Dave Millar - anti doping hero

[ianfra]

Yes British publications because the book was first published in the UK. I am not aware of a USA or European language edition.

 

[roundabout]

I'm now convinced that ianfra is on the payroll.

Why else would he pimp Millar's opus like that.

 

[70kmph]

'His tale - bizarrely - has become just about the most boring in all of cycling'

 

[dbrmuz]

If we can't believe in David Millar,who can we trust?

 

[ludwig]

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.

Would you care to elaborate on this point?

I've always interpreted Millar's hatred of whistleblowers as loyalty to omerta (which serves Millar's bottom line as part-owner of Garmin). People will always argue that Millar and his ilk are trying to "change cycling from the inside", so they feel the bad publicity coming from whistleblowers compromises their mission.

The thing is, actions belie words in this case. Millar and his ilk consistently claim the peloton is cleaning up and that his team has ethically sound reasons to not dope etc. But if that were the case, why not welcome whistle blowers? Why object to someone like Landis exposing the dirty laundry around the Boss? If it were really true that Vaughters/Millar were clean they would welcome the exposure of dirty competitors, even if it hurt their bottom line in the short run. If they were serious about leading for change, they would hire the whistle blowers and demonstrate contempt for omerta.

Instead, we know what we've got. A team whose core was composed of old time CSC/Disco domestiques. An omerta-centered environment with food and training plans provided by Alan Lim.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Millar truly believes he is playing some role in cleaning up the peloton. But given his overt loyalty to omerta I imagine he is deceiving himself, as many of us do. If you have insight into his way of thinking I'd love to hear it.

 

[Mambo95]

If he was so loyal to 'omerta' why would he write a whole book which is predominately about doping in cycling?

'Omerta' is a term usually thrown around by people who have little concept of what they think it means.

 

[ianfra]

I live in Thailand and I do not need anyone's money. I have enough of my own.
See my developing website http://www.cyclechiangmai.com
Oh hello? There you can see a lovely picture of me actually cycling (you know, that means riding a bike) on the Chiang Mai velodrome. Come and ride with me and we can discuss your problems.

 

[Benotti69]

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 )

MASSIVE FAIL.

since when did the media ever care to report the truth about cycling. look how long it has taken them to report the obvious about Armstrong!

They still haven't even bothered to scratch the surface on the corruption of the UCI even when the UCI press releases scream corruption every other one. We have a thread here about the UCI that is listing all the obvious UCI f**k ups.

When did Millar last talk about the doping in the peloton? let's see who was the last major star to test positive? Contador! what did Millar say, he's not a doper!!!! What about Millar's comments on Valverde, who continued to ride and win after the Italians, CONI, banned him for 2 years, which he fought and eventually it went to CAS and he lost and was made to serve his ban. What did Millar say about riding in the peloton with a doper like Valverde? Does he even mention riding in the peloton with a doper like Valverde? Oh but he had a go at Ricco, yeah so did half the peloton. that's big talking from Millar.

your understanding of the Omerta and its defenders belie your 50 years.

 

[ianfra]

You sound like an angry man. When people are angry they do not think clearly. I think there are some very strange folks on this thread. They pick at posts and find bits they don't like and try to build a case. The madness here is all too transparent. Love it. Makes my day!

 

[Cycle Chic]

IANFRA - What is your opinion on Armstrong ? was he a doper ? (now this is gona be a classic )

 

[Mambo95]

IANFRA - What is your opinion on Armstrong ? was he a doper ? (now this is gona be a classic )

You're going to be sorely disappointed.

 

[Benotti69]

You sound like an angry man. When people are angry they do not think clearly. I think there are some very strange folks on this thread. They pick at posts and find bits they don't like and try to build a case. The madness here is all too transparent. Love it. Makes my day!

It is impossible to 'sound' like anything on a forum with only words, but you read like an extremely naive fan of which there are many, check out the 'professional road racing' section.

No picking at your post. I can post anything from any newspaper in the world and call it fact, doesn't make it so. no matter how many papers print similar.

 

[powerste]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Millar truly believes he is playing some role in cleaning up the peloton. But given his overt loyalty to omerta I imagine he is deceiving himself, as many of us do. If you have insight into his way of thinking I'd love to hear it.

If he was so loyal to 'omerta' why would he write a whole book which is predominately about doping in cycling?

'Omerta' is a term usually thrown around by people who have little concept of what they think it means.

secrecy sworn to by oath; code of silence. I think many of us following cycling use the spirit of that definition instead of the letter of it...LA wasn't chasing Simeoni because FS failed to live up to an oath he'd sworn in blood or anything. But there clearly has existed for a long time a "code of silence" around doping. Just how explicit that code is, is open to interpretation and IMHO doesn't really matter. Many of us perceive that cyclists throughout the years have individually doped and collectively refused to discuss it.

As for Millar's role in omerta and cycling's overall doping culture, I think both posts quoted here shine some light:
- Millar has written a book that talks a lot about drug use in cycling. But said book, as an autobiography, is not intended to be an anti-drug expose of the breadth that many of us who are disgusted with doping in cycling would like to see.
- Why the hatred for Floyd's whistleblowing if Millar really wants to clean up the sport?
- His role at Garvelo & working closely with JV brings up the open questions from the JV thread a few weeks ago...many of us believe that JV is in a position to be much more vocal than he has been but recognize the delicate balance in which he finds himself. I think this applies to Millar as well.
- Why would any thinking human being simply accept what is written in someone's autobiography without question? Given our inescapable subjectivity as humans, how can an autobio not be at least somewhat self-serving and self-promoting? Simply because Millar claims (in his autobio and elsewhere) to be an anti-doping crusader doesn't make him one in everyone's eyes.
- Finally, I do believe that Millar believes he is making a difference...while I don't simply accept his statements without question, I don't think he's simply lying to us either.

Bottom line...Millar is human, which makes him just as subjective and complex as the rest of us. No wonder his take on events is different than ours. I don't see him as an anti-doping crusader, but I MHO he's not currently a chronic liar, either. He's a guy who believes he trying to make a difference...for me, the jury is still out on the results.

 

[Mambo95]

secrecy sworn to by oath; code of silence.

I'm well aware of it's non-cycling definition. So how is writing a book about doping in cycling observing this code of silence? Aren't Mafiosi who have written books considered to have broken the 'omerta'.

Forget the dictionary definition. Write your own definition of what it means in a cycling sense (generally, not with reference to any particular individual).

From the rest of your post it seems 'omerta' means not saying what you want them to say.

 

[powerste]

I'm well aware of it's non-cycling definition. So how is writing a book about doping in cycling observing this code of silence? Aren't Mafiosi who have written books considered to have broken the 'omerta'.

Forget the dictionary definition. Write your own definition of what it means in a cycling sense (generally, not with reference to any particular individual).

From the rest of your post it seems 'omerta' means not saying what you want them to say.

To the bold, I don't have a big investment in what they say...I read what I can and take it with a grain of salt. I don't know for sure if:
- Millar is 100% reformed and doing everything he possibly can to eradicate doping in cycling
- Garvelo is 100% clean and Millar is truly a role model for his younger teammates
There's a hell of a lot that I don't know for certain and I'm OK with that.

As for omerta, the looser definition I use is closer to "allowing cycing's historical culture of drug use to continue." Based on that, Millar has done some things to eradicate it:
1. Admitted his own drug use, served a ban, and now speaks out against doping in cycling. The fact that he was in police custody when he confessed doesn't bother me. He admitted, he served, he speaks out. That's good IMHO.
2. Explained how much his own drug use cost him personally.
3. Illuminates in great detail the temptation to dope and the way in which it begins to feel like a requirement for many professional riders.

Weigh those points against the following:
- He's hardly unique in any of the above, especially #3. Many interviews, books, articles, etc have laid out the temptation/need to dope and pointed out how intrinsic a part of cycling culture it has become. He's not exactly breaking new ground here.
- His comments on Flandis. (To paraphrase) "Floyd should have confessed right away because that's the right thing to do" vs "Floyd shouldn't be speaking out so publicly right now because it's bad for cycling's image."

I believe that placing concern over cycling's image above providing direct and detailed accounts of systematic doping does allow the culture to continue. I'm not saying Millar (or JV, for that matter) is wrong to be concerned about image. But I do believe that the Flandis approach is overtly anti-omerta according to my definition. Ergo, my opinion is that slamming Flandis allows omerta to continue.

What I hoped to point out by quoting both you ("he wrote a book about doping") and Ludwig ("overt loyalty to omerta") was that different people have very different perceptions of Millar based on available information. IMHO, the truth lies somewhere in between, and I interpret different pieces of available information to suggest different answers.

What I don't buy is "I just read Millar's book so now I want to share with the world what an amazing anti-doping crusader he is." I believe the world and the people who populate it are far too complex for that.

 

[WorldsGreatest]

Millar is a self serving egomaniac who only does things for personal gain.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Would you care to elaborate on this point?

Some good questions, and I will attempt to give my interpretation.

I've always interpreted Millar's hatred of whistleblowers as loyalty to omerta (which serves Millar's bottom line as part-owner of Garmin). People will always argue that Millar and his ilk are trying to "change cycling from the inside", so they feel the bad publicity coming from whistleblowers compromises their mission.

Actually 'Worldsgreatest' has just posted before me - it is a very cold harsh statement and a bit too general but it is IMO pretty accurate.

I don't believe Millar was attempting to uphold Omerta (whichever definition) but that his motives were for his own self interest.
By that I mean he views himself (and is viewed by the media) as the go to guy for anti-doping.
As he himself has invested his reputation in cycling being a clean sport when confronted about doping he will point to the positive points about clean team, Bio Passport and having come a long way.

The thing is, actions belie words in this case.

This is a problem I have with Millar and feel he is over reaching. Yet it also begs the question - what actions can he actually do?
Anything he does can be dismissed as self serving or lie's.

The reality is he has limited influence on the sport as a whole - he can only look after his own team & team mates and perhaps be used to educate others on the fallout from his own experiences.

For me that would be exceedingly worthwile and deserving of praise and support and far better than trying to justify the current state of cycling .

Millar and his ilk consistently claim the peloton is cleaning up and that his team has ethically sound reasons to not dope etc. But if that were the case, why not welcome whistle blowers? Why object to someone like Landis exposing the dirty laundry around the Boss? If it were really true that Vaughters/Millar were clean they would welcome the exposure of dirty competitors, even if it hurt their bottom line in the short run. If they were serious about leading for change, they would hire the whistle blowers and demonstrate contempt for omerta.

I thought his comments about Landis were disgraceful.

This is the dilemma for JV & DM - I think they do want a clean sport, but they look at the info Landis has as old news, or from a different time, because their efforts have moved on.
My view is that the sport overall has moved on little so that Landis information is pertinent.

Instead, we know what we've got. A team whose core was composed of old time CSC/Disco domestiques. An omerta-centered environment with food and training plans provided by Alan Lim.

These were riders who doped because they were on teams that doped - I believe they are now on a team that tries to do it clean - so the environment for the individuals is IMO different.

I think Lim is just an employee - if he was asked to make rice cakes, he made rice cakes, if you asked him to transport blood, he transported blood.
So it is down to what type of role you think he was asked to do in Garmin.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Millar truly believes he is playing some role in cleaning up the peloton. But given his overt loyalty to omerta I imagine he is deceiving himself, as many of us do. If you have insight into his way of thinking I'd love to hear it.

I have highlighted the key word there - I do think he believes he is playing this role and I think if there is another large scandal it could come back to bite him.

However - I don't believe he has "overt loyalty to omerta", I think he has overt (and misplaced) loyalty to the sport and add to that his desire for acceptance (ie self-serving) and you have someone who is conflicted between his desires and reality.

 

[ludwig]

I'm well aware of it's non-cycling definition. So how is writing a book about doping in cycling observing this code of silence? Aren't Mafiosi who have written books considered to have broken the 'omerta'.

Forget the dictionary definition. Write your own definition of what it means in a cycling sense (generally, not with reference to any particular individual).

From the rest of your post it seems 'omerta' means not saying what you want them to say.

Well when I use 'omerta' I'm referring to the practice of either not speaking about doping or not speaking honestly about doping to the public. So when I say someone is "loyal to omerta" I'm not accusing them of anything particuarly nasty. I'm placing them within the context of the status quo. There are many good and bad reasons to uphold omerta. Some of them include preserving pro cycling as a sport and avoiding scandal, as well as avoiding retribution for snitching.

There are basically 2 camps of omerta. There are those who just refuse to talk about drugs and doping. Think of Vino and Kloeden or DaveZ. The old school attitude. When pressed, they deny. But in reality, they don't like answering questions about doping because they possess a healthy person's contempt for lies.

And then there is the new school--those who actively lie and misrepresent to the public re. doping. From the cyclists' perspective, it's not lying, it's providing good PR for cycling, and it's part of the job etc (eg a necessary sacrifice). This form of omerta becomes more and more necessary in this age of communications, but it also has a destructive aspect in that it erodes the sport's credibility. A good example of how this new form of omerta demeans cyclists was requiring every participating rider to sign an anti-doping pledge in the run-up to the 2005 Tour. The idea is to make cycling seem clean, but in practice it soiled the honor of the cycling, and most likely increased the level of cynicism all around.

The record portrays Millar as a represenative of the 2nd form, even if he genuinely desires reform in pro cycling. Cycling is the man's livlihood, after all. I think it's very plausible that a man like Bjarn Riis or Jonathan Vaughters or David Millar might actively lie to the media about doping related stuff yet work behind the scenes to try to augur positive reforms (not sure I actually believe that with regard to Millar, but sure it's possible...).

 

[powerste]

MASSIVE FAIL.

since when did the media ever care to report the truth about cycling. look how long it has taken them to report the obvious about Armstrong!

They still haven't even bothered to scratch the surface on the corruption of the UCI even when the UCI press releases scream corruption every other one. We have a thread here about the UCI that is listing all the obvious UCI f**k ups.

When did Millar last talk about the doping in the peloton? let's see who was the last major star to test positive? Contador! what did Millar say, he's not a doper!!!! What about Millar's comments on Valverde, who continued to ride and win after the Italians, CONI, banned him for 2 years, which he fought and eventually it went to CAS and he lost and was made to serve his ban. What did Millar say about riding in the peloton with a doper like Valverde? Does he even mention riding in the peloton with a doper like Valverde? Oh but he had a go at Ricco, yeah so did half the peloton. that's big talking from Millar.

your understanding of the Omerta and its defenders belie your 50 years.

You sound like an angry man. When people are angry they do not think clearly. I think there are some very strange folks on this thread. They pick at posts and find bits they don't like and try to build a case. The madness here is all too transparent. Love it. Makes my day!

The British media love Millar and share a very symbiotic relationship with him: The British public who've heard of him appear to like him; therefore, shining him is a great way to sell papers.

So when you back up your assertion that Millar's book is honest by citing a bunch of uncrtiical reviews from British and Irish media outlets who already love him (and believe that they benefit from him), you shouldn't expect blanket acceptance. Quotes like "laceratingly honest" and "searingly honest" make me vacillate between laughter and nausea - because the "reviewers" have no idea if what they've read is truthful or not! The least they could do is to be honest and just say "I believed every word of it without question."

I don't know (or care) whether or not Benotti's angry because he makes some very good points:
- An uncritical, unquestioning media should not be considered an objective source.
- This is particularly true with respect to their treatment of the UCI. (I believe the same holds pretty true for the IOC, but that's getting a bit off-topic)
- Millar's words and actions with respect to other dopers haven't done much. I say "good on him" for spilling his own beans in detail but he's gotta do a lot more than speak out about whipping boy Ricco in order to be a credible "anti-doping crusader" in my book.

I'm not saying Millar's a chronic liar, but I have certainly observed that he tends to be focused primarily on himself. His own story is informative, and I don't doubt that most of it is roughly accurate. But I know better than to expect objectivity from the autobiography of someone so self-absorbed.

 

[powerste]

Well when I use 'omerta' I'm referring to the practice of either not speaking about doping or not speaking honestly about doping to the public. So when I say someone is "loyal to omerta" I'm not accusing them of anything particuarly nasty. I'm placing them within the context of the status quo. There are many good and bad reasons to uphold omerta. Some of them include preserving pro cycling as a sport and avoiding scandal, as well as avoiding retribution for snitching.

There are basically 2 camps of omerta. There are those who just refuse to talk about drugs and doping. Think of Vino and Kloeden. The old school attitude. When pressed, they deny. But in reality, they don't like answering questions about doping because they possess a healthy person's contempt for lies.

And then there is the new school--those who actively lie and misrepresent to the public re. doping. The 2nd form of omerta becomes more and more necessary in this age of communications, but it also has a destructive aspect in that it erodes the sport's credibility. A good example of how this new form of omerta demeans cyclists was requiring every participating rider to sign an anti-doping pledge in the run-up to the 2005 Tour. The idea is to make cycling seem clean, but in practice it soiled the honor of the cycling, and most likely increased the level of cynicism all around.

The record portrays Millar as a represenative of the 2nd form, even if he genuinely desires reform in pro cycling. Cycling is the man's livlihood, after all. I think it's very plausible that a man like Bjarn Riis or Jonathan Vaughters or David Millar might actively lie to the media about doping related stuff yet work behind the scenes to try to augur positive reforms (not sure I actually believe that with regard to Millar, but sure it's possible...).

Thanks for the bolded, Ludwig...that's an excellent way to think about it. Reminds me of Indurain and a certain subsequent multiple-TdF winner:
Mig, when asked about doping "I don't want to talk about it so please don't ask."
LA: "Most tested athlete ever...why would I put that stuff in my body...too much good for too many...busting my a$$ 6 hours a day...blah blah blah"

We all know they were juiced to the moon, yet they consciously chose to adopt VERY different ways to respond to the issue

And like you, I wonder where JV & DM draw the line between actively working for reform vs sweeping it under the rug. I don't question either man's desire to clean things up...it's their ability to do so meaningfully, given their current roles, that I'm leery of.

 

[ludwig]

Some good questions, and I will attempt to give my interpretation.

Actually 'Worldsgreatest' has just posted before me - it is a very cold harsh statement and a bit too general but it is IMO pretty accurate.

I don't believe Millar was attempting to uphold Omerta (whichever definition) but that his motives were for his own self interest.

Surely self-interest and omerta are mutually compatible?

By that I mean he views himself (and is viewed by the media) as the go to guy for anti-doping.
As he himself has invested his reputation in cycling being a clean sport when confronted about doping he will point to the positive points about clean team, Bio Passport and having come a long way.

Well, that's what the PR says anyway.

This is a problem I have with Millar and feel he is over reaching. Yet it also begs the question - what actions can he actually do?
Anything he does can be dismissed as self serving or lie's.

The reality is he has limited influence on the sport as a whole - he can only look after his own team & team mates and perhaps be used to educate others on the fallout from his own experiences.

For me that would be exceedingly worthwile and deserving of praise and support and far better than trying to justify the current state of cycling .

I thought his comments about Landis were disgraceful.

This is the dilemma for JV & DM - I think they do want a clean sport, but they look at the info Landis has as old news, or from a different time, because their efforts have moved on.
My view is that the sport overall has moved on little so that Landis information is pertinent.

To me the critical thing is not the way they talk about Landis, but the way they don't hire whistle-blowers. Instead, they hired riders that had already ridden for doped teams and done well on them, and many of these riders went on to great success at Garmin. In any case,

These were riders who doped because they were on teams that doped - I believe they are now on a team that tries to do it clean - so the environment for the individuals is IMO different.

Wishful thinking. What evidence is there (besides PR) that the environment is/was different? Why should we care if there isn't a credible anti-doping voice within the team to confirm it for us? Wasn't there recently a scandal re. some Garmin rider being sent to Dr. Losa or some other nefarious doc?

I think Lim is just an employee - if he was asked to make rice cakes, he made rice cakes, if you asked him to transport blood, he transported blood.
So it is down to what type of role you think he was asked to do in Garmin.

How could JV have been unaware of Lim's role in Landis' win? He gets hired with all those big bucks to make rice cakes...cmon dude.

However - I don't believe he has "overt loyalty to omerta", I think he has overt (and misplaced) loyalty to the sport and add to that his desire for acceptance (ie self-serving) and you have someone who is conflicted between his desires and reality.

Even if we disregard Millar's history of fabrications before and after his bust, even in the recent past Millar repeatedly mislead the public about the state doping in cycling and has also said misleading things about whistle-blowers. So that puts him in the pro-omerta crowd as far as I can tell.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Surely self-interest and omerta are mutually compatible?

I never said they weren't - but I believe there is a distinction between the two and that Millars motivation is his own self interest as someone looked at as anti-doping then as enforcing Omerta.

Well, that's what the PR says anyway.

This is why I believe he often over reaches.

He is a cyclist - he is a not a journalist, a scientist nor does he have all the available data so it is not a suprise that he may use or quote the 'PR'.

To me the critical thing is not the way they talk about Landis, but the way they don't hire whistle-blowers. Instead, they hired riders that had already ridden for doped teams and done well on them, and many of these riders went on to great success at Garmin. In any case,

Hold on - do Garmin have a policy of not hiring whistleblowers are you assuming that?
Landis - he was 2 years out of competition coming back with a damaged hip.

Wishful thinking, straight up. What evidence is there (besides PR) that the environment is/was different? Why should we care if there isn't a credible anti-doping voice within the team to confirm it for us? Wasn't there recently a scandal re. some Garmin rider being sent to Dr. Losa or some other nefarious doc?

You asked my opinion - I have given it, I have no evidence to say that Garmin are or not doping. (Which is the same as yours).

If you think Garmin are a doping team you are entitled to that view but I do not share it.
It wasn't Losa, it was del Moral - and all sides denied that there was anything to do with doping.

How could JV have been unaware of Lim's role in Landis' win? He gets hired with all those big bucks to make rice cakes...cmon dude.

Again, I do not get this view - yes, Lim was involved with Landis - does that automatically mean he must be doping Garmin riders are maybe he was used for what he has his PhD in.

Even if we disagree Millar's entire history of fabrications before and after his bust, even in the recent past Millar repeatedly mislead the public about the state doping in cycling and has also said misleading things about whistle-blowers. So that puts him in the pro-omerta crowd as far as I can tell.

He didn't say anything misleading about whistleblowers.
His remarks about Floyd were outright personal, nasty and unnecessary.

There is an important distinction there.

 

[hfer07]

What folks might not realize here is that David is taking this "crusade" because:

*it helps to reinforce the Public image of JV's Garmin-Cervelo as a "clean team".
*the necessity to condemn "publicly" doping-BUT never "dopers" nor team doctors, neither DS.
*The necessity to portrait current doping cases as "isolated" so the burden is taken upon those whose inexperience or lack of access to sophisticated medical programs are exposed to failure-remember: there "must" be bad apples to put the blame on "the sins of the rest"
*the Anglo-speaking media has found in him the perfect facade to wash away the current & past doping activities-as an "example" of true vindication & also to drive away the idea of "Anglo-Saxon Origin riders" participating in doping activities-those methods only belong to those nasty Spaniard, Italians, Portuguese-mostly all Latin-Origin riders.

based on the above-I will only believe in Millar if:

*he comes clean on what really took place during his Codofis-Saugnier Duval years-by naming names, dealers, methods, products, schedules etc.
* he comes clean on Wiggins & his "sudden" transformation in 09
* he stops speaking of "clean sport" on behalf of people with nasty past & suspicious background.

 

[pmcg76]

I havent read Millar's book so I cannot really comment on it and I find his stance on doping as being very inconsistent over time. I respect some of what he says whilst some of the other stuff is pure garbage. I am sure I will read his book at some stage to get a better overall picture.

However, there are a group of posters who simply refute things purely because it does not fit their agenda and this is in reference to attitudes towards Millar also, this is particluarly true of the over hysterical everyone dopes brigade, there is simply no balance with these posters. I know this thread is not related to David Moncoutie but it appears he gets a mention in Millar's book as a rider who wanted to take a different path to the doping brigade and this was confirmed by other busted doper Philipe Gaumont years ago.

So now we have two team-mates that have named Moncoutie as taking a clean approach to the sport yet there are posters who simply refuse to acknowledge these fact and dismiss them as pure folly. These same posters are totally accepting of everything else Gaumont said as the truth because it involved doping practices etc. but name a possible clean rider, no way, the guy is BSing, after all he is a proven liar etc, etc. The duplicity is unreal.

These are the same people who seem to have a problem accepting the fact that the Tour was perhaps cleaner, oh but the other events are all dirty. Well if your flagship event is doing better, then that is progress. But instead of focusing on the postive of a cleaner Tour, they have to revert to slamming and slamming the sport.

I think most people on here have a realistic view on doping within the sport and accept it will always be a problem on some level, I simply dont get those people who are constantly trying to prove that the sport is entirely dirty top to bottom and have nothing positive to offer at all.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

What folks might not realize here is that David is taking this "crusade" because:

*it helps to reinforce the Public image of JV's Garmin-Cervelo as a "clean team".
*the necessity to condemn "publicly" doping-BUT never "dopers" nor team doctors, neither DS.
*The necessity to portrait current doping cases as "isolated" so the burden is taken upon those whose inexperience or lack of access to sophisticated medical programs are exposed to failure-remember: there "must" be bad apples to put the blame on "the sins of the rest"
*the Anglo-speaking media has found in him the perfect facade to wash away the current & past doping activities-as an "example" of true vindication & also to drive away the idea of "Anglo-Saxon Origin riders" participating in doping activities-those methods only belong to those nasty Spaniard, Italians, Portuguese-mostly all Latin-Origin riders.

based on the above-I will only believe in Millar if:

*he comes clean on what really took place during his Codofis-Saugnier Duval years-by naming names, dealers, methods, products, schedules etc.
* he comes clean on Wiggins & his "sudden" transformation in 09
* he stops speaking of "clean sport" on behalf of people with nasty past & suspicious background.

That is a pretty good summation and it could also be said about a lot of other riders/DSs etc who claim to be 'anti-doping' - JV, Wiggins, Frodo, CVV, Hincapie, even Hamilton. I don't recall but while Hamilton spoke about doping at USP, I don't recall him talking about his working with Fuentes or his time at CSC with Mr 60%.