Millar whinging on doping ban for Olympics!

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
131313 said:
This whole thing just confirms my "Moron of the Day" thread, but I think I need to expand it to "Moron of the Month". And guess what, a guy with a reasonable amount of education and an ability to string a few semi-coherent sentences together can still have pretty impaired cognitive function. This clown is a prime example.

That said, his "I don't know if Lance doped or not" comments jump the shark from stupid to downright insulting. Are we supposed to forget that his own director has admitted to everyone but the media that he was doping with Lance, and that several of his teammates are ex-postal guys? Seriously?? From all of his comments, he's a doping apologist of the highest order. I find it particularly ironic that he's so quick to point out "how far we've come", then call for the FDA's investigation to be the final word on the Lance issue. Newsflash: if the system were really working, we wouldn't be relying on government agencies to catch dopers.

Wearing big, stupid glasses doesn't make someone smart.
good post 13.

But was not Garmin supposed to be part of the solution, and working on the system. Why invoke the FDA as the arbiter of truth, they have no relationship to cycling, sport, UCI, IOC, and WADA besides some indirect supervision because of their legislative remit.

There are non-analytic positive rules in WADA and UCI. To invoke a non-negative sample, with a positive B, as the only arbiter of doping, is just being an apologist and enabler for doping.

Millar is a liar and a propagandist. Simple.
 
Jun 15, 2009
353
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.
S**t yeah, threads aplenty defending Ricco around here...no doubt the vast majority of Clinic posters are Ricco apologists. :rolleyes:
 
Dr. Maserati said:
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?).
Maybe Mambo and I are using the scatter gun that is regularly used in here against the pro peloton?

Secondly, why do you feel the need to defend the clinic as a whole?
Defend yourself by all means. Let other members defend themselve, but if you don't feel that my post applies to you, why the defence?
 
andy1234 said:
Maybe Mambo and I are using the scatter gun that is regularly used in here against the pro peloton?

Secondly, why do you feel the need to defend the clinic as a whole?
Defend yourself by all means. Let other members defend themselve, but if you don't feel that my post applies to you, why the defence?
Becasue the scatter gun is used by a particular segment of the clinic i.e the 'everyone dopes' brigade which you find offensive, not the entire clinic yet you both address The Clinic as a whole.

We are not defending the clinic, we are defending the idea that everyone in the clinic has the same views, I have had frequent arguments with the 'everyone dopes' brigade and Dr.M and many others would not be in the 'everyone dopes' brigade either. I dont even think that group are in the majority, they just shout the loudest.

If you feel we are being defensive then why dont you and Mambo just address the relevant people in your posts instead of lumping everyone in together. Is it really that difficult to say 'for those in the clinic who believe X' instead of 'the clininc' or is it because you both have that superior than thou attitude that is frequently trotted out around here.
 
pmcg76 said:
Becasue the scatter gun is used by a particular segment of the clinic i.e the 'everyone dopes' brigade which you find offensive, not the entire clinic yet you both address The Clinic as a whole.

We are not defending the clinic, we are defending the idea that everyone in the clinic has the same views, I have had frequent arguments with the 'everyone dopes' brigade and Dr.M and many others would not be in the 'everyone dopes' brigade either. I dont even think that group are in the majority, they just shout the loudest.

If you feel we are being defensive then why dont you and Mambo just address the relevant people in your posts instead of lumping everyone in together. Is it really that difficult to say 'for those in the clinic who believe X' instead of 'the clininc' or is it because you both have that superior than thou attitude that is frequently trotted out around here.


Not much lumping everyone in here.
Im fairly sure I am addressing the relevant peope only. What do you think....?




andy1234 said:
Yet another thread "whinging" about a pro rider...

There are definately a few haters of the sport on here. Pretend its passion or concern if you like, but I'm not buying it.
andy1234 said:
Im calling out the posters on here for their BS.
It's the right thing to do.

Professional sport has little to do with cycling, the past-time.
Its not healthy, it's not fair, It's just a vehicle to make money and advertise product. It has NEVER been any different, It hasn't "gone bad"

So for the posters who don't seem to like ANY or the people whose job it is to provide this entertainment, but claim to love the sport...

I'm calling BS.
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?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
Maybe Mambo and I are using the scatter gun that is regularly used in here against the pro peloton?

Secondly, why do you feel the need to defend the clinic as a whole?
Defend yourself by all means. Let other members defend themselve
, but if you don't feel that my post applies to you, why the defence?
But you didn't direct your posts at anyone in particular - so how are they meant to defend themselves?

andy1234 said:
Not much lumping everyone in here.
Im fairly sure I am addressing the relevant peope only. What do you think....?
You hide behind words like "a few", "haters", "the Clinic" and make a charge against people that they must not love the sport or that they are only interested in doping.

What do I think?
I think it is easier for you to make general statements because if you addressed these "few" people they would be able to defend themselves and prove you wrong.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
But you didn't direct your posts at anyone in particular - so how are they meant to defend themselves?



You hide behind words like "a few", "haters", "the Clinic" and make a charge against people that they must not love the sport or that they are only interested in doping.

What do I think?
I think it is easier for you to make general statements because if you addressed these "few" people they would be able to defend themselves and prove you wrong.
And still you feel the need to get involved in a conversation that did not include you...

I'm not attempting to get into a conversation with the haters. I want to tell them they are full of s**t and move on.

Maybe it will get some people to question the motivation behind some of the posts on here, maybe it won't. Either way, anyone who constantly berates the sport needs to re-evaluate their reason for following it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
And still you feel the need to get involved in a conversation that did not include you...

I'm not attempting to get into a conversation with the haters. I want to tell them they are full of s**t and move on.

Maybe it will get some people to question the motivation behind some of the posts on here, maybe it won't. Either way, anyone who constantly berates the sport needs to re-evaluate their reason for following it.
You want to tell people (who you won't name) that they are full of s**t - but you don't want to get involved in a conversation with them.

If you are not prepared to address those posters and actually ask them, instead of assuming their position then it is you that needs to re-evaluate why you post here.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
andy1234 said:
And still you feel the need to get involved in a conversation that did not include you...

I'm not attempting to get into a conversation with the haters. I want to tell them they are full of s**t and move on.

Maybe it will get some people to question the motivation behind some of the posts on here, maybe it won't. Either way, anyone who constantly berates the sport needs to re-evaluate their reason for following it.
What a load of BS. A sport as corrupt as pro cycling needs people to keep berating the doping. Remember its the doping that gets berated, not the sport itself.

As for haters, that word is so misused on the the internet its sad. to constantly label a poster as a hater is IMO the lowest form of posting.

You have come on this thread to have a go at me without having the cojones to do it directly. Grow some and you wont feel the need for your little snide attacks and wife beating comments.

If the clinic is full of faeces why are you so attracted to it?
 
Benotti69 said:
What a load of BS. A sport as corrupt as pro cycling needs people to keep berating the doping. Remember its the doping that gets berated, not the sport itself.

As for haters, that word is so misused on the the internet its sad. to constantly label a poster as a hater is IMO the lowest form of posting.

You have come on this thread to have a go at me without having the cojones to do it directly. Grow some and you wont feel the need for your little snide attacks and wife beating comments.If the clinic is full of faeces why are you so attracted to it?
If you grow some cajones, and address the doping problem in a constructive manner, rather than whinging about every aspect of the sport in an internet forum, I will address you directly.

Until then I will keep you at a distance.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
You want to tell people (who you won't name) that they are full of s**t - but you don't want to get involved in a conversation with them.

If you are not prepared to address those posters and actually ask them, instead of assuming their position then it is you that needs to re-evaluate why you post here.
Dr M, you love taking apart every aspect of a post. It's your thing.

Im not interested in playing your game. I have voiced my opinion.
You don't agree, thats fine. Move on.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
Dr M, you love taking apart every aspect of a post. It's your thing.

Im not interested in playing your game. I have voiced my opinion.
You don't agree, thats fine. Move on.
I questioned your opinion and I allowed you every opportunity to address it. Thats my thing.

You're right I don't agree with you so the offer remains to back up your claim.
You have failed to do so - so I am not surprised that you wish me to move on.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
A couple of mods all strapped for time.So:

Andy, you had your 'blanket insult' say, so by your own words, move on. Come back to it and I will clean this thread up with consequences. Everyone else, move on with him.

This thread is about Millar, so if you all keep having a hissy fit with each other instead, it will be closed.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
andy1234 said:
If you grow some cajones, and address the doping problem in a constructive manner, rather than whinging about every aspect of the sport in an internet forum, I will address you directly.

Until then I will keep you at a distance.
my last comment as OP.

By calling Millar a whinger when he puts down non omerta riders like Riccó while ignoring Vino, DiLuca, Basso et al is justified IMO as this from a guy who professes to be clean now launching a book with some details about his doping deserves IMO to criticised for it. I am cynical about Garmin, Millar and Wiggins. I dont whinge about helmets, carbon weights, jersey, designs shoes nor race radios in fact i dont whinge about doping. I call it as i see fit to call it, within the rules of the forum. i am not here to make mates nor offend, i am here to discuss this aspect of the sport that is not pretty.
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
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.

.
The facts don't correspond to the fantasies. Festina happened because of police intervention. Puerto happened because of police intervention. And Landisgate is happening because of federal intervention. The forces driving reform in this sport are not coming from inside the peloton--it is driven by public outrage and intervention by state and media, necessitating a change in image for cycling.

Sticking with omerta gets us nowhere dude. If cycling had taken the time to clean up its act after Puerto it would be far healthier today. Instead, a new version of omerta won out. So we have to wait 5 years for the reckoning.

Bottom line is omerta doesn't work in a modern day mass media environment. Festina proved that, and every scandal since then tends to prove it again. The spectacle of Rasmussen's disgrace (without a single failed test) should have been the final straw, but it just led to a resurgence of omerta.

It's impossible to keep a secret this big and this scandalous. It will keep blowing up in everyone's face until something changes--either cycling turns into a league sport where doping is ignored or dope testing is going to have to evolve to a whole new level.

It will never be perfect--there will always be dope as long as the sport is driven by profit. But either way there's going to need to be a change in management. If David Millar is held up as a face of clean cycling, then you know something is seriously messed up....there's just no way to hide his true feelings and attitudes...they are there for any reporter to discover.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
While I understand Millar's desire to participate in the Olympics, I think he is being precious.

He doped:
knowing it was cheating his fellow pros of fair competition
probably knowing most of the applicable penalties
after calculating (probably) risk/reward.

However there will always be unforseen, overlooked consequences to any action we take in life. For Millar this is the lifetime ban from the Olympics.

Millar could/should be gracious, Suck it up and be the ambassador he professes to be.
 
May 26, 2009
377
0
0
ludwig said:
The facts don't correspond to the fantasies. Festina happened because of police intervention. Puerto happened because of police intervention. And Landisgate is happening because of federal intervention.
Actually, I think Mambo is right - didn't 'Landisgate' only become a federal investigation after the TOC refused to give Landis and his team an entry?

Landis was quite ready to be 'looked after' by the pro cycling world in the usual manner, and leave nobody the wiser.
 
Jun 1, 2011
104
0
0
Ferminal said:
He actually said it didn't bother him too much, and he wouldn't personally fight for it to be overturned, but if other athletes did then he wouldn't refuse a spot on the team.

Plus I agree with him that there shouldn't be life bans like this for first offences.
I'm pretty much of the same opinion. He's not exactly moaning about it - he said he wouldn't be the one to instigate it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
hrotha said:
Puerto began because Manzano talked to the press.
there is the possibilty the recent Italian investigations are due to riders giving information to CONI, but that would appear to be unique as other federations do not seem to be interested in cleaning up the sport.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Benotti69 said:
there is the possibilty the recent Italian investigations are due to riders giving information to CONI, but that would appear to be unique as other federations do not seem to be interested in cleaning up the sport.
CONI though is different as at is not a specifically cycling organization. Or have I got that wrong?

Wasn't one of Landis' complaints that there was no point him complaining to US cycling because the people he was pointing the finger at all had important positions there.

With cycling administration being as incestuous as it is, it is no wonder that people don't go to their national feds when they want to blow the whistle.
 
Dec 13, 2010
189
0
8,830
JA.Tri said:
While I understand Millar's desire to participate in the Olympics, I think he is being precious.

He doped:
knowing it was cheating his fellow pros of fair competition
probably knowing most of the applicable penalties
after calculating (probably) risk/reward.

However there will always be unforseen, overlooked consequences to any action we take in life. For Millar this is the lifetime ban from the Olympics.

Millar could/should be gracious, Suck it up and be the ambassador he professes to be.
Very very good post. 100% agree.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
CONI though is different as at is not a specifically cycling organization. Or have I got that wrong?

Wasn't one of Landis' complaints that there was no point him complaining to US cycling because the people he was pointing the finger at all had important positions there.

With cycling administration being as incestuous as it is, it is no wonder that people don't go to their national feds when they want to blow the whistle.
CONI, is the Italian National Olympic Committee has regulatory authority regulation and management of national sports. The Italian National Olympic Committee, a public body entrusted with the organization and strengthening of national sport, it promotes the widest possible dissemination of sport.

So cycling comes under it's jurisdiction. I guess the national olympic federation in any country could get involved if they wanted in doping related matters of their national cyclists as cycling is an olympic sport.
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
yourwelcome said:
Actually, I think Mambo is right - didn't 'Landisgate' only become a federal investigation after the TOC refused to give Landis and his team an entry?

Landis was quite ready to be 'looked after' by the pro cycling world in the usual manner, and leave nobody the wiser.
Granted Landis had is own motivations to become a whistle blower that had to do with frustration with cycling authorities. But ultimately the media and police, rather than cycling authorities, are the prime movers behind this story.

Puerto began because Manzano talked to the press.
And you remember how the peloton and the UCI handled it. They called Manzano a liar who was lying for cash etc. It wasn't Manzano talking to the press that led to Puerto, it was Manzano working with the police.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY