - what are you basing your views on Millar on?

For me, I would be surprised (& very concerned for his welfare) if Millar ever dopes again.
Sure, I am basing this on is his candor in his book and taking some of what he says at face value - but one of the good things from his book is that he articulates the depths (he feels) he fell to after being exposed.
(That is an area from his experience that would certainly be worth highlighting if he becomes involved in anti-doping - and alone makes the book worth getting.)

Millar states he went from having everything to having nothing - while I don't believe either scenario is entirely true - that's what he believes and should he ever be caught doping again he will lose what he has tried to rebuilt and the acceptance he appears to crave.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Why would you take anything Millar says at face value? He is a liar and has never changed. He'd say anything if he thought it would help him.

 

[sniper]

I don't get your Kimmage argument - what are you basing your views on Millar on?

For me, I would be surprised (& very concerned for his welfare) if Millar ever dopes again.
Sure, I am basing this on is his candor in his book and taking some of what he says at face value - but one of the good things from his book is that he articulates the depths (he feels) he fell to after being exposed.
(That is an area from his experience that would certainly be worth highlighting if he becomes involved in anti-doping - and alone makes the book worth getting.)

Millar states he went from having everything to having nothing - while I don't believe either scenario is entirely true - that's what he believes and should he ever be caught doping again he will lose what he has tried to rebuilt and the acceptance he appears to crave.

my views on millar are based e.g. on this interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cycling/13675045.stm
nothing in there suggests Millar is interested in breaking Omerta.
with all respect to Millar, what he has to say there is really disappointing.
"we've moved so far forward"
"If I'd entered the sports now, I wouldn't have encountered doping"
"There used to be a doping culture, now there is an anti-doping culture".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why would you take anything Millar says at face value? He is a liar and has never changed. He'd say anything if he thought it would help him.

Could you point out what lie's are in Millars book? ......... Of course you can't because you haven't read it.

If you want to take everything that Millar (and lots of others) says as lie's then knock yourself out - don't expect me or anyone else to share your pessimism.

I read his book - it is interesting and well put together.
No,I do not believe everything in it but any facts within that I have checked have appeared accurate and I have no way of knowing if some other claims are true - so in that instance I would accept what he says.

 

[sniper]

I don't get your Kimmage argument - what are you basing your views on Millar on?

For me, I would be surprised (& very concerned for his welfare) if Millar ever dopes again.
Sure, I am basing this on is his candor in his book and taking some of what he says at face value - but one of the good things from his book is that he articulates the depths (he feels) he fell to after being exposed.
(That is an area from his experience that would certainly be worth highlighting if he becomes involved in anti-doping - and alone makes the book worth getting.)

Millar states he went from having everything to having nothing - while I don't believe either scenario is entirely true - that's what he believes and should he ever be caught doping again he will lose what he has tried to rebuilt and the acceptance he appears to crave.

my views on millar are based e.g. on this interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cycling/13675045.stm

"we've moved so far forward"
"If I would enter the sport now, I wouldn't encounter doping"
"There used to be a doping culture, now there is an anti-doping culture".

some other things he says in there (e.g. regarding contador) are actually quite interesting and valuable, but why is he so concerned with selling cycling as if the sport were really cleaning up?

 

[issoisso]

Again, read his heartfelt and honest book. The beauty about his book is that it teaches us how easy it is to criticise the pro riders and their doping, without having any understanding of the pressures that these guys were under. Millar wasn't a Hamilton, Landis or Armstrong with their deny, deny, deny denials. He was happy to unload and explain how the doping occurs and the kind of pressures he (and others)faced.

Except he was. He denied for months before he was finally nailed to the wall with evidence and had no choice but to confess. Until then he denied everything vehemently.

 

[Polish]

I think those that use anti-doping for personal gain are just as bad as those who use doping for personal gain. Worse if you do both yikes.

BTW, has David donated any of his own monies to be used for Test Equipment?
Doubt it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

my views on millar are based e.g. on this interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cycling/13675045.stm

"we've moved so far forward"
"If I would enter the sport now, I wouldn't encounter doping"
"There used to be a doping culture, now there is an anti-doping culture".


some other things he says in there (e.g. regarding contador) are actually quite interesting and valuable, but why is he so concerned with selling cycling as if the sport were really cleaning up?

Firstly - I am not going to speak for Millar - if you want to know his opinion (rather than the short Clark Kent interview) then get the book.

My interpretation of the guy is that he craves acceptance and respect.

Being honest this is the part that disturbed me about his book and I (as in my opinion) have a difficulty reconciling - he appears to think that his role now is important and very significant, which is why he feels the need to suggest that things have improved beyond what I believe they have.
We have to remember - he is living in somewhat of a cocoon, what goes on at Garmin (if you believe it) is not what goes on in other teams and for me that is where he oversteps. Yet I understand why he does so.

I actually think he is (in a nice way) naive and innocent, in so far as he went up and asked Armstrong to be more vocal about anti-doping (hello?) and he expected the UCI to give a hoot when he told them what was going on in SD.

I do think what he is doing has a lot of value - and certainly his story should be heard, as he is thoughtful and articulate.
For me what is doing is great and should be applauded but he is a cyclist and his influence is limited. My opinion is that he should concentrate on what he can control (ie his team etc) rather than than thinking he can cure cycling ill's - because I believe that the sport will let him down.

 

[Izzy eviel]

Except he was. He denied for months before he was finally nailed to the wall with evidence and had no choice but to confess. Until then he denied everything vehemently.

Which is what 99% of the population would and do do. Everyone in all walks of life whether it's sports doping, cheating partners, crooks in court, they all would deny any wrong doing. No-one says 'Ok, fair cop you've caught me. I admit to everything'. Can't knock him (or anyone) for that.

There's probably alot of things in his book that he couldn't mention or name. I suspect Lawyers & libel laws are the main reason.

Does anyone know what David Moncontie has said about Millar?