- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
David Millar MSR 2012 © Simon MacMichaelDavid Millar says cycling became a "burden," wants "to enjoy sport again"
David Millar, who this month retired after a professional career spanning 18 years, says that cycling had become a “job” to him as well as a “burden” and that he is ready to “enjoy sport again.”
The 37-year-old, the first British rider to have worn the leader’s jersey in all three of cycling’s Grand Tours as well as one of a select group to have won stages in each of them, makes his remarks in a BBC radio programme to be aired tomorrow.
In an interview which airs on BBC Radio 5 Live Sport from noon on Sunday 19 October, the Scot says, "I'd like to get back into sport being something I go out and have fun doing rather than worrying about numbers and science."
He added that while he hopes to stay in cycling, perhaps on the business side, "I need a break from the whole racing scene. It's been my whole adult life, even my kid life since being a teenager."
Millar, banned from the sport for two years in 2004 and stripped of the world time trial title he had won the previous year after admitting using EPO also spoke of his lack of awareness of the sport’s dopingculture when he first entered it.
"I don't think any of us did until we were in it, but since then it's night and day: then it was night, and now it's day."
He believes young professionals nowadays don’t face the same pressures to dope that he and his contemporaries did, saying: “Kids coming in now can have a great, clean career, which wasn't necessarily the case when I turned pro."
Millar’s final race was the Bec CC hill climb earlier this month, which is where the BBC caught up with him. The interview will be available on BBC iPlayer shortly after tomorrow’s programme.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- eburtthebike 46 min 38 sec ago
Well, it is humanity's defining characteristic: better get used to it.
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 37 min ago
I would've thought that the alternative to weaving between pedestrians is riding into them. It sounds like a catch-all reason as they can simply...
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 45 min ago
They don't make them like they used to
- ktache 2 hours 20 min ago
Lovely paint job, and the concealed thru axle end is a nice touch, but that frame, and I'm not casting aspersions on anyone who will ride them...
- LongitudeLatitude 2 hours 35 min ago
Thanks for using my picture of chocolate in your opening picture. The original can be found here, chocolate! | LongitudeLatitude | Flickr.
- lesterama 3 hours 2 min ago
Fair comments. I'll put my hands up and say I got the wrong end of the stick with this one. ¡Feliz navidad! Here's a pic for the season of goodwill.
- Mike Holmes 3 hours 7 min ago
A trip down memory lane (or street) for me - Harry Quinn's bike shop was at the top of our Street and I used to spend time staring at the bikes and...
- Bigtwin 3 hours 22 min ago
Because people aren't buying those cars. They are effecively renting them on PCPs or via companies. The bike market doesn't work like that.
Add new comment
28 comments
Response to EPO also varies hugely between individuals, some benefitting disproportionately compared to others. Eventually, racing results would only establish how well athletes respond to performance enhancing drugs. A rather unattractive prospect (remember the swimming teams, made in the DDR?)
From reading Tyler Hamilton's book Colin, he says that EPO allows you to hurt yourself more. He says that when he initially took it he went slower, only to find that there was another threshold beyond his initial perceived limit.
George Hincapie claims he has Polycythemia, inherited from his mother this causes excess red blood cells. You only have to read the complications associated with this condition to realise it is a very unpleasant condition, George looks in great health...
Micheal Barry claims to have a natural 50%+ haemocrit due to the removal of his spleen. Before you ask your Dr to remove your spleen it also has unpleasant side effects.
Both George and Micheal claim that their conditions made it difficult to stay within the 50% limit.
Both conditions exist and can cause a haemocrit of 50%+ particularly when the person is dehydrated.
"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"
'Fair and reasonable' and 'sports science' may well be incompatible concepts
I have always thought David to be a bit dull, but read his book anyway. I did not know what to make of it. It read like someone realising he had to 'sacrifice' some of his results because of the vials of EPO, but he has claimed that other results are clean. Clean against a bunch of other cyclists doped up to their eyeballs; very impressive, if true.
If I remember correctly he said he kept the vials as souvenirs? Whilst Tyler Hamilton went to excruciating pains to destroy his empty vials.
To David's credit he has explained how he doped without failing a test and now is doing what he can to help the authorities.
May he retire in peace?
It is must be hard for some of the above who have never made a mistake in life to understand someone who has made a mistake and regretted it.
For the others above maybe have a read of the Christophe Bassons book 'A Clean Break' of what it was like sticking to your beliefs when many around you are doping.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Topic yawn
Actually doping is and was in fact black and white.
Either a rider dopes or does not!
The reasons why a rider dopes, the pressures on riders, the ethical choices, whether or not the rider gets caught, makes admissions or what they do afterwards; all of these make not a jot of difference to whether the rider doped or not - hence a very black and white issue.
Every rider who dopes takes away (steals) opportunities from others who ride clean, that is also black and white.
The only thing that isn't black and white is how riders are dealt with after doping. That is terribly inconsistent and needs to be addressed. Many of us believe in lifetime bans for all riders found to have doped with such bans precluding involvement in teams, management and coaching etc.
Last sentence a bit ambiguous.
Using banned drugs is wrong because they are banned.
Using prohibited performance enhancers breaks the rules of the sport. You don't need any history to understand that.
I think someone like Tyler Hamilton has done more for the sport by naming names, detailing systematic team doping and helping to prosecute a case against Armstrong (even if he's done this for his own benefit). I find it difficult to believe Millar's repeated declarations of a new era in light of recent cases like Astana and "incredible" performances like Horner's Vuelta win. Vaughters? The prophet of a new way who didn't admit his own doping until 2012.
I think Cookson's new UCI may fight a better fight. Time will tell
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.
What nnnooodle said ^^.
Exactly that.
All those making the usual sweeping anti-doping comments should go off and read both David Millar's book and also The Race to Truth by Emma O'Reilly.
Doping isn't black/white, good/bad - you need to understand the history behind it, the structure of what these riders were coming into and the way the whole system worked.
I've got a lot of respect for David Millar, he's done more than any other rider (along with Jonathan Vaughters) to clean up the sport. In some respects, being caught was the best thing that could have happened both to him and the sport. Either way, the peloton will be a poorer place without him, he was always a class rider and great to watch. Best wishes to him in his well deserved retirement!
Those making the all too predicatable knee-jerk, anti-doping comments above don't appear to be aware of the details of Millar's career beyond the headlines. You might want to take some time to read up on the matter, maybe then you would appreciate his true contribution to the sport. He stands out as being one of the few riders of his generation who, having cheated, chose to follow the hard course and do something bold and brave to bring positive change to the sport.
Prime culprits for the doping culture were the sponsors, Trek in lead. A teenager joining a professional club was given the choice: pan y agua and an early exit or professional "coaching" and a career in cycling. Are you so sure you would have resisted the "done thing" and peer pressure when aged 17-18 and abandon your dream career? And once on dope, the rest is history. The sponsors, none of which ever apologised, and the UCI, corrupt to the bone, which focused on bike weights and hindering innovation whilst the GCs turned into mass blood transfusion exercises.
I like the slant "suffered doping culture…….."
Err ……. I think he was complicit. He chose to take PEDS. It wasn't an illness or have I missed something? 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.
Cashing in on the way up, down and after. Now expecting even more rewards? Should stay out of cycling, enjoy his tarnished records - and move on. I like the guy by the way
You don't get the Millar thing, do you?
He was a top level talent, Then he doped, he went to the top.
He returns, clean after his ban, despite natural ability, never quite reaches the same level in trade team colours. What do you think he was trying to prove and thT he actually demonstrated?
He has nothing to sell, no one to slay, so his story is possibly the only insider one that's reliable, the book came a lot later.
The guy is a jacked up cheat using performance enhancing drugs.. He should be lucky they let him "work"/race.
should of been banned for life for any intentional use of PED.
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..