DAVID MILLAR and the B O A

[Dr. Maserati]

He is still protecting the omerta. Dont be fooled. He was only hanging people out to dry that suited him. Look at his comments in a recent interview with the BBC for 30 mins where he was asked to clarify his comments in the book about armstrong. He refused to clarfy anything and actually said nothing bad about armstrong and just played the politics with it. Even with the contador situation he stood up for him right from the world championships and said he has to be riding clean cause he is always on a super day. He said a doper always goes from one exterme to the other the bad days to the sublime ones.
What a load of nonsense and spin.

He should be left nowhere near an olympics and more countries should do what italy do with the worlds.

You don't protect Omerta - you observe or adhere to it, so speaking up is not observing omerta.

I am wondering what Millar comments made that the BBC requested clarification? He said if LA doped it is "unforgivable" - which is unequivocal.
I did a search for BBC interview but haven't been able to find anything of that length. Can you link or find it?

 

[Benotti69]

Millar disses Armstrong but wont call him a doper....

http://www.espn.co.uk/cycling/sport/story/95057.html

..considers Contador a physical freak! but if the sport has shown anything it is that physical freaks is another phrase for dopers.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Millar disses Armstrong but wont call him a doper....

http://www.espn.co.uk/cycling/sport/story/95057.html

..considers Contador a physical freak! but if the sport has shown anything it is that physical freaks is another phrase for dopers.

I know it wasn't you that made the earlier comment but that is far from suggesting this:

Look at his comments in a recent interview with the BBC for 30 mins where he was asked to clarify his comments in the book about armstrong. He refused to clarfy anything and actually said nothing bad about armstrong and just played the politics with it.

 

[roundabout]

You don't protect Omerta - you observe or adhere to it, so speaking up is not observing omerta.

I am wondering what Millar comments made that the BBC requested clarification? He said if LA doped it is "unforgivable" - which is unequivocal.
I did a search for BBC interview but haven't been able to find anything of that length. Can you link or find it?

Unequivocal? What does Millar mean when he says "doped"?

If LA admits to doping then it is "unforgivable"

or is it

If sufficient evidence of doping is found during the investigation then it is "unforgivable"

or is it

if LA doped and isn't caught then he is going to have to live with his cheating for the rest of his life

When a rider of the stature of Armstrong has had a doping shadow over him for years the best the supposed reformed doper can come up with is if he "doped" then it's unforgivable.

Typical lame-*** line that could have been written/said 10, 15, 20 years ago.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Unequivocal? What does Millar mean when he says "doped"?

If LA admits to doping then it is "unforgivable"

or is it

If sufficient evidence of doping is found during the investigation then it is "unforgivable"

or is it

if LA doped and isn't caught then he is going to have to live with his cheating for the rest of his life

When a rider of the stature of Armstrong has had a doping shadow over him for years the best the supposed reformed doper can come up with is if he "doped" then it's unforgivable.

Typical lame-*** line that could have been written/said 10, 15, 20 years ago.

I really have no idea what you are asking - except that your last line indicates that you already have your mind made up.

The Millar quote was in the piece linked by 'Benotti69' :

"If he did dope, after all he said and done, then it would be unforgivable."

 

[roundabout]

I really have no idea what you are asking - except that your last line indicates that you already have your mind made up.

The Millar quote was in the piece linked by 'Benotti69' :

No, my last line indicates that when you come down to the essentials the oft-quoted (mostly by you for some reason beyond my comprehension) Millar line comes down to him not defending Armstrong when the game will be up.

That's it. That's the only "unequivocal" thing. I would say that it's a rational stance to take but not something that sets him apart.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, my last line indicates that when you come down to the essentials the oft-quoted (mostly by you for some reason beyond my comprehension) Millar line comes down to him not defending Armstrong when the game will be up.

That's it. That's the only "unequivocal" thing. I would say that it's a rational stance to take but not something that sets him apart.

The reason I often quote that line is that it shows he is not upholding Omerta as is often quoted here, usually by people who have not even bothered to read what he says.

 

[BroDeal]

No, my last line indicates that when you come down to the essentials the oft-quoted (mostly by you for some reason beyond my comprehension) Millar line comes down to him not defending Armstrong when the game will be up.

That's it. That's the only "unequivocal" thing. I would say that it's a rational stance to take but not something that sets him apart.

It's more than that. Millar is lying to protect Armstrong when he says, "if Armstrong doped." Millar knows that Armstrong doped. He is on a team filled with riders who doped alongside Armstrong. His team is owned by a man who not only doped along with Armstrong but says that he has been open and honest with his team about it. Millar is deliberately sowing doubt in the public's mind about Armstrong's doping.

Keep in mind that this is the doosh who called Landis disgusting for telling the truth to the media. Millar's anti-doping stance is phony. It is nothing more an attention seeking ploy used to keep himself in the media spotlight.

 

[roundabout]

The reason I often quote that line is that it shows he is not upholding Omerta as is often quoted here, usually by people who have not even bothered to read what he says.

He is not upholding Omerta because for him Armstrong's doping will be unforgivable once it has been proven?

Or is it because the quote had Armstrong's name in it and something that can be interpreted as a strong stance on the doping issue if one was to skim over the passage in the book.

Appearances and all that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He is not upholding Omerta because for him Armstrong's doping will be unforgivable once it has been proven?

What?

Or is it because the quote had Armstrong's name in it and something that can be interpreted as a strong stance on the doping issue if one was to skim over the passage in the book.

Appearances and all that.

What passage? What book?

I have read what Millar says - often it is contradictory, naive, self serving and difficult to follow - but what you are writing I cannot follow.

Brodeals response was pretty close - but Millar is not lying to protect Armstrong, he is probably lying to protect himself - because if the people who were on LAs team and are now on Garmin told him about LAs doping, they would also tell what happens if you cross him.

 

[Caruut]

It's more than that. Millar is lying to protect Armstrong when he says, "if Armstrong doped." Millar knows that Armstrong doped. He is on a team filled with riders who doped alongside Armstrong. His team is owned by a man who not only doped along with Armstrong but says that he has been open and honest with his team about it. Millar is deliberately sowing doubt in the public's mind about Armstrong's doping.

Keep in mind that this is the doosh who called Landis disgusting for telling the truth to the media. Millar's anti-doping stance is phony. It is nothing more an attention seeking ploy used to keep himself in the media spotlight.

It would probably cost Millar an awful lot of money and an awfully long time in courtrooms to accuse Armstrong of that. If it were gonna cost me that much to possibly not even bring him down (how many guys have spoken but to no avail), I'd say definitely not worth it. Lance has some bloody good lawyers.

 

[BroDeal]

It would probably cost Millar an awful lot of money and an awfully long time in courtrooms to accuse Armstrong of that. If it were gonna cost me that much to possibly not even bring him down (how many guys have spoken but to no avail), I'd say definitely not worth it. Lance has some bloody good lawyers.

No one forced him to say anything. He could have kept his mouth shut. Instead he pushed his "if Armstrong doped" charade on the public.

 

[thehog]

It's more than that. Millar is lying to protect Armstrong when he says, "if Armstrong doped." Millar knows that Armstrong doped. He is on a team filled with riders who doped alongside Armstrong. His team is owned by a man who not only doped along with Armstrong but says that he has been open and honest with his team about it. Millar is deliberately sowing doubt in the public's mind about Armstrong's doping.

Keep in mind that this is the doosh who called Landis disgusting for telling the truth to the media. Millar's anti-doping stance is phony. It is nothing more an attention seeking ploy used to keep himself in the media spotlight.

Good news for Miller his book as been bought by American publishers and will be released in the US then made into a movie. Who would have thought?!!

 

[AcademyCC]

"If he did dope, after all he said and done, then it would be unforgivable."

Pretty simple IMO

1. He has used Cancer as a shield to deflect his doping repeatedly. (Unforgivable)
2. Has given millions of cancer survivors/patients false hope (Unforgivable)
3. Had profited enormously from these lies.
4. Biggest case of sporting/corporate fraud in history.

 

[AcademyCC]

One more point on whether Millar has kept the 'omerta' in his book. Hes been as honest as he feels he can without telling us everything he knows. It appears he withholds information on people he likes or is friendly with and tells all about people who have wronged him. So in that respect I think , yes, he has upheld the 'omerta'.

Re: his opinions on Armstrong

He starts off nearly in awe of Armstrong and they do apprear to have been quite good friends, if thats possible with Lance. Then at the end I think he realizes he cant go through this book without having a pop at Lance in some way. He proceeds to tell a story of him lecturing Armstrong at a function at how he could do alot more for cleaning up cycling. This just didnt make any sense.

Also

If you look at anytime someone tries to mess with Armstrong, they get attacked from every direction possible, hes just too powerful to attack from within the sport. Not in Millars interests to abuse Lance too much. This is still a major issue and undoubtedly stop other pro's speaking out against Armstrong

 

[Anonymous]

Millar should never be allowed to wear a GB jersey again, let along go to the Olympics. He's disgraced it once and should never get the chance again.

^^ This

while im fully in favour of givin riders a second chance, i think once theyve been busted they shouldnt be able to represent their national team. (i think this in all sports)

Besides, the olympics is a meh.. personally i would restrict olympic road entry to amateurs/u23 riders and not world tour riders.

 

[Benotti69]

^^ This

while im fully in favour of givin riders a second chance, i think once theyve been busted they shouldnt be able to represent their national team. (i think this in all sports)

Besides, the olympics is a meh.. personally i would restrict olympic road entry to amateurs/u23 riders and not world tour riders.

Have not bothered with the Olympics in a long time. Last thing i watched was the end 20 mins of the Women's race which Nicole Cooke won.

But the Olympics is another event over 'corporatised' (is that a word) for me and the sport seems incidental. Although there are some sports still there unbelievably like the shooting which only get an airing during the Olympics but i ant got a TV so i only get to see utube highlights if i bother to go lookee

 

[Martin318is]

I don't get all this anti-Millar stuff in this thread - although it is interesting it is coming from people who admit to assuming what he wrote in his book rather than reading it.

Whatever else can be said of him, its a bit of a stretch to claim that he supports Omerta. All the supposed evidence for it is based upon assumptions that are taken to be facts - such as the claim that he definitely has had conversations with teammates about what they saw with Lance. really? If you were someone in that position and you met David, would you really spill your guts to him? I certainly wouldn't. If those conversations didn't happen then how is it a surprise that Millar hasn't said anything about it? Thats just silly.

Read his book and you will see that there is apparently only one name that he has protected in his doping history - he refers to one rider throughout as "l'Equipier" and he apparently gave the real name to investigators at the time anyway. Everybody else who he knew to be involved in doping in his career got their name written in print, in some cases with descriptive stories of the events around their doping.

He describes the decline from naive principalled new rider to habitual doper with no guilt including using other drugs - and then the impact of it coming out and what happened to him afterwards. Given what most claim about how doping riders feel about doping, how it is done, and what happens when they are caught, he has apparently hidden nothing

He refers to his relationship with Lance throughout the book, from being the young guy on the Cofidis team just as Lance was diagnosed, through to racing against him later in his career. he also provides an interesting explanation for the decline in the civiility of their relationship, starting with Millar being the only rider that didn't wear the livestrong Oakley sunglasses that were provided to the peloton on the last stage. Millar ended up having a strong conversation with lance at the Discovery party where he expresses his disappointment with the fact that Lance took the opportunities through dominating the tour and chose to ignore the doping issue rather than doing something about it. he also says that he had always assumed that Lance was clean but that given he won all his tours in the peak of the doping era where those around him continually failed tests it was hard to believe it now and it would be one of the worst cases of doping ever if LA turned out to have doped.

Hate the guy all you like - but one question, who else is saying things this plainly in public? Contrary to the way the word has been spun in the last few years, Omerta doesn't mean protecting Lance, it means saying nothing about the practises that exist. You can make that accusation about a lot of riders but its pretty weird to claim it of Millar.

 

[thehog]

Thank-you. Most obvisously haven't read the book!

The post that everyone missed before it was hijacked was that Millar has signed US rights deal to publish the book in America along with the copyright for it to be made into a movie.

I don't get all this anti-Millar stuff in this thread - although it is interesting it is coming from people who admit to assuming what he wrote in his book rather than reading it.

Whatever else can be said of him, its a bit of a stretch to claim that he supports Omerta. All the supposed evidence for it is based upon assumptions that are taken to be facts - such as the claim that he definitely has had conversations with teammates about what they saw with Lance. really? If you were someone in that position and you met David, would you really spill your guts to him? I certainly wouldn't. If those conversations didn't happen then how is it a surprise that Millar hasn't said anything about it? Thats just silly.

Read his book and you will see that there is apparently only one name that he has protected in his doping history - he refers to one rider throughout as "l'Equipier" and he apparently gave the real name to investigators at the time anyway. Everybody else who he knew to be involved in doping in his career got their name written in print, in some cases with descriptive stories of the events around their doping.

He describes the decline from naive principalled new rider to habitual doper with no guilt including using other drugs - and then the impact of it coming out and what happened to him afterwards. Given what most claim about how doping riders feel about doping, how it is done, and what happens when they are caught, he has apparently hidden nothing

He refers to his relationship with Lance throughout the book, from being the young guy on the Cofidis team just as Lance was diagnosed, through to racing against him later in his career. he also provides an interesting explanation for the decline in the civiility of their relationship, starting with Millar being the only rider that didn't wear the livestrong Oakley sunglasses that were provided to the peloton on the last stage. Millar ended up having a strong conversation with lance at the Discovery party where he expresses his disappointment with the fact that Lance took the opportunities through dominating the tour and chose to ignore the doping issue rather than doing something about it. he also says that he had always assumed that Lance was clean but that given he won all his tours in the peak of the doping era where those around him continually failed tests it was hard to believe it now and it would be one of the worst cases of doping ever if LA turned out to have doped.

Hate the guy all you like - but one question, who else is saying things this plainly in public? Contrary to the way the word has been spun in the last few years, Omerta doesn't mean protecting Lance, it means saying nothing about the practises that exist. You can make that accusation about a lot of riders but its pretty weird to claim it of Millar.

 

[42x16ss]

I don't get all this anti-Millar stuff in this thread - although it is interesting it is coming from people who admit to assuming what he wrote in his book rather than reading it.

Whatever else can be said of him, its a bit of a stretch to claim that he supports Omerta. All the supposed evidence for it is based upon assumptions that are taken to be facts - such as the claim that he definitely has had conversations with teammates about what they saw with Lance. really? If you were someone in that position and you met David, would you really spill your guts to him? I certainly wouldn't. If those conversations didn't happen then how is it a surprise that Millar hasn't said anything about it? Thats just silly.

Read his book and you will see that there is apparently only one name that he has protected in his doping history - he refers to one rider throughout as "l'Equipier" and he apparently gave the real name to investigators at the time anyway. Everybody else who he knew to be involved in doping in his career got their name written in print, in some cases with descriptive stories of the events around their doping.

He describes the decline from naive principalled new rider to habitual doper with no guilt including using other drugs - and then the impact of it coming out and what happened to him afterwards. Given what most claim about how doping riders feel about doping, how it is done, and what happens when they are caught, he has apparently hidden nothing

He refers to his relationship with Lance throughout the book, from being the young guy on the Cofidis team just as Lance was diagnosed, through to racing against him later in his career. he also provides an interesting explanation for the decline in the civiility of their relationship, starting with Millar being the only rider that didn't wear the livestrong Oakley sunglasses that were provided to the peloton on the last stage. Millar ended up having a strong conversation with lance at the Discovery party where he expresses his disappointment with the fact that Lance took the opportunities through dominating the tour and chose to ignore the doping issue rather than doing something about it. he also says that he had always assumed that Lance was clean but that given he won all his tours in the peak of the doping era where those around him continually failed tests it was hard to believe it now and it would be one of the worst cases of doping ever if LA turned out to have doped.

Hate the guy all you like - but one question, who else is saying things this plainly in public? Contrary to the way the word has been spun in the last few years, Omerta doesn't mean protecting Lance, it means saying nothing about the practises that exist. You can make that accusation about a lot of riders but its pretty weird to claim it of Millar.

But Martin, you're destroying the delusion! Don't let facts and correct quotations get in the way of a good old fashioned witch hunt!

The tone Millar uses to describe his relationship with Armstrong changes as he explains how he found out what the man is really like. Anyone who READS the book would know this. At least Millar has the guts to say as much as he has, which is a LOT more than any of the other pro's cashing in with book deals.

 

[BroDeal]

he also says that he had always assumed that Lance was clean but that given he won all his tours in the peak of the doping era where those around him continually failed tests it was hard to believe it now and it would be one of the worst cases of doping ever if LA turned out to have doped.

I assume this book is being sold in the fiction section of bookstores because this bears no relation to reality.

 

[Martin318is]

I assume this book is being sold in the fiction section of bookstores because this bears no relation to reality.

You have zero evidence for what you are saying other than your own assumptions and biases. People say "but he lies and says he only doped once" but the reality is that in the book he details when he started, when and how and continues to refer to it up until he stopped.

He doesnt claim it was all somebody else. he steps and says that he was the one that decided to dope and he was the one that was guilty. He talks about what Paul Kimmage originally wrote about him and why and then discusses the last years when Paul got closer and started to understand what had happened and who Millar actually was.

Yes Millar doped and should not be allowed to race the Olympics. Yes, all dopers should be banned permanently. However, taking all the work he did, including reporting his teammates to the UCI and talking openly about the who and how, and turning it into "He still dopes and he supports other dopers" is just plain silly in the face of the number of interviews he has given on record and comments from other riders, etc.

 

[BroDeal]

You have zero evidence for what you are saying other than your own assumptions and biases.

I have a finely tuned bullsh!t detector, and when Millar says he assumed Armstrong was clean it goes off like the Hiroshima bomb. You would have us believe that in the early 00's, Millar was doping, he was surrounded by teammates who were doped to the eyeballs, he personally experienced the gains from EPO, he won races on dope, and yet he assumed that Armstrong was clean. Only years later, after all the other people at the top tested positive, Millar was finally able to put two and two together to figure out that maybe Armstrong doped too--but, hey, maybe he didn't but if he did then it would be one of the worst cases of doping ever. Bullsh!t. That defies common sense. Even most of the hardcore Lance fooltards that populated The Placeline have been able to accept that Armstrong must have doped, and they don't have the first hand experience that Millar has.

Millar is a liar. He continues to do what he has always done: Protect those who have not been busted while using those who have as scapegoats, which is the standard method of maintaining omerta. How else do you reconcile your faith in Millar with his description of Landis telling all as "disgusting?"

 

[Ferminal]

while im fully in favour of givin riders a second chance, i think once theyve been busted they shouldnt be able to represent their national team. (i think this in all sports)

How does that work for sports where all the competition is basically in national teams?

 

[Martin318is]

I have a finely tuned bullsh!t detector,

me too. Here's the thing, you have taken my shorthand description of Millar's comments made over several chapters and then witten all that about it... Dont argue with me. Go read the book.

Millar is a liar.

as evidenced by the fact that he is one of very VERY few athletes to respond to a doping allegation by immediately saying, "yes, I did it, here's how and here is who was involved". Yes he cheated but you have no evidence whatsoever other than your clear anger for any of the comments that you are posting as "truth"

How else do you reconcile your faith in Millar with his description of Landis telling all as "disgusting?"

Easy, he was already very angry with Landis for claiming innocence and wasting supporter's money for all those years. When he made that comment it was in that context and given that he knew White he was most likely of the belief that White hadn't doped. Remember that David himself knew several riders who had performed well and definitely had NOT doped. And once again you are reacting to a single sentence. Like I said, hate the guy if you want but dont preach gospel from blank pages