DAVID MILLAR and the B O A

[samerics]

Yep, Hoy and his tree trunk thighs must be diet and science of training!

More of the hypocrisy that permeates cycling.

Why are we still discussing Riccó? He has gotten 12 years and is now history. If he can blow the lid on where he got his dope, who introduced him to it, who prepared him etc great, but he wont. He is Italian. He is making threats to keep those in the know that he still wants a cut/job/some action.

Let's now talk about J-Rod and Katusha, Gilbert, Bruyneels boys, OPQS and all these others who are still rubbing fans faces in it!

So Chris Hoy is a doper now???? My, we do have some sources don't we? Unless you are talking out of your **** again....

 

[BroDeal]

Hi Hog, nice of you to join us in this English lesson.

However I will defer to Brodeal for his interpretation of hearsay first, as it is clearly at odds with the rest of the world.

I don't have an interpretation of the word "hearsay." I know what it is and what it is not. Unlike you, I don't throw out words when I do not know the meaning of them because people who do that are morons.

If you can't wait until then, google is apparently quite good at that sort of thing.

You need to take your own suggestion.

 

[andy1234]

I don't have an interpretation of the word "hearsay." I know what it is and what it is not. Unlike you, I don't throw out words when I do not know the meaning of them because people who do that are morons.



You need to take your own suggestion.

Why don't you tell me what YOU think hearsay is?

Let me help you put it into context.

A rider complaining about a convicted doper is a complaint based on fact.
A rider complaining about a suspected doper, based on rumour, is a complaint based on hearsay.

Some riders are reasonable enough to know the difference between fact and hearsay, hence them making no comment about the "90%" of dopers who have not been caught"

Of course you seem to have a different understanding of the word, so why don't you enlighten us?

 

[RHRH19861986]

As much as i say, at least David Millar came back to cycling with some sort of anti-doping approach, I disagree with this ruling. There should be some sort of lifetime deterrents to the cheats who try to ruin sport. Darren Campbell and Bradley Wiggins are the real guys busting their *** putting on a show. To be honest, I give up on all of this. I am frustrated to hell.

I honestly don´t think Millar has changed anything since starting his career back in 1997. The only thing he has changed is his speaking about certain things. For Millar, it´s all about himself, and his show.

Their was a clean Moncoutie of Cofidis, and everyone speaks about Millar. There´s a clean Stetina at Garmin, but everyone speaks about Millar.

Millar has been there all the time, from the Festina era trough his Cofidis case and the Fuentes case, then CERA and so on... He never stopped talking. He called Gaumont a "nutter" and confessed then. He speaks permanently, also when not being asked. His performance has weakened, he has become old. I´m looking forward to the day when Millar stops as an active athlet, but I fear he will continue as a DS or something like that.
Himself and guys like his buddy Armstrong have done so much damage to cycling, but Millar is the much bigger hypocrite than Armstrong. Armstrong would never have had the hypocrisy to mention he fights for a clean cycling, he just defended himself when others accused him of doping.

Hope we won´t see Millar in London in August.

 

[BroDeal]

Let me help you put it into context.

A rider complaining about a convicted doper is a complaint based on fact.
A rider complaining about a suspected doper, based on rumour, is a complaint based on hearsay.

Some riders are reasonable enough to know the difference between fact and hearsay, hence them making no comment about the "90%" of dopers who have not been caught"

So you finally decided to google the word and are now trying to introduce new facts to justify your non-sensical use of the word. Sorry, but it won't work. No one mentioned Hoy calling out other by name based on rumors. That is you retroactively making stuff up .
The statement that caused you to pull "hearsay" out of your booty was a simple one that amounts to him scapegoating a few people who get caught and have paid the price while he knows damn well that the majority are not caught and continue to race unmolested. Someone gets caught, is banned, apologizes, comes back, becomes an anti-doping spokesman of sorts, presumably is racing clean, and there is Hoy complaining about their inclusion. Where is his outrage about all those who raced through the same era and were not caught? He does not have to name names but he cannot be unaware that the majority of riders were doping at the time that Millar was. It is especially ironic coming from a track cyclist who has to know that steroid use in that discipline is rampant. People laugh when they see the ludicrous physiques of many track cyclist in the same way they laugh when looking at body builders. Sorry, but riders racing against people with (as Benotti69 put it) unnatural tree trunk thighs complaining about the inclusion of a road cyclist who doped years ago and paid a stiff price strikes me as funny as well as pathetic.

 

[BroDeal]

I honestly don´t think Millar has changed anything since starting his career back in 1997. The only thing he has changed is his speaking about certain things. For Millar, it´s all about himself, and his show.

This.

Millar is like Joe Papp. It's all about promoting themselves. The morality of something does not enter into the equation. It's just about whether the rubes will believe it.

 

[RHRH19861986]

This.

Millar is like Joe Papp. It's all about promoting themselves. The morality of something does not enter into the equation. It's just about whether the rubes will believe it.

Exactly...
The interesting thing about Papp, however, is his palmares compared to the fact he admitted to have used about 100 different PEDs.

 

[BroDeal]

Exactly...
The interesting thing about Papp, however, is his palmares compared to the fact he admitted to have used about 100 different PEDs.

Donkeys don't always get changed into race horses. Sometimes the best they can hope for is to be turned into a mule, even if it is only a drug mule.

 

[andy1234]

So you finally decided to google the word and are now trying to introduce new facts to justify your non-sensical use of the word. Sorry, but it won't work. No one mentioned Hoy calling out other by name based on rumors. That is you retroactively making stuff up .
The statement that caused you to pull "hearsay" out of your booty was a simple one that amounts to him scapegoating a few people who get caught and have paid the price while he knows damn well that the majority are not caught and continue to race unmolested. Someone gets caught, is banned, apologizes, comes back, becomes an anti-doping spokesman of sorts, presumably is racing clean, and there is Hoy complaining about their inclusion. Where is his outrage about all those who raced through the same era and were not caught? He does not have to name names but he cannot be unaware that the majority of riders were doping at the time that Millar was. It is especially ironic coming from a track cyclist who has to know that steroid use in that discipline is rampant. People laugh when they see the ludicrous physiques of many track cyclist in the same way they laugh when looking at body builders. Sorry, but riders racing against people with (as Benotti69 put it) unnatural tree trunk thighs complaining about the inclusion of a road cyclist who doped years ago and paid a stiff price strikes me as funny as well as pathetic.

You are clearly confused.

This is your post, remember?

"You have to love how riders complain about those who were caught and paid a price but do not complain much about the 90% of dopers who have not been been caught and are still riding. It is especially funny for track cycling, where the steroid use is as visually obvious as it is for body building."

Hmmm, how are you identifying those "90% of dopers who have not been been caught"
How is Hoy or anyone else supposed to identify those "90% of dopers who have not been been caught"

Do you have evidence of those dopers? Or are you basing your accusations on probability and speculation?
A convicted doper has had that distinction made. They ARE a doper, hence the willingness to discuss them as such.

Let me repeat it again for you...
Reasonable people, Intelligent people, the F***ing legal system, recognise the pitfalls of making statements about people that have no factual basis.

Now if you have facts about those "90% of dopers who have not been been caught", many individuals and organisations would appreciate the benefit of your knowledge.

If it's just hearsay, I suggest you follow the lead of Hoy and others, and don't embarrass yourself.

 

[happychappy]

This.

Millar is like Joe Papp. It's all about promoting themselves. The morality of something does not enter into the equation. It's just about whether the rubes will believe it.

And they do. Oh, how they believe it.
They (in Britain at least) believe whatever the little snake comes out with so much it reminds me of a religion. I'm not just talking forums, I'm talking actual people I know "in real life".
Their faces light up when talking about Saint Millar, their little eyes glaze over they have the very same look the Jehovah's Witnesses that knock at my door have. Very creepy.
Yet these are the same people that spit venom against the "foreigners" that get caught.

 

[BroDeal]

Moronic attempt to deflect while avoiding the issue deleted.

Once again, Francis, you attempt to argue by putting words in other people's mouths. No one mentioned anything about naming names or accusing individuals.

 

[andy1234]

Once again, Francis, you attempt to argue by putting words in other people's mouths. No one mentioned anything about naming names or accusing individuals.

Once again Bubba, you're talking sh*te.

I didn't mention calling out riders by name. That was all you.

However, slandering individuals, or whole groups, its the same thing.
If the rumours are unsubstantiated, it's hearsay.


let me quote you again, so that you don't get confused, again.

"You have to love how riders complain about those who were caught and paid a price but do not complain much about the 90% of dopers who have not been been caught and are still riding"

How does Hoy or anyone else for that matter, address this 90% ?
"Grrr, I am angry about these people, that I don't know for sure are doping, but they must be out there, grrr.

Im sure its very frustrating to an internet warrior like yourself, but in the world of genuine consequence, reasonable people deal in fact.

If you can't understand that, then its no surprise that the word hearsay had you lashing out like confused child.

Maybe the next time you accuse someone of not understanding their own choice of words, you should check your own lack of comprehension first.

 

[joe_papp]

This.

Millar is like Joe Papp. It's all about promoting themselves. The morality of something does not enter into the equation. It's just about whether the rubes will believe it.

I strongly resent being compared to Millar. I admitted the full scope of what I did, how I did it, who I helped do it, and why, and went out of my way to note that, while the doping culture in cycling at the time certainly encouraged it, I wasn't helpless and didn't saddle my team or the UCI with the majority of the blame. Contrast w/:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/scotland/8785907.stm

Exactly...
The interesting thing about Papp, however, is his palmares compared to the fact he admitted to have used about 100 different PEDs.

I don't really see why you think it's cute to imply failure of the doping because I didn't suddenly become capable of racing in the Tour. It's rather simple, actually, and to mock the "result" of doping on my results is to engage in petty personal attacks that make me think you're more interested in snark than fact.

Obviously the doping products worked because they allowed me to become competitive and finish top-20 overall in UCI stage race(s) that previously I'd only been able to win stages in - even if they were 2.2 and not (GT) or 2.HC. The most profound effects were causing radical reduction in overall body mass (both fat and lean mass) w/o a corresponding/equal decrease in muscular strength/power; enhancing aerobic capacity; and improving recovery.

If a rider with greater natural aerobic capacity than I possessed used doping as I did - Christian Vande Velde, for example (simply an example and not an accusation) - it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect to see them finish high-up overall in the Tour. Likewise, if I had their natural talent to begin with, it might've been me transforming myself from a pursuiter to mtn. domestique to Tour "contender."

Donkeys don't always get changed into race horses. Sometimes the best they can hope for is to be turned into a mule, even if it is only a drug mule.

And nevertheless you remain the a$$.

 

[WD-40.]

Obviously the doping products worked... The most profound effects were causing radical reduction in overall body mass (both fat and lean mass) w/o a corresponding/equal decrease in muscular strength/power; enhancing aerobic capacity; and improving recovery.

Hi Joe, just out of interest was the reduction in body mass due to cortico steroids?

Also I don't mean to sound silly here but did you or anyone you of whom you know of ever experience significant facial changes that could be attributed to PED use? Many here seem adamant that HGH will cause the bone structure of the face to become distorted but I have not seen anything remotely conclusive to support this assertion.

Cheers

 

[joe_papp]

Hi Joe, just out of interest was the reduction in body mass due to cortico steroids?

Also I don't mean to sound silly here but did you or anyone you of whom you know of ever experience significant facial changes that could be attributed to PED use? Many here seem adamant that HGH will cause the bone structure of the face to become distorted but I have not seen anything remotely conclusive to support this assertion.

Cheers

Yes - the cortico's ate-up my muscles and reduced me to a stick. The slimmed me down so much that (and I only learned this recently) several of my friends who weren't cyclists at the time thought I looked unhealthily skinny.

No - I never experienced the bone/bone-plate growth that's supposed to be a risk of HGH-use, but I also didn't use massive amounts of it (always "just enough" or the least necessary). However, one of my teammates definitely showed "signs" of those facial characteristics associated w/ use of a lot of exogenous HGH. Have no idea if that was the case - what actually happened - but he certainly looked like he was presenting signs of excessive consumption of HGH. He was the only one though, so not sure how correct the allegations are that it causes those changes...

EDIT: to clarify, the teammate above to whom I refer competed at the top-level of European pro cycling and was a GT-stage winner before I rode with him, so the HGH-use to which I'm referring is not limited to the year(s) we shared in common.

 

[Benotti69]

So Chris Hoy is a doper now???? My, we do have some sources don't we? Unless you are talking out of your **** again....

I suppose his thighs are prosthetics, because they are not natural that's for sure!

 

[andy1234]

I suppose his thighs are prosthetics, because they are not natural that's for sure!

They may not be natural for someone who sits on theer ar3e all day, but nothing unusual for a rider who has spent more than 12 years concentrating solely on sprint disciplines.

Besides, pumped up during competition, and from the right angle, most people can look big on camera.

Ordinarily Hoy's legs look like a world class sprinter, nothing more nothing less.

March 2012

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is an argument that will never end as long as some people are willing to stick to the "never tested positive so he must be clean" rationale despite all the evidence to the contrary. If one has the brains to contrast the number of topend racers who ever test positive (hint: very few) with the number of same level riders who are implicated or caught up in police investigations (hint: s#it loads) then it becomes crystal clear that the UCI is better at protecting it's stars than WADA is at catching them.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hoy's legs look like all the other "world class sprinters" not because he is clean but because he is on pretty much the same program as the others.
Your opinion may vary.

 

[RHRH19861986]

I don't really see why you think it's cute to imply failure of the doping because I didn't suddenly become capable of racing in the Tour. It's rather simple, actually, and to mock the "result" of doping on my results is to engage in petty personal attacks that make me think you're more interested in snark than fact.

Obviously the doping products worked because they allowed me to become competitive and finish top-20 overall in UCI stage race(s) that previously I'd only been able to win stages in - even if they were 2.2 and not (GT) or 2.HC. The most profound effects were causing radical reduction in overall body mass (both fat and lean mass) w/o a corresponding/equal decrease in muscular strength/power; enhancing aerobic capacity; and improving recovery.

If a rider with greater natural aerobic capacity than I possessed used doping as I did - Christian Vande Velde, for example (simply an example and not an accusation) - it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect to see them finish high-up overall in the Tour. Likewise, if I had their natural talent to begin with, it might've been me transforming myself from a pursuiter to mtn. domestique to Tour "contender."

First, thanks for writing.

But what made me critisizing you is the fact that more than 100 products are an incredible amount (if you count like EPO Nr 1, HGH 2, Cortisone 3, and so on, instead of counting maybe EPO NeoRecormon 1, EPO Eprex 2, ...).

You seem to be a rather intelligent pro, so why did you do that after seeing that this products won´t take you to world class level? Your results haven´t been bad, but the money you had to spend on this mass of products could possibly have been more than the prize money and contracts they brought you.

I for myself just am cycling fan and fascinated by this sports also because it has become so unpopular in public due to the widespread use of PEDs. I have used Testosterone Enanthat (in the U.S., the guys rather take Cypionate, as far as I know) and thyroid hormones T3 and T4 for bodybuilding reasons, I started aged 22, and now, four years later, my endogenous production of both hormones is low, so I have to take Testogel for the rest of life (which is not a problem) and continue small doses of T3 and T4. If it had been cheaper, I surely would have used HGH, too.

So I´ve seen that taking hormones will lead to the situation that it will never be the same as it was before (even though I used Tamoxifen after the Testo cycles).
I don´t even want to critizise you too much, because I imagine it´s much worse for you, when you took many different hormones. But like I knew what I was doing, you probably also did know.

It was just the number of 100 which made me wonder. You now could argue that I didn´t get any money for what I was doing, whereas you did improve income.

I actually don´t regret having taken anything, and it hasn´t made me an enemy of PEDs. The experiences I´ve had were worth it, and after difficult months (low hormone levels), I can handle the long-term consequences.

As a cycling fan, however, I like
a) the riders who have taken something for years, who have been quiet, didn´t speak about this issue neither asked nor non-asked, and just do their job in which PEDs are rule, no exception (and when caught, admit to it, stop cycling and don´t speak about anything)
and b) the riders who never have taken anything.

 

[BroDeal]

This is an argument that will never end as long as some people are willing to stick to the "never tested positive so he must be clean" rationale despite all the evidence to the contrary. If one has the brains to contrast the number of topend racers who ever test positive (hint: very few) with the number of same level riders who are implicated or caught up in police investigations (hint: s#it loads) then it becomes crystal clear that the UCI is better at protecting it's stars than WADA is at catching them.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hoy's legs look like all the other "world class sprinters" not because he is clean but because he is on pretty much the same program as the others.
Your opinion may vary.

How dare you introduce a little common sense and deductive reasoning here. I don't believe it. I don't want to believe it. So I will dismiss everything that you say as hearsay. Personally I don't know what hearsay means, but since it has become the knee jerk defense used by homers, I wil use it anyway.

 

[BroDeal]

I strongly resent being compared to Millar.

Yeah, not really fair...to Millar.

 

[andy1234]

This is an argument that will never end as long as some people are willing to stick to the "never tested positive so he must be clean" rationale despite all the evidence to the contrary. If one has the brains to contrast the number of topend racers who ever test positive (hint: very few) with the number of same level riders who are implicated or caught up in police investigations (hint: s#it loads) then it becomes crystal clear that the UCI is better at protecting it's stars than WADA is at catching them.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hoy's legs look like all the other "world class sprinters" not because he is clean but because he is on pretty much the same program as the others.
Your opinion may vary.

To be fair, Im not arguing if Hoy is or isn't clean, just that basing that argument on the size of his legs is misguided.

I also don't hold any belief in the "never tested positive" statement.
My belief comes from living and working with clean world and Olympic champions.
When it comes to believing in clean performances, Its a statistic that fortunately, trumps all others.

 

[andy1234]

How dare you introduce a little common sense and deductive reasoning here. I don't believe it. I don't want to believe it. So I will dismiss everything that you say as hearsay. Personally I don't know what hearsay means, but since it has become the knee jerk defense used by homers, I wil use it anyway.

I bet you come across a lot of "homers", people who you just can't seem to see things the way you do?

Still, your common sense and deductive reasoning skills must tell you there's a common denominator.

In the meantime, try not to mock what you don't understand, it only hinders your learning curve.

 

[BroDeal]

I also don't hold any belief in the "never tested positive" statement.
My belief comes from living and working with clean world and Olympic champions.
When it comes to believing in clean performances, Its a statistic that fortunately, trumps all others.

LOL. Sounds like your special definition of hearsay.

Double LOL for someone to use word "statistic" in such a vacuous assertion.

 

[andy1234]

LOL. Sounds like your special definition of hearsay.

Double LOL for someone to use word "statistic" in such a vacuous assertion.

Since were communicating like 12 year old girls, have a ROFL from me.

Nice use of vacuous by the way, Maybe your'e not such a feckwit after all.