Dave Millar - anti doping hero

[ianfra]

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."


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.

I said neither. Anyone can read my posts and the original words which were not ambiguous at all. Just shows what a crazy bunch you all are. But if you are happy, fine!
I'm outta here! Got better things to do, like ride the bike.

 

[Digger]

I said neither. Anyone can read my posts and the original words which were not ambiguous at all. Just shows what a crazy bunch you all are. But if you are happy, fine!
I'm outta here! Got better things to do, like ride the bike.

Ever notice that's invariably the parting shot when someone has been owned.

 

[richtea]

Still, it probably is a better thing to do

 

[sniper]

Ever notice that's invariably the parting shot when someone has been owned.

+1
no ****. quite fascinating.
you never hear them say, "I got better things to do, like vacuumcleaning the house, or like reading Shakespeare"

 

[JRTinMA]

Ever notice that's invariably the parting shot when someone has been owned.

+1
no ****. quite fascinating.
you never hear them say, "I got better things to do, like vacuumcleaning the house, or like reading Shakespeare"

Got you to comment so it was effective, no? Who got pwned now?

 

[powerste]

+1
no ****. quite fascinating.
you never hear them say, "I got better things to do, like vacuumcleaning the house, or like reading Shakespeare"

Or working

 

[andy1234]

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.

You can pretend that this is a place where opinion is valued, but you would be wrong most of the time.
It's mostly just a place for angry people to sound off, your'e just too invested in this place to see it.

With the exception of a small percentage of posters (you included) A more poorly informed group would be hard to find.

 

[ludwig]

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.

I think it goes both ways. If building up Millar as an anti-doping hero helps increase cycling's visibility and publicizes cycling, then I can understand that. I think everyone here can understand that Millar, Vaughters and their associates have real-life financial reasons to do what they do and say what they say.

However, if the public starts trusting the likes of Millar and then another scandal blows up, alot of fans could be disenchanted. I worry that cycling's wheel of unfortune is turning away some potential fans for life.

I think you're right that spreading knowledge about doping in cycling should promote a more tolerant attitude and a more realistic perspective about doping in sports. This is good for the most part, and Millar should be commended if his book and PR efforts help educate people.

But I fear that when cyclists are caught actively lying on the doping issue then that mars the honor of the sport and makes it seem dirtier than others. When it seems like everyone is "in on it" (omerta) then cycling gets hard to defend and the fans feel ethical qualms about even watching it on tv.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

blah blah blah

Instead of pretending to care it would be better if you concentrated on the questions asked rather than internet warrioring. I asked a simple question about why should we believe that Millar has had a Pauline conversion and is now telling the truth.

So shall we try this again:

Question - Since Millar spent years lying about his life, his drug taking, why should we believe that he has changed? What evidence (other than his own PR) do we have to tell us that he is what he now claims he is?

For example - has anyone corroborated his tale of informing on Ricco/SD?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Instead of pretending to care it would be better if you concentrated on the questions asked rather than internet warrioring. I asked a simple question about why should we believe that Millar has had a Pauline conversion and is now telling the truth.

So shall we try this again:

Question - Since Millar spent years lying about his life, his drug taking, why should we believe that he has changed? What evidence (other than his own PR) do we have to tell us that he is what he now claims he is?

For example - has anyone corroborated his tale of informing on Ricco/SD?

I thought he backed up that claim and explained it quite well in his book - what part did you not understand?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

No because I asked specifically:

"What evidence (other than his own PR) do we have to tell us that he is what he now claims he is?"

I think it goes both ways. If building up Millar as an anti-doping hero helps increase cycling's visibility and publicizes cycling, then I can understand that. I think everyone here can understand that Millar, Vaughters and their associates have real-life financial reasons to do what they do and say what they say.

However, if the public starts trusting the likes of Millar and then another scandal blows up, alot of fans could be disenchanted. I worry that cycling's wheel of unfortune is turning away some potential fans for life.

I think you're right that spreading knowledge about doping in cycling should promote a more tolerant attitude and a more realistic perspective about doping in sports. This is good for the most part, and Millar should be commended if his book and PR efforts help educate people.

But I fear that when cyclists are caught actively lying on the doping issue then that mars the honor of the sport and makes it seem dirtier than others. When it seems like everyone is "in on it" (omerta) then cycling gets hard to defend and the fans feel ethical qualms about even watching it on tv.

I think this is one of the major issues with Millar. It is very difficult to take Millar seriously as 'anti-doping' when he tells us that 'Contador must be clean because he is so consistent' which is frankly an insult to our intelligence, the problem is that he is often wheeled out by the mainstream UK media as 'vocal critic of doping David Millar'. His comments are always treated uncritically and as a result he can get away with coming out with so many very dubious statements. My feeling is that sooner rather than later the wheels will come off a big english speaking team (not RS/Disco) etc and they won't be able to say 'it's in the past'. God help us if it is one of the supposed 'clean, anti-doping teams' like Garmin, Sky or HTC.

I think that Millar's somewhat compromised stance makes it harder for other riders who may want to take a stronger anti-doping stance to gain credibility because of Millar's lack of credibility.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No because I asked specifically:

"What evidence (other than his own PR) do we have to tell us that he is what he now claims he is?"

And as I said specifically - he backed it up very well in his book.

What evidence (other than your own prejudice) do you have to say what he claimed is not true?

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

What evidence (other than your own prejudice) do you have to say what he claimed is not true?

He is a procyclist who hates whistleblowers. Do you need any more than that?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I'll take it then that there is no evidence for Millar being honest now other than 'Millar says so'.

If you can't think of any, or don't know of any then just say. It's perfectly ok to say 'Sorry, I can't think of anyone.'

Why do I think Millar is still lying? Because his statements and positions are so clearly contradictory with what he claims to be. He claims to be anti-doping but he attacks Landis after Landis blows the whistle.

How can we believe that Millar is being honest now when he says things that are so clearly dishonest then? this little effort from 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SWUBtasWdI

from 4 minutes in

If he knew Piepoli/Ricco were dirty then why does he go to special lengths to defend Piepoli? It wasn't that he was challenged to defend Piepoli, but instead Millar came out and defended him.

Statements like this one

"Does anybody out there seriously doubt that Contador was riding clean in the Giro d'Italia that has just finished? You don't win the biggest races in the world with such clockwork regularity and comparative ease, and in such style, by not being the supreme talent and clean. In my experience the profile of a doper is always much more erratic and unpredictable.”

Do you think Millar genuinely believes this when he says this?

As I said, I've followed Millar's writings from when he had a monthly column when he first started at Cofidis post-Festina. He was anti-doping back then too, telling us that things had changed - all the while doping.

I struggle to believe that he can say and do the things he does and to genuinely be anti-doping. Which leads me to conclude that when he is promoting himself as anti-doping, he is lying and it is just a PR position.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He is a procyclist who hates whistleblowers. Do you need any more than that?

Actually yes - because the specific question is why should we take what he says as true (or not true).

Your 'whistleblower' comment is actually bang on - understand why he 'hates' whistleblowers (even if its not a term he used, but...) and you get (IMO) to understand Millar.

No because I asked specifically:

"What evidence (other than his own PR) do we have to tell us that he is what he now claims he is?"



I think this is one of the major issues with Millar. It is very difficult to take Millar seriously as 'anti-doping' when he tells us that 'Contador must be clean because he is so consistent' which is frankly an insult to our intelligence, the problem is that he is often wheeled out by the mainstream UK media as 'vocal critic of doping David Millar'. His comments are always treated uncritically and as a result he can get away with coming out with so many very dubious statements. My feeling is that sooner rather than later the wheels will come off a big english speaking team (not RS/Disco) etc and they won't be able to say 'it's in the past'. God help us if it is one of the supposed 'clean, anti-doping teams' like Garmin, Sky or HTC.

I think that Millar's somewhat compromised stance makes it harder for other riders who may want to take a stronger anti-doping stance to gain credibility because of Millar's lack of credibility.

You edited this in to your original post after I had responded - but you have have the problem with Millar.

He see's himself as anti-doping and that he is speaking for the sport. That is why he is the 'go to guy' when it comes to talking doping.

Yet he lives in a bubble and cannot possibly know what is going on beyond him - and I agree with you that if there is another big scandal that it will leave him looking very foolish.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'll take it then that there is no evidence for Millar being honest now other than 'Millar says so'.

If you can't think of any, or don't know of any then just say. It's perfectly ok to say 'Sorry, I can't think of anyone.'

And why can't you say - "Sorry I didn't read the book"?

Why do I think Millar is still lying? Because his statements and positions are so clearly contradictory with what he claims to be. He claims to be anti-doping but he attacks Landis after Landis blows the whistle.

How can we believe that Millar is being honest now when he says things that are so clearly dishonest then? this little effort from 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SWUBtasWdI

from 4 minutes in

If he knew Piepoli/Ricco were dirty then why does he go to special lengths to defend Piepoli? It wasn't that he was challenged to defend Piepoli, but instead Millar came out and defended him.

Statements like this one

Why don't you go back and read my comments in the post that I linked that exact same video clip to.

Do you think Millar genuinely believes this when he says this?

No I do not.

As I said, I've followed Millar's writings from when he had a monthly column when he first started at Cofidis post-Festina. He was anti-doping back then too, telling us that things had changed - all the while doping.

I struggle to believe that he can say and do the things he does and to genuinely be anti-doping. Which leads me to conclude that when he is promoting himself as anti-doping, he is lying and it is just a PR position.

This is why I recommend you read his book - it is explained quite well in it and to me it is quite obvious where these contradictions come from.

Moreso, you will be able to draw your own conclusions and not rely on me to tell you my interpretation of it.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

What Millar says in his book is irrelevant because he is, was and always will be a liar and self-promoter, until demonstrated otherwise.

I asked if there was any evidence to suggest that he is now telling the truth, other than Millar himself claiming to be reformed. So far none is forthcoming.

Oh well. The Podium Cafe review was a good read though.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What Millar says in his book is irrelevant because he is, was and always will be a liar, until demonstrated otherwise.

So, why do you keep asking for something when you aren't even going to believe it? It is evident from his book that he is a conflicted guy.

I asked if there was any evidence to suggest that he is now telling the truth, other than Millar himself claiming to be reformed. So far none is forthcoming.

Ok then - on the first page of Millars book he says he is "in a French police cell, below Biarritz town hall...".
I have a link here from L'Equipe at that time that confirms he was in a cell, however I must admit it does not say if the cell is underneath the town hall.

Would you like me to go through each paragraph or page or perhaps it might be easier and quicker if you pointed out the lies within his book?

As a salesman for Millar you aren't doing a very good job. Perhaps being a little less confrontational and a little less up yourself might help.

If you have such a low opinion of me why do you keep asking for my opinion (and then ignore it).

 

[ianfra]

It is clear from the nature and tone of the posts that the so-called Mrs John Murphy has a problem.
One of the contradictions on this board is that these obsessive posters do not believe a word anyone says - but then expect to be believed themselves. They do not trust anyone, then expect to be trusted themselves. They do not like to be accused but then make wild accusations themselves.
Fortunately, they are a minority of 'cranksters' and should be treated as such.
I posted the original comment about Millar because I was impressed by his book. Not being a regular on this forum, I did not expect these kind of replies which appear to have also suggested that people like Vaughters, Brailsford et al are dishonest and by implication are operating some sort of scam. I think posting such rubbish is 100% disgusting - you guys post without evidence and yet you attack me for my lack of evidence over my comments about Millar. What scummy stupidity!

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Specious examples will get you nowhere.

Why would I ask your opinion? I guess for the same reason I give money to charity. I like to help people who have been conspired against by life.

 

[danjo007]

dave millar + antidoping hero = oxymoron

 

[Cycle Chic]

I think most of you guys are talking from a lack of knowledge.

Unfortunately Ianfra - this was your first mistake ! As a newcomer to the Clinic you need to go through the Threads and gain some more knowledge. The guys on here know their cycling and its shadey past.

 

[ianfra]

Having been deeply involved in this sport for more than 50 years I think I know more than most.

Here are some reviews about Millar's tome:


Review
'His tale - bizarrely - has become just about the most inspiring in all of cycling, perhaps any sport. If you want to find out how cyclists dope, it's here; if you want to discover why they do it, there has never been a more vivid account. But the defining achievement of RACING THROUGH THE DARK is that it makes you believe in cycling again.' (OBSERVER )

'One of the great first-person accounts of sporting experience... laceratingly honest, detailing every twist in the argument by which he convinced himself to take a step he had previously considered unthinkable... anyone seeking to understand the motivation of a drug cheat, or wondering why such a man should be allowed back into his sport will find their curiosity satisfied here.' (Richard Williams GUARDIAN )

'Unbeatable as a snapshot of the professional peloton, its agonies and ecstasies... Emotional yet in no way overwrought, Millar's memoirs read like a parable more than a manifesto... essential reading for all young riders as well as fans.' (PRO CYCLING )

'The greatest strength of this plainly but compellingly told story is that it doesn't shock. Millar is searingly honest about his own failings and neuroses but his book is intelligent, subtle, nuanced, not flowery or overly descriptive - and it is all the more powerful for it...This will go down as one of the great sporting autobiographies' (SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY )

'RACING THROUGH THE DARK will be a shoo-in for every award going this year with its controlled writing about the ins and outs of his descent into doping and personal crisis and his return to the world' (William Fotheringham OBSERVER - Tour Diary )

'A sporting masterpiece, a timeless snapshot of a sportsman plumbing the depths and miraculously bouncing back both as a rider and a man.' (DAILY TELEGRAPH )

'[An] excellent autobiography... well written... surely one of the sports books of the year.' (METRO )

'He has, as this excellent work testifies, seen it all and done it all, full throttle. This is a shocking expose of the corruption at the heart of a wonderful sport. Those who run cycling at every level would be well advised to closely study it, though history tells us they probably won't.' (Conor Lally IRISH TIMES )

'The story of his [Millar's] fall from grace is gripping.' (SPORT MAGAZINE )

'An incredibly personal, moving and compelling story.' (CYCLING PLUS )

'Millar recounts with stark, unshirking honesty the spiralling pressure which saw him drawn into a murky world of doping' (GLASGOW HERALD )

'A well written, well paced and addictive (appropriate n'est pas?) book. None of its 354 pages can be considered padding and though there will probably always be murky goings on in top level cycle racing when so much is at stake, David Millar is to be comgratulated not only on 'fessing up, and recounting every last humiliation in print, but for giving us mere mortals an inkling into the machinations of the modern peloton, both good and bad.' (THEWASHINGMACHINEPOST )

'Outstanding... This is a stunning account, comparable to Matt Rendell's THE DEATH OF MARCO PANTANI... His [Millar's] book is already being mooted as a contender for the year's best sports book.' (BIRMINGHAM POST )

'Searingly honest' (MAIL ON SUNDAY )

 

[rata de sentina]

Unfortunately Ianfra - this was your first mistake ! As a newcomer to the Clinic you need to go through the Threads and gain some more knowledge. The guys on here know their cycling and its shadey past.

Yes, check out some of the threads to inform yourself about the scientific credibility of the posters like Mrs John Murphy starter of the world famous analysis of head-shape and soon to be WADA consultant.

 

[Digger]

Having been deeply involved in this sport for more than 50 years I think I know more than most.

Here are some reviews about Millar's tome:


Review
'His tale - bizarrely - has become just about the most inspiring in all of cycling, perhaps any sport. If you want to find out how cyclists dope, it's here; if you want to discover why they do it, there has never been a more vivid account. But the defining achievement of RACING THROUGH THE DARK is that it makes you believe in cycling again.' (OBSERVER )

'One of the great first-person accounts of sporting experience... laceratingly honest, detailing every twist in the argument by which he convinced himself to take a step he had previously considered unthinkable... anyone seeking to understand the motivation of a drug cheat, or wondering why such a man should be allowed back into his sport will find their curiosity satisfied here.' (Richard Williams GUARDIAN )

'Unbeatable as a snapshot of the professional peloton, its agonies and ecstasies... Emotional yet in no way overwrought, Millar's memoirs read like a parable more than a manifesto... essential reading for all young riders as well as fans.' (PRO CYCLING )

'The greatest strength of this plainly but compellingly told story is that it doesn't shock. Millar is searingly honest about his own failings and neuroses but his book is intelligent, subtle, nuanced, not flowery or overly descriptive - and it is all the more powerful for it...This will go down as one of the great sporting autobiographies' (SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY )

'RACING THROUGH THE DARK will be a shoo-in for every award going this year with its controlled writing about the ins and outs of his descent into doping and personal crisis and his return to the world' (William Fotheringham OBSERVER - Tour Diary )

'A sporting masterpiece, a timeless snapshot of a sportsman plumbing the depths and miraculously bouncing back both as a rider and a man.' (DAILY TELEGRAPH )

'[An] excellent autobiography... well written... surely one of the sports books of the year.' (METRO )

'He has, as this excellent work testifies, seen it all and done it all, full throttle. This is a shocking expose of the corruption at the heart of a wonderful sport. Those who run cycling at every level would be well advised to closely study it, though history tells us they probably won't.' (Conor Lally IRISH TIMES )

'The story of his [Millar's] fall from grace is gripping.' (SPORT MAGAZINE )

'An incredibly personal, moving and compelling story.' (CYCLING PLUS )

'Millar recounts with stark, unshirking honesty the spiralling pressure which saw him drawn into a murky world of doping' (GLASGOW HERALD )

'A well written, well paced and addictive (appropriate n'est pas?) book. None of its 354 pages can be considered padding and though there will probably always be murky goings on in top level cycle racing when so much is at stake, David Millar is to be comgratulated not only on 'fessing up, and recounting every last humiliation in print, but for giving us mere mortals an inkling into the machinations of the modern peloton, both good and bad.' (THEWASHINGMACHINEPOST )

'Outstanding... This is a stunning account, comparable to Matt Rendell's THE DEATH OF MARCO PANTANI... His [Millar's] book is already being mooted as a contender for the year's best sports book.' (BIRMINGHAM POST )

'Searingly honest' (MAIL ON SUNDAY )

How many of these are not UK publications? Anglophile bias anyone?