David Millar on BBC Hardtalk

dougzz

I respect him, he seems to try to be honest about what's happened.

Rodrego Hernandez

He's not been totally honest and I don;t believe him even now, especially with the Trent Lowe affair last season and the sacking of Matt White.

He did clean riders out of places at the World Champs and out of jobs in teams. There are plenty of clean riders who failed to make it overseas because of cheats like Millar but he doesn't seem to acknowledge this and seems to feel sorry for himself.

LeicesterLad

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

He's not been totally honest and I don;t believe him even now, especially with the Trent Lowe affair last season and the sacking of Matt White.

He did clean riders out of places at the World Champs and out of jobs in teams. There are plenty of clean riders who failed to make it overseas because of cheats like Millar but he doesn't seem to acknowledge this and seems to feel sorry for himself.

Each to their own.

brettjmcc

avoidingmyphd wrote:

I didn't get that impression from the book at all. In fact, the thing that makes it a good book is the effort he goes to to explain that it's far far more complicated than that.

+1 Bought by my wife last week for my birthday and I read it in under 2 days.

I think it was very articulate in the build up and how it happened. There will be many sides to a story of which his is one view point; based on what I read I saw him trying to be honest and open to get people to understand the decisions he felt he had to make based on the environmental and peer pressures at the time.

I must admit I did like the section when he confronted/aired his views with Lance and there was the picture to go with it...

rick_chasey

Anyone else get irritated by the interviewer?

I'm not keen on that style of interview - where they tell the story for the interviewee to hurry along to the headline grabbing point.

Tusher

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone else get irritated by the interviewer?

I'm not keen on that style of interview - where they tell the story for the interviewee to hurry along to the headline grabbing point.

Yes, I got the impression that he'd been very well briefed about the topic, but there was no passion, no feeling from the interviewer, just something missing. All he wanted to do, as Rick said, was hurry.

Le Commentateur

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone else get irritated by the interviewer?

I'm not keen on that style of interview - where they tell the story for the interviewee to hurry along to the headline grabbing point.

It's an interrogation style, hence the show's title. Don't give them time to think of a lie.

rick_chasey

Le Commentateur wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone else get irritated by the interviewer?

I'm not keen on that style of interview - where they tell the story for the interviewee to hurry along to the headline grabbing point.

It's an interrogation style, hence the show's title. Don't give them time to think of a lie.

It's awful.

Surely you'd let him tell the story and interrupt to pick out the tricky bits. That way everyone gets a full rounded picture.

I doubt that interview made much sense to people who never watch cycling.

hotoph88

Jez mon wrote:

DM is probably my favourite rider in the peloton atm.

.... he's one of the only English speaking riders who put his hands up, admitted doping, and talks about why he doped, and how it made him feel.

Sure, he may well have ulterior when he speaks about doping these days, having realised that it keeps him in the media. .

St David's disciples have been so good at spreading the gospel that fable has replaced fact for many years.......St David did not admit to doping. He was caught by the French Police in a bust and had to have the confession wrung out of him in 24 hours of questioning. He had no other employment prospects so went back to cycling. His upholding of the Omerta was outstanding immediately after his confession and the information he has passed on has only changed, over the years, as those he could have named originally, were still in the sport, but have now retired.

The 2nd paragraph has it correct and is in direct contradiction to the first. Good knows who he was racing for when he deliberately let the unbridgeable gap open on the last bend in the 2005 World Road Race champs but it certainly was not GB.

St David remains the embodiment of the cynical professional cyclist in all its most negative aspects. He continues to exploit and take advantage of the naive.

Just think how few of our young men and women let us down by behaving so badly they draw censorious comment at the Olympics. St David moved himself into that group with his behaviour at Sydney. Bottom 3% was my personal opinion in 2000. Everything he has done since only lessens my opinion of him.

stfc1

hotoph88 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

DM is probably my favourite rider in the peloton atm.

.... he's one of the only English speaking riders who put his hands up, admitted doping, and talks about why he doped, and how it made him feel.

Sure, he may well have ulterior when he speaks about doping these days, having realised that it keeps him in the media. .

St David's disciples have been so good at spreading the gospel that fable has replaced fact for many years.......St David did not admit to doping. He was caught by the French Police in a bust and had to have the confession wrung out of him in 24 hours of questioning. He had no other employment prospects so went back to cycling. His upholding of the Omerta was outstanding immediately after his confession and the information he has passed on has only changed, over the years, as those he could have named originally, were still in the sport, but have now retired.

The 2nd paragraph has it correct and is in direct contradiction to the first. Good knows who he was racing for when he deliberately let the unbridgeable gap open on the last bend in the 2005 World Road Race champs but it certainly was not GB.

St David remains the embodiment of the cynical professional cyclist in all its most negative aspects. He continues to exploit and take advantage of the naive.

Just think how few of our young men and women let us down by behaving so badly they draw censorious comment at the Olympics. St David moved himself into that group with his behaviour at Sydney. Bottom 3% was my personal opinion in 2000. Everything he has done since only lessens my opinion of him.

Looks good on a bike though.

Jez mon

hotoph88 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

DM is probably my favourite rider in the peloton atm.

.... he's one of the only English speaking riders who put his hands up, admitted doping, and talks about why he doped, and how it made him feel.

Sure, he may well have ulterior when he speaks about doping these days, having realised that it keeps him in the media. .

St David's disciples have been so good at spreading the gospel that fable has replaced fact for many years.......St David did not admit to doping. He was caught by the French Police in a bust and had to have the confession wrung out of him in 24 hours of questioning. He had no other employment prospects so went back to cycling. His upholding of the Omerta was outstanding immediately after his confession and the information he has passed on has only changed, over the years, as those he could have named originally, were still in the sport, but have now retired.

The 2nd paragraph has it correct and is in direct contradiction to the first. Good knows who he was racing for when he deliberately let the unbridgeable gap open on the last bend in the 2005 World Road Race champs but it certainly was not GB.

St David remains the embodiment of the cynical professional cyclist in all its most negative aspects. He continues to exploit and take advantage of the naive.

Just think how few of our young men and women let us down by behaving so badly they draw censorious comment at the Olympics. St David moved himself into that group with his behaviour at Sydney. Bottom 3% was my personal opinion in 2000. Everything he has done since only lessens my opinion of him.

If you take a minute to look at pro cyclists over the years, you'll realise that those who speak openly about doping are in the minority. Milllar didn't have to admit that his major titles were won with assistance but he did.

As for the 2005 worlds, well I'm not sure what he could have done then, AFAIR Millar wasn't in the team that year, and Boonen won a rather exciting race around madrid!...(it was only exciting as I'm a Boonen fan, and it's the first race I was able to watch a large amount of!)

Upholding Omerta, would be either denying until the cows came home, or just saying that he was the only one who doped. DM has done neither as far as I am concerned, and has trodden a line between being unemployable in the world of pro cycling, and being someone who doesn't talk about the issues within pro cycling.

hotoph88

hotoph88 wrote:

Go(o)d knows who he was racing for when he deliberately let the unbridgeable gap open on the last bend in the 2005 World Road Race champs but it certainly was not GB.

St David remains the embodiment of the cynical professional cyclist in all its most negative aspects. He continues to exploit and take advantage of the naive.

Just think how few of our young men and women let us down by behaving so badly they draw censorious comment at the Olympics. St David moved himself into that group with his behaviour at Sydney. Bottom 3% was my personal opinion in 2000. Everything he has done since only lessens my opinion of him.

I got it wrong - not Madrid but on our hero's return - Salzburg 2006 - under the bridge - last bend. Certainly was ensuring his "employability" to his friends like "My special friend Lance who rang me as soon as he found out" (about the drugs bust).

top_bhoy

Instead of espousing on how he felt, it would do far more good if DM named names, the network, doctors, etc - but he doesn't. I can understand some of the reasons why he won't say more but he certainly doesn't deserve to be considered as an anti-doping campaigner.

Without providing serious anti-doping information he cannot be said to be fighting for a cleaner sport. He is simply another doping cheat carrying on the age old omerta within cycling; skillfully working some fans and media alike to portray an image of reform.

Smoke and mirrors from Mr M.

RichN95.

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Instead of espousing on how he felt, it would do far more good if DM named names, the network, doctors, etc - but he doesn't. I can understand some of the reasons why he won't say more but he certainly doesn't deserve to be considered as an anti-doping campaigner.

Maybe he has.Who knows what goes on in private. Naming names to you isn't going to make any difference at all.

iainf72

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Without providing serious anti-doping information he cannot be said to be fighting for a cleaner sport. He is simply another doping cheat carrying on the age old omerta within cycling; skillfully working some fans and media alike to portray an image of reform.

Smoke and mirrors from Mr M.

You mean like contacting Gripper etc about what was happening on Saunier-D? Do you mean like that kind of information?

brettjmcc

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Instead of espousing on how he felt, it would do far more good if DM named names, the network, doctors, etc - but he doesn't. I can understand some of the reasons why he won't say more but he certainly doesn't deserve to be considered as an anti-doping campaigner.

Without providing serious anti-doping information he cannot be said to be fighting for a cleaner sport. He is simply another doping cheat carrying on the age old omerta within cycling; skillfully working some fans and media alike to portray an image of reform.

Smoke and mirrors from Mr M.

You mean like naming people without any proof, and then if they are not convicted be done for liable or slander (depending on written or verbal) ?

I suppose the fact he sits on WADA counts as not trying to help clean up the sport...

I see this whole thing like a massive corporate company. You can't just change it like journalists and fans would have people believe. It's a tanker that needs to be turned slowly using politics, friends, enemies, situations and luck.

top_bhoy

In the closed world of pro cycling, do you think he would still be welcomed into riding with a pro-tour team if he had given any information of consequence? That LA was still on speaking terms with DM after his return says all you need to know on the usefulness of any information DM may have given.

rick_chasey

Top_Bhoy wrote:

In the closed world of pro cycling, do you think he would still be welcomed into riding with a pro-tour team if he had given any information of consequence? That LA was still on speaking terms with DM after his return says all you need to know on the usefulness of any information DM may have given.

I think it's unrealistic to expect any rider to go give up names of others and try and fight against the system.

For these guys it's a job, and something that, at that level ,they'd have been working towards for their entire adult and probably teenage career. To throw that all away, dump what are probably friends in it too, is a lot to ask of someone. If the doping system is part of a team, then dumping the whole team into it leaves the fate of a lot of jobs on their shoulders. If a team folds, then all the mechanics, staff etc, suffer too. Also, given that the rider is already being punished for the offence, to dob everyone in and lose any hope of a big cycling career post offence would essentially be punishing themselves twice.

We've seen with riders like Simeoni that it doesn't seem to add much value anyway.

What we see from Millar, ostensibly anyway, is as much as we can realistically hope for from a rider who has been caught.

top_bhoy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

In the closed world of pro cycling, do you think he would still be welcomed into riding with a pro-tour team if he had given any information of consequence? That LA was still on speaking terms with DM after his return says all you need to know on the usefulness of any information DM may have given.

I think it's unrealistic to expect any rider to go give up names of others and try and fight against the system.

For these guys it's a job, and something that, at that level ,they'd have been working towards for their entire adult and probably teenage career. To throw that all away, dump what are probably friends in it too, is a lot to ask of someone. If the doping system is part of a team, then dumping the whole team into it leaves the fate of a lot of jobs on their shoulders. If a team folds, then all the mechanics, staff etc, suffer too. Also, given that the rider is already being punished for the offence, to dob everyone in and lose any hope of a big cycling career post offence would essentially be punishing themselves twice.

We've seen with riders like Simeoni that it doesn't seem to add much value anyway.

What we see from Millar, ostensibly anyway, is as much as we can realistically hope for from a rider who has been caught.

I don't see to much disagreement with what you say. I can understand many of the reasons why DM wouldn't want to say more on doping but his actions to date leave him looking hypocritical; simply another cheat trying to justify and excuse his own actions by reinventing his public profile. He would have been better advised to come back, shut-up and ride.

Like or loathe him, I'm sure everyone is in agreement that DM can certainly polarise opinions

DeadCalm

Top_Bhoy wrote:

In the closed world of pro cycling, do you think he would still be welcomed into riding with a pro-tour team if he had given any information of consequence? That LA was still on speaking terms with DM after his return says all you need to know on the usefulness of any information DM may have given.

Which would all be well and dandy if he hadn't given information of consequence. He has. See what Iain said above regarding Saunier Duval for example. Obviously, you may prefer to ignore facts that don't fit in with your particular world view.

dulldave

I watched the full programme and I have to say I'm a bit confused about how anyone has a problem with what he was saying or how he was saying it. I like DM on the whole but also dislike it when he gets all holier than thou.

I can only think that anyone who watched that and thought 'w@nker' wanted to do so before they'd even hit play.

top_bhoy

DeadCalm wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

In the closed world of pro cycling, do you think he would still be welcomed into riding with a pro-tour team if he had given any information of consequence? That LA was still on speaking terms with DM after his return says all you need to know on the usefulness of any information DM may have given.

Which would all be well and dandy if he hadn't given information of consequence. He has. See what Iain said above regarding Saunier Duval for example. Obviously, you may prefer to ignore facts that don't fit in with your particular world view.

Ignore the facts ??- the only facts that we know are that DM is a doping cheat with a new desire to go public as an anti-doping evangelist. I haven't claimed any other fact. However, your claim of a fact though is nothing of the sort but I do appreciate your difficulty; differentiating between fact and opinion is never easy

Without the precise evidence ie the link to the actual documentation which formed part of the evidence against S-D, what exactly was provided and said is subjective and opinion. Provide that factual evidence and I will in all probability change my opinion.

hotoph88

Fact - this is the story this year - "David Millar attacks Tour de France legend Lance Armstrong "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... sport.html

This would be the same David Millar that factually announced to all his cycling "friends" straight after the drugs bust (not confession) that he had received many supportive calls from his fellow professionals and in particular his very good friend Lance Armstrong had gone out of his way to give him support at this difficult time.

Why name a single rider ? At the time a translation of this went through my head - it started with - "the boss gave me a call, I told him like I am telling you....... Somebody else define omerta and describe how it works and come up with a different take on events. I can only see one.

ddraver

Top_Bhoy wrote:

. He would have been better advised to come back, shut-up and ride

And how would that have helped anyone? There are any number of riders who have kept quiet and not done anything to help the fight against doping - are you saying that that is better than doing what you can to try and help? Another riding sacrificing himself to add more flames to the fire under people at S-D/Cofidis who, lets be honest, we all could have guessed were "looking the other way" would have helped no one. What makes you think that DM has "!!! THE PROOF !!!" anyway

I think dulldave makes good point!