David Millar says cycling became a "burden," wants "to enjoy sport again"

There's a pretty clear difference between making a mistake and choosing to break the rules in order to gain some advantage.

We all do something wrong sometimes but we don't all use the word "mistake" to justify our behaviour.

mudshark wrote:

Millar's a fantastic character, his return to the sport did a lot of good and his book makes for great reading. Looks like he'll be involved with ITV4's cycling coverage in the future so I'm happy about that.

There are two ways of viewing Millar's book; as intended to be read by the author which is an explanation of his doping; or else a sympathy drawing PR exercise to help white wash his background to make his sound like the repentant sinner. I'm not sure it isn't both.
Millar is no worse than what the 'best' cyclists of his age did.
But he is neither a force for good or bad. What we know is that the rigours of modern sport effectively push the most talented to dope and at the moment the system neither catches the dopers regularly enough to dissuade the use of PEDs, but one man can not change that on his own.
As a person I think he is charming and eloquent. So he will likely add an edge to the live TV coverage.
For those of you that damn him: we all deserve a second shot and his paid for his crime.
For those of you that believe Saint David: fool me twice, shame on me.

Because training at altitude enables the body to make its own short term natural adaptations in the way it is designed to do whilst EPO is artificially increasing the capacity of the body to supply oxygen to the muscles.

By frequent dosing (micro or otherwise) the effect can be sustained for long periods giving a massive advantage compared to altitude training.

Add to that the effect of EPO on the blood is such that it can cause serious circulation problems and seems to have been implicated in the deaths at young ages of quite a number of athletes including cyclists.

That's why EPO is banned.

truffy wrote:

TBH, I don't understand why EPO is such a big no-no.

Steroids, yes. Other performance enhancers, yes. But what's the difference between EPO and training at altitude?

Not everyone can afford to train at altitude, so those that do, and boost their body's EPO naturally have an 'unfair advantage.

Or am I just thinking of runners? And do EPO supplements exceed what the body could achieve at altitude?

I think this is what Michele Ferrari is saying (still), EPO is safe as long as the dosage is controlled; take too much and you will die. Altitude/low oxygen tents are nowhere near as effective, so unlikely to cause harm.
But George Hincapie and Micheal Barry both claim they have a natural high blood cell count, whereas Christophe Bassons had a naturally low count, meaning that if he had taken EPO Christophe could have made massive performance gains. This suggests to me that it is difficult to say what is fair and reasonable.
Giving yourself a 'shot' of something seems unfair, whereas taking the time and trouble to go to a low oxygen tent or train at altitude seems like 'training' even though the effect -could- be the same?

SideBurn wrote:

truffy wrote:

TBH, I don't understand why EPO is such a big no-no.

Steroids, yes. Other performance enhancers, yes. But what's the difference between EPO and training at altitude?

Not everyone can afford to train at altitude, so those that do, and boost their body's EPO naturally have an 'unfair advantage.

Or am I just thinking of runners? And do EPO supplements exceed what the body could achieve at altitude?

I think this is what Michele Ferrari is saying (still), EPO is safe as long as the dosage is controlled; take too much and you will die. Altitude/low oxygen tents are nowhere near as effective, so unlikely to cause harm.
But George Hincapie and Micheal Barry both claim they have a natural high blood cell count, whereas Christophe Bassons had a naturally low count, meaning that if he had taken EPO Christophe could have made massive performance gains. This suggests to me that it is difficult to say what is fair and reasonable.
Giving yourself a 'shot' of something seems unfair, whereas taking the time and trouble to go to a low oxygen tent or train at altitude seems like 'training' even though the effect -could- be the same?

But again it comes down to how much of a shot you're given. Given that altitude/hypoxia boosts the body's own EPO production, then a shot of EPO within 'physiological parameters' (which admittedly will vary between individuals) seems no different, at least in results if not concept.

truffy wrote:

But again it comes down to how much of a shot you're given. Given that altitude/hypoxia boosts the body's own EPO production, then a shot of EPO within 'physiological parameters' (which admittedly will vary between individuals) seems no different, at least in results if not concept.

I don't know what reading you've done, but it's pretty wide of the mark. EPO has changed the face of sport, especially cycling. Steroids can help protect your body from the stress of the sport, they can help build power (though I understand that HGH is best for this), but EPO means that you never have to go as deep with your effort. In fact if you bulk up on steroids they won't help you over the mountains if your power to weight ratio is all wrong.
In actual fact all the doping hormones used together can really provide a massive advantage.

Altitude training and hypoxic tents are only useful up to a point - you have to do training to make a change and your bodies own natural set points will limit the effect. There is no limit with the drugs. You can go beyond all limits that your body has.

There is also another effect, which is that once you power up your muscles with steroids, even if you aren't taking them the cells adapt and mean that you can return to your dosed up level because your muscles have developed the nuclei to help with the muscle growth. So the playing field isn't just returned by abstainence. This is why even when Armstrong claims he was competing free of drugs he wasn't.

The whole point about the 50% hematocrit level is that it is artificial. No one has a hematocrit that high. 48% is particularly unusual, the 38-42 is more representative of a pro-athlete in a aerobic discipline (naturally), but if you allow people to shift from 38 to 50, that's a 24% improvement. Steroids do not have the same boost because you have to go out and tear the muscle fibre for the growth to occur.

kcr wrote:

Doping isn't black/white, good/bad

Using prohibited performance enhancers breaks the rules of the sport. You don't need any history to understand that.

SOME performance enhancers are banned, some aren't, almost every Pro is on something, remember marginal gains, what isn't banned is legal, hence tramadol.

Using drugs is wrong, but is it any worse than "massaging" a CV?

Whole drug thing is a mess, constantly playing catch up.

Airzound wrote:

He was a cheat and still is, unless you can now undo history and become and ex-cheat.

I don't think Millar had ever sought to change history or deny what he did. He made a mistake, he served the punishment that he was required to, and he came back to the sport and has worked hard to try and help others avoid making the same mistake. I for one than him for that because I think the sport I love is better for it. Surely you can at least acknowledge that there is a world of difference between how Millar has behaved since his doing ban, and how someone like Vino has behaved. To class the former with the latter, and throw them both out of the sport would have been a mistake in my view.

Unistriker, you cynical negative person.

The world bodies set a punishment for being caught, he served his time and carried that burden the rest of his career. I'm guessing your attitude is the same for Contador and Shlecks no?

Why not take your comments to the anti-doping bodies as they set the rules.

How he has conducted himself post doping can be admired as many other dopers still have their heads in the sand.

Sorry mate, thanks for the personal attack .

this article is something i have believed for some time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/29515182

I am actually a big fan of contador too. His doping according to the press was unintentional.. who knows..