Is Millar really clean now?

[Ferminal]

That's a good point. When riders don't immediately condemn other riders after a positive, it can also be because they know the system is not perfect. That is, you can get caught if you're clean, especially on these substances (as they are not natural).

I also read somewhere in this topic that doping would result in 10% gain. No way. That would mean Millar would ride 52 km/h instead of 47 km/h when using doping. Not possible these days.

Especially when you consider Koos Moerenhout, who is clean without a shadow of a doubt, can finish 6th in the World time trials. Moerenhout had an anonymous career until some years ago, when finally he could consistently deliver the results that we expected of him, as he was very talented.

So yes, there may still be doping going on, but not in the 10% region. It will probably give the edge among the top competitors, but this is no '96 anymore.

That would mean no one would be blood doping - EPO and its substitutes or transfusions at all, because that's what gives the 10-15% boost.

There's nothing to suggest EPO use in general, and transfusions amongst GT riders has fallen away in the past 5 years.

Going by his TT efforts I would be more inclined to say he's "clean", he only puts in these golden TTs once every 12-18months. The rest of the time he's a run of the mill top tenner.

But then you just look at him following Cuddles and Contador up Ventoux and you're straight back to the real world.

 

[Arnout]

Am not saying that he isnt clean but how can you say any cyclist is 'clean without a shadow of a doubt?'

Looking at a combination of talent, results, result evolution and personality I can say he is clean for 100%. No, I have no scientific proof, but his reaction to the Landis Tour (he was on the same team) said enough. He didn't accuse anybody, he didn't defend anybody, he just was so depressed that it could happen. And it was genuine.

 

[Arnout]

That would mean no one would be blood doping - EPO and its substitutes or transfusions at all, because that's what gives the 10-15% boost.

There's nothing to suggest EPO use in general, and transfusions amongst GT riders has fallen away in the past 5 years.

Going by his TT efforts I would be more inclined to say he's "clean", he only puts in these golden TTs once every 12-18months. The rest of the time he's a run of the mill top tenner.

But then you just look at him following Cuddles and Contador up Ventoux and you're straight back to the real world.

When did who follow Contador on the Ventoux?

By the way, it is not strange that a guy like Millar (or any TT specialist for that matter) can follow top riders (without top form) on a single mountain slope. It is more or less the same as a ITT, a high, nonstop effort for approximately an hour. You see it often that TT'ers are able to do that. The difficulties arise when there are successive mountain slopes (you saw it with Wiggins in the Tour 2009, all stages were extremely easy and he could to well on the final and only slope of the stage. Except for that one stage where Schleck one, and that was the stage in which he lost most time).

 

[movingtarget]

I think he is clean. He rode an inspired race in the world champs and thrashed an ordinary field in the Comm games but his results in stage races are nowhere as good as they used to be. Time trialling has always been his specialty and he is still good at it. I used to think he was a king sized hypocrite like many of the other so called reformed dopers but I think Millar has turned the corner. The way he has has reacted to recent doping allegations indicates that. To me his frustration seems genuine. I would like to think that Basso and Vino are also riding clean. Here's hoping for the sake of the sport.

 

[pmcg76]

I would like to believe Millar and Garmin but dont know either way.

However, his statements and attitudes to others doping change which is strange.

He was once great buddies with Lance and then when he joined Garmin, he decribed US Postal as a "win at all costs team" with the implications clear for all to see.

Then he slams Floyd, all the while promoting himself as clean and seems to be great friends with Lance again. Also failing to criticise Contador.

He is very inconsistent to say the least. If he kept a straight line it would be ok, personally I would have more faith in the French riders like Offredo, Pineau etc being clean as they seem to play it straight.

 

[Arnout]

Then he slams Floyd, all the while promoting himself as clean and seems to be great friends with Lance again. Also failing to criticise Contador.

So when you don't criticize someone else you're not clean?

There's an ongoing debate on this very forum, with mixed opinions. It will be the same in the peloton. But that does not mean that everyone who is not criticizing Contador is doping. It's not EPO we're talking about...

 

[pmcg76]

So when you don't criticize someone else you're not clean?

There's an ongoing debate on this very forum, with mixed opinions. It will be the same in the peloton. But that does not mean that everyone who is not criticizing Contador is doping. It's not EPO we're talking about...

No, its the duplicity, criticising someone for telling the truth but not criticising another 'very big' rider for testing positive.

If he was consistent in his views, that would be ok but he isnt.

 

[Chuffy]

No, its the duplicity, criticising someone for telling the truth but not criticising another 'very big' rider for testing positive.

If he was consistent in his views, that would be ok but he isnt.

He's a person, not a parrot.

You can't deduce much from rider's reactions to various situations, at least not it you have a shred of sense. Saying that Rider X is a doping apologist because they haven't offered to light the bonfire on Rider Y after a +ive is ridiculous, but not untypical of some people here. Not necessarily you pmcg76, but you know what I mean. IIRC his comments on Bertie were made fairly early in the story, when all we knew was that Bertie had a hitherto undetectable amount of Clen in his system.

Personally I chose to believe in Millar and Garmin. They've painted themselves into a very tight spot, the risk of running a program is simply too high when one positive effectively blows the team out of the water. I'd echo what TexPat said about Millar's character - that was my perception too. I'd also agree strongly with what thingswelike said - far more sensible than anything the 'they all do it' fundamentalists have to say on the matter.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Millar is such a talent I think that if he was not clean he would have had a lot more results than he's shown since returning from his ban. I'd have to agree his recent good results are against lesser competition, but that's still nothing to be ashamed of. Great Scot! It's Millar time.

 

[Roland Rat]

Of course he is. Look at him, the little choir boy:

 

[L'arriviste]

Of course he is. Look at him, the little choir boy:

...

He blew away the field there. I see Cadel Evans only managed a 58:13.

 

[purenoiz]

blotchy skin

There a few herbs, such as St Johns wort and Bergamot that can cause permanent bleaching of the skin. Bergaptines have to be applied directly to the skin for that to happen. St Johns Wort, used to for mild to medium depression (could be just a placebo, since placebo's are pretty effective as well).

I have no opinion on whether he doped or not. I plead ignorance of his past performances, well not the prior doping.

 

[sublimit]

Did you get to see any video of the leading 4th placed in the race? Not a pro rider is possibly the closest thing to pro time trialler that exists at the moment? He normally looks very good - although the freewheeling every 30seconds is a little unusual.

Hutchinson is an out and out tester doing fast times on flat courses in Britain, need I say more.

Some of these people regard going sub 50 Minutes for a 25 time trial more important than winning the TDF.. quite sad really because its a waste of a talented rider.

 

[Roland Rat]

Hutchinson is an out and out tester doing fast times on flat courses in Britain, need I say more.

Some of these people regard going sub 50 Minutes for a 25 time trial more important than winning the TDF.. quite sad really because its a waste of a talented rider.

I don't understand how seriously some people take time trialling. Never have, never will. Nor the obsession on spending many thousands of pounds on the latest aero kit to save a few seconds. If everyone was on a road bike, the result would still be the same.

I blame Thatcher... err.. I mean... Triathletes.

 

[Vonn Brinkman]

I highly doubt he's completely clean.
Probably cleaner than others.
But I don't believe anyone in pro cycling is completely clean. Not that I mind. C'est la vie, non?

 

[pmcg76]

He's a person, not a parrot.

You can't deduce much from rider's reactions to various situations, at least not it you have a shred of sense. Saying that Rider X is a doping apologist because they haven't offered to light the bonfire on Rider Y after a +ive is ridiculous, but not untypical of some people here. Not necessarily you pmcg76, but you know what I mean. IIRC his comments on Bertie were made fairly early in the story, when all we knew was that Bertie had a hitherto undetectable amount of Clen in his system.

Again, people dont seem to get this.

When Millar was busted, he was asked in an interview about the possibility of Lance doping, his reply was "that there were no drugs in the world that could make Lance do what he does". He was great friends with Lance at that time.

A few years later when he got involved with Garmin and they were really pushing the clean team angle, in another interview he said, "we dont want to be a win-at-all-costs-team" he went on to say, "US Postal were very much a win-at-all-costs-team". This implies that US Postal were doing what it took, i.e.doping.

Now, to me these two statements seem contradictory, how can he absolve Lance of doping and then infer US Postal were doping like crazy. Contradictory.

Millar knows what has happened and what is going on in cycling now, yet when Floyd Landis revealed what everyone knew, he criticised Landis. Why?

Most people on here believe that Contador is doping and Millar would have a better idea than us so it would have been better for him to say nothing. I get the idea that he said what he did early on and wanted to hear the full story first. Personally I feel the same, but hey I wasnt slamming Landis either or anybody else who tells the truth.

I dont mind his opinion on Contador but it flies in the face of his attitude to Landis. Compare the reaction of Yoann Offredo to the Contador positive. Who would have more faith in Offredo or Millar.

To me, Millar has an inconsistent approach to the subject of doping which raises questions. At least JV is more straight in his approach.

 

[thingswelike]

But there's plenty of reasons why he said what he said about Landis.
Millar is a stakeholder in Slipstream. Finding sponsors is hard. They were gaining some momentum by being a 'clean team' but Landis was making life harder for them to find sponsors by mentioning Zabriskie and JV.
They tread a fine line between not burning bridges and trying to move forward. They did it pretty well imo. It's difficult for them to go naming names, and criticising others when it's fairly well known that some of their riders and JV have been involved with doping (whether they liked it or not) in the past.

 

[pmcg76]

But there's plenty of reasons why he said what he said about Landis.
Millar is a stakeholder in Slipstream. Finding sponsors is hard. They were gaining some momentum by being a 'clean team' but Landis was making life harder for them to find sponsors by mentioning Zabriskie and JV.
They tread a fine line between not burning bridges and trying to move forward. They did it pretty well imo. It's difficult for them to go naming names, and criticising others when it's fairly well known that some of their riders and JV have been involved with doping (whether they liked it or not) in the past.

Dont matter, if you are anti-doping like Millar claims, you should not be slamming guys who tell the truth. I know its hard for sponsors but did JV slam Landis. No, he kept his mouth shut, as I said at least JV keeps it straight. Millar should follow his lead.

Funny thing is, I like Millar. I dont think he is doping but wouldnt rule it out. Its just his incosistent stance that bothers me.

 

[Arnout]

Again, people dont seem to get this.

When Millar was busted, he was asked in an interview about the possibility of Lance doping, his reply was "that there were no drugs in the world that could make Lance do what he does". He was great friends with Lance at that time.

A few years later when he got involved with Garmin and they were really pushing the clean team angle, in another interview he said, "we dont want to be a win-at-all-costs-team" he went on to say, "US Postal were very much a win-at-all-costs-team". This implies that US Postal were doing what it took, i.e.doping.

Now, to me these two statements seem contradictory, how can he absolve Lance of doping and then infer US Postal were doping like crazy. Contradictory.

Millar knows what has happened and what is going on in cycling now, yet when Floyd Landis revealed what everyone knew, he criticised Landis. Why?

Most people on here believe that Contador is doping and Millar would have a better idea than us so it would have been better for him to say nothing. I get the idea that he said what he did early on and wanted to hear the full story first. Personally I feel the same, but hey I wasnt slamming Landis either or anybody else who tells the truth.

I dont mind his opinion on Contador but it flies in the face of his attitude to Landis. Compare the reaction of Yoann Offredo to the Contador positive. Who would have more faith in Offredo or Millar.

To me, Millar has an inconsistent approach to the subject of doping which raises questions. At least JV is more straight in his approach.

Win at all cost team can mean something different than doping. In fact, I think Millar didn't adress the doping issues.

Garmin is also more of a team who want to do it their way, in a team in which every rider has responsibility and in which every rider gets the chance to shine in some races, regardless of quality. Whereas US Postal was just a winning machine for Armstrong with little other objectives and not caring about the other riders.

 

[pmcg76]

Win at all cost team can mean something different than doping. In fact, I think Millar didn't adress the doping issues.

Garmin is also more of a team who want to do it their way, in a team in which every rider has responsibility and in which every rider gets the chance to shine in some races, regardless of quality. Whereas US Postal was just a winning machine for Armstrong with little other objectives and not caring about the other riders.

Oh stop being coy and obtuse.

The interview was in Cycle Sport June or July 08, I no longer have that issue. The general tone of the interview was about how Garmin were going to be a clean team and how there approach to doping was different from other teams. In that context, when somone describes another team as having a "win-at-all-costs" mentality, it would seem pretty clear what they are talking about.

A win at all costs mentality is a mentality that someone will do anything to ensure they win. Put that in a doping conversation and what do you get?

Holy crap, if there is one thing any person who has followed cycling for any length of time should be able to do is interpet not what riders say but what they are inferring.

 

[Winterfold]

Hutchinson is an out and out tester doing fast times on flat courses in Britain, need I say more.

Some of these people regard going sub 50 Minutes for a 25 time trial more important than winning the TDF.. quite sad really because its a waste of a talented rider.

As a semi-tester I agree the more obsessive lot are a funny bunch, but its all very British, urn of tea by the dual carriageway, heath robinson contraptions etc and quite endearing and quaint. And I do enjoy occasionally getting passed by LRVC 80 year olds who can still go under the hour There's something very life-affirming about that.

And you can knock out a quick 10 after work without taking too much time out from the family etc.

You could argue that becoming a pro cyclist would have been a waste of Hutch's brain and he would have had to be a bloody good leadout man to make more money than being a lawyer.

Anyway back OT, this result proves nothing about Millar IMO, he is a beautiful smooth and stylish rider to watch, and very canny about when he times his peaks. I think the drugs in the past were a) cultural b) about trying to compete on stage races and GTs.

I am not so cynical about the sport that I can't accept a class act/genuine talent can smoke the odd TT or win De Panne without doping.

He's older and wiser now - how could he ever look at JV again if he was cheating? It would be such a betrayal, I don't think it's in him.

 

[Red Lobster]

I also read somewhere in this topic that doping would result in 10% gain. No way. That would mean Millar would ride 52 km/h instead of 47 km/h when using doping. Not possible these days.

The % gain refers to gain in power, not speed, a pretty significant distinction.

 

[kielbasa]

That's a good point. When riders don't immediately condemn other riders after a positive, it can also be because they know the system is not perfect. That is, you can get caught if you're clean, especially on these substances (as they are not natural).

I also read somewhere in this topic that doping would result in 10% gain. No way. That would mean Millar would ride 52 km/h instead of 47 km/h when using doping. Not possible these days.

Especially when you consider Koos Moerenhout, who is clean without a shadow of a doubt, can finish 6th in the World time trials. Moerenhout had an anonymous career until some years ago, when finally he could consistently deliver the results that we expected of him, as he was very talented.

So yes, there may still be doping going on, but not in the 10% region. It will probably give the edge among the top competitors, but this is no '96 anymore.

That's incorrect. 10% gain in power doesn't equal 10% gain in speed. In fact, it's around 3.5% gain in speed, e.g. 47 km/h vs. 48.6 km/h. FWIW, those gains are realistic for a clean rider coming into form depending on his training habits (off-season rest, aggresive build/taper, etc.)

Edit: Looks like I got beat to it. It's my off-season.

 

[ferryman]

He's clean, no doubt.

 

[JibberJim]

I don't understand how seriously some people take time trialling. Never have, never will. Nor the obsession on spending many thousands of pounds on the latest aero kit to save a few seconds. If everyone was on a road bike, the result would still be the same.

No they wouldn't! That aero kit changes who wins for sure - it may be that if everyone was on road bikes and putting the same efforts into the aero advantage within the rules of road bikes the result might be the same. But the results are not the same as if you just move the power produced into the road position.