Millartime - says Cav
Comments
-
rebs wrote:
Only reason WADA can't enfource this is because so many countries would object.... but why would they object....?
WADA do make provision for life bans, after more than one offence.
What percentage of the athletes at the Olympics are doped, yet have never been caught? Excluding people who have been caught and done their ban isn't really advancing any kind of cause. Aside from trying to "appear" tough.
I wonder how the legal costs would escalate if it was life bans all round? How much is all this already costing BOA and WADA.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Rebs, just to put the record straight, Scottish cyclist David Millar, banned for two years in 2004 for using the blood booster erythropoietin, won gold in the men's time trial at the 2010 Commonwealth Games representing his country Scotland. Millar is a reformed man, and while his past indiscretion means he will not be eligible to ride for Britain at the Olympics, he was given special dispensation to compete at these Games by the Scottish authorities.
Great Britain actually only means the three countries England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We would be more accurate in saying the United Kingdom team at the Olympics but for Historic reasons the authorities feel Great Britain has a more grandiose feel maybe and includes Northern Ireland. Confusing isn't it but what about the British Isles, clue... Great Britain is the largest island in the British Isles
:shock:0 -
Appreciate what you are saying Ron. But my point that if people found doping give up the right to compete for what is marketed as "Team GB" in the Olympics. I do think it would be a shame if WADA manage to stop this rule BOA have inplace.
I didn't think it was really needed to point out what country I'm talking about... is it? I didn't mention anything about him competing in world championships and Commonweath events etc.
Same with Iain. I didnt say it's working well. More so I agree with the stand BOA make on this.
I don't fully understand why WADA feel they need to step in over the BOA ruling. It does make them seem less interested with enforcing deterants to dope. Dwain Chambers was active with wanting him ban overturned. Millar less so. But he is honest enough to say if he could compete he would which is fine. But for the moment he can't and life goes on for him. No-one is stopping him from earning a living as a pro cyclist.0 -
rebs wrote:Appreciate what you are saying Ron. But my point that if people found doping give up the right to compete for what is marketed as "Team GB" in the Olympics. I do think it would be a shame if WADA manage to stop this rule BOA have inplace.
I didn't think it was really needed to point out what country I'm talking about... is it? I didn't mention anything about him competing in world championships and Commonweath events etc.
Same with Iain. I didnt say it's working well. More so I agree with the stand BOA make on this.
I don't fully understand why WADA feel they need to step in over the BOA ruling. It does make them seem less interested with enforcing deterants to dope. Dwain Chambers was active with wanting him ban overturned. Millar less so. But he is honest enough to say if he could compete he would which is fine. But for the moment he can't and life goes on for him. No-one is stopping him from earning a living as a pro cyclist.
WADA didn't step in on anything, the BOA stepped in by breaking the WADA rules and inventing their own.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:rebs wrote:Appreciate what you are saying Ron. But my point that if people found doping give up the right to compete for what is marketed as "Team GB" in the Olympics. I do think it would be a shame if WADA manage to stop this rule BOA have inplace.
I didn't think it was really needed to point out what country I'm talking about... is it? I didn't mention anything about him competing in world championships and Commonweath events etc.
Same with Iain. I didnt say it's working well. More so I agree with the stand BOA make on this.
I don't fully understand why WADA feel they need to step in over the BOA ruling. It does make them seem less interested with enforcing deterants to dope. Dwain Chambers was active with wanting him ban overturned. Millar less so. But he is honest enough to say if he could compete he would which is fine. But for the moment he can't and life goes on for him. No-one is stopping him from earning a living as a pro cyclist.
WADA didn't step in on anything, the BOA stepped in by breaking the WADA rules and inventing their own.
I find myself in complete agreement with you again indeed without wanting again to sound too repetitive it is the BOA with there agents that a breaking the rules they signed up to. Life or 5minute ban it makes no difference that is the judgment and Millar has accepted his, he has done his time, the Olympic road race has never been rated as a top achievement in major cycling terms, it ranks well below the big three TDF, Giro or Worlds or for that a major Classic. It's only the self importance of BOA officialdom that is preventing Millar helping Cav at the Olympics.
End of my rant on this one Ciao. :?0 -
David Millar tried to appeal his ban from 24 months down to 12 months in 2004 and he then he went to a notorious preparatore in Italy after his ban..who Tyler H used. On reflection, David Millar should not be allowed to do the Olympics. I like how he doesn't shy away from the doping question and find his lack of +s since 2004 no surprise..IMO he is clean and honest and won 2 stages of the Vuelta and 1 of the Giro clean-TTs, so he is a good influence but no Olympics. I am sure he will not go0
-
I don't get what's so complicated about this. BOA signed up to the WADA code. They are in violation of it with their stupid rule. End of discussion.
If Spain decided blood doping was ok (quiet at the back) should we all accept that, even though they signed up to the WADA code?
The irony of punishing someone for breaking rules by breaking a rule yourself never fails to amuse me.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
As well BOA not following the WADA rules, they will allow banned athletes to represent their country in the Olympics, as long as your ban was less than 6 months.
Now considering some of the negative views on here, surely a cheat is a cheat no matter how long their sporting federation banned then for. Why should someone who has doped but was treated lightly by their federation be allowed, whilst someone who was handed the full penatly not be allowed. That in itself is grossly unfair. Fact is the BOA ban is not legal, they will lose the CAS hearing, having spent vast amounts of money better spent on helping all athletes, rather than lawyers.
Now whether former doping cheats actually get selected or not is another thing, but the BOA rules should not be in place.0 -
iainf72 wrote:I don't get what's so complicated about this. BOA signed up to the WADA code. They are in violation of it with their stupid rule. End of discussion.
If Spain decided blood doping was ok (quiet at the back) should we all accept that, even though they signed up to the WADA code?
The irony of punishing someone for breaking rules by breaking a rule yourself never fails to amuse me.
what's your personal opinion on it Iainf? Let DM into 2012 Olympics or not? ...I think he shouldn't be in0 -
iainf72 wrote:I don't get what's so complicated about this. BOA signed up to the WADA code. They are in violation of it with their stupid rule. End of discussion.
If Spain decided blood doping was ok (quiet at the back) should we all accept that, even though they signed up to the WADA code?
The irony of punishing someone for breaking rules by breaking a rule yourself never fails to amuse me.
I do get what you are saying. And you are totally right in what you are saying. But I'm interested to see WADA look to enforce such a rule in regards to the olympics and possibly highest level in each sport. In that if you do dope and punlished you are prevented to representing your country/go to the olympics forever. But are still able to continue to earn a living from the sport they have invested huge chunks of their life.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
what's your personal opinion on it Iainf? Let DM into 2012 Olympics or not? ...I think he shouldn't be in
He should be able to compete.
My personal opinion of the BOA thing is it's moronic. Feels like it's designed to appeal to people who put up petitions for the death penalty on the number 10 e-petitions site.
As far as cycling is concerned, I don't really put the olympics on a pedastal. Maybe for the egg and spoon events on the wooden circle, but on the road, it's no TdF or Paris-Roubaix.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
As if you like Paris Roubaix. It doesn't have any hills! :P0
-
The BOA were quick to overturn Christine Ohurougu's ban, weren't they? Does she still train with the Jamaicans these days? How many positives have they had recently?
I am kind of on the fence regarding life bans. I think the WADA code should be changed to be 2 year bans with life bans from Olympics (for all sports & all dopers). However, this can be reduced to just a 2 year ban if guilty athletes provides comprehensive cooperation in their case & helps the fight eg Millar.
BTW for all those unsure why WADA are challenging: if they don't, other countries eg the Spaniards could start giving non-standard sentences eg 1 year bans or letting dopers off altogether. Oh.0 -
As much as it would disgust me if DM rode in the Olympics, if the BOA have signed up to a rule which states that he is permitted to ride in them, then if he is good enough and qualifies, then he should. However, can anyone point me in the direction of these rules or is this a media myth; it wouldn't be the first time the media have peddled a story to suit their friends, which is incorrect. I don't believe everything I read or see in the media. Rulebooks tend to be inconsistent at times or open to interpretation. It is sometimes the case that there are other rules in place with fuzzy wording allowing another rule not to be implemented.
What has been overlooked in this argument is that perceived or real, Dave Brailsford's integrity is now completely compromised and it is of his own making. As Sky manager, he has significant commercial interests and personal financial gain in having Millar support Cav. That position is untenable.
He should resign from Sky immediately or from GB after the Olympics. Unfortunately, being so close to the Olympics, his resignation from GB would probably have a detrimental affect upon some team members. That would be unfair on those who have no influence in these matters.0 -
TopBhoy - what on earth are you on about??!! You want the most successful manager us brits have ever had to resign because, let me get this straight - because other parties (i.e. Cav for one) are giving a little bit of air-time to the possibility of DM riding the Olympics?
You are unhappy that - although the appropriate governing bodies would be happy for DM to ride - that Brailsford will financially gain from all this??
There has been some genuinely insightful posting on this topic. Yours isn't one of them.
Brailsford isn't in an untenable position. You are just being daft!0 -
Guy from BOA just on BBC Breakfast about the tickets, but Mike Bushell diverted him to the WADA issue, Millar, Wiggo and Cav conflicting viewpoints discussed again. :?Savoie between the Glandon and the Madeleine.0
-
Top_Bhoy wrote:As much as it would disgust me if DM rode in the Olympics, if the BOA have signed up to a rule which states that he is permitted to ride in them, then if he is good enough and qualifies, then he should. However, can anyone point me in the direction of these rules or is this a media myth; it wouldn't be the first time the media have peddled a story to suit their friends, which is incorrect. I don't believe everything I read or see in the media. Rulebooks tend to be inconsistent at times or open to interpretation. It is sometimes the case that there are other rules in place with fuzzy wording allowing another rule not to be implemented.
What has been overlooked in this argument is that perceived or real, Dave Brailsford's integrity is now completely compromised and it is of his own making. As Sky manager, he has significant commercial interests and personal financial gain in having Millar support Cav. That position is untenable.
He should resign from Sky immediately or from GB after the Olympics. Unfortunately, being so close to the Olympics, his resignation from GB would probably have a detrimental affect upon some team members. That would be unfair on those who have no influence in these matters.
:shock: Huh?0 -
thegreatdivide wrote:
Sorry Chaps thought I was finished on this one but maybe Brailsford could do with giving his young guns some expert media training, like it or not these days it's a must if your up there in the lime light, dealing with the media well will help the athlete consentrate better on turning them bloody pedals. :P0 -
tremayne wrote:TopBhoy - what on earth are you on about??!! You want the most successful manager us brits have ever had to resign because, let me get this straight - because other parties (i.e. Cav for one) are giving a little bit of air-time to the possibility of DM riding the Olympics?
You are unhappy that - although the appropriate governing bodies would be happy for DM to ride - that Brailsford will financially gain from all this??
There has been some genuinely insightful posting on this topic. Yours isn't one of them.
Brailsford isn't in an untenable position. You are just being daft!
Erm...the BOA is an appropriate governing body, they aren't happy at DM riding.
All I am saying is that there is a conflict of interests, whether it is real or perceived. In selecting a 'banned' rider for the team in support of your star man, with whom you have a significant interest in becoming Olympic champion, against the wishes of the Governing body, how else can that not be at least a perceived conflict of interests.
You may not like it but that is fact. This possible conflict of interest was raised earlier by many on this forum when Sky started. I thought then that it was wrong then and the relationship was far too close.....it is now being played out.
Cav and GB were successful before Skys arrival....given the budget Sky have, I am sure they would have been successful without DB at the helm. There was no necessity at all to combine and blur the roles between a national team and a private multi-million pound company team.
Anyway, that is my opinion. I don't see anything to be gained making any changes this late to the Olympics but after that, the dual role must be sorted out.0 -
why do so many people think that the practice of training public figures to lie better is a good thing?Ron Stuart wrote:thegreatdivide wrote:
Sorry Chaps thought I was finished on this one but maybe Brailsford could do with giving his young guns some expert media training, like it or not these days it's a must if your up there in the lime light, dealing with the media well will help the athlete consentrate better on turning them bloody pedals. :P0 -
avoidingmyphd wrote:why do so many people think that the practice of training public figures to lie better is a good thing?
I feel sorry for Wiggins. How many times can one guy get misquoted in the press. And don't give me that "oooh, they've got him on tape or video actually saying the words" nonsense.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
It's a bit unnecessary to feel sorry for a millionaire successful sports star because he is also sometimes candid and clumsy . I'm sure that if him and Millar care enough they can sort this out. In fact, even if his views have been accurately reported I hope Millar is man enough to be able to get on with people who think he should face a life ban. It's not exactly a crazy moral stance to take or an attack on him personally. It's better that Wiggins stays honest than learns the same vapid three sentences which are all footballers can say.0
-
Agree - I don't see anything wrong with cyclists speaking candidly.
I can't see that this has caused any damage at all - I'm sure Millar, Wiggins, Cav are capable of picking up a phone and talking directly to each other and they'll all know that what you read in the press can't be taken at face value. What sport needs are characters - people like Cav, Wiggins and going further back Robert Millar aren't on message all the time but I think they are more high profile because of that - what I don't want is some bland stage managed sport full of bland stage managed riders.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:Agree - I don't see anything wrong with cyclists speaking candidly.
Of course it's not a problem. However, it is a problem when you take to twitter afterwards and claim you never said any such thing.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
There is a subtle difference between speaking candidly and insulting your retiring team mates from the previous season I think. http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0 ... 11,00.html
Also media training helps stop you’re being cornered into saying something to the press that may get used negatively and out of context. It's isn't about not speaking your mind it's about dealing with people in the media that know there is more mileage in a negative story than a positive one. There is also the right time and place to comment aspect as well, this can border on showing respect and common courtesy to others.
There is also the fact he not only represents himself but his employers when he is speaking out to the press on such matters.0 -
True that BOA have signed up to the WADA code; however if they choose to have rules/laws/statues in excess of that it has nothing to do with WADA. BOA would be still in line with WADA, it's just DM is in the wrong country.
Would I like him in? Proabaly not; I knwo it would be a massive boost for team GB but he admitted he doped whilst he was in custody, not because he failed a test or had a moment of clarity and decided to come clean.
This more than likely won't be solved on this forum, IIRCC didn't Cav say in pro-cycling's 'doping' issue that dopers should be forced to leave the sport?+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
It all seems fairly pointless to me.
I'd like to think (rather altruistically) that evryone in the Olympics was a virgin as far as PED's were concerned but that clearly ins't the case.
As soon as one country's Olympic Association allowed drug cheats back into the Olympics via WADA there was little point in holding out.
Maybe if BOA can persuade the Olympic Committee to award gold medals for a country maintaining the moral high ground then it is worthwhile. If not then British athletes should be allowed to compete and (reluctantly) offend on a level playing field.
Let him in.0 -
symo wrote:True that BOA have signed up to the WADA code; however if they choose to have rules/laws/statues in excess of that it has nothing to do with WADA. BOA would be still in line with WADA, it's just DM is in the wrong country.
No, there isn't provision for them to have stricter rules. The rules need to be uniform so it's the same everywhere.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:It all seems fairly pointless to me.
I'd like to think (rather altruistically) that evryone in the Olympics was a virgin as far as PED's were concerned but that clearly ins't the case.
As soon as one country's Olympic Association allowed drug cheats back into the Olympics via WADA there was little point in holding out.
Maybe if BOA can persuade the Olympic Committee to award gold medals for a country maintaining the moral high ground then it is worthwhile. If not then British athletes should be allowed to compete and (reluctantly) offend on a level playing field.
Let him in.
The BOA allow drug cheats, just so long as they didn't get more than a 6 month ban. :? If you cheated by using drugs, and were banned, does it matter how long the ban was for, you were a cheat.
DM is just unlucky that his federation gave him the maximum ban possible, rather than a minimal sentence.
If you are going to have a rule banning cheats (either though it is illegal), it must at least apply to ALL drug cheats and not just some of them.0
