Dave Millar - anti doping hero

[The Hitch]

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.

I do remember seeing a David Millar interview recently where he says that he would like to take a moment to think about the horrible situation that his good friend and teammate Leo is going through.

I cant remember where i saw this or exactly from when but it was from his days riding for SD and the Leo in question was the very same Piepoli. The reason Leo should be in our minds - because he was having some problems with anti doping.

So was he trying to maintain his undercover status or something.

 

[sniper]

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.

haha, clark kent all the way.
anyway, thanks for that excellent post, and for plausibly explaining what's hot and what's not about millar('s book).
I'll try to glimpse at (or actually read) the book some day soon, for sure.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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.

No, but it does make him hard to accept as a sort of white knight. Bernhard Kohl has done more for anti-doping than David Millar.

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?

Moncoutié is a quiet guy. He avoids putting his foot in it. Good for him.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

yeah he left in 2007 and it took them nearly a year to catch them in the TdF2008. I doubt it. They failed tests as winners of stages not because Millar alerted the authorities

nothing is black in white in life and if you have read the clinic for a while you would see that the clinic does not debate nor discuss the issues in black and white.

 

[Benotti69]

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?

well he is a part owner of Slipstream and he probably has ideas to become a future DS and it ain't easy for teams to secure sponsorship so if himself and JV keep spouting the clean team bit they think they might find it easier to secure sponsors and become the biggest team in pro cycling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

haha, clark kent all the way.
anyway, thanks for that excellent post, and for plausibly explaining what's hot and what's not about millar('s book).
I'll try to glimpse at (or actually read) the book some day soon, for sure.

I do think it is a good and worthwhile read - what is in his book and what he has said lately is remarkably consistent (even if you choose not to believe it) and you can get a good insight in to his thought process (good & bad) from tghe book.

Now the reason I have underlined "lately" above is the interview 'TheHitch' referred to in their post above.
I remember reading it on the forum about a month ago but cannot find that post- (so thanks to whoever posted it originally) but here is that 2007 interview - the relevant part about Pieopli is at 4:34 but he also mentions the Vino/Ferrari connection just before it.

I was reading DM's book at the time that interview was posted - and it appears at odds with what he says he was doing with SD at the time.

 

[ludwig]

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.

Maybe this is why one finds us die-hards supporting riders like Vino. Even Cadel Evans deserves praise for keeping some honor and avoiding imitating Millar. But then.....he never got caught.

It would come as a pleasant surprise if Millar had something to do with Piepoli and Ricco getting busted--that sounds out of character for him.

 

[ianfra]

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.


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".


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.


I have.



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

.And when did I ever say had written a book (I have, about Behaviour in Schoolrooms, not cycling)? You are so anxious to tear me apart you've taken the trouble to quote everything in my post out of context! What utter nonsense. However, I'm glad to have started this debate. I am so sad about the mentality of a lot of you posters. Perhaps thinking before posting would be a good strategy?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.And when did I ever say had written a book (I have, about Behaviour in Schoolrooms, not cycling)?

You wrote it here:

Full time bike rider in Chiang Mai, Thailand. (Retired writer/publisher)...

You are so anxious to tear me apart you've taken the trouble to quote everything in my post out of context! What utter nonsense. However, I'm glad to have started this debate. I am so sad about the mentality of a lot of you posters. Perhaps thinking before posting would be a good strategy?

Strange - if I am so anxious to tear you apart that I quoted you out of context I would expect a simple and clear rebuttal.

You may have started a thread - but I would not call the juvenile name-calling or querying the mental health of people and other contributions you have posted since as offering anything to debate.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

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.

Why is it that whenever anyone disagrees with you that you start acting like a huffy teenager?

Haven't read it? You sound just like the OP - anyone who disagrees with your opinion is wrong - and rather than discuss the topic you decide to attack the poster. Play the topic not the poster. If you can't manage that then don't bother - and save me the tedious posts interspersed with blue, bold and quotes.

And for your information I've been reading, listening and watching Millar all his career since 97 - and I don't see someone who has changed one little bit.

He lied until he was caught and he continues to pedal lies - about himself, about doping and about the sport cleaning up.

Actions are more important than words. Millar can spin for England, but where are the deeds? Millar the great anti-doper who has done nothing but self-promote himself.

Millar who describes himself as anti-doping and was telling us in 2007 how the sport had cleaned up, how we shouldn't be so suspicious of Vino working with Ferrari, who tells us we should believe that Piepoli, Dertie etc are clean, his defence of Armstrong contrasted with his condemnation of Landis.

Millar is an upholder of omerta but he does it dressed in a suit of anti-doping. It's the Emperor's new clothes.

I see absolutely no difference in the Millar of 98, to the Millar of 2007 to the Millar of 2011. Same old same old, say whatever makes you look good. The same old lies, the same old spin, the same old omerta.

As I say - what has Millar actually done to help anti-doping? Because all I can see is a guy who talks anti-doping out one side of his mouth, while defending dopers and omerta on the other. He's nothing more than a PR guy.

He's Kloeden with even worse dress sense.

 

[Digger]

Just few points:
(1) Kimmage's stance has not softened one bit. He had an article pulled last Sunday on Rihs, BMC, Phonak and LeLangue.
(2) Millar has shown incredibly hypocrisy in his castigating of other whistleblowers, namely Landis.
(3) Millar denied for ages. He even threatened to sue Kimmage.
The only reason he ever 'confessed' is due to the vials being found by the French police.
(4) Millar has shown no courage whatsoever in criticising Contador. He criticised the system but had no balls in criticising AC. In fact I could show numerous quotes showing Millar eulogising Contador.
(5) I also know for a fact that Kimmage still isn't entirely happy with some of Millar's words and actions on doping. Some aspects he feels are positive, some far less so.

 

[Digger]

By the way as I noted, his criticism of Landis is baffling. He says Landis should have come clean initially. Then when Floyd did tell the truth, Millar says oh he's only trying to burn the house down. So essentially Floyd couldn't win in the eyes of Millar. How could Floyd possibly come clean without giving the full background to his doping and the personnel involved.
Millar says that Floyd would be sober now etc, that is way beyond the pale, and another sign of his hypocrisy, considering his own actions after his suspension.

 

[Cycle Chic]

I feel sorry for Ianfra - the lamb to the slaughter...like myself with my first thread (Carlton Kirby has to go ! ) he doesnt realise how sensitive and intricate this Clinic is.

Mr Ianfra, don't take it personally - everyone is so passionate and knowledgeable about Doping that it invokes heated emotions. Responses to your thread are from people who have years of cycling knowledge - they can discuss races from 10 years ago - like Mrs Murphy they could quote interviews from David Millar ad-finitum....so when a thread like yours appears it is attacked because of its naivety. Keep reading the Clinic and learn from the discussions - its a great source of info and when you are better equipped - come back and join in !!

Okay boys back to your handbag fight

 

[Digger]

Maybe this is why one finds us die-hards supporting riders like Vino. Even Cadel Evans deserves praise for keeping some honor and avoiding imitating Millar. But then.....he never got caught.

It would come as a pleasant surprise if Millar had something to do with Piepoli and Ricco getting busted--that sounds out of character for him.

It would take balls...he clearly has none whatsoever. If he had, he would call out Contador.

 

[sniper]

Just few points:
(1) Kimmage's stance has not softened one bit. He had an article pulled last Sunday on Rihs, BMC, Phonak and LeLangue.

Interesting. Perhaps he can spill the article to Velonews?

Just few points:

(2) Millar has shown incredibly hypocrisy in his castigating of other whistleblowers, namely Landis.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. I really dislike how DM talks/ed about Floyd. That's the bit that makes me really skeptical about Millar's intentions.

About AC, I'm not sure. DM did say that it would have been better for AC not to ride the tour, but beyond that, very little indeed.

 

[ianfra]

Yes I was a writer and publisher. I did not say I had written a book.
A publisher is someone who works with authors and pieces together a book, which includes the editorial work, design and marketing. The publisher owns the right to publish, which is a profession in itself. If the doubter on this thread cares to come to my home in Chiang Mai, he will find plenty of evidence to support my 50-year career in publishing, but no evidence (apart from that one book) that I have ever written a book!!!!

I only go into this detail because it is an example of how you lot jump to conclusions without ascertaining the facts. You make horrendous accusations about people (not just in this thread but throughout the forum), often adding 2 + 2 but making 3. I really don't understand why.

Someone felt sorry for me. Well don't. I really feel sorry for you lot, especially Mrs Murphy (!!) who seems to need a bit of reality orientation.

I stand by everything I say and said about Dave Millar (however much you don't like it), because to me the guy has written an honest and heartfelt biography ..... if I had felt that it was in fact a load of poodle-dosh I would have spotted it right away. Years of editing magazine articles, books and so on have taught me just a thing or two. What Dave writes and how he writes makes a very important contribution to the overall doping debate and even the most cynical of you should recognise it as such. But I know that some people don't want to have their eyes opened - a bit like religious or political zealots.

Incidentally, I could tell you some stories from the 1960s where naive young people were doped unwittingly by French soigneurs. But you would just twist my words as you have done within this thread or use the information for your own purposes.

 

[ianfra]

It would take balls...he clearly has none whatsoever. If he had, he would call out Contador.

So far there is no compelling evidence against Contador.

 

[magoo34]

Yes I was a writer and publisher. I did not say I had written a book.
A publisher is someone who works with authors and pieces together a book, which includes the editorial work, design and marketing. The publisher owns the right to publish, which is a profession in itself. If the doubter on this thread cares to come to my home in Chiang Mai, he will find plenty of evidence to support my 50-year career in publishing, but no evidence (apart from that one book) that I have ever written a book!!!!

I only go into this detail because it is an example of how you lot jump to conclusions without ascertaining the facts. You make horrendous accusations about people (not just in this thread but throughout the forum), often adding 2 + 2 but making 3. I really don't understand why.

Someone felt sorry for me. Well don't. I really feel sorry for you lot, especially Mrs Murphy (!!) who seems to need a bit of reality orientation.

I stand by everything I say and said about Dave Millar (however much you don't like it), because to me the guy has written an honest and heartfelt biography ..... if I had felt that it was in fact a load of poodle-dosh I would have spotted it right away. Years of editing magazine articles, books and so on have taught me just a thing or two. What Dave writes and how he writes makes a very important contribution to the overall doping debate and even the most cynical of you should recognise it as such. But I know that some people don't want to have their eyes opened - a bit like religious or political zealots.

Incidentally, I could tell you some stories from the 1960s where naive young people were doped unwittingly by French soigneurs. But you would just twist my words as you have done within this thread or use the information for your own purposes.

You are the idiot's idiot.

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

Ianfra - I would heed what Cycle Chic has written. I lurked for many years before I weighed-in in The Clinic. There's many VERY knowledgeable people on this forum who have put big effort into illuminating and analysing doping in cycling.

You can't just come into this kind of atmosphere and offer uninformed opinion, of course you're going to be shot down. I suggest you stop defending your position, read through some old threads and come back and give a knowledgeable reply. If you think David Millar is hokey dokey cause you believed what he wrote in his book, that's up to you. But don't try and persuade those who have followed his words, actions (and non-actions) over the years. Because the two don't equate. If you were well-researched you'd know this.

People in the Clinic fight against PR, spin and downright lies. Every day it's churned out in the media. You need to do some reading, sir. Come back when you've gained a full and frank picture of pro cycling, then you can argue on level terms.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why is it that whenever anyone disagrees with you that you start acting like a huffy teenager?

Haven't read it? You sound just like the OP - anyone who disagrees with your opinion is wrong - and rather than discuss the topic you decide to attack the poster. Play the topic not the poster. If you can't manage that then don't bother - and save me the tedious posts interspersed with blue, bold and quotes.

You aren't wrong because you disagree with my opinion - you are wrong because you haven't read the book.

I also suspect the reason you haven't read the book is because you have already made up your mind about Millar and you would rather hold on to that position - your problem, not mine.

BTW, maybe I am a huffy teenager - please let me know if red underlined suits your sensitivities better, I will pretend to care.

And for your information I've been reading, listening and watching Millar all his career since 97 - and I don't see someone who has changed one little bit.

Of course you don't see a change - you see what you want to see.

He lied until he was caught and he continues to pedal lies - about himself, about doping and about the sport cleaning up.

Actions are more important than words. Millar can spin for England, but where are the deeds? Millar the great anti-doper who has done nothing but self-promote himself.

This is a part I don't get (and Millar doesn't appear to get).
His deed's? He is a cyclist so his influence is limited - you want him to do something he cannot do and then complain because he can't deliver and only offers 'spin'.

Millar has a role if he chooses to do talks and share his experiences but he has no influence on the sport.

Millar who describes himself as anti-doping and was telling us in 2007 how the sport had cleaned up, how we shouldn't be so suspicious of Vino working with Ferrari, who tells us we should believe that Piepoli, Dertie etc are clean, his defence of Armstrong contrasted with his condemnation of Landis.

Millar is an upholder of omerta but he does it dressed in a suit of anti-doping. It's the Emperor's new clothes.

I see absolutely no difference in the Millar of 98, to the Millar of 2007 to the Millar of 2011. Same old same old, say whatever makes you look good. The same old lies, the same old spin, the same old omerta.

As I say - what has Millar actually done to help anti-doping? Because all I can see is a guy who talks anti-doping out one side of his mouth, while defending dopers and omerta on the other. He's nothing more than a PR guy.

He's Kloeden with even worse dress sense.

I would agree with most of this and indeed have already stated as much on this thread.

However it becomes obvious if you read the book you would see where these conflicts come from.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes I was a writer and publisher. I did not say I had written a book.
A publisher is someone who works with authors and pieces together a book, which includes the editorial work, design and marketing. The publisher owns the right to publish, which is a profession in itself. If the doubter on this thread cares to come to my home in Chiang Mai, he will find plenty of evidence to support my 50-year career in publishing, but no evidence (apart from that one book) that I have ever written a book!!!!

I only go into this detail because it is an example of how you lot jump to conclusions without ascertaining the facts. You make horrendous accusations about people (not just in this thread but throughout the forum), often adding 2 + 2 but making 3. I really don't understand why.

For someone of your vast experience - you appear to have missed the obvious 'fact' from what I originally wrote, so I have highlighted it for you:
"....particularly as you have told us here that you have written books or publications before."

Someone felt sorry for me. Well don't. I really feel sorry for you lot, especially Mrs Murphy (!!) who seems to need a bit of reality orientation.

I stand by everything I say and said about Dave Millar (however much you don't like it), because to me the guy has written an honest and heartfelt biography ..... if I had felt that it was in fact a load of poodle-dosh I would have spotted it right away. Years of editing magazine articles, books and so on have taught me just a thing or two. What Dave writes and how he writes makes a very important contribution to the overall doping debate and even the most cynical of you should recognise it as such. But I know that some people don't want to have their eyes opened - a bit like religious or political zealots.

Incidentally, I could tell you some stories from the 1960s where naive young people were doped unwittingly by French soigneurs. But you would just twist my words as you have done within this thread or use the information for your own purposes.

Which was the reason I brought up your writing or publishing experience in the first place - originally you said I misquoted you now its twisting your words.

I did neither - I quoted, as you say "your words" - if they weren't in the context that you wished you would have addressed that instead of giving me your history which is irrelevant.

 

[Digger]

So far there is no compelling evidence against Contador.

.........genius.

 

[Mambo95]

Ianfra - I would heed what Cycle Chic has written. I lurked for many years before I weighed-in in The Clinic. There's many VERY knowledgeable people on this forum who have put big effort into illuminating and analysing doping in cycling.
....

People in the Clinic fight against PR, spin and downright lies.

....

(Firstly my apologies for sniping of your quote)

There aren't 'many VERY knowledgeable people' on this forum. There's maybe two or three (Race Radio, Merckx Index) and a couple of balanced objective posters who are well informed. The rest are just passing themselves of knowledgable. The Clinic may fight against certain spin and downright lies, but it indulges in its own spin, lies and innuendo just as much.

Outside of the posters on here, this forum doesn't have a good reputation. It's seen as place for crazy people.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

(Firstly my apologies for sniping of your quote)

There aren't 'many VERY knowledgeable people' on this forum. There's maybe two or three (Race Radio, Merckx Index) and a couple of balanced objective posters who are well informed. The rest are just passing themselves of knowledgable. The Clinic may fight against certain spin and downright lies, but it indulges in its own spin, lies and innuendo just as much.

Outside of the posters on here, this forum doesn't have a good reputation. It's seen as place for crazy people.

This is true - I read it on another forum.

'The Clinic' is so good at spin and innuendo yet it cannot rid itself of us being perceived as whacky crazy (even though it is true).

I have an idea - lets spin it to people that the Clinic is not actually a physical place and pretend that it is some sort of social media, that its part of a web that extends world wide.

We could pretend that this is a place where anyone who has access to this medium therefore has an opinion and that it is valued - we could spin it to make it seem that the reader actually can absorb the information provided and come to their own conclusions without telling them that everything here is completely binding (whether its accurate or not) and that having read it they are in fact agreeing to and accepting everything that is posted here.

I know that sounds like a crazy idea - but as everyone here is crazy anyway it might just work.

 

[Splintered]

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!

Is Miller good or bad for cycling, on balance? I suggest we should think about it like this. People who follow cycling a lot (like many on this forum) know Miller's limitations in this regard - they know he never shopped as many people as he could have done, doesn't often break with the lazy status quo - maybe even that he's something of a hypocrite. However, independently of anything to do with Miller, most of these people also believe (a) that cycling's cleaner than it used to be, (b) that the omerta is less robust than it used to be, and (c) that other endurance sports are probably as dirty as cycling - unfairly, they get away with it because they don't test as much, have an even more effective propaganda machine, etc.

Now, I live in Britain and I'd say that in this country at least, what ordinary people who aren't big followers of cycling believe about Miller (if they've heard of him at all) is that is that he's clean, and a reformed, outspoken anti-doping campaigner who rides (and not without success) for a team who take a stronger anti-doping stance than many others. Even if this is all a bit of an exageration, as I conceded above, I think it's good that people in the UK believe that about Miller, because it helps to bring points like (a)-(C) to their attention. People who don't follow cycling as obsessively as we do have an exaggerated conception of cycling's doping issue, and Miller discourages that misconception - even if, for slightly inaccurate reasons.