Dave Millar - anti doping hero

[Dr. Maserati]

Floyd talked about doping with Armstrong many times. Landis was fully aware that Armstrong was doping.[/URL] 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.

Both Landis and Hamilton were asked specific questions about whether Armstrong was doping for particular Tours - they said they did not know if he was at the Tour but that he doped before the Tour.

In other words they did not just assume he was even though they had been minding his blood and getting doping products from him.

JV was never close to LA - so sure, he knew what was going on but he probably is not in a position say that he saw LA dope.

As I said, that is what Millar clings to.

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.

No he is not.
If he was asked the question and said that he knows or believes LA is clean then you would be correct - he doesn't, when asked he says he hasn't seen LA dope and therefore does not know if LA doped.

Nor is he implying anything - his view on LA if he doped is very clear.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

You can say "no, he did not" all you want, but the meaning of Millar's words is clear, to leave open in the minds' of others the possibility that Armstrong was clean even though he knows that Armstrong is the biggest doper of the past generation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You can say "no, he did not" all you want, but the meaning of Millar's words is clear, to leave open in the minds' of others the possibility that Armstrong was clean even though he knows that Armstrong is the biggest doper of the past generation.

You're right that the words are clear, which is why it is amazing that you can say that it "leave open in the minds' of others the possibility that Armstrong was clean".

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.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

You're right that the words are clear, which is why it is amazing that you can say that it "leave open in the minds' of others the possibility that Armstrong was clean".

From Page 266 of his book:

I explained my reasoning. All you have come up with is, "No, he did not." Now you want to start anew with his quote. Maybe going in endless circles with Polish is how you amuse yourself, but I am not Polish.

 

[simoni]

As if Millar could possibly say that Armstrong definitely doped in a book.

Even if he does know for certain (and he probably does) its simply not possible for him to say it - the full weight of Lance Inc. on his shoulders is probably something he could do without right now.

The real world is a place where its practically impossible to be 100% honest when speaking in public. Millar's book isn't the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It never could be. Anyone who thinks that what he knows and what he writes are the same thing is an idiot. Sad but true.

Flame him if you like but would you open that can of worms if you were in Millar's shoes?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I explained my reasoning. All you have come up with is, "No, he did not." Now you want to start anew with his quote. Maybe going in endless circles with Polish is how you amuse yourself, but I am not Polish.

I didn't just say "No, he did not", I also included the actual quote which in no way says that Millar "leave open in the minds' of others the possibility that Armstrong was clean".

The only reason you feel you are going round in circles is because you are trying to justify reading more in to what he wrote then he did actually write - stop chasing your tail.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

I didn't just say "No, he did not", I also included the actual quote which in no way says that Millar "leave open in the minds' of others the possibility that Armstrong was clean".

The only reason you feel you are going round in circles is because you are trying to justify reading more in to what he wrote then he did actually write - stop chasing your tail.

Well excuse me for passing what he said through a filter of common sense.

Close down half the threads in The Clinic. We should all take what is said by people with a history of lying at face value. In no way would such people mislead us. They would not think of it. Never. Never. Never. Ever. Never!

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

As if Millar could possibly say that Armstrong definitely doped in a book.

Even if he does know for certain (and he probably does) its simply not possible for him to say it - the full weight of Lance Inc. on his shoulders is probably something he could do without right now.

The real world is a place where its practically impossible to be 100% honest when speaking in public. Millar's book isn't the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It never could be. Anyone who thinks that what he knows and what he writes are the same thing is an idiot. Sad but true.

Flame him if you like but would you open that can of worms if you were in Millar's shoes?

No one forced Millar to say anything about Armstron at all. He did not need to go down the road of claiming that it would be unforgiveable if Armstrong is lying when Millar knows very well that Armstrong IS lying.

 

[veganrob]

If Millar really wanted to be truthful while still protecting his own *** he could have merely said "nearly everyone doped back then". Ullrich admitted it, why can't Dave?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well excuse me for passing what he said through a filter of common sense.

Close down half the threads in The Clinic. We should all take what is said by people with a history of lying at face value. In no way would such people mislead us. They would not think of it. Never. Never. Never. Ever. Never!

Ah, your first line says you used common sense but I see that rather than applying that common sense to what he said - you applied to what you wanted him to say.

As much as you may believe it, your tail is not getting closer.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

As if Millar could possibly say that Armstrong definitely doped in a book.

Even if he does know for certain (and he probably does) its simply not possible for him to say it - the full weight of Lance Inc. on his shoulders is probably something he could do without right now.

The real world is a place where its practically impossible to be 100% honest when speaking in public. Millar's book isn't the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It never could be. Anyone who thinks that what he knows and what he writes are the same thing is an idiot. Sad but true.

Flame him if you like but would you open that can of worms if you were in Millar's shoes?

Exactly. People are astonishingly unrealistic about what can be sensibly said in public IMO. The way I read it, the word "unforgivable" contains Millar's true opinion.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Rominger said classics can be won clean but GT's can not?

 

[Angliru]

If Millar really wanted to be truthful while still protecting his own *** he could have merely said "nearly everyone doped back then". Ullrich admitted it, why can't Dave?

I thought Ullrich only implied it in his statement. I don't recall an outright admission.

 

[Angliru]

Rominger said classics can be won clean but GT's can not?

That was what I read in an excerpt from Millar's book published either in VeloNews or Pro Cycling.

 

[Lucky1]

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

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

Again you make assumptions that are simply incorrect. At no place in this thread (or Millar in his book) suggested that the Saunier Duval riders were caught because of Millar. What Millar says, as I recounted here, is that he alerted the authorities before he left Saunier Duval. The fact that they were not caught until TdF2008 may be because of all sorts of reasons (e.g. maybe the authorities didn't act strongly enough based on what was reported to them, maybe they didn't have the further evidence they needed, etc.). If you want to criticise those posting about the book fine - but you really should read the book first and make the criticisms on the basis of factually correct statements.

 

[veganrob]

I thought Ullrich only implied it in his statement. I don't recall an outright admission.

Yes, and that is what I meant.

 

[Benotti69]

Again you make assumptions that are simply incorrect. At no place in this thread (or Millar in his book) suggested that the Saunier Duval riders were caught because of Millar. What Millar says, as I recounted here, is that he alerted the authorities before he left Saunier Duval. The fact that they were not caught until TdF2008 may be because of all sorts of reasons (e.g. maybe the authorities didn't act strongly enough based on what was reported to them, maybe they didn't have the further evidence they needed, etc.). If you want to criticise those posting about the book fine - but you really should read the book first and make the criticisms on the basis of factually correct statements.

He rats out Suanier Duvall to the UCI and expects something to be done? Oh dear, that is naive at best.

Inside tells all and UCI dont react! Ah well. doesn't matter but it'll make a great anecdote in his fight for a cleaner sport.

Ricco and Peipoli tested positive because of the French authorities nothing to do with UCI and Millar.

Reading the book one wont discover the actual facts.

 

[sniper]

He rats out Suanier Duvall to the UCI and expects something to be done? Oh dear, that is naive at best.

Inside tells all and UCI dont react! Ah well. doesn't matter but it'll make a great anecdote in his fight for a cleaner sport.

Ricco and Peipoli tested positive because of the French authorities nothing to do with UCI and Millar.

Reading the book one wont discover the actual facts.

+2
All this whining about how one is not supposed to have an opinion until one reads the book is beyond me.
Why read the book in the first place if it is clear from almost all DM's public appearances that all one is gonna find is omerta and more omerta. omerta in disguise.
DM? Now HERE is a guy that needed to sell a book.

 

[ultimobici]

+2
All this whining about how one is not supposed to have an opinion until one reads the book is beyond me.
Why read the book in the first place if it is clear from almost all DM's public appearances that all one is gonna find is omerta and more omerta. omerta in disguise.
DM? Now HERE is a guy that needed to sell a book.

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?

 

[sniper]

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?

point taken.

to the part in bold: didn't i just say so quite clearly in my previous post? Indeed, it won't make any difference to my opinion, in as far as my opinion is that doping is still rampant in the peloton, even though DM is trying to tell us otherwise.
So yes, your impression is quite right.
But anyway, the discussion was more sophisticated before I stepped in (for which apologies), so I'll step out again.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

+2
All this whining about how one is not supposed to have an opinion until one reads the book is beyond me.
Why read the book in the first place if it is clear from almost all DM's public appearances that all one is gonna find is omerta and more omerta. omerta in disguise.
DM? Now HERE is a guy that needed to sell a book.

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

He rats out Suanier Duvall to the UCI and expects something to be done? Oh dear, that is naive at best.

Inside tells all and UCI dont react! Ah well. doesn't matter but it'll make a great anecdote in his fight for a cleaner sport.

Ricco and Peipoli tested positive because of the French authorities nothing to do with UCI and Millar.

Reading the book one wont discover the actual facts.

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.

 

[sniper]

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.

to the part in bold: touché

To the underlined part: I find it rather naive to believe DM is naive or unknowing. After all, how long has he been in the peloton?
Dishonest? Not necessarily either.
I'd go for "unwilling and/or afraid to spill the bigger beans", and "not really interested in cleaning up cycling at all costs". (for which he's not to blame, by the way. i understand he doesn't want to jeopardize his own position in cycling.)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

to the part in bold: touché

To the underlined part: I find it rather naive to believe DM is naive or unknowing.
How long has he been in the peloton?

So you are basing your opinion on Millar on the amount of time he has spent looking at another riders ass? He is a cyclist, not a scholar.

You "find it rather naive to believe DM is naive or unknowing" - what do you base that on?

It is one thing the book explains well and Millar goes in to detail on - how his opinion has evolved and changed as the circumstances have evolved and changed. It is easy to pick up on some comment Millar makes and look at it in isolation.

 

[veganrob]

So you are basing your opinion on Millar on the amount of time he has spent looking at another riders ass? He is a cyclist, not a scholar.

You "find it rather naive to believe DM is naive or unknowing" - what do you base that on?

It is one thing the book explains well and Millar goes in to detail on - how his opinion has evolved and changed as the circumstances have evolved and changed. It is easy to pick up on some comment Millar makes and look at it in isolation.

Writing this book after all the stupid public comments DM has previously made appears to be nothing more than revisionist history.
I used to be a fan of Dave before and after his comeback, then, no.
Your staunch defending of him has convinced me to read it so I will withhold comment till then though.
Thanks

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Writing this book after all the stupid public comments DM has previously made appears to be nothing more than revisionist history.
I used to be a fan of Dave before and after his comeback, then, no.
Your staunch defending of him has convinced me to read it so I will withhold comment till then though.
Thanks

I am sure some of his opinions have been made with the benefit of hindsight - however you can follow the thread of how he comes to his opinion.

I was never a fan of Millar - and his book does nothing to change that view, but at least now I have a better understanding of the guy.

Also, I am not defending Millar.
But some of the comments here have been addressed in the book and yet some choose to ignore that to hold their opinion.

Millar is (IMO) a conflicted guy and some of what he says seems almost implausible, which as I have said begs the question is he being dishonest or naive/hopefully optimistic.
He certainly is not "an anti-doping hero" and appears to have a bloated sense of his impact/role within the sport but if you read his story with an open mind then it becomes apparent where that need for acceptance comes from.

I certainly would be interested in reading your opinion when you read it.