David Millar's letter to Rabobank
stigofthedump
Posts: 331
Initially Millar Tweeted "Dear Rabobank, you were part of the problem. How dare you walk away from the young clean guys who are part of the solution. Sickening."
He has since elaborated in an open letter in De Volkskrant, a dutch newspaper
"Dear Rabobank,
Before I explain my initial reaction to your announcement of pulling out of sponsoring professional cycling (@millarmind: Dear Rabobank, you were part of the problem. How dare you walk away from the young clean guys who are part of the solution. Sickening.) I’d like to tell you what Rabobank represents to me as a cyclist, and a British cyclist at that.
It represents the Netherlands, from the orange kit to the comprehensive national support across the board, from grassroots level to men’s and women’s professional cycling. The Netherlands is the cycling nation, that’s how we see you, the fact you had a national bank who was willing to nurture and carry your nation's cycling hopes seemed so wonderfully appropriate.
There was a certain jealousy for me that I wasn’t Dutch, that I didn’t have that sporting ladder to climb up, from racing as a school boy to one day doing the Tour de France all within a national team. Of course, now it does exist, with Sky whose sponsorship starts at grassroots participation right up to their British Tour de France team. A sponsor that is inspiring a country to become cyclists on a very similar model to what Rabobank have done. Contrary to Rabobank and the Netherlands this is only a recent development for the UK.
I have raced against Rabobank riders since I turned professional in 1997, and it’s always been a powerful team, a team other professionals have been envious of with its big budget and massive support and strong national affiliation. Like me, and many others, it lost its way. To the point where it was accepted by Theo de Rooij that doping was tolerated within the team. The truth, which the world is now accepting, is that at the time doping was tolerated within the sport to some degree.
The downfall of Lance Armstrong has opened the world’s eyes up to what most of us within the sport knew, if not in the detail that the USADA file has revealed, that to win the Tour de France and many other big races was impossible without doping for a certain period of time. Of course races were won by clean riders, and many clean riders achieved remarkable careers, especially in hindsight, without doping, but the bottom line is that doping was rife and necessary to be the best.
Who is responsible for this? Most of us involved in professional cycling were in some way or another, it became a way of life. I’d hoped the Festina Affair would force change but the problem was too deeply embedded to be changed by one event.
It took several changes to take place. First came the anti-doping controls, they became more advanced, the drugs that had been previously undetectable became detectable.
Doping became a criminal offence in many European countries allowing for criminal investigations to delve deeper than any anti-doping agency or cycling governing body ever could; it was a criminal investigation that discovered my history of doping.
A whereabouts system was put in place, giving anti-doping agencies the ability to do doping controls out-of-competition effectively for the first time; out of competition being the time when most doping took place.
As the anti-doping measures became more effective more riders and teams found themselves being faced with doping scandals. This had the effect of sponsors asking questions, or simply withdrawing their sponsorship, thus making team managers more responsible for the actions of their doctors and riders. Some teams reacted more strongly than others, Marc Madiot and FDJ are a prime example of a manager and sponsor who made the decision in the late 1990’s to eradicate doping from within their team. They didn’t rely on anybody else, they did it themselves.
This is where my critique of your withdrawing stems from. The sport in the past five years has cleaned up massively, my team and our sponsors came into professional cycling with the intention of having a 100% clean team, we knew what the sport was about, Jonathan Vaughters our team manager is an ex-doper, I was the lead rider and I am an ex-doper. Our sponsors understand what professional cycling is about because we have explained it to them, they share responsibility with us, we have explained cycling’s history and how it is our intention to change the future through our actions every day.
Rabobank the cycling team is an institution, the amount of dreams that have been shattered by your pulling out are uncountable. You have some of the most amazing athletes, I’ll mention Marianne Vos and Robert Gesink because they are the most famous, but there are many more who do not deserve to pay for the mistakes of the past.
Those of us who make up the past have to take responsibility for the future.
You have stood by your team through scandals, I credit you this, but did you really try hard enough to prevent those scandals before or after they happened? I don’t think you did. Is your team clean now? I believe it is. Should you be proud of your cycling team and what it represents today? Yes, you most definitely can.
Yet you choose to pull the team, and within your statement make this remark, “We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport. We are not confident that this will change for the better in the foreseeable future.”
You are wrong.
We have made a huge difference these past few years. I KNOW it is now possible to win the biggest races in the world clean, that is a fact. I can empathise with your disillusionment with the sport, but please do not belittle all the work we’ve done and difference we have made. You are throwing away the chance to be part of the future of what is, in your own words, “…a beautiful sport.”
I admire your decision to not discard the teams immediately but to have them race in unbranded jerseys next year, many other sponsors would have seen this as an opportunity to jump ship. This says something about you. Maybe take some time to understand the sport, find a way to be part of the continued change. I believe all of us who were part of the recent history of cycling have a responsibility to accept we made mistakes (deliberate or not) and a duty to fix what went wrong.
That is the ethical thing to do, and more importantly, it is our duty."
I think Millar wee needed someone like Millar at the forefront of the fight against drugs in our sport. His is an intelligent response to the mess our sport is in.
What do you all think?
He has since elaborated in an open letter in De Volkskrant, a dutch newspaper
"Dear Rabobank,
Before I explain my initial reaction to your announcement of pulling out of sponsoring professional cycling (@millarmind: Dear Rabobank, you were part of the problem. How dare you walk away from the young clean guys who are part of the solution. Sickening.) I’d like to tell you what Rabobank represents to me as a cyclist, and a British cyclist at that.
It represents the Netherlands, from the orange kit to the comprehensive national support across the board, from grassroots level to men’s and women’s professional cycling. The Netherlands is the cycling nation, that’s how we see you, the fact you had a national bank who was willing to nurture and carry your nation's cycling hopes seemed so wonderfully appropriate.
There was a certain jealousy for me that I wasn’t Dutch, that I didn’t have that sporting ladder to climb up, from racing as a school boy to one day doing the Tour de France all within a national team. Of course, now it does exist, with Sky whose sponsorship starts at grassroots participation right up to their British Tour de France team. A sponsor that is inspiring a country to become cyclists on a very similar model to what Rabobank have done. Contrary to Rabobank and the Netherlands this is only a recent development for the UK.
I have raced against Rabobank riders since I turned professional in 1997, and it’s always been a powerful team, a team other professionals have been envious of with its big budget and massive support and strong national affiliation. Like me, and many others, it lost its way. To the point where it was accepted by Theo de Rooij that doping was tolerated within the team. The truth, which the world is now accepting, is that at the time doping was tolerated within the sport to some degree.
The downfall of Lance Armstrong has opened the world’s eyes up to what most of us within the sport knew, if not in the detail that the USADA file has revealed, that to win the Tour de France and many other big races was impossible without doping for a certain period of time. Of course races were won by clean riders, and many clean riders achieved remarkable careers, especially in hindsight, without doping, but the bottom line is that doping was rife and necessary to be the best.
Who is responsible for this? Most of us involved in professional cycling were in some way or another, it became a way of life. I’d hoped the Festina Affair would force change but the problem was too deeply embedded to be changed by one event.
It took several changes to take place. First came the anti-doping controls, they became more advanced, the drugs that had been previously undetectable became detectable.
Doping became a criminal offence in many European countries allowing for criminal investigations to delve deeper than any anti-doping agency or cycling governing body ever could; it was a criminal investigation that discovered my history of doping.
A whereabouts system was put in place, giving anti-doping agencies the ability to do doping controls out-of-competition effectively for the first time; out of competition being the time when most doping took place.
As the anti-doping measures became more effective more riders and teams found themselves being faced with doping scandals. This had the effect of sponsors asking questions, or simply withdrawing their sponsorship, thus making team managers more responsible for the actions of their doctors and riders. Some teams reacted more strongly than others, Marc Madiot and FDJ are a prime example of a manager and sponsor who made the decision in the late 1990’s to eradicate doping from within their team. They didn’t rely on anybody else, they did it themselves.
This is where my critique of your withdrawing stems from. The sport in the past five years has cleaned up massively, my team and our sponsors came into professional cycling with the intention of having a 100% clean team, we knew what the sport was about, Jonathan Vaughters our team manager is an ex-doper, I was the lead rider and I am an ex-doper. Our sponsors understand what professional cycling is about because we have explained it to them, they share responsibility with us, we have explained cycling’s history and how it is our intention to change the future through our actions every day.
Rabobank the cycling team is an institution, the amount of dreams that have been shattered by your pulling out are uncountable. You have some of the most amazing athletes, I’ll mention Marianne Vos and Robert Gesink because they are the most famous, but there are many more who do not deserve to pay for the mistakes of the past.
Those of us who make up the past have to take responsibility for the future.
You have stood by your team through scandals, I credit you this, but did you really try hard enough to prevent those scandals before or after they happened? I don’t think you did. Is your team clean now? I believe it is. Should you be proud of your cycling team and what it represents today? Yes, you most definitely can.
Yet you choose to pull the team, and within your statement make this remark, “We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport. We are not confident that this will change for the better in the foreseeable future.”
You are wrong.
We have made a huge difference these past few years. I KNOW it is now possible to win the biggest races in the world clean, that is a fact. I can empathise with your disillusionment with the sport, but please do not belittle all the work we’ve done and difference we have made. You are throwing away the chance to be part of the future of what is, in your own words, “…a beautiful sport.”
I admire your decision to not discard the teams immediately but to have them race in unbranded jerseys next year, many other sponsors would have seen this as an opportunity to jump ship. This says something about you. Maybe take some time to understand the sport, find a way to be part of the continued change. I believe all of us who were part of the recent history of cycling have a responsibility to accept we made mistakes (deliberate or not) and a duty to fix what went wrong.
That is the ethical thing to do, and more importantly, it is our duty."
I think Millar wee needed someone like Millar at the forefront of the fight against drugs in our sport. His is an intelligent response to the mess our sport is in.
What do you all think?
0
Comments
-
Firstly I do like Millar. Like him as a rider, enjoyed his book, find him amusing, and he has done some good stuff since coming back from his ban.
Millar's tweet was a classic case of tweeting before thinking. It was a crowd-pleaser but to attack a major sponsor like that and call them out for having run doped teams was a knee-jerk, emotional action - and Millar is emotionally volatile, though undeniably intelligent.
He then had to follow up on it quickly and to some extent dig himself out of a hole in order to try to connect with Rabo. I'm not sure how much Rabo would have taken on board his open letter to them. The Dutch readers didnt receive it too well, it seems.
A couple of problems with how his letter was received: the biggest one for many - including the Dutch readership and probably Rabo itself - is an ex-doper doing the lecturing. Can be pretty hard to stomach, irrespective of his anti-doping work, and for many they dont see past that very well to what he's actually saying. Also, suggesting to Rabo 'Maybe take some time to understand the sport' has gone down like a lead balloon - after all Rabo were in pro cycling for 17 years.
As a rider, Millar does speak out when hardly anyone else would and has. However, I think he made a bit of a mistake when he was asked during the 5Live radio prog was Monday whether one day he'd be interested in becoming UCI President. By saying he could/would be, he's running the risk now of every action seeming to be self-promoting 'Pick me, pick me' stuff.
The UCI leadership needs to be replaced by someone/some people from outside the sport IMO. Too many ties, too much baggage, for anyone in the sport to take over.0 -
I think he recognises the importance of keeping a long term sponsor like Rabobank in the sport. I applaude his effort to try and persuade them to change their minds.
What would help would be if a German sponsor could be persuaded to return to the top tier of the sport. Not only are they one of the stronegst nations economically but they also walked away from cycling in many ways as drug scandal after drug scandal broke. The downfall of the Kaiser was the final straw.
Get the Germans back on board!0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:I think he recognises the importance of keeping a long term sponsor like Rabobank in the sport. I applaude his effort to try and persuade them to change their minds.
What would help would be if a German sponsor could be persuaded to return to the top tier of the sport. Not only are they one of the stronegst nations economically but they also walked away from cycling in many ways as drug scandal after drug scandal broke. The downfall of the Kaiser was the final straw.
Get the Germans back on board!
Alpecin! Jan Ullrich's paymaster for the 'doping for hair' (?) ad. That's who the Schlecks were allegedly talking to before Frank's little problem on the Tour.0 -
'Take some time to understand the sport' lol thanks for that Dave!0
-
Yellow Peril wrote:I think he recognises the importance of keeping a long term sponsor like Rabobank in the sport. I applaude his effort to try and persuade them to change their minds.
What would help would be if a German sponsor could be persuaded to return to the top tier of the sport. Not only are they one of the stronegst nations economically but they also walked away from cycling in many ways as drug scandal after drug scandal broke. The downfall of the Kaiser was the final straw.
Get the Germans back on board!
F*ck that.
The Dutch have been a much bigger part of cycling's history than the sodding Germans.
I also fear for what this means for the avondetappe.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:the sodding Germans.
Sounds a bit xenophobic Rick!0 -
mfin wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:the sodding Germans.
Sounds a bit xenophobic Rick!
DON'T MENTION THE WAR!0 -
mfin wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:the sodding Germans.
Sounds a bit xenophobic Rick!
Ah probably.
I see it like this. German by and large has no interest in cycling at all untill 1997. Then suddenly the press area is heaving with Germans and all the traditional nations lose out. Wuyts moans as much. Says the same about the Americans in '99.
Then when it all goes t!ts up they got all excessively sanctamonious and start whining, not broadcasting the rest of the Tour etc.
The Dutch have been part of it for as long as anyone can remember. Stick with it through thick and thin. Sure, they have diabolical commentary and any real fan watches the Belgian coverage, but they're always present in good numbers, in the peloton and by the side of the road.
Sure, they have Vaconsoleil, but let's face it, they don't feel especially Dutch (their management is firmly West Flandrian) and are hardly covered in glory re doping.
They deserve a proper team.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:mfin wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:the sodding Germans.
Sounds a bit xenophobic Rick!
Ah probably.
I see it like this. German by and large has no interest in cycling at all untill 1997. Then suddenly the press area is heaving with Germans and all the traditional nations lose out. Wuyts moans as much. Says the same about the Americans in '99.
Then when it all goes t!ts up they got all excessively sanctamonious and start whining, not broadcasting the rest of the Tour etc.
Oh **** em then
Millar's letter, even the action of writing a letter does seem to have a self-promoting aura around it, although much of what he says makes sense. Its void of any real commercial/association concerns, as, at the end of the day Rabobank are just a sponsor, and they can spend all that budget elsewhere to market themselves, they don't owe the sport anything by default just because of their long-standing sponsorship.
EDIT: I just had to edit this as I realised I could have won the 'who wrote the longest sentence award 2012'0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:mfin wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:the sodding Germans.
Sounds a bit xenophobic Rick!
Ah probably.
I see it like this. German by and large has no interest in cycling at all untill 1997. Then suddenly the press area is heaving with Germans and all the traditional nations lose out. Wuyts moans as much. Says the same about the Americans in '99.
Then when it all goes t!ts up they got all excessively sanctamonious and start whining, not broadcasting the rest of the Tour etc.
The Dutch have been part of it for as long as anyone can remember. Stick with it through thick and thin. Sure, they have diabolical commentary and any real fan watches the Belgian coverage, but they're always present in good numbers, in the peloton and by the side of the road.
Sure, they have Vaconsoleil, but let's face it, they don't feel especially Dutch (their management is firmly West Flandrian) and are hardly covered in glory re doping.
They deserve a proper team.
What I wrote had nothing to do with history it's to do with money. The sport will always have history, but I'm not so sure about money...0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Also, suggesting to Rabo 'Maybe take some time to understand the sport' has gone down like a lead balloon - after all Rabo were in pro cycling for 17 years.
This was the only part of his letter I have issue with; I was going to comment in precisely the same way as you. I think the rest of what he said is spot on, but if the longest serving sponsor in Pro Cycling doesn't know anything about the sport then what hope is there for the rest of us?
He hasn't thought that through. Perhaps, as one of you alluded, he's trying to dig himself out of a hole.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:However, I think he made a bit of a mistake when he was asked during the 5Live radio prog was Monday whether one day he'd be interested in becoming UCI President. By saying he could/would be, he's running the risk now of every action seeming to be self-promoting 'Pick me, pick me' stuff.
I think that is one of those situations where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. After all, how many times have we seen politicians deny their true goals, only to then try and seize them? I don't think anyone would truly accept a denial.The UCI leadership needs to be replaced by someone/some people from outside the sport IMO. Too many ties, too much baggage, for anyone in the sport to take over.
I like the idea of a poacher turned game keeper TBH. The cycling world would be subject to a complete reversal and perhaps it really does need something that extreme. The only issue I can see is that in order to get there, Millar will either have to make deals and will be in people's pockets, or he'll simply be a powerless figurehead and nothing will really change.0 -
Putting aside any thoughts of hidden agendas etc, Rabobank have basically said they are pulling out because they do not believe in the credibility of cycling now or looking forward. If they'd taken that stance a few years ago when if was plain to all that doping was widespread, then fair enough. But to do it now when if would seem to be significantly cleaner and only getting better just stinks and to me, it simply doesn't add up.
If it's a financing issue then say it. But to pin it on doping now is cobblers.
Fair play to David Millar. I completely agree with him.0 -
Exactly. From the outside we just see the brand, but there may have been a change in the management structure there or difficult times forecast on the balance sheet.
Anyway, they've just had the World Championships in Holland (and in an Olympic year), so it there isn't much to look forward to in the short term.0 -
stigofthedump wrote:I think Millar wee needed someone like Millar at the forefront of the fight against drugs in our sport. His is an intelligent response to the mess our sport is in.
What do you all think?
I'm a bit uneasy with Millar to honest.
Not to a degree of the clinic, though
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=190160 -
They just hate cycling over there don't they. No matter how much they protest clean cycling is their idea of hell.ThomThom wrote:stigofthedump wrote:I think Millar wee needed someone like Millar at the forefront of the fight against drugs in our sport. His is an intelligent response to the mess our sport is in.
What do you all think?
I'm a bit uneasy with Millar to honest.
Not to a degree of the clinic, though
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=190160 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:They just hate cycling over there don't they. No matter how much they protest clean cycling is their idea of hell.
Some do. It can be as good as it can be a ridiculous place. There are quality posters with good intentions. But there are definitely also a tosser or two there.
Whether one like it or not it's the mekka of cycling rumours, news and activity at the moment.0 -
I think Millar is being a bit too holy, Rabobank is just Karma, what goes around, comes around and will again. No test for EPO turn of the century? someone somewhere in a lab is creating the next 'big thing' that too at this time is untraceable, you watch, the parallels (Re: sponsors and UCI) are extraordinary;
News for June 26, 2002
Edited by Jeff Jones
Mapei to stop sponsorship at the end of 2002
The multi-million dollar global floor adhesives company, Mapei, has announced that it will cease its sponsorship of the world's number one cycling team at the end of the 2002 season. Mapei issued a press statement citing the main reasons as being "the current problems in cycling and sport in general".
Mapei has been involved in cycling sponsorship for the past 10 years, and the team has won over 500 races, including just about every major classic and stage race. This year the team was forced by UCI regulations to split into two, with an division I squad of 25 riders as well as a division III team of younger riders. Both teams have dominated the rankings with an impressive win ratio.
The head of the company, Giorgio Squinzi, said that "We have given a lot to cycling in the past decade; but from this sport he have also received a lot, in terms of competitive satisfaction."
Squinzi's main beef with the sport has always been the problem of doping, which has still not disappeared and has touched members of his own team (Garzelli and Zanini) recently. He has always been outspoken on this topic, often at loggerheads with the UCI president Hein Verbruggen, who he thinks hasn't done enough to combat the problem.
At Mapei's 2000 team launch, Squinzi said "The current situation in cycling is very confusing; we are just now at this late date finding out the new regulations from the UCI on medical controls...and they are very disappointing. Of the four parameters, there is only one (haematocrit) that offers the possibility to suspend a rider. I'm in favor of more stringent medical controls; like those suggested by the Italian Olympic Committee that offer a continual check of the riders health throughout the year. We hope that in 2000 that we have more 'real' controls of riders and that all the teams can compete on an equal basis."
Two years down the track, and this has happened, but Squinzi believes it has taken too long. "Finally there seem to be changes in motion, that are indispensable to give the sport of cycling the credibility that its popularity and history deserve: but the changes are still too weak, the progress too slow, with respect to the seriousness of the situation, to justify an engagement such as ours."
Squinzi feels that his $US10 million a year investment is not being treated seriously by the UCI. The strange circumstances of the Garzelli affair in the Giro d'Italia brought this light, when the UCI didn't step in to sort out the problem. Despite the threats that Mapei were reconsidering their position, there seemed to be no desire from the UCI to keep the number one team in the sport. So, Squinzi is taking his bat and ball and going home.
"I don't hide the fact that I am leaving this sport with a lot of satisfaction, but also with bitterness at being misunderstood at times, and the opposition to new ideas that we proposed for the organisation and management of teams (refer to the Certificate of Quality ISO 9001:2000). There is also bitterness about not being able to see the fruits of an important project that we undertook: the creation of a very young group of professionals, who I hope will characterise the future of cycling. And competitively speaking, we regret never having won San Remo or the Tour, the sole races that are lacking in our palmares."
Vandenbroucke wins CAS appeal
Frank Vandenbroucke is free to race again, after a six month suspension imposed by the Belgian Cycling Federation (BWB) was ruled "illegal" by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. The CAS made their ruling after a hearing on Monday, after Vandenbroucke and his lawyer Luc Deleu claimed that the BWB were not allowed to suspend him in March for possession of doping substances. According to Belgian law, the decision can only be made by a disciplinary commission set up by the Flemish government.
Vandenbroucke is due to meet the Flemish disciplinary commission on Thursday, who may bring back the ban. However it's unlikely that they could prevent him from racing outside Belgium.
The UCI may also ban Vandenbroucke, but they have not yet acted in this case. They did however release a statement criticising the lack of standards in international doping regulations, which vary from country to country.
"It seems extremely illogical that one body should deal with the testing and another with the disciplinary procedures, based on different regulations," read the statement. "The UCI will have to consider whether doping tests on races taking place in Flanders are still necessary or whether it wouldn't be more opportune to leave them to the government."
The affair started when EPO, clenbuterol and morphine were found by police in a search of Vandenbroucke's home in late February. The products are banned under Belgian law, and VDB has been charged with illegally possessing these substances. He currently without a team after he was fired by Domo-Farm Frites.0
