Millar's thoughts

bazbadger

Interesting article - not new mind.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/millar-calls-for-closure-in-armstrong-and-contador-investigations

What struck me was Millar's comments about Armstrong - the main issue being that he could have done more to speak out against doping (rather than an outright finger pointing)

Then, moving onto Contador, Millar makes the point that

"In my experience the profile of a doper is always much more erratic and unpredictable.”

To back up his earlier point about Contador's consistency being a mark of his unique talent - a point made by many on here too - and clear to see. Presumably, the implication being that Contador's performance is due to talent rather than drugs.

During the TDF at least - Armstrong was also consistent.

So, is consistency a sign of pure talent?

Pross

I'm surprised as I would have associated riding clean with peaks and troughs rather than consistency as you don't recover quickly enough. But then again I suppose the likes of Landis also showed it applies to doped riders.

Tom Butcher

I can see his point - though it's possible to be both a super talent and a doper at the same time of course.

deal

bazbadger wrote:

During the TDF at least - Armstrong was also consistent.

So, is consistency a sign of pure talent?

Armstrong wasnt consistant, he only performed once a year, Contador races strongly all season.

ps. I think they are both dopers.

Gazzaputt

deal wrote:

bazbadger wrote:

During the TDF at least - Armstrong was also consistent.

So, is consistency a sign of pure talent?

Armstrong wasn't consistent, he only performed once a year,[/b} Contador races strongly all season.

ps. I think they are both dopers.

And Armstrong consistently won that one race per year I think you'll find.

Not defending him just stating a fact.

nferrar

I don't get the argument that consistency is a sign of being clean, to me it would be the opposite as doping can help you overcome the natural degradation in performance over a GT due to the stress on your body. In terms of season-long consistency as well then again surely it depends on how and when you're doping, if you're autologous doping and have enough supply then no reason you can't do it for several events a year (without risk of getting caught unless they find the paraphernalia in your house/hotel room).

Doping doesn't take average riders to greatness anyway, you need to already be a very talented rider in the top few percent in the peloton to be able to win a GT even with the help of doping. So for sure Armstrong and Contador were/are very talented athletes, they just boosted that talent through doping to a point where they're untouchable (even by others doping).

Gazzaputt

nferrar wrote:

I don't get the argument that consistency is a sign of being clean, to me it would be the opposite as doping can help you overcome the natural degradation in performance over a GT due to the stress on your body. In terms of season-long consistency as well then again surely it depends on how and when you're doping, if you're autologous doping and have enough supply then no reason you can't do it for several events a year (without risk of getting caught unless they find the paraphernalia in your house/hotel room).

Doping doesn't take average riders to greatness anyway, you need to already be a very talented rider in the top few percent in the peloton to be able to win a GT even with the help of doping. So for sure Armstrong and Contador were/are very talented athletes, they just boosted that talent through doping to a point where they're untouchable (even by others doping).

Good comment.

Jez mon

nferrar wrote:

Doping doesn't take average riders to greatness anyway, you need to already be a very talented rider in the top few percent in the peloton to be able to win a GT even with the help of doping. So for sure Armstrong and Contador were/are very talented athletes, they just boosted that talent through doping to a point where they're untouchable (even by others doping).

Riis?

The effectiveness of blood doping varies from rider to rider, afik. And I would not define it as natural talent.

bazbadger

deal wrote:

bazbadger wrote:

During the TDF at least - Armstrong was also consistent.

So, is consistency a sign of pure talent?

Armstrong wasnt consistant, he only performed once a year, Contador races strongly all season.

ps. I think they are both dopers.

No, Armstrong was consistent in the TDF. We are talking here about being consistent in the competitions entered - not hypothetical inconsistencies based on ones not entered

Anyway, that's a bit off the point - being that consistency = clean?

josame

In Millar's book he evidently recounts an encounter with Armstrong in 2007 when Millar took LA to task about his ambiguous (or downright anti-anti dopers) stance and got a chilling response

Has anyone read that section, and care to fill us in...

finchy

nferrar wrote:

I don't get the argument that consistency is a sign of being clean, to me it would be the opposite as doping can help you overcome the natural degradation in performance over a GT due to the stress on your body. In terms of season-long consistency as well then again surely it depends on how and when you're doping, if you're autologous doping and have enough supply then no reason you can't do it for several events a year (without risk of getting caught unless they find the paraphernalia in your house/hotel room).

Doping doesn't take average riders to greatness anyway, you need to already be a very talented rider in the top few percent in the peloton to be able to win a GT even with the help of doping. So for sure Armstrong and Contador were/are very talented athletes, they just boosted that talent through doping to a point where they're untouchable (even by others doping).

I think that the idea is that blood doping means you extract blood at certain times and re-inject it for the really important races. I doubt that many would dope for, say, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, but they would for Paris-Roubaix.

RichN95.

josame wrote:

In Millar's book he evidently recounts an encounter with Armstrong in 2007 when Millar took LA to task about his ambiguous (or downright anti-anti dopers) stance and got a chilling response

Has anyone read that section, and care to fill us in...

Ok, if you want.

The 2007 Tour has finished and Millar, not wanting anything to do with Saunier Duval goes to the CSC party, meets Vande Velde and they head off to the Discovery party.

First Millar tells Armstrong why he was one of the few riders not to wear Oakley's Livestrong glasses on the last stage (he had objected to Oakley forcing them on him and felt it had little to do with promoting the charity). Armstrong responds to this by offering to get Millar a new contract with Oakley.

Millar then asks Armstrong whether he had read e-mails he had sent to him criticising Discovery for signing Basso. Armstrong says he has. Then they have the following conversation:

DM: "Look, Lance - I know how much you love the Tour, but you're alienating yourself from it more and more. What are you to do 20 years from now if you're not welcome back? How can they invite you back as past champion if you treat the sport like sh!t and are clouded in controversy..."

(Armstrong stares at him.)

DM: "You didn't win seven Tours without loving the sport - I know that. Give something back, help us clean up the sport, it doesn't matter what happened when you raced, it's what happens now and in the future..."

LA: "Dave, of course I love the sport, but I can't help it if it won't help itself. I've got bigger things to do now, Dave, - life is amazing away from cycling. I could tell you stories you wouldn't believe. I'm moving on"

DM: "Lance that's BS. You will always come back to cycling..."

Millar then lectures him about Slipstream and other things (he doesn't specify).

(There's also a photo in the book of the encounter. Armstrong doesn't look pleased.)

frenchfighter

Millar FTMFW

frenchfighter

ps, pls change thread title to millAr.

inkyfingers

frenchfighter wrote:

Millar FTMFW

Sorry, but can you translate that so that those of us who aren't 13 can understand?

deal

inkyfingers wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Millar FTMFW

Sorry, but can you translate that so that those of us who aren't 13 can understand?

I beleive that would be Millar 'For The Mother F*ucking Win' :oops:

josame

RichN95 wrote:

josame wrote:

In Millar's book he evidently recounts an encounter with Armstrong in 2007 when Millar took LA to task about his ambiguous (or downright anti-anti dopers) stance and got a chilling response

Has anyone read that section, and care to fill us in...

Ok, if you want.....

The 2007 Tour has finished and Millar, not wanting anything to do with Saunier Duval goes to the CSC party, meets Vande Velde and they head off to the Discovery party....

Cheers for that Rich - much apreciated

BarryBonds

deal wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Millar FTMFW

Sorry, but can you translate that so that those of us who aren't 13 can understand?

I beleive that would be Millar 'For The Mother F*ucking Win' :oops:

:roll: