Dave Millar - anti doping hero

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

I have no problem if you want to state this as your opinion, but to tell us folks why this is a crusade is pretty hollow as much of what you suggest was covered by Millar in his book.

Quick examples - Millar did name his suppliers, methods, products, schedules.
He talks about the doping in both SD & Cofidis.

Are you assuming Wiggins doped? (Your entitled to think that) If you are then what makes you believe that Millar would be privy to that doping?
To the highlighted - who?

 

[hrotha]

(...)
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.
(...)
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.
(...)

Moncoutié has been discussed at large here, not long ago, and the vast majority of the forum considered he's most likely clean, despite some fringe forumers who weren't convinced. As for those of us who raise the possibility that cycling outside of the Tour might not be cleaning up so much, we don't do that to "slam" the sport, but to try to understand its current state. And we do it by comparing both objective and subjective data from the classics and minor stage races with those from the Tour. I don't see why we shouldn't examine that possibility, especially since it's widely accepted that, as a general rule, doping is harder and riskier in France than in the rest of Europe.

 

[Mambo95]

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...).

This exactly illustrates my point.

Back in Kimmage's say the word 'omerta' had a meaning. It meant keeping the public and sponsors in the dark about nefarious practices.

But now, if you ask your non-cycling fan friends to say ten words they associate with the Tour de France and one of them will be 'drugs'. It's no damn secret any more. It hasn't been for years.

Now you have defined two types of 'omerta'. First is the denial. Well why would they confess. If they are guilty they want to hide it, if they are innocent they are obviously going to deny.

But it's the second type that is more interesting and, I think, the modern definition, in this forum at least, of 'omerta'. You say "From the cyclists' perspective, it's not lying, it's providing good PR for cycling". Why is it lying? It's not. It's having a different opinion to you.

There is a certain arrogance amongst posters who shout 'omerta' that their opinion and views are the truth. It's the same sort of approach as conspiracy theorists claiming 'cover-up'

Omerta has now come to mean "he's not voicing my opinions. He is not airing my prejudices"

You can see it in, for example, hfer07's post above, where he says that he won't accept Millar unless "he comes clean on Wiggins" - there is no concession to idea that Wiggins may be clean.

As the phrase goes - there's your truth, my truth and the actual truth.

As to Millar himself - he's not perfect. His Landis comments were greatly misjudged, but I think they were motivated by focusing on the present. And any autobiography is 'the case for the defence'.
But I'm not sure he's ever claimed to be an anti-doping crusader, that label seems to have been foisted on him by the media, both pro and anti. He's just a guy who is willing to speak about it and wants to help where he can.

 

[hfer07]

I have no problem if you want to state this as your opinion, but to tell us folks why this is a crusade is pretty hollow as much of what you suggest was covered by Millar in his book.

Quick examples - Millar did name his suppliers, methods, products, schedules.
He talks about the doping in both SD & Cofidis.

really? - so who went down?-two irrelevant guys while the entire team switched to the next dealer/program? did his so called "confession" make a difference in SD at all? because is one thing to "talk" about the sins from the past & there is another one to turn a blind eye & remain silence while being active-and that's the hypocrisy of the sport. He thinks he has this entitlement to talk so eloquently about anti-doping & yet he shuts up if the topic aims LA, Contador & every other doper in between.

Are you assuming Wiggins doped? (Your entitled to think that) If you are then what makes you believe that Millar would be privy to that doping?
To the highlighted - who?

are you that naive? Well-what about "protecting" the so called "clean team philosophy" behind Garmin, for starters...?? & the highlighted ones? all his colleges-of course-starting with LA, Contador, Wiggins and many others whose "ethics" he speaks so "highly" of.....

 

[ianfra]

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

I do not make accusations against anyone, not even Armstrong, without evidence

 

[python]

at first the usual nasty and dogmatic black and white phraseology, turned into a thoughtful thread with some excellent input...far above dm's book intellectual projections.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Let's be clear here from the start - I agree Millar is conflicted in what he says, that he often says things that are inconsistent and do not stand up to scrutiny.
For me, the only pertinent question is whether he is being willfully dishonest or is he being naive and speaking from emotion or false optimism.

Now lets have a look at what you wrote.

really? - so who went down?-two irrelevant guys while the entire team switched to the next dealer/program? did his so called "confession" make a difference in SD at all? because is one thing to "talk" about the sins from the past & there is another one to turn a blind eye & remain silence while being active-and that's the hypocrisy of the sport. He thinks he has this entitlement to talk so eloquently about anti-doping & yet he shuts up if the topic aims LA, Contador & every other doper in between.

That is a not too subtle turn around from your previous post- "he comes clean on what really took place during his Codofis-Saugnier Duval years-by naming names, dealers, methods, products, schedules etc."
So now it is Millars fault that the information you now acknowledge he provided was not acted on?

As for Millar "shutting up" when it comes to Armstrong,
from Page 266 of his book:
I can't say definitively if Lance doped or not. Yes there are all the stories and rumours but I never saw him dope with my own eyes. If he did dope, then, after all that he has said and done, it would be unforgivable.

are you that naive? Well-what about "protecting" the so called "clean team philosophy" behind Garmin, for starters...?? & the highlighted ones? all his colleges-of course-starting with LA, Contador, Wiggins and many others whose "ethics" he speaks so "highly" of.....

Wiggins, I have suspicions about the guy just like you - and unless you have something more about him, that's all they are.
But even if he was doping do you believe he was telling everyone around him what he was doing? Why should Millar comment on something he knows little about.

So, if you are looking for conflicted, naive, ignorant, inconsistent, self serving, unattainable expectations and hypocrisy just reread your last 2 posts.

 

[Winterfold]

I bought the book and read it - I thought there was a lot more interesting and frank information in there than DM has been given credit for - especially by people who haven't read the book

 

[sniper]

(...)
As for Millar "shutting up" when it comes to Armstrong,
from Page 266 of his book:
I can't say definitively if Lance doped or not. Yes there are all the stories and rumours but I never saw him dope with my own eyes. If he did dope, then, after all that he has said and done, it would be unforgivable.

(...)

sorry for picking up on only a detail of your post.
But this part on Armstrong, if that's it, then that is rather mild, if not lame, for a guy pretending to be critical of doping in cycling.
Many have blown the whistle on LA like nobody's blown whistles before. This is way beyond the stage of "stories and rumors". FBI doesn't investigate "stories and rumors", usually. DM of course knows that.

It confirms that DM is closing his eyes to the most damaging chapters of doping in cycling, in order not to jeapordize his own agenda.

(Of course, there's nothing wrong with DM having an agenda, we all have, so I don't blame him for not laying all the cards on the table like Floyd did. But still, any claim that DM is really interested in clean cycling is ill-founded.)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

sorry for picking up on only a detail of your post.
But this part on Armstrong, if that's it, then that is rather lame and gutless for a guy pretending to be critical of doping in cycling.
Floyd, Andreu and many others have blown the whistle on LA like nobody's blown whistles before. That's way beyond the stage of "stories and rumors".

It confirms that DM is closing his eyes to the most damaging chapters of doping in cycling, in order not to jeapordize his own agenda.

(Of course, there's nothing wrong with DM having an agenda, we all have, so I don't blame him for not laying all the cards on the table like Floyd did.)

I have highlighted the key point.
That is part of the unreal expectation of Millar and why he gets flack for his comments.

He is not "pretending (or otherwise) to be critical of doping in cycling" - he is more interested in promoting the sport as clean.

Remember he is not the authoritative figure he is portrayed as - he is a cyclist who doped, he is not a journalist, investigator, scientist nor is he privy to what goes on beyond his own circle - but because he is willing to speak he gets asked to speak.

 

[sniper]

He is not "pretending (or otherwise) to be critical of doping in cycling" - he is more interested in promoting the sport as clean.

That's indeed the point I was making.
So it's not a critique to your point of view (as we seem to be in agreement here), but to the point of view expressed in the OP.
To refresh one's memory:

(...) It is a brilliant, brilliant read. (...)
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. (...)
etc.....

The other point I was making was that you seemed to present that quote as an example of DM being critical of LA, while I thought of it as showing just the opposite.

Remember he is not the authoritative figure he is portrayed as - he is a cyclist who doped, he is not a journalist, investigator, scientist nor is he privy to what goes on beyond his own circle - but because he is willing to speak he gets asked to speak.

True.....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's indeed the point I was making.
So it's not a critique to your point of view (as we seem to be in agreement here), but to the point of view expressed in the OP.
To refresh one's memory:



The other point I was making was that you seemed to present that quote as an example of DM being critical of LA, while I thought of it as showing just the opposite.



True.....

All fair points.

Just to clarify the Armstrong piece - it is one of a number of references to Armstrong that Millar makes in his book, which shows the point of the post I was replying to that Millar "shuts up" when it comes to Armsrtong is untrue.

No, I don't believe Millar is critical of Armstrong, as there is a long section in the book about an encounter Millar has with Armstrong at a post Tour party where he tackles Armstrong that he does not make or comment more about anti-doping.
Reading it I was left asking "is Millar really that naive and blind"? - and when you read the book and look at it in its totality I would actually sum him as being naively yet wonderfully optimistic.

 

[hfer07]

I agree Millar is conflicted in what he says, that he often says things that are inconsistent and do not stand up to scrutiny.
For me, the only pertinent question is whether he is being willfully dishonest or is he being naive and speaking from emotion or false optimism.

But I have the same questions too-the problem is that you're defending his position/stand/words--I just simply doubt of their legitimacy

That is a not too subtle turn around from your previous post- "he comes clean on what really took place during his Codofis-Saugnier Duval years-by naming names, dealers, methods, products, schedules etc."
So now it is Millars fault that the information you now acknowledge he provided was not acted on?

the difference here is that he "was forced" to talk by the authorities when he got busted while in Codofis--but to my knowledge- he hasn't spoken about SD & the dirty activities the whole team was involved in- so i guess you need to get your information updated

As for Millar "shutting up" when it comes to Armstrong,
from Page 266 of his book:
I can't say definitively if Lance doped or not. Yes there are all the stories and rumours but I never saw him dope with my own eyes. If he did dope, then, after all that he has said and done, it would be unforgivable.

honestly: having a Federal Investigation on going & the seriousness of LA's case here in the US- do you truly believe that quote really represents an "strong" stand against doping-knowing as everyone does what went on during the dirtiest period of cycling?

Wiggins, I have suspicions about the guy just like you - and unless you have something more about him, that's all they are.
But even if he was doping do you believe he was telling everyone around him what he was doing? Why should Millar comment on something he knows little about.

then Millar should say nothing- even if journalists ask the question-he simply should avoid any comment-& let Wiggins himself "carry" the burden

So, if you are looking for conflicted, naive, ignorant, inconsistent, self serving, unattainable expectations and hypocrisy just reread your last 2 posts.

wow- Unless you're David Millar- I'd say you're taking this matter very personal

 

[Tank Engine]

As Powerste states, this is an autobiography and as such is written from the point of view of the author. Even when an author is being honest, other people may well see the things that are depicted in the book in a different light. I must admit I haven't read this book (as of yet), but as with any book it will have to tell a story. From Millar's life and the title it is clear that this story is of a rider who was caught doping and has come out on the other side. Hence, the picture that is painted will be similar to a religious story of a sinner who has seen the light and has totally turned around. The truth is that even after an honest conversion, the former sinner is still human.

For me the real heroes in cycling are those who stood up against a culture of doping (Bassons), decided to go their own way, maybe since the culture was too ingrained (Moncoutie, Tommy D?) and those who were caught in the culture, then left and spoke out against doping without being forced to, sometimes at their own risk (Swart, the Andreus). Dave does not fit into any of those categories. He now claims to be a champion of anti-doping. From that point of view his statements regarding Landis are unclear to say the least. Maybe he has done his bit to fight doping since coming back. When he was at SD, he would understandably be working under cover. Since he is no at a team that presents an anti-doping stance, he should be less constrained. Yet his comments regarding Landis seem difficult to defend from this point of view.

Ianfra seems to be too unquestioning with regard to Millar. He may be honest, but inevitably he writes from his own point of view. He implores others to read the book, but it is also necessary to compare what Millar says and does with what others say and do. Having said that, I think its a book I should definitely read, unless others can suggest something that would tell me more about the present situation (I guess Kimmage's and Walsh's books are somewhat out of date now)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But I have the same questions too-the problem is that you're defending his position/stand/words--I just simply doubt of their legitimacy

I certainly am not defending what Millar has said, I am correcting what you have to say about Millar as much of what you state is false.

I don't see how you have the same questions - as your earlier post here was to tell us about Millars "crusade" and what basis that you would "believe" him.

the difference here is that he "was forced" to talk by the authorities when he got busted while in Codofis--but to my knowledge- he hasn't spoken about SD & the dirty activities the whole team was involved in- so i guess you need to get your information updated

Thats the problem - you have not read the book, so your knowledge is limited, in it he says he discusses what was going on in SD with the UCI and members of SD management.

honestly: having a Federal Investigation on going & the seriousness of LA's case here in the US- do you truly believe that quote really represents an "strong" stand against doping-knowing as everyone does what went on during the dirtiest period of cycling?

See upthread Ianfra's response to the LA question.
Some people will suspend the belief until a conviction or evidence is produced.
I don't agree with it (in the context of expressing an opinion) however before you give out - some people are happy to accuse people with zero proof.

Forget the investigation - I would find it hard to believe he has not discussed LA with JV, CVV or Barry (his Girona training partner).

Some people still want to belief in the fairytale.

then Millar should say nothing- even if journalists ask the question-he simply should avoid any comment-& let Wiggins himself "carry" the burden

Ok, earlier you were giving out how he "shuts up" to certain question, now you want him to shut up to certain questions.

Of course if he did shut up when asked questions then you could rightly accuse him of upholding the omerta.

wow- Unless you're David Millar- I'd say you're taking this matter very personal

Ask Ianfra if he thinks I am David Millar.

 

[hfer07]

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...).

I was going to comment on your statement earlier-since I share similar views-but my approach is not necessarily about distinguishing the sort of camps of Omerta- because I think is just one single camp-but rather its transformation over the last 2 decades: we had in the Indurain years an Omerta that wasn't that relevant,since the cyclists weren't really "whistle blowers" & the doping was way above of regulations & controls at all-not until the Festina scandal--then is the Armstrong years when the Omerta became imperative for those with the "controlling interest of the sport" & mostly those "submerged" entirely in doping activities-which covered almost every level of the cycling-from simple souvenirs, to medical staff, DS, teams & as we know- the very governing body of cycling" - so its enforcing had to be with an iron fist-imperialist like-imposing its will no matter what. the problem with that shade of Omerta was that it created "enemies" & people got "unfairly" hurt by it-careers were ended prematurely & many athletes really resented that attitude in the sport- so then is when we begun to hear about the "whistle blowers" and the "journalists" embracing the crusade for a Clean Sport- which took a a brave stand against the "powers" of cycling.....

After LA retirement 1.0 -Omerta kept going- but without the principal enforcer-it began to loosen up a bit-so now we are starting to see riders speaking about the "old days" more openly & by then many of the dirty secrets started to surface in books & personal disclosures-so change was somehow welcomed. the problem now is that the "governing body" is getting extremely exposed & its reputation of corruption is affecting business-so now "they must" take action upon-the organizers must protect their interests at all cost- so they begun to create new regulations to "standardize doping levels" by incorporating the Bio passport & many other rules, to have full control of the riders-so those who dared to speak against the system can be easily punished. Omerta is once again in full control of the riders & even more powerful-since its authority comes from the very governing body regulating the sport.

fast forward- with the "big names" of the LA era getting busted or getting near or full retirement-the new generation is facing this new challenge to whether or not continue the same attitude of the last generation regarding the Omerta-now regulations are more strict & doping levels have fallen quite good compared to the previous generation-and teams & DC's falling into the mercy of the UCI's will-there is this new "outcry" for "fairness" & cleanness in the sport" -even if is only means to put a fake face to the problem.......... this is when Millar comes in

 

[goggalor]

Back in Kimmage's say the word 'omerta' had a meaning. It meant keeping the public and sponsors in the dark about nefarious practices.

But now, if you ask your non-cycling fan friends to say ten words they associate with the Tour de France and one of them will be 'drugs'. It's no damn secret any more. It hasn't been for years.

If they don't watch the sport it doesn't matter. And even the ones who claim that the Tour is all drugs actually have no idea how huge the drug problem is. For them the dopers are the four or five guys who get busted every year, and the police investigations that sometimes make the news, not the tradition of doping that once had and probably still has such deep roots in the sport.

 

[hfer07]

Ok, earlier you were giving out how he "shuts up" to certain question, now you want him to shut up to certain questions.
Of course if he did shut up when asked questions then you could rightly accuse him of upholding the omerta.

but you can't have it both ways or pretend to be honest with a lie-the problem here is that Millar speaks so "highly" about Wiggins- and yet reality provides this shadow on his "amazing" 09 TDF performance-and he knows better than any one of us that a rider without past good records simply "cannot transform into a GC overnight" -so to answer your question- I stand correct- I would have preferred him to say nothing-so he wouldn't have made a fool of himself and have at least a degree of respect for the intelligence of the public- rather than saying such words that only reinforce the sense of "Omerta"-which means everything is fine-Wiggins is an example to follow and cycling is getting cleaner every single day-in another words- a travesty

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

As for Millar "shutting up" when it comes to Armstrong,
from Page 266 of his book:
I can't say definitively if Lance doped or not. Yes there are all the stories and rumours but I never saw him dope with my own eyes. If he did dope, then, after all that he has said and done, it would be unforgivable.

What a lying sack. Millar knows very well that Armstrong doped, just like everyone else in the pro peloton knows. They would have to be willfully blind not to know it. What is more, Millar is on a team filled with exiles from Postal's doping program. Vaughters would have us believe that he has been honest about his past with his riders. There is no way that Millar cannot know that Armstrong along with his team was built on a foundation of doping fraud.

For Millar to not only say that he does not know but to imply that it is not true because it would be "unforgiveable" if it was is a lie of huge proportions. He is deliberately casting doubt on whether Armstrong doped. This man cannot be trusted. By extension it has to be assumed that Garmin is one big doping whitewash.

 

[goggalor]

That Millar quote on Armstrong is funny. What would be truly unforgivable is if--after all he's said and done--Millar knows that Armstrong doped, and is feigning ignorance.

 

[Je ne sais quoi]

Is there anything in the book that explores how he became part owner of Slipstream when he was €800k in the hole with additional tax problems (did he buy himself a ride/ride for free while doing a cheque flip?), and how he and the other owners dealt with the potential conflict of rider/owner and ex-doper/owner?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

but you can't have it both ways or pretend to be honest with a lie-the problem here is that Millar speaks so "highly" about Wiggins- and yet reality provides this shadow on his "amazing" 09 TDF performance-and he knows better than any one of us that a rider without past good records simply "cannot transform into a GC overnight" -so to answer your question- I stand correct- I would have preferred him to say nothing-so he wouldn't have made a fool of himself and have at least a degree of respect for the intelligence of the public- rather than saying such words that only reinforce the sense of "Omerta"-which means everything is fine-Wiggins is an example to follow and cycling is getting cleaner every single day-in another words- a travesty

No, you cannot have it both ways.
I know you have attempted to suggest what Omerta is - you are wrong. It is what it is, not what you want it to be.
What you want from Millar is Omerta, the proper meaning - when asked say nothing.

As for his comments on Wiggins - speaking "Highly" of Wiggins is not saying he is clean - but as I said about his views on Armstrong there is a suspension of belief there.

Is there anything in the book that explores how he became part owner of Slipstream when he was €800k in the hole with additional tax problems (did he buy himself a ride/ride for free while doing a cheque flip?), and how he and the other owners dealt with the potential conflict of rider/owner and ex-doper/owner?

Yes, he goes in to a fair amount of detail on his financial and tax issues. He does mention that he is a part owner of the team however I do not recall if he gives an amount (from memory he didn't but I'll check later).
There is no conflict about having Millar on the team (or owner of the team) - Garmin unlike Sky never had a policy of not hiring ex-dopers, which given JV's past is quite right.

 

[ludwig]

This exactly illustrates my point.

Back in Kimmage's say the word 'omerta' had a meaning. It meant keeping the public and sponsors in the dark about nefarious practices.

But now, if you ask your non-cycling fan friends to say ten words they associate with the Tour de France and one of them will be 'drugs'. It's no damn secret any more. It hasn't been for years.

Now you have defined two types of 'omerta'. First is the denial. Well why would they confess. If they are guilty they want to hide it, if they are innocent they are obviously going to deny.

But it's the second type that is more interesting and, I think, the modern definition, in this forum at least, of 'omerta'. You say "From the cyclists' perspective, it's not lying, it's providing good PR for cycling". Why is it lying? It's not. It's having a different opinion to you.

There is a certain arrogance amongst posters who shout 'omerta' that their opinion and views are the truth. It's the same sort of approach as conspiracy theorists claiming 'cover-up'

Omerta has now come to mean "he's not voicing my opinions. He is not airing my prejudices"

You can see it in, for example, hfer07's post above, where he says that he won't accept Millar unless "he comes clean on Wiggins" - there is no concession to idea that Wiggins may be clean.

As the phrase goes - there's your truth, my truth and the actual truth.

The actual truth is the only thing that matters, Mambo. If I'm confronted with credible evidence that an opinion is wrong, I'm prepared to revise it.

As for omerta....in cycling terminology it means (broadly) the code of silence around doping and/or active conspiracy to keep doping practices in cycling a secret. It doesn't mean any more than that and if you are adding more to it that's your interpretation. I think my definition differs from yours above only in that omerta in cycling is not necessarily 'nefarious', though in many instances it certainly is.

When I talk about "actively misleading" the public I am talking about giving out misleading information and lies that are/were verifiable. Opinions are one thing, verifiable lies are another. There's not "your truth" and "my truth". There is "my opinion" and "your opinion" and then there's "the truth" (essentially, the best opinion most consistent with the evidence....and always open to revision). We can distinguish 'opinion' from 'lie' is there is verifiable evidence on the ground to do so.

There are plenty of verifiable examples of the 2nd type of omerta--Landis and Hamilton are simply two extreme examples that took it too far. In this case its clear they were lying--they admitted it. But it's also possible to discover someone is lying by comparing their statement to the reality.

In any case Millar's pattern of deliberately misleading the public about the state of dope in the peloton and of attacking whistleblowers as motivated by money and/or revenge are well-documented and verifiable. They are consistent with the statements of other riders and DSes who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. When posting in a forum, attempting to educate a newbie, I don't believe it's an overgeneralization to say Millar is loyal to omerta (based on his public statements) but it's not like the case is so damning that I wouldn't revise my opinion if presented with strong and credible evidence to the contrary.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What a lying sack. Millar knows very well that Armstrong doped, just like everyone else in the pro peloton knows. They would have to be willfully blind not to know it. What is more, Millar is on a team filled with exiles from Postal's doping program. Vaughters would have us believe that he has been honest about his past with his riders. There is no way that Millar cannot know that Armstrong along with his team was built on a foundation of doping fraud.

Yes and no.
On the JV point - while he obviously knew what was going on at USPS he may not have been privy to LA's doping.

Remember that even though Floyd spent lots of time with LA (unlike JV,CVV or Barry) he actually only saw LA doping once.

For anyone in denial (as I believe Millar is about LA) then that is something they will cling to.

For Millar to not only say that he does not know but to imply that it is not true because it would be "unforgiveable" if it was is a lie of huge proportions. He is deliberately casting doubt on whether Armstrong doped. This man cannot be trusted. By extension it has to be assumed that Garmin is one big doping whitewash.

Absolutely not - nowhere has he come out recently and denied or cast doubt on LA's doping.

As I said, he just doesn't want to believe it so he will cling on to that until the end.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

On the JV point - while he obviously knew what was going on at USPS he may not have been privy to LA's doping.

Remember that even though Floyd spent lots of time with LA (unlike JV,CVV or Barry) he actually only saw LA doping once.

Floyd talked about doping with Armstrong many times. Landis was fully aware that Armstrong was doping. And Vaughters cannot very well tell people that he doped while pretending that he knows nothing about the environment that led him to doping, certainly not when riders on his team went through the same environment.

Absolutely not - nowhere has he come out recently and denied or cast doubt on LA's doping.

When Millar says that he cannot say one way or another whether Armstrong doped and follows that up by saying that it would be unforgiveable if he did dope, he is deliberately giving safe harbor to those who want to believe. He is implying that Armstrong would have to a bad person to deceive people that way, knowing that most people who read his words will think that Armstrong is not bad enough to do that. He could have worded that passage in lots of different ways that would not give false hope.