Dave Millar - anti doping hero

[Benotti69]

It isn't that you're not allowed have an opinion - it is just that that opinion will look very foolish.


If you read the book you would find out the 'facts' that you attribute to Millar were never made by Millar.

As for him being naive, I addressed that earlier in the thread - it is the only question worth asking "is Millar dishonest or naive" - if you had read the book it points to the latter.

Did Millar write the book? Did he give interviews to a ghost writer as is standard for all sports person these days and if so one could read it thinking he was naive as was the intention of the writer and Millar as it would be to Millar's benefit and i am not prepared to give him that benefit.

The professional world of sport has become a pharmaceutical quagmire since the 90's and on. Millar would almost have to be blind to not be aware of this after a year in the peloton.

His 'alerting'' the authorities to his teams doping would almost definitely have had him blacklisted by the Omerta which the UCI is part of. So how can we believe this?

 

[Benotti69]

No, but to dismiss DM's book and what is contained in it without reading it is narrow minded IMO.

It is very difficult to get a true measure of a person from interviews taken just before or just after a race, they are just snapshots. By reading the book you are better positioned to make a measured judgement, that's all.

However, reading your posts, I get the impression that it would make little or no difference to your opinion anyhow. So maybe you're just saving yourself the time & hassle? At least have the balls to say so, eh?

to get a view straight after a race, a real view, not clichés, when the sports persons doesn't have the true time to construct their replies can sometimes be more truthful. Unlike a book where it can be edited a number of times to suit an agenda which Millar almost certainly has.

Millar has not shown any true fighting anti doping spirit to date as far as i am concerned, so i am pretty sure i will not find it in his book. His career is not something i have followed as closely as others whom i have preferred for various different reasons so i doubt his book would appeal to me and i also doubt it is insightful. Nico Roche's paper columns are probably more insightful.

To me when Armstrong came back to ride for Astana was the time to stand up and be heard in the pantheon of anti doping. Armstrong was the king of doping for 7 years and his return was obviously not gonna be clean. Who stood up, what voice was there? Kimmage's! Who backed Kimmage's comments. David Walsh. Who refuse to be interviewed on the same radio programme as Kimmage. McQuaid! Where was Millar?

Millar anti doping. Yeah. He's about as anti doping as a fashion model who one day wears fur then the next day poses for anti-fur ads then the day after is back modelling the fur.

Please spare the Millar is naive bit or even stupid bit. He is not either. Cycling is not getting any cleaner when a winning team like HTC cant attract a sponsor. He has jumped on the 'cycling is clean' band wagon but has clearly kept his tongue firmly out of his cheek and didn't bother to give us the knowing wink while tapping his nose.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Did Millar write the book? Did he give interviews to a ghost writer as is standard for all sports person these days and if so one could read it thinking he was naive as was the intention of the writer and Millar as it would be to Millar's benefit and i am not prepared to give him that benefit.

Why don't you just copy and paste the highlighted and leave that as your reply? It would save everyone time and effort.

Is Millar naive? That is my opinion of him - not what the ghostwriter presented or I would assume what Millar would perceive himself as.

The professional world of sport has become a pharmaceutical quagmire since the 90's and on. Millar would almost have to be blind to not be aware of this after a year in the peloton.

Who claimed Millar wasn't "aware" of the doping problem?
It certainly wasn't anyone who read the book, as Millar states he was well aware of doping as soon as he turned Pro.

His 'alerting'' the authorities to his teams doping would almost definitely have had him blacklisted by the Omerta which the UCI is part of. So how can we believe this?

"Almost definitely"?

Again - in the book Millar says he felt that Saunier Duval didn't send him to the Vuelta because he went and talked to the UCI.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

to get a view straight after a race, a real view, not clichés, when the sports persons doesn't have the true time to construct their replies can sometimes be more truthful. Unlike a book where it can be edited a number of times to suit an agenda which Millar almost certainly has.

Millar has not shown any true fighting anti doping spirit to date as far as i am concerned, so i am pretty sure i will not find it in his book. His career is not something i have followed as closely as others whom i have preferred for various different reasons so i doubt his book would appeal to me and i also doubt it is insightful. Nico Roche's paper columns are probably more insightful.

To me when Armstrong came back to ride for Astana was the time to stand up and be heard in the pantheon of anti doping. Armstrong was the king of doping for 7 years and his return was obviously not gonna be clean. Who stood up, what voice was there? Kimmage's! Who backed Kimmage's comments. David Walsh. Who refuse to be interviewed on the same radio programme as Kimmage. McQuaid! Where was Millar?

Millar anti doping. Yeah. He's about as anti doping as a fashion model who one day wears fur then the next day poses for anti-fur ads then the day after is back modelling the fur.

Please spare the Millar is naive bit or even stupid bit. He is not either. Cycling is not getting any cleaner when a winning team like HTC cant attract a sponsor. He has jumped on the 'cycling is clean' band wagon but has clearly kept his tongue firmly out of his cheek and didn't bother to give us the knowing wink while tapping his nose.

Hold on - I am the one who believes Millar is naive and/or hopelessly optimistic.

That was my interpretation on reading his book - Ianfras interpretation was that Millar was an anti-doping hero.

If you disagree with either of these contrasting opinions than give us your interpretation. Oh, that's right - you haven't read it, not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

Why is that? Perhaps it would show that many of your opinions are completely wrong and ignorant, that many of the things you claim about Millar are unfounded.

Millar is not the one with the agenda, you are.

 

[Benotti69]

Hold on - I am the one who believes Millar is naive and/or hopelessly optimistic.

That was my interpretation on reading his book - Ianfras interpretation was that Millar was an anti-doping hero.

If you disagree with either of these contrasting opinions than give us your interpretation. Oh, that's right - you haven't read it, not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt.

when my local library gets a copy i'll read it.

Why is that? Perhaps it would show that many of your opinions are completely wrong and ignorant, that many of the things you claim about Millar are unfounded.

Millar is not the one with the agenda, you are.

What's my agenda then. Forwarding my career on a cycling forum discussing doping by athletes under a pseudonym. Good call!

I think it is obvious Millar is using this book as a tool to further his career after cycling and laying the ground work for getting his face on tv. He's hardly had a glittering career.

 

[Benotti69]

Why don't you just copy and paste the highlighted and leave that as your reply? It would save everyone time and effort.

Is Millar naive? That is my opinion of him - not what the ghostwriter presented or I would assume what Millar would perceive himself as.



Who claimed Millar wasn't "aware" of the doping problem?
It certainly wasn't anyone who read the book, as Millar states he was well aware of doping as soon as he turned Pro.



"Almost definitely"?

Again - in the book Millar says he felt that Saunier Duval didn't send him to the Vuelta because he went and talked to the UCI.

So the anti-doping hero has done exactly what? Told the UCI about Suanier Duval, which if he had half a brain would have known the UCI are in the centre of the Omerta and were allowing the doping at every turn. So why tell them? And when they did nothing why not a higher authority?

So having read the book, what has the gleaming ray of anti doping light done exactly to clean up the sport?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

when my local library gets a copy i'll read it.

.....but until then you will keep passing comment on something you have limited knowledge of.

Whats the point? You have already said you are not prepared to give Millar the benefit of the doubt.

What's my agenda then. Forwarding my career on a cycling forum discussing doping by athletes under a pseudonym. Good call!

It is a pity that your career is not tied to this forum - as you would be forced to either wise up or starve.

Your agenda is quite clear when you bring in the folding of HTC (which was not solely down to doping) as a way to suggest cycling is not getting cleaner - which is a separate debate and has nothing to do with Millar.

I think it is obvious Millar is using this book as a tool to further his career after cycling and laying the ground work for getting his face on tv. He's hardly had a glittering career.

So, you got that view from not reading his book?

If Millar (with careful editing by his ghostwriter) wrote "this book as a tool to further his career after cycling and laying the ground work for getting his face on tv" - so why did he just sign for a further 3 years with Garmin?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So the anti-doping hero has done exactly what? Told the UCI about Suanier Duval, which if he had half a brain would have known the UCI are in the centre of the Omerta and were allowing the doping at every turn. So why tell them? And when they did nothing why not a higher authority?

So, it is Millars fault that the authorities did little? And he should have known this. That would be a fair point.

So, why is it just upthread that you want Millar to be outspoken about Armstrongs return when he now knows little would be done.

Which is it?

So having read the book, what has the gleaming ray of anti doping light done exactly to clean up the sport?

I articulated this in several posts already, I don't believe Millar is an anti-doping hero, nor is he in a position to effect much change.

 

[Benotti69]

So, it is Millars fault that the authorities did little? And he should have known this. That would be a fair point.

So, why is it just upthread that you want Millar to be outspoken about Armstrongs return when he now knows little would be done.

No it isnt his fault? What was he trying to prove? He is clearly not telling the truth in my opinion.
Why is he writing a book portraying himself as a clean outspoken pro? When he clearly isn't!

Which is it?

Because if he wants a clean sport as he says he has to speak out about the doping, dopers and the cyclists o which he is currently one know a hell of lot more than the clinic about the current situation.

I articulated this in several posts already, I don't believe Millar is an anti-doping hero, nor is he in a position to effect much change.

So he should put himself in that position and it wouldn't be hard to get there, there's hardly a queue!

Either he shuts up about it being a clean sport or he calls it in a similar vein Like Ballestre, Walsh, Kimmage and others.

 

[pmcg76]

No it isnt his fault? What was he trying to prove? He is clearly not telling the truth in my opinion.
Why is he writing a book portraying himself as a clean outspoken pro? When he clearly isn't!



Because if he wants a clean sport as he says he has to speak out about the doping, dopers and the cyclists o which he is currently one know a hell of lot more than the clinic about the current situation.




So he should put himself in that position and it wouldn't be hard to get there, there's hardly a queue!

Either he shuts up about it being a clean sport or he calls it in a similar vein Like Ballestre, Walsh, Kimmage and others.

Would that be this Paul Kimmage who believes Garmin & Europcar are clean. Doesnt that go totally against the grain of what you and a few others have been re-hashing on here a million times.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=9565&status=True&catname=Latest News

 

[Benotti69]

Would that be this Paul Kimmage who believes Garmin & Europcar are clean. Doesnt that go totally against the grain of what you and a few others have been re-hashing on here a million times.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=9565&status=True&catname=Latest News

Kimmage believed Kohl was clean winning a stage of the TdF too. No one is infallible.

But to quote Kimmage "PK: You're never 100% sure but the performances of Voeckler, Rolland, the other French riders and Garmin all send out good signals."

I'll take my leave of the Millar thread as it appears my "re-hashing on here a million times" has been noted.

I thank you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No it isnt his fault? What was he trying to prove? He is clearly not telling the truth in my opinion.
Why is he writing a book portraying himself as a clean outspoken pro? When he clearly isn't!

What do you base that opinion on?

So, he went to the authorities and spoke about SD - which would make him outspoken - and then you ask why he is portraying himself as outspoken.
Which is it?

Because if he wants a clean sport as he says he has to speak out about the doping, dopers and the cyclists o which he is currently one know a hell of lot more than the clinic about the current situation.

And he does speak about the doping, dopers and the cyclists.

As for currently -what you expect riders to roll up beside him and tell him what PEDs they have just taken?
What happened this amazing Omerta that descends on the peloton?

So he should put himself in that position and it wouldn't be hard to get there, there's hardly a queue!

Either he shuts up about it being a clean sport or he calls it in a similar vein Like Ballestre, Walsh, Kimmage and others.

Right - so he mentions that he suspects doping in SD and yet you criticize him for that.
Or then shut up and hold the Omerta?
Which is it?

As for the 3 journos you mentioned - what have they said recently about the current state of cycling?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Kimmage believed Kohl was clean winning a stage of the TdF too. No one is infallible.

But to quote Kimmage "PK: You're never 100% sure but the performances of Voeckler, Rolland, the other French riders and Garmin all send out good signals."

I'll take my leave of the Millar thread as it appears my "re-hashing on here a million times" has been noted.

I thank you.

Kimmage states his opinion - nothing more. So of course it will be wrong on occasion.

However, unlike you he will at least look at all the available information and make an informed opinion and does not do so set against a clear bias.

 

[sniper]

My opinion is that DM is merely out to protect his own hide and assure that he can stay in cycling, and that he is not in the least interested in breaking the omerta or otherwise cleaning up cycling if it jeopardises his own position.

Now, if this opinion is somehow biased and premature (for me not having read the book), it should be relatively easy to challenge it by pointing at references in the book where DM praises, say, Floyd's whistleblowing, or explicitly questions, say, Contador's cleanliness, or criticize, say, Armstrong's witness tampering, UCI's accepting bribes, stuff like that.

In other words, I'd be curious to learn what DM says in those regards, in general terms of course.

Anybody?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My opinion is that DM is merely out to protect his own hide and assure that he can stay in cycling, and that he is not in the least interested in breaking the omerta or otherwise cleaning up cycling if it jeopardises his own position.

One more time - Omerta is not the definition that you make up.

Your opinion is not far wrong, however if Millar engaged in Omerta (the true definition, explained earlier) would that not make it easier to protect his own hide and self interest and help him stay in cycling?
Anybody?

Now, if this opinion is somehow biased and premature (for me not having read the book), it should be relatively easy to challenge it by pointing at references in the book where DM praises, say, Floyd's whistleblowing, and explicitly questions, say, Contador's cleanliness, Armstrong's witness tampering, UCI's accepting bribes, stuff like that.

In other words, I'd be curious to learn what DM says in those regards, in general terms of course.

Anybody?

You're right - your view is biased.

Why would he praise whistleblowers? Or make comments that you want him to make?

Because that would make him be the "anti doping hero" that he never claims to be but you really want him to be so you can point out that he did not do what you want.

 

[SirLes]

I would imagine DM has to be very careful about what he says regarding certain individuals and doping. Unless he has sufficient evidence to back up any claim or implied accusation which leads to a conviction he achieves nothing except finding himself on the wrong side of the law. The same is true about voicing opinions on legal cases that are still on going. I certaily wouldn't.

For me, the best he can do is lead by example the younger new riders in his team. If he is helping them to stay clean, then that's good enough for me and pretty much all I expect from any older rider.

If he is not doing that or worse turning blind eye to doping in his team or even advising how it can be done "safely" while talking about riding clean then....

 

[sniper]

One more time - Omerta is not the definition that you make up.

Your opinion is not far wrong, however if Millar engaged in Omerta (the true definition, explained earlier) would that not make it easier to protect his own hide and self interest and help him stay in cycling?
Anybody?

You're right - your view is biased.

Why would he praise whistleblowers? Or make comments that you want him to make?

Because that would make him be the "anti doping hero" that he never claims to be but you really want him to be so you can point out that he did not do what you want.

Note that there is nothing bad about being an upholder of omerta (broadly defined). After all, pretty much the entire pro-peloton is. Who am I to judge them? Of course, I don't judge any of them. For as much as I'd want them to come clean, I understand that they don't.

The term "(upholder of) omerta" is, though little nuanced, nonetheless usefull in as far as it facilitates the discussion.

The underlying discussion was of course about whether DM is really naive/ignorant or whether he's deliberately and knowingly not telling us all he really knows/thinks about doping in cycling (and thereby at least to some degree upholding the omerta).

But I guess we agree that this discussion is somewhat circular, since we (I and benotti) haven't read the book, and your point is exactly that reading the book will allow us to refine our opinion and bring more nuance into the discussion (which is a valid point, by all means).

We also seem to agree that labeling DM as either naive or as an upholder of omerta is pretty much a matter of taste/opinion and we may even agree that there is a continuum there, from extremely naive to an extreme upholder of omerta, and that DM might be somewhere in the middle. (?)

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I don't need to listen to Justin Bieber to know that his music is manufactured dross designed to appeal to 13 year old girls who don't know any better. You don't need to read Millar's biography to know that he is a liar who will say anything to make himself look good to gullible but naive fanboys and apologists.

And unlike Millar I have principles which means I'm not in the habit of giving money to liars and dopers. Why would I give money to enrich a liar like Millar? Once he starts walking the walk, then I might be willing to buy his book.

Remember according to Millar we should believe and trust in Contador, just like we should believe in Piepoli and Vino and give them the benefit of the doubt. Millar also wants to sell you London Bridge for $5.

When he stops saying stupid things and defending dopers, upholding omerta and being an apologist for dirty cycling then I might change my mind.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Note that there is nothing bad about being an upholder of omerta (broadly defined). After all, pretty much the entire pro-peloton is. Who am I to judge them? Of course, I don't judge any of them. For as much as I'd want them to come clean, I understand that they don't.

It is a double edged sword.
For a rider to know about others doping then they too would (in most likelihood) have to be doping - they are not going to talk.

For riders that are clean - then it is unlikely they know (for sure) who is doping, so what can they really say?

Also, for a rider that is clean it would become a constant negative distraction to be trying to work out who is cheating you, I can understand why many would bury their heads in the sand and not comment.

The term "(upholder of) omerta" is, though little nuanced, nonetheless usefull in as far as it facilitates the discussion.

The underlying discussion was of course about whether DM is really naive/ignorant or whether he's deliberately and knowingly not telling us all he really knows/thinks about doping in cycling (and thereby at least to some degree upholding the omerta).

I would welcome others interpretation of the book and in particular if they spotted something that does not make sense or is indeed downright false.

But I guess we agree that this discussion is somewhat circular, since we (I and benotti) haven't read the book, and your point is exactly that reading the book will allow us to refine our opinion and bring more nuance into the discussion (which is a valid point, by all means).

We also seem to agree that labeling DM as either naive or as an upholder of omerta is pretty much a matter of taste/opinion and we may even agree that there is a continuum there, from extremely naive to an extreme upholder of omerta, and that DM might be somewhere in the middle. (?)

If the guy refuses to talk, then he upholds Omerta.
If the guy thinks the situation is getting cleaner, that may be right, wrong, naive, ignorant, wishful thinking - but is not Omerta.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't need to listen to Justin Bieber to know that his music is manufactured dross designed to appeal to 13 year old girls who don't know any better. You don't need to read Millar's biography to know that he is a liar who will say anything to make himself look good to gullible but naive fanboys and apologists.


And unlike Millar I have principles which means I'm not in the habit of giving money to liars and dopers. Why would I give money to enrich a liar like Millar? Once he starts walking the walk, then I might be willing to buy his book.

Remember according to Millar we should believe and trust in Contador, just like we should believe in Piepoli and Vino and give them the benefit of the doubt. Millar also wants to sell you London Bridge for $5.

If you were staying true to your 'principles' you would point out that Justin Bieber is a fraud and liar for claiming that he is a teenager when you know for a fact he is 48.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I think you're admitting more than you'd be wise to 'doc'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think you're admitting more than you'd be wise to 'doc'.

It's ok - I will bow to your expertise on Justin Bieber.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Bowing makes a change from you being on your knees before Millar and Vaughters.

I can understand why you like Bieber though. He's very much your type - slick PR, hair obsessed and nothing of any substance. Just your kind of guy. He'd fit right in at Garmin.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Bowing makes a change from you being on your knees before Millar and Vaughters.

Really - where have I bowed to Millar or JV? Oh thats right I haven't.

But of course I disagreed with much of your assessments on JV and Millar (but not Justin) so of course if I am not with you, I must be against you.

I can understand why you like Bieber though. He's very much your type - slick PR, hair obsessed and nothing of any substance. Just your kind of guy. He'd fit right in at Garmin.

As I said, I will bow to your expertise on Bieber.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I said you were kneeling not bowing. And there is no need for you to be so shy about your Bieber-love or your Vaughters love.

If you don't like having your views/opinions twisted and misrepresented then I suggest you stop twisting/misrepresenting the views of others when they disagree with you. Your choice.