Stephen Roche

dave_1

I think it is a fair point by Stephen Roche. Sponsors lose hours of of their name on the TV cause of this. They could easily make a thinner mesh so riders can cool at the front more. Wasn't Lemond one of those who started this trend..check the 1988 World road champs Jersey in 1989..no zipper, then check 1990..the world champs jersey of 1989 has a zipper. Lemond!

BikingBernie

So, Roche wants to 'upgrade cycling's image'? I wonder if, like McQuaid, this means that his true main priority will be try to play down the prevalence of doping in pro cycling?

Does anyone know what Roch has to say about his own shady past in his book?

From The Sunday Times
March 28, 2004

Cycling: Sad end to Roche's road

The unequivocal findings of an Italian judge have undermined the cyclist’s countless denials that he ever benefited from EPO

David Walsh

On the last Sunday of July, 1986, an epic Tour de France ended in Paris. Greg LeMond beat his teammate Bernard Hinault to become the first American to win the race and Stephen Roche, struggling with a troublesome knee and poor form, finished in 48th place, almost an hour and a half behind the winner. Not that anybody on the Champs Elysees that afternoon could have told of Roche’s travails.

Flitting between one television interview and another, Roche found a number of balloons in his path. With the swagger of a Maradona, he playfully scattered the balloons with his right foot until there was only one remaining. This one though was now behind him and, pirouetting gracefully, he torpedoed that last balloon into the air. And the point was undeniable: even on the bad days, Roche saw himself as a champion.

Which is why the 44-page report produced by Italian judge Franca Oliva and released last week will hurt so much. The judge’s verdict is unequivocal.

Roche was one of 33 athletes, mostly cyclists, who were given EPO in 1993. He claims he could not have been given it without his knowledge and did not knowingly take it. The evidence undermined his denials and Judge Oliva’s conclusions are not a surprise.

In Roche’s public view of the cycling world, it is not champions who use drugs but low wretches short on talent. He was scathing in his dismissal of Paul Kimmage when Kimmage produced his classic exposé on drugs in cycling, Rough Ride, and similarly disparaging about others who sought to highlight the sport’s pervasive doping culture. He took every generalised claim against the sport as a personal insult until, at last, the case against cycling wound its way into his career.

From the moment in early 2000 that the evidence came to light, it was clear Roche had a serious case to answer. At the time the Italian prosecutor Pierguido Soprani was investigating three sports doctors, Francesco Conconi, Ilario Casoni and Giovanni Grazzi, on suspicion of administering doping products, namely the blood- boosting drug erythropoietin . Even by the perverse standards of doctors who dope athletes, this was an extraordinary case.
At the time Conconi was considered a world leader in sports science and was a member of the International Olympic Committee and the Italian Olympic Committee . Casoni and Grazzi were two of his associates and Grazzi happened to be team doctor to Carrera, the team of Stephen Roche. Acting in conjunction with the IOC and CONI, Professor Conconi was working to devise a urine drug test for EPO, which was then becoming a major performance enhancer.

During the 1993 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Conconi gave a talk to IOC members that brought them up to date on his work to come up with an EPO test. He outlined how he had carried out controlled experiments on 23 amateur triathletes and athletes who, with their written consent, had been treated with EPO. Though progress had been made, Conconi admitted he had yet to come up with a definitive test.

That was 1993. Within four years, Soprani’s investigation into Conconi had begun. When Bologna police raided the University of Ferrara and seized Conconi’s files, they found what became known as “the EPO file”. This was the work with the 23 amateurs to find an EPO test. Except that there were no 23 amateurs. They were in fact elite professional athletes, six of whom were members of the Carrera cycling team. Roche was one of the six.

Not that a quick look at the EPO file would have told you that: Conconi gave aliases to his athlete collaborators, Roche was variously listed as Rocchi, Rocca, Roncati, Righi and Rossini. Speaking in a radio interview on Thursday, Roche claimed he did not know why these fictitious names were used. Judge Oliva had no difficulty working that out. But the use of bogus names was merely suspicious, the hard evidence was listed elsewhere in the EPO file.
Conconi listed the subject’s name, sex, sport and the date upon which the analysis was made. There was also a column that indicated whether or not the athlete was treated with EPO. On different occasions in relation to Roche, the answer was “S”, as in “Si”, Italian for yes. Conconi’s test tried to identify the rate of erythropoiesis and concentrated on the level of transferrin receptor. Anything over 3.1, suggested Conconi, would indicate the use of synthetic EPO. Roche is listed with a level of 5.5, the fifth-highest of the 23 athletes used in the study.
It is difficult to comprehend fully the scale of Conconi’s duplicity.

Funded by CONI and the IOC to come up with a test for EPO, he used that money to buy the drug, and then administered it to professional athletes for the purpose of performance enhancement. While being paid by the authorities to prevent doping, he was being paid by athletes for enabling them to dope.

The case against Conconi, Casoni and Grazzi was dropped because the investigation could not be completed within the five years allotted for such cases. In her report Judge Franca said while that was the correct decision legally, there was no doubt from the evidence that the three doctors were guilty of dispensing doping products. In her view the case against them was incontrovertible. Last week Roche said the doctors were acquitted but that was far from the case.

At the time that the seized Conconi files first became public, Roche offered this explanation for his involvement. “I met Conconi once, at the time I first joined the Carrera team, but after that I did all my blood tests for our team doctor, Giovanni Grazzi. I know Grazzi was based at the University of Ferrara and it’s possible that’s how I and teammates of mine have ended up in Conconi’s files. But Conconi cannot stand up and say I did this or I did that, because I never had anything to do with him.”

That explanation was unconvincing because it failed to deal with the highly suspicious use of aliases and the clear indications that Roche had been treated with EPO. Now the judge who presided over the case and had access to expert scientific evidence has come to the obvious conclusion: the three accused doctors were involved in a sophisticated doping scam.

In his insistence that he was not treated with EPO, Roche asked why he would use this drug in what was his last season in the peloton. It was, he claimed, his “goodbye” season, his long, leisurely goodbye to his peers and the sport. That does not tally with how well he rode in that final season; he finished 13th in the Tour de France and fourth in one of the race’s toughest mountain stages.

Working out the extent to which Judge Oliva’s report diminishes Roche’s reputation is far less clearcut than the actual verdict itself. Of course it damages him because an official judicial investigation concluded he used EPO. Yet it must also be stated that Roche’s greatest successes, his victories in the Giro d’Italia, Tour de France and World Championships came in 1987, when EPO did not exist.

Though one could easily contest Roche’s contention, expressed in a Thursday radio interview, that he has been “too modest at times”, one cannot argue with his belief that he was a very talented rider. He was a teenager when he won the Rás Tailteann but it was the cocky ease of the victory that was most impressive. RTE filmed the race and Roche performed for the cameras, waving to the crowds and doing interviews while the race was in progress.

We knew then he was a special talent, a view confirmed by his victory in the 1981 Paris to Nice race. He was then a first-year professional and people predicted he would be one of the big riders of his generation. That promise was gloriously realised in 1987 and, overall, Roche enjoyed a distinguished career.

Against that, he was involved in a sport that had a pervasive and dangerous doping culture. Many riders died in the early 1990s when few understood the risks of EPO abuse and even though some tried to speak openly about the culture, they were voices in the wilderness.

Roche’s reaction to the accusations against cycling was the traditional one: he denied its seriousness and often turned on those he saw as “nobodies who never won anything”.

What Roche couldn’t do was address cycling’s problem honestly because to do so would have diminished what he achieved. In that he is like many other cycling champions. This refusal might protect the memory of what they achieved but it lessens them as human beings. What is a victory in the Tour de France compared to the drug-related death of a former Tour winner, Marco Pantani, at age 34?

What are all the victories in the world when there are countless cyclists facing futures with certain health problems and a reduced life expectancy?

How could Roche read last week’s dreadful admissions of the Spanish rider Jesus Manzano and not feel that all those who have been in denial about cycling’s great problem have been significant contributors to the scourge? Manzano, who rode for the Kelme team, listed a catalogue of doping abuses that could so easily have cost him his life.

Cycling champions need to look beyond their own besmirched reputations.

BillyMansell

There's a certain discordance between the ideas of no car assistance and no team radios. Without radio, if a rider crashes how are his team mates to know he's crashed and to drop back to assist? If a rider is off the back alone after a crash there shouldn't be anything wrong with using the cars as a 'second family' to help him get back to his teammates, at which point no car assistance would be allowed. Two things they should enforce harder are the direct physical assistance of sticky bottles and moving mechanics.

His reasons for removing radios aren't technically or commercially sound. Radios have changed the game and have become an integral part of the sport and should be embraced for opening up the sport - you don't progress forward by continually looking backwards. It's been mooted many times before that opening up team radios to broadcasters could make the sport more accessible by giving insight into the workings of the teams so as to engage the viewer more and could stimulate greater interest in and understanding of the sport among non-competitive cyclists and the general public.

LeicesterLad

Vaughters in reply to Roche: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-to-roche-cyclings-image-has-bigger-issues

I like Vaughters.

rick_chasey

Hang on.

You can't ever ride with your jersey open anymore?

WTF?

greasedscotsman

BillyMansell wrote:

Without radio, if a rider crashes how are his team mates to know he's crashed and to drop back to assist?

It's a wonder they even managed to finish the race before radios came along...

rick_chasey

greasedscotsman wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

Without radio, if a rider crashes how are his team mates to know he's crashed and to drop back to assist?

It's a wonder they even managed to finish the race before radios came along...

Exactly. It's quite simple - mechanical? Stop on the right hand side of the road (left if you're in England).

Crash? Your team car will eventually pass the crash - they'll probably hear it on race radio too. "Chute! Chute! rider 152, 111, 56".

De Cauwer was getting angry last year that radios were making pros lazy - stopping on the left hand side, etc etc.

prawny

What about the vest manufacturers, how will they get their logos on tv any more?

greasedscotsman

prawny wrote:

What about the vest manufacturers, how will they get their logos on tv any more?

Tattoos?

symo

UCI run by the corrupt and doped SHOCKER

Seriously, this along with Fat Pat's stance on past doped winners,lack of accounting transparency and laughable ruling on skinsuits in downhill means that the UCI is so far removed from reality it can no longer be considered fit for governance of the sport.

They should all just feck off. Time for change, breakaway?

edhornby

quite a few of the pro riders on twitter are less than impressed with his gripes

best option for race radio would be for the race organisers to give out the info to everyone at the same time, the riders can talk to the car but the car can't talk back

RichN95.

They need to stop deluding themselves that scrapping radios will return the sport to some nostalgic past that never really happened anyway. It will more likely make racing more conservative as teams stick to the plan discussed on the team bus rather than take an unauthorized chance. Changes in racing tactics are more down to doping, TV, globalisation and UCI points than radios.

The only impact a radio ban will have is having more races decided by unlucky mechanicals.

greasedscotsman

RichN95 wrote:

It will more likely make racing more conservative as teams stick to the plan discussed on the team bus rather than take an unauthorized chance.

Or maybe the riders will have to think for themselves?

symo

RichN95 wrote:

They need to stop deluding themselves that scrapping radios will return the sport to some nostalgic past that never really happened anyway. It will more likely make racing more conservative as teams stick to the plan discussed on the team bus rather than take an unauthorized chance. Changes in racing tactics are more down to doping, TV, globalisation and UCI points than radios.

The only impact a radio ban will have is having more races decided by unlucky mechanicals.

You mean a past where the racers carried their own syringes and pill boxes :shock:

LeicesterLad

greasedscotsman wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It will more likely make racing more conservative as teams stick to the plan discussed on the team bus rather than take an unauthorized chance.

Or maybe the riders will have to think for themselves?

I doubt it, they will still be under orders and have a game plan from the start.

greasedscotsman

LeicesterLad wrote:

I doubt it, they will still be under orders and have a game plan from the start.

That's the point though. The rider or team who can think for themselves rather than just follow a game plan will be at an advantage. Isn't that what you'd rather see?

RichN95.

greasedscotsman wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It will more likely make racing more conservative as teams stick to the plan discussed on the team bus rather than take an unauthorized chance.

Or maybe the riders will have to think for themselves?

And what they think is 'I'm going to stick to the team plan and not act like a loose cannon otherwise everyone's going to bollok me and that's not going to help me get selected for other races and that's even before I've talked about a new contract'.

If you want to get back to the good old days then ban everyone from outside Western Europe, pay everyone a tenth of what they are now to thin the peloton down even further, put what's left in continental teams so we have the vast gulfs of talent that existed back then, then largely restrict teams to local races and finally only show the good races on TV as everyone seems to forget that there were plenty crap races back in the glory days too.

greasedscotsman

RichN95 wrote:

And what they think is 'I'm going to stick to the team plan and not act like a loose cannon otherwise everyone's going to bollok me and that's not going to help me get selected for other races and that's even before I've talked about a new contract'.

Whereas what they should be thinking is "I'm going to use my initiative and I then won't getting bolloked for sticking with a game plan that wasn't working. I'm then bound to get selected for more races and get a new contract as I can think for myself".

RichN95 wrote:

If you want to get back to the good old days then ban everyone from outside Western Europe, pay everyone a tenth of what they are now to thin the peloton down even further, put what's left in continental teams so we have the vast gulfs of talent that existed back then, then largely restrict teams to local races and finally only show the good races on TV as everyone seems to forget that there were plenty crap races back in the glory days too.

No. Were did I say that?

greasedscotsman

And you still get "loose cannons" now even with radios. Riders will say the radio wasn't working or I couldn't hear the DS.

RichN95.

greasedscotsman wrote:

No. Were did I say that?

Sorry, that second paragraph wasn't in response to you, it was a general rant. As is this....

The idea that banning radios will make racing more exciting is as asinine as thinking that not paying bankers a bonus will help end the recession. They are both simple crowd pleasing measures which ignore the real issues and actually make no difference.

Last year the most high profile race with no radios also had the bonus of riders with little loyaltyto their teammates: the World Championship. Did we get an exciting attacking race? Were there lots of attacks? Or was it won by a pre-determined plan which everyone knew about all season.

greasedscotsman

RichN95 wrote:

Sorry, that second paragraph wasn't in response to you, it was a general rant. As is this...

Ahh, you can't beat a good rant!

RichN95 wrote:

The idea that banning radios will make racing more exciting is as asinine as thinking that not paying bankers a bonus will help end the recession. They are both simple crowd pleasing measures which ignore the real issues and actually make no difference.

I agree with you, I don't think that race radios will instantly change races and make them more exciting. I just like the idea that it's the rider or riders who win, not some fat bloke in a team car telling them what to do. Roche mentions this in the article where he says...

Roche wrote:

"They’ve been looked upon as zombies, no brains, for years, and all the credit for tactics has been given to the team managers in the car," he said. "I wouldn’t have liked to have had people thinking all my results and tactical skills had come from the car behind."

I agree with him on that one.

RichN95 wrote:

Last year the most high profile race with no radios also had the bonus of riders with little loyaltyto their teammates: the World Championship. Did we get an exciting attacking race? Were there lots of attacks? Or was it won by a pre-determined plan which everyone knew about all season.

Think this race was always going to be boring and end up in a bunch sprint. Radios would have made little difference either way.

ddraver

symo wrote:

laughable ruling on skinsuits in downhill

You ve lost me there sorry - Most DHers were happy to have that cleared up either way...

DavMartinR

If they get rid of radio's then surely whats going to happen is a member of each team going to back to the team car of instructions to be relayed to the team. Which is going to give you a load of riders drafting through the caravan to get back up to the peloton and think that isn't what they want either??

Art Vandelay

Do as I say, not as I do...

greasedscotsman

DavMartinR wrote:

If they get rid of radio's then surely whats going to happen is a member of each team going to back to the team car of instructions to be relayed to the team. Which is going to give you a load of riders drafting through the caravan to get back up to the peloton and think that isn't what they want either??

Do most team not have a Road Captain? It was either David Millar or Bradley Wiggins at the Worlds last year. If a rider doesn't know what to do, as they clearly aren't capable of independent thought, maybe they should go and talk to their Road Captain or maybe even their Team Leader before dropping back to the team car.

calvjones

RichN95 wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

No. Were did I say that?

The idea that banning radios will make racing more exciting is as asinine as thinking that not paying bankers a bonus will help end the recession. They are both simple crowd pleasing measures which ignore the real issues and actually make no difference.

Um.. not paying individual bonuses is crowd pleasing. Re-adjusting bankers' pay in general to avoid the moral hazard issues that led to the credit crunch is a very, very good idea [/economistpedant]

DavMartinR

greasedscotsman wrote:

DavMartinR wrote:

If they get rid of radio's then surely whats going to happen is a member of each team going to back to the team car of instructions to be relayed to the team. Which is going to give you a load of riders drafting through the caravan to get back up to the peloton and think that isn't what they want either??

Do most team not have a Road Captain? It was either David Millar or Bradley Wiggins at the Worlds last year. If a rider doesn't know what to do, as they clearly aren't capable of independent thought, maybe they should go and talk to their Road Captain or maybe even their Team Leader before dropping back to the team car.

Maybe. But no all team Captains or leaders are selected on there intelligence, its usually because they are the rider that is most likely to win the race. And in that case they are not all born leaders, so for them making a call were to chase a break or sit in the peloton is something they'd rather hand over to the DS to make the call. Plus the wheeling and dealing between the teams to chase or not, the DS is going to have to rely on a rider to communicate that to the rest of the team.

cougie

Road Captains aren't usually the ones likely to win the race. They're usually good riders and with experience of many years racing, but they aren't the 'most winning' riders on the team. Cavs never been road captain has he ?

greasedscotsman

DavMartinR wrote:

Maybe. But no all team Captains or leaders are selected on there intelligence, its usually because they are the rider that is most likely to win the race. And in that case they are not all born leaders, so for them making a call were to chase a break or sit in the peloton is something they'd rather hand over to the DS to make the call. Plus the wheeling and dealing between the teams to chase or not, the DS is going to have to rely on a rider to communicate that to the rest of the team.

Well, no, a Road Captain is usually an experienced rider with ability to read the race and make decisions for the team. As I said, I'm not sure if it was Millar or Wiggins at the Worlds, but neither of them was Team Leader, but they would have made decisions for the team if it was necessary as there were no radios at that race.

But even if a Road Captain or a Team Leader make a bad decision and lose a race because of it, then that's good as far as I'm concerned. Surely a riders ability to read a race and make decisions is important, just was important as how many watts they can put out. We might as well watch a TT otherwise. I want the riders to decide the race, not the DS.

DavMartinR

greasedscotsman wrote:

DavMartinR wrote:

Maybe. But no all team Captains or leaders are selected on there intelligence, its usually because they are the rider that is most likely to win the race. And in that case they are not all born leaders, so for them making a call were to chase a break or sit in the peloton is something they'd rather hand over to the DS to make the call. Plus the wheeling and dealing between the teams to chase or not, the DS is going to have to rely on a rider to communicate that to the rest of the team.

Well, no, a Road Captain is usually an experienced rider with ability to read the race and make decisions for the team. As I said, I'm not sure if it was Millar or Wiggins at the Worlds, but neither of them was Team Leader, but they would have made decisions for the team if it was necessary as there were no radios at that race.

But even if a Road Captain or a Team Leader make a bad decision and lose a race because of it, then that's good as far as I'm concerned. Surely a riders ability to read a race and make decisions is important, just was important as how many watts they can put out. We might as well watch a TT otherwise. I want the riders to decide the race, not the DS.

I can understand that Miller or Wiggins were calling the shots at the worlds and it worked due to the fact team GB has a small pool of riders and Miler & Wiggins are the senior riders and are respected by the other GB riders.
But if you take that into a pro team where the riders may ride with each other for 2 or 3 races over the season and the team Captain is not a strong personality you are going to have trouble controlling the team let alone the race.
Plus today with sponsors getting ever harder to find there is to much at stake for a DS to give a team talk on the bus in the morning and just say list to the road Captain, have fun and I'll see you in 4 or 5 hours. Not going to happen, he'll want to know whats going on as his livelihood and the rider depends on it. So no radios means somebody relaying information between team Captain and DS.