Millar whinging on doping ban for Olympics!

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
No you don't get it. Try again.

I don't care what your thought process is, if you have a post count of 2000 plus and nearly every one of them is *****ing about pro cycling in one shape or another, then your love of the sport is a myth.

A bit like a husband who beats his wife, because he loves her.

If someone finds pro cycling distasteful, its perfectly understandable. It's not for everybody.

This post is not aimed at everybody. Many posters show respect for the sport.
This is aimed at those who do not. Frankly, doping sport or otherwise, they can go F*** themselves.

Plain enough for you?
No, its not plain enough.

Your position is not "aimed at those who do not" - you have not directed your post at anyone - it is (deliberately IMO) aimed at everyone who has commented negatively on Millar on this thread.

The reason their position upsets you is because you are British and a part of that setup - if you want to call in to question the motives of those you disagree with then why not directly address them and allow them the opportunity to reply.

(For the record - I will hold off on my opinion on Millar until I read his book.)
 
Dr. Maserati said:
No, its not plain enough.

Your position is not "aimed at those who do not" - you have not directed your post at anyone - it is (deliberately IMO) aimed at everyone who has commented negatively on Millar on this thread.

The reason their position upsets you is because you are British and a part of that setup - if you want to call in to question the motives of those you disagree with then why not directly address them and allow them the opportunity to reply.

(For the record - I will hold off on my opinion on Millar until I read his book.)

No Dr M, you are quite simply wrong.
I am not defending Miller, He is someone I have little time for.

I defend British riders who Have always been clean, when they are accused otherwise. Miller obviously does not fall into that group.

My questioning about the motivation of the serial whiners ended up in this thread because the OP is one of that group.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Remember that the fool in the eyes of the gods and the fool in the eyes of man are very different.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
No Dr M, you are quite simply wrong.
I am not defending Miller, He is someone I have little time for.

I defend British riders who Have always been clean, when they are accused otherwise. Miller obviously does not fall into that group.

My questioning about the motivation of the serial whiners ended up in this thread because the OP is one of that group.
But you didn't question them - in fact you didn't question anyone, you put forth your own opinion on what their motivations were.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
andy1234 said:
..
I am not defending Miller, He is someone I have little time for.
....

Way to back-peddle. No British rider besides Millar was called-out in this thread.
 
Benotti69 said:
Remember that the fool in the eyes of the gods and the fool in the eyes of man are very different.
After you have finished talking to the Gods, be sure to ask them who's going to win this years tour. I might put a few pounds on it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
andy1234 said:
After you have finished talking to the Gods, be sure to ask them who's going to win this years tour. I might put a few pounds on it.
no point in asking them as McQuaid has confirmed Contador as the winner of the 2011 TdF.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
Shocker. Opinion stated on internet forum.

It isn't your opinion thats at issue - you have already admitted that your posts here were not to do with the thread.

When the subjects of your opinion are the other forum members themselves (even though you don't address them directly) and are on this thread then no, its not shocking, just sad.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
It isn't your opinion thats at issue - you have already admitted that your posts here were not to do with the thread.

When the subjects of your opinion are the other forum members themselves (even though you don't address them directly) and are on this thread then no, its not shocking, just sad.
But stating opinions about people you have no direct dialogue with, time and time again isn't?

Best stick to conjecture and criticism of people you that won't answer back, because thats not sad at all.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
But stating opinions about people you have no direct dialogue with, time and time again isn't?

Best stick to conjecture and criticism of people you that won't answer back, because thats not sad at all.
If Millar wants to come on here I would be delighted to ask him questions.

What would be sad is if he did come on here and stated his opinion and someone ignored that or didn't even question his opinion.

Also, it is not conjecture when Millar has offered much of what is discussed here to the public through his interviews (and soon his book).
 
Dr. Maserati said:
If Millar wants to come on here I would be delighted to ask him questions.

What would be sad is if he did come on here and stated his opinion and someone ignored that or didn't even question his opinion.

Also, it is not conjecture when Millar has offered much of what is discussed here to the public through his interviews (and soon his book).


You stick with questioning the opinions of someone you can't actually have a conversation with.
I'll continue to question the opinions of people I can.
 
andy1234 said:
You stick with questioning the opinions of someone you can't actually have a conversation with.
I'll continue to question the opinions of people I can.
Andy,

I dont follow your thinking in this thread at all.

Is it that you have a problem with people slamming David Millar or is it that you have a problem with some of the people who are slamming David Millar and other cyclists.

If it is the latter then this is hardly the thread for it, I have no problem with you questioning those posters who slam everyone, I do it myself sometimes but usually in a thread where they are actually slamming people without a shred of evidence. This is hardly the case in this one.
 
Oct 1, 2010
25
0
0
The problem is that you get the answers to your questions - of people's opinions and motivations -- and then you turn around and baldly negate them. "No, you're not of that opinion that you've stated"; "No, that's not why you think that..", etc.

It's obnoxious, tiresome, and isn't argumentation. It's gainsaying.

If someone tells you why they think what they think, and what their thought process is, and you simply refute it by saying, no; that's NOT what's in your head... Well, you must understand that's pure arrogance, as you have no authority on that, right? They have the authority on what's in their head, and you have none. They win that particular argument, every time. And that's true of everybody, you and me both. You get that, I hope? :)
 
ShawnB said:
The problem is that you get the answers to your questions - of people's opinions and motivations -- and then you turn around and baldly negate them. "No, you're not of that opinion that you've stated"; "No, that's not why you think that..", etc.

It's obnoxious, tiresome, and isn't argumentation. It's gainsaying.

If someone tells you why they think what they think, and what their thought process is, and you simply refute it by saying, no; that's NOT what's in your head... Well, you must understand that's pure arrogance, as you have no authority on that, right? They have the authority on what's in their head, and you have none. They win that particular argument, every time. And that's true of everybody, you and me both. You get that, I hope? :)
Are you addressing this to me or Andy, I am not sure as you didnt quote either of us.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
You stick with questioning the opinions of someone you can't actually have a conversation with.
I'll continue to question the opinions of people I can.
No you didn't questions anyones opinion - you answered it.

I haven't questioned Millars opinion - I said it earlier, I will read his book first, then offer an opinion.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Away from the poster arguments, I would ask you this:

Who is the more effective in the fight against doping?

a) A current professional, who is diplomatic, well connected with the powers that be and has the respect of the peloton, who wants to change things

or

b) An ex-pro who belatedly shouts from the sidelines.


Change will come in the culture only from within. It will branch out from the likes of Millar and not from the likes of Landis 'burning the house down'.

It won't give you the rush you get from a doping conviction. It won't satisfy your 'blood lust'. But it will be more effective and sustainable.

Ask what you really want. A clean sport in the long term or the confirmation of your short term opinions?
 
Mambo95 said:
Away from the poster arguments, I would ask you this:

Who is the more effective in the fight against doping?

a) A current professional, who is diplomatic, well connected with the powers that be and has the respect of the peloton, who wants to change things

or

b) An ex-pro who belatedly shouts from the sidelines.


Change will come in the culture only from within. It will branch out from the likes of Millar and not from the likes of Landis 'burning the house down'.

It won't give you the rush you get from a doping conviction. It won't satisfy your 'blood lust'. But it will be more effective and sustainable.

Ask what you really want. A clean sport in the long term or the confirmation of your short term opinions?
That is a good question but it seems that the Landis approach could prove more valuable in ripping apart the doping culture within the sport by outside authorities rather than leaving it up to the David Millar see-no-evil, speak-no-evil approach.
 
Oct 1, 2010
25
0
0
Mambo95 said:
Who is the more effective in the fight against doping?

a) A current professional, who is diplomatic, well connected with the powers that be and has the respect of the peloton, who wants to change things

or

b) An ex-pro who belatedly shouts from the sidelines.


Change will come in the culture only from within.

The problem is that, from Millar's statements, I tend to disbelieve the bolded above.

He is decent at paying lip service to the concept. But evidence (the sum of his various statements on the record) seems to suggest he wants everyone to leave him and the peloton alone, and to not dig too hard into the past nor present.

Standard-issue status-quo deflections. Disturbing, from someone 'who wants to change things' and promotes himself as being in a unique position to do so.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Mambo95 said:
Away from the poster arguments, I would ask you this:

Who is the more effective in the fight against doping?

a) A current professional, who is diplomatic, well connected with the powers that be and has the respect of the peloton, who wants to change things

or

b) An ex-pro who belatedly shouts from the sidelines.


Change will come in the culture only from within. It will branch out from the likes of Millar and not from the likes of Landis 'burning the house down'.

It won't give you the rush you get from a doping conviction. It won't satisfy your 'blood lust'. But it will be more effective and sustainable.

Ask what you really want. A clean sport in the long term or the confirmation of your short term opinions?
Simple answer - neither of them.

The blue - thats complete bogus.
Any change that may come will be done because the sport is either losing money (by sponsors/events stopping) or by the corruption becoming unpalatable for either the fans or sporting authorities.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
pmcg76 said:
That is a good question but it seems that the Landis approach could prove more valuable in ripping apart the doping culture within the sport by outside authorities rather than leaving it up to the David Millar see-no-evil, speak-no-evil approach.
(None of the following is directed at you personally, just the Clinic generally)

The see-no-evil, speak-no-evil, if it is that, is for the public. Just because there's no press release, it doesn't mean nothing has happened. You haven't posted on here what you've eaten this week, but I don't think you're starving.

Change in the sport will be made away from prying eyes, gradually, not by big revelations. The likes of Landis (whose e-mail was meant to be private remember) shouting from the sidelines may bring down Armstrong (retired) and Radioshack (probably finishing this year anyway), but it won't impact cyclists as a whole.

But it will provide a spectacle. Which will please the Clinic. It's about time many of you gained a little self awareness. You don't really care if cycling is clean or not. Why would you, it doesn't impact your real lives. You just love a scandal, some unsubstantiated finger pointing and feeling of self-righteous superiority thinking that you're 'in the know' and 'making a difference' (even when neither of those are true - and you know it).

That's why you attack Millar and Vaughters, but claim someone like Ricco is being harshly treated. DM and JV go against your preconceptions and desires, but RR backs them up.
 
Mambo95 said:
(None of the following is directed at you personally, just the Clinic generally)

The see-no-evil, speak-no-evil, if it is that, is for the public. Just because there's no press release, it doesn't mean nothing has happened. You haven't posted on here what you've eaten this week, but I don't think you're starving.

Change in the sport will be made away from prying eyes, gradually, not by big revelations. The likes of Landis (whose e-mail was meant to be private remember) shouting from the sidelines may bring down Armstrong (retired) and Radioshack (probably finishing this year anyway), but it won't impact cyclists as a whole.

But it will provide a spectacle. Which will please the Clinic. It's about time many of you gained a little self awareness. You don't really care if cycling is clean or not. Why would you, it doesn't impact your real lives. You just love a scandal, some unsubstantiated finger pointing and feeling of self-righteous superiority thinking that you're 'in the know' and 'making a difference' (even when neither of those are true - and you know it).

That's why you attack Millar and Vaughters, but claim someone like Ricco is being harshly treated. DM and JV go against your preconceptions and desires, but RR backs them up.
Once again, addressing the clinic as if we are a singular entity, you are quickly losing credibility.

If all the Landis revelations does is take down Armstrong and RadioShack, that will be a huge ****ing step in the right direction. No more Bruyneel, maybe a large group of dopers gone from the sport(not that I believe everyone at the Shack dopes), maybe flush out the rotten core at the UCI. How long will it take the JV/Millar approach of going to the authorities to do the same thing. 5/10/20yrs, maybe never.

I dont have a problem with JV, it is more Millar's incosistent stance on doping and transperency. If he is telling the authoities things, why is nothing happening. His public proclomations just do not add up to anything.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Mambo95 said:
(None of the following is directed at you personally, just the Clinic generally)

The see-no-evil, speak-no-evil, if it is that, is for the public. Just because there's no press release, it doesn't mean nothing has happened. You haven't posted on here what you've eaten this week, but I don't think you're starving.

Change in the sport will be made away from prying eyes, gradually, not by big revelations. The likes of Landis (whose e-mail was meant to be private remember) shouting from the sidelines may bring down Armstrong (retired) and Radioshack (probably finishing this year anyway), but it won't impact cyclists as a whole.

But it will provide a spectacle. Which will please the Clinic. It's about time many of you gained a little self awareness. You don't really care if cycling is clean or not. Why would you, it doesn't impact your real lives. You just love a scandal, some unsubstantiated finger pointing and feeling of self-righteous superiority thinking that you're 'in the know' and 'making a difference' (even when neither of those are true - and you know it).

That's why you attack Millar and Vaughters, but claim someone like Ricco is being harshly treated. DM and JV go against your preconceptions and desires, but RR backs them up.
You must have picked up the scatter gun when Andy dropped it.

Amazing how yourself and Andy - both British - haven't discussed what Millar has had to say and instead give your opinions on 'The Clinic' - all 20,000 members.

To the blue - of course it will, ya right, some day a motion from British Cycling with Milllars signature is going to be adopted by the UCI and all doping will stop gradually (I assume you mean over a week or two?).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY