David Millar announces retirement after 2014 season.

dsoutar

mike6 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Just the sort of response I expected. Not one of you can come up with any argument to the things I said.
Just a few Neanderthal responses as usual. I'm off to the ballet.

Argue with those infantile rantings? Get real, or grow up. :roll:

Anyway, I think we've all worked out who the real Neanderthal is in this thread

Paul 8v

I was thinking that Rayjay was just Crankbrother in disguise but to be fair to Crankbrother he has a better grasp of the English language...

cynicalrider

Pross wrote:

No, the reason such big companies don't sponsor cycling is they get bigger exposure in sports like football or tennis (where doping isn't an issue for the simple reason they don't bother with minor things like regular testing). The few footballers that have tested positive and / or missed tests have strangely walked back into the sport on completing their (often stupidly short) bans and yet the multi-nationals are still ploughing in money.

Having been involved in the latter stages of negotiation at IBM (considered buying out Discovery Channel) and Barclays Capital (considered backing a pro team to coincide with its sponsorship of the CycleHire and Cycle Super Highways scheme) I can tell you that this is not the case. In both circumstances the fact of the sport being tarnished with doping was a major factor in decisions not to go ahead.

If dopers can return to the sport after short bans (which they spend training) and do very well, and see themselves lauded in the way Millar is for working against doping, how disheartening that must be for those clean riders trying to make it. There are a finite number of places at pro/world tour, pro conti and conti levels, and if they continue to be filled in part by ex-dopers, there is no hope for the sport ever shaking this image.

A career in professional sport is a privilege, not a right, and if you p1ss on that by doping, whatever your age and the circumstances in which you do it (unless by genuine accident), then you should lose that privilege and get a tedious, run of the mill job like the rest of the working population suffer.

Macaloon

cynicalrider wrote:

Having been involved in the latter stages of negotiation at IBM (considered buying out Discovery Channel) and Barclays Capital (considered backing a pro team to coincide with its sponsorship of the CycleHire and Cycle Super Highways scheme) I can tell you that this is not the case. In both circumstances the fact of the sport being tarnished with doping was a major factor in decisions not to go ahead.

Bl :shock: dy hell. A real-life expert. Out of genuine interest, why is athletics - the showpiece of the Olympic 'movement' which doesn't struggle for blue-chip sponsorship - viewed differently than cycling?

mike6

Macaloon wrote:

cynicalrider wrote:

Having been involved in the latter stages of negotiation at IBM (considered buying out Discovery Channel) and Barclays Capital (considered backing a pro team to coincide with its sponsorship of the CycleHire and Cycle Super Highways scheme) I can tell you that this is not the case. In both circumstances the fact of the sport being tarnished with doping was a major factor in decisions not to go ahead.

Bl :shock: dy hell. A real-life expert. Out of genuine interest, why is athletics - the showpiece of the Olympic 'movement' which doesn't struggle for blue-chip sponsorship - viewed differently than cycling?

Could be that in athletics a sponsor is not directly linked to a team or an individual. They tend to sponsor the event. Just my take.
I know some athletes have sponsors outside of the sports supply chain, like Jess Ennis, but the seem to be a very small minority.

Lanterne_Rogue

cynicalrider wrote:

If dopers can return to the sport after short bans (which they spend training) and do very well, and see themselves lauded in the way Millar is for working against doping, how disheartening that must be for those clean riders trying to make it. There are a finite number of places at pro/world tour, pro conti and conti levels, and if they continue to be filled in part by ex-dopers, there is no hope for the sport ever shaking this image.

I think Millar's own place in the sport has only been possible because of the era in which it happened. I don't think a rider could aim to replicate his career by thinking cynically "I'll dope until I get caught, then perform an about-face and be lauded for it" because there are now teams out there trying to show that it can be done cleanly, semi-transparently, and successfully. The alternative route is now there for everyone to see, and there are at least some high profile counter-examples to the idea that doping is the only way forward. It's a very different landscape to the way it was - with most teams now finally coming around to the idea that constant drugs scandals are dicking the sport over.

I'm not convinced by automatic life bans though. Personally, I think there needs to be an element of jeopardy for the teams themselves, in order to prevent in-house doping regimes - whether that be in terms of word tour points, financial or whatever (although this itself probably needs discretion, because some riders will always be idiots). Reducing bans for riders who name names and provide usable evidence seems to me a useful lever for getting to the people who actually facilitate doping - riders aren't coming to the pro ranks from med school, inevitably there are other people involved and reduced bans might well be the only way of ever getting to that information. I'd agree that the starting tariff needs to be higher though - say eight years for doping, reduced to four if you provide hard evidence that nails the others involved. And no backdating nonsense, either - it should date from when you confess, or when you're found guilty, but you lose the results from the positive test onwards. This would hopefully encourage riders to confess early on and reduce the damage done by the ones fighting their case for ages and then returning almost immediately to competition because the ban was backdated. But I'd want that across all sports - not just cycling.

Lanterne_Rogue

On the time and place thing, btw, I think I may have posted this somewhere else, but Garmin (then Slipstream) almost certainly needed a confessed, repentant ex-doper to extol the virtues of their approach. If someone had come in with Sky's hardline approach, everyone would have seen the comparison with every other team saying those lines and scoffed (heck, enough people still do now). Having a convicted doper saying that "y'know what, we're working on other stuff and, heck, I'm a better cyclist now than I was before" actually leant the idea a little more credibility. Vande Velde couldn't have done that, or Vaughters, as there would instantly have been a shitstorm around Armstrong (again) that would have diverted from it. Millar was the right sort of rider at the right time, and eloquent enough to explain it personally instead of being the product of a press machine.

Pross

cynicalrider wrote:

Pross wrote:

No, the reason such big companies don't sponsor cycling is they get bigger exposure in sports like football or tennis (where doping isn't an issue for the simple reason they don't bother with minor things like regular testing). The few footballers that have tested positive and / or missed tests have strangely walked back into the sport on completing their (often stupidly short) bans and yet the multi-nationals are still ploughing in money.

Having been involved in the latter stages of negotiation at IBM (considered buying out Discovery Channel) and Barclays Capital (considered backing a pro team to coincide with its sponsorship of the CycleHire and Cycle Super Highways scheme) I can tell you that this is not the case. In both circumstances the fact of the sport being tarnished with doping was a major factor in decisions not to go ahead.

And yet Barclays are fairly prominent in tennis where doping is widely believed to be rife but the testing is virtually non-existent. Smacks of double standards to me - we don't want to be associated with a sport that is catching people doping but are happy to be involved in a sport where testing is so lax it's an open joke and even the participants are raising concerns. It pretty much backs up the point I made in italics above. The same could be applied to football, the lack of testing is farcical despite the massive money involved and the few that get caught are just as likely to return as they are in cycling (or any other sport) and that's before we get onto the players who have served time in prison for criminal activity and yet returned to welcoming embrace of the sport. To be honest, cycling could do without being associated with an organisation like Barclays and all the negative publicity of an association with fraud

frenchfighter

At least he has a bit of style on the bike. A bit too dandy off it though. Respect to him that he didn't run to the Factory - he has more class than that and a good appreciation for the history of this sport. Softened in his last couple of years, saying a few dodgy things.

adr82

frenchfighter wrote:

At least he has a bit of style on the bike. A bit too dandy off it though. Respect to him that he didn't run to the Factory - he has more class than that and a good appreciation for the history of this sport. Softened in his last couple of years, saying a few dodgy things.

He had no choice about "running to the Factory" as I recall from his book. Brailsford would have been happy to have had him there and Millar would have been happy to go, but it would have kind of undermined the whole "zero tolerance for doping" thing right from the start!

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

Respect to him that he didn't run to the Factory - he has more class than that and a good appreciation for the history of this sport.

You've not read his book, have you? He had his bags packed all ready to join the Industrial Revolution before the sponsors slammed the door in his face.

inseine

frenchfighter wrote:

At least he has a bit of style on the bike. A bit too dandy off it though. Respect to him that he didn't run to the Factory - he has more class than that and a good appreciation for the history of this sport. Softened in his last couple of years, saying a few dodgy things.

I thought Millar was interested in joining SKY ( I assume that's the reference, it usually is) but they wouldn't have him , due to his past?

frenchfighter

Ahhh, good job I haven't read his book! I shall attribute that indiscretion due to his softness/mellowing I referred to of recent years.

mike6

inseine wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

At least he has a bit of style on the bike. A bit too dandy off it though. Respect to him that he didn't run to the Factory - he has more class than that and a good appreciation for the history of this sport. Softened in his last couple of years, saying a few dodgy things.

I thought Millar was interested in joining SKY ( I assume that's the reference, it usually is) but they wouldn't have him , due to his past?

Exactly. He wanted to join Team Sky but he also understood that his past made it impossible. Quite apart from that it was a certain Dave Brailsford that stood by him and helped him get back to training and racing, and loving the bike again. Respect to DB. Nice man.
Just thought I would add a few facts to offset the usual biased drivel from FF. :roll:

rayjay

Sky would not have him on board because of his past and yet they had a staff room full of ex dopers and hire a doping Dr Millar then joins Garmin a team full of dopers Including the boss who set out a clean team policy and then get busted when the LA saga unfolds.

Macaloon

Welcome back, Rayjay. Your relentless quest for consensus must have gone down a treat in Japan, Sir? Not to mention hammering home those well-known bombshells regarding corruption at the heart of the noble sport of Sumo.

FocusZing

Macaloon wrote:

Welcome back, Rayjay. Your relentless quest for consensus must have gone down a treat in Japan, Sir? Not to mention hammering home those well-known bombshells regarding corruption at the heart of the noble sport of Sumo.

I don't see how any of this is relevant to David Millar? Perhaps you should relieve yourself in your own thread.

Macaloon

Good point, Zing. Cheers.

rayjay

I don't really understand how some of you can hold Millar up as some kind of hero.
Fact is. He's a doper just like all those other doped riders who a lot of you seem to hate. A doper is a doper no worse no better and I find some of the worship on this thread hypocritical.
Its the same old story forgive the dopers you like and hate the ones you don't. Its not about doping it's about personality. You cannot justify his doping any more than you can justify Armstrong's. At least Armstrong won 7 tours.

mroli

I'd like to see Millar trying to win the ToB next year - it'd be a nice end to his career - perhaps that and his final race in the Chrono...

Paul 8v

rayjay wrote:

I don't really understand how some of you can hold Millar up as some kind of hero.
Fact is. He's a doper just like all those other doped riders who a lot of you seem to hate. A doper is a doper no worse no better and I find some of the worship on this thread hypocritical.
Its the same old story forgive the dopers you like and hate the ones you don't. Its not about doping it's about personality. You cannot justify his doping any more than you can justify Armstrong's. At least Armstrong won 7 tours.

There's a difference between being repentant and not giving a sh!t. Millar has learnt from his mistakes and has tried to rectify them, we all make mistakes. If you had bothered to read the rest of the thread you might have learnt something about David Millar as you seem to know chuff all about most things cycling related and just jump on the Sky doping bandwagon at every chance in your badly spelt and grammatically flawed rants...

Anonymous

Pross, Rabobank dropped out of the sport because of all the doping

mike6

Paul 8v wrote:

rayjay wrote:

I don't really understand how some of you can hold Millar up as some kind of hero.
Fact is. He's a doper just like all those other doped riders who a lot of you seem to hate. A doper is a doper no worse no better and I find some of the worship on this thread hypocritical.
Its the same old story forgive the dopers you like and hate the ones you don't. Its not about doping it's about personality. You cannot justify his doping any more than you can justify Armstrong's. At least Armstrong won 7 tours.

There's a difference between being repentant and not giving a sh!t. Millar has learnt from his mistakes and has tried to rectify them, we all make mistakes. If you had bothered to read the rest of the thread you might have learnt something about David Millar as you seem to know chuff all about most things cycling related and just jump on the Sky doping bandwagon at every chance in your badly spelt and grammatically flawed rants...

+1 :roll:

rayjay

Paul 8v wrote:

rayjay wrote:

I don't really understand how some of you can hold Millar up as some kind of hero.
Fact is. He's a doper just like all those other doped riders who a lot of you seem to hate. A doper is a doper no worse no better and I find some of the worship on this thread hypocritical.
Its the same old story forgive the dopers you like and hate the ones you don't. Its not about doping it's about personality. You cannot justify his doping any more than you can justify Armstrong's. At least Armstrong won 7 tours.

There's a difference between being repentant and not giving a sh!t. Millar has learnt from his mistakes and has tried to rectify them, we all make mistakes. If you had bothered to read the rest of the thread you might have learnt something about David Millar as you seem to know chuff all about most things cycling related and just jump on the Sky doping bandwagon at every chance in your badly spelt and grammatically flawed rants...

I think you mean to say. Millar knows only how to ride a bike for a living and had no choice but to say all the right things or he would have no more pay days. Its funny how he never spoke out against any of his team mates or former team mates who he knew doped or had doped. Like all dopers he only talked because he got caught. I have read Millars book and he does not come over as a very nice person. Like most athletes they tend to be selfish and put themselves first. I know as much as you about cycling. I also understand that pro athletes dope . A lot of them take PEDs. Im not the one getting all worked up about if Sky are doping or not. Sky came up because it was relevant in the post. I don't care if they dope. That's the choice athletes make. I would not get worked up so much about defending a rider who has doped. Do you really believe that all the years he has been riding at Garmin with a team and manager that got busted for doping that he was clean? He must be clean because he said he his. Grammatically flawed rants do not seem to stop you getting so worked up innit

dsoutar

rayjay wrote:

I don't really understand how some of you can hold Millar up as some kind of hero.
Fact is. He's a doper just like all those other doped riders who a lot of you seem to hate. A doper is a doper no worse no better and I find some of the worship on this thread hypocritical.
Its the same old story forgive the dopers you like and hate the ones you don't. Its not about doping it's about personality. You cannot justify his doping any more than you can justify Armstrong's. At least Armstrong won 7 tours.

Please feel free to come back on this forum when you understand a bit more about life

I don't think I've read a more simplistic and naive argument regarding this in my life and exhibits a total lack of understanding of the entire issue. It's like the Daily Star has suddenly started opining on professional cycling

mike6

dsoutar wrote:

rayjay wrote:

I don't really understand how some of you can hold Millar up as some kind of hero.
Fact is. He's a doper just like all those other doped riders who a lot of you seem to hate. A doper is a doper no worse no better and I find some of the worship on this thread hypocritical.
Its the same old story forgive the dopers you like and hate the ones you don't. Its not about doping it's about personality. You cannot justify his doping any more than you can justify Armstrong's. At least Armstrong won 7 tours.

Please feel free to come back on this forum when you understand a bit more about life

I don't think I've read a more simplistic and naive argument regarding this in my life and exhibits a total lack of understanding of the entire issue. It's like the Daily Star has suddenly started opining on professional cycling

Don't feed the Troll.

rayjay

dsoutar wrote:

rayjay wrote:

I don't really understand how some of you can hold Millar up as some kind of hero.
Fact is. He's a doper just like all those other doped riders who a lot of you seem to hate. A doper is a doper no worse no better and I find some of the worship on this thread hypocritical.
Its the same old story forgive the dopers you like and hate the ones you don't. Its not about doping it's about personality. You cannot justify his doping any more than you can justify Armstrong's. At least Armstrong won 7 tours.

Please feel free to come back on this forum when you understand a bit more about life

I don't think I've read a more simplistic and naive argument regarding this in my life and exhibits a total lack of understanding of the entire issue. It's like the Daily Star has suddenly started opining on professional cycling

I have. I just read this pile of garbage you just posted :roll:

Macaloon

""It's normal," Millar said of the jersey. "I think the little things like this make no f**king difference, the guy's died. I have to try to keep going and just respect his memory.

"Hopefully, we will learn from this as well. What we do is very dangerous, this can happen every single day. We are the best in the world on the bike, but even the best in the world can make mistakes.""

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/525107/millar-organises-tribute-to-weylandt-farrar-heads-home-from-giro.html#

dsoutar

mike6 wrote:

Don't feed the Troll.

Yup - ignored my own advice (see elsewhere). I think attention seeking child is a better description than troll tbh

rayjay

dsoutar wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Don't feed the Troll.

Yup - ignored my own advice (see elsewhere). I think attention seeking child is a better description than troll tbh

Instead of trying to belittle the points I make . How about actually trying to respond to them.
If you disagree with my view that's fine. It seems anyone who disagrees with certain views on this sight is a troll yet it's ok for you to keep making and lets face it they are childish remarks and pathetic digs which seem to be the only way some of you can respond. Your childish reply's show you cannot respond to any of the points I make.
If you don't agree and can't respond then move on instead of acting with ridicule and remarks that have no bearing on the posts. I'm not a fan of Millar I find him two faced and I gave my reasons and I do not comment on your posts in such a childish way. :roll:
Now I'm getting my popcorn and a drink and I'm waiting with baited breath for a sensible reply