Stephen Roche
Comments
-
Millar was road captain in the Worlds, and handsomely praised by all for his work.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
That graph is brilliant.
Although I would reverse 'Allez Allez' and 'Information about the road'.0 -
DavMartinR wrote: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.
It's quite simple really. If a rider can't read a race and can't think for him/herself, can't control their team if they are team leader or road captain and have to rely on their DS to tell them what to do then they deserve to lose.
Sure, the team managers, DS and sponsors don't want to lose radios and the control they think it gives. Doesn't mean they are right though. Unless of course you just want to see riders who can just put out alot of watts and do what they are told to do win bike races.0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:DavMartinR wrote: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.
It's quite simple really. If a rider can't read a race and can't think for him/herself, can't control their team if they are team leader or road captain and have to rely on their DS to tell them what to do then they deserve to lose.
Sure, the team managers, DS and sponsors don't want to lose radios and the control they think it gives. Doesn't mean they are right though. Unless of course you just want to see riders who can just put out alot of watts and do what they are told to do win bike races.
This is it they won't give up the control they think they have. If you take away radio's then they are going to look at alternatives ways of keeping some control and one of those options would be to have riders dropping back to the team cars and then getting drafted back up to the peloton. Which is what Mr Roach is trying to get rid of.0 -
DavMartinR wrote:This is it they won't give up the control they think they have. If you take away radio's then they are going to look at alternatives ways of keeping some control and one of those options would be to have riders dropping back to the team cars and then getting drafted back up to the peloton. Which is what Mr Roach is trying to get rid of.
Or you employ someone like David Millar to act as your road captain. Dropping back to the team car for instructions wastes energy, even if your drafting cars. And even with race radios someone like Millar is great asset to a team as sometimes radios don't work.
I do think that race radios will be with us for a while yet though, just can't see the teams giving them up. But as a fan, what would you rather see?0 -
Tusher wrote:That graph is brilliant.
Although I would reverse 'Allez Allez' and 'Information about the road'.
And shouldn't there be something for interference?
0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:DavMartinR wrote:This is it they won't give up the control they think they have. If you take away radio's then they are going to look at alternatives ways of keeping some control and one of those options would be to have riders dropping back to the team cars and then getting drafted back up to the peloton. Which is what Mr Roach is trying to get rid of.
Or you employ someone like David Millar to act as your road captain. Dropping back to the team car for instructions wastes energy, even if your drafting cars. And even with race radios someone like Millar is great asset to a team as sometimes radios don't work.
I do think that race radios will be with us for a while yet though, just can't see the teams giving them up. But as a fan, what would you rather see?
Yea your right having a Millar in the team is a real asset, but not to many like him about? The line has been drawn between the teams and the UCI over the radios and with the UCI this could roll on and on.
What about getting rid of other technologies, no heart rate monitors, no computers and no power meters? That could get interesting to see the who can ride with just gut feeling rather than tapping out the numbers and keeping under thresholds?0 -
The doping or the unzipped jersey?Art Vandelay wrote:Do as I say, not as I do...
Hearsay I know, and 'doubtless' it is untrue, but I was once told by someone who was probably in a position to know such things that Roche's lack of success in the years after his amazing 'triple' of 1987 was more a consequence of the 'heroic' level of doping he had indulged in, rather then just a dodgy knee. Allegedly his health was seriously affected.0 -
DavMartinR wrote:Yea your right having a Millar in the team is a real asset, but not to many like him about?
So the better teams or riders are rewarded by winning more, isn't that what's supposed to happen? I don't think that Millar is that unique, I just used him as he was a good example. I thought most teams had that sort of rider anyway. This article mentions that Garmin's road captain for the Giro is Christian Vande Velde.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/farrar- ... -giro-teamDavMartinR wrote:The line has been drawn between the teams and the UCI over the radios and with the UCI this could roll on and on.
What about getting rid of other technologies, no heart rate monitors, no computers and no power meters? That could get interesting to see the who can ride with just gut feeling rather than tapping out the numbers and keeping under thresholds?
If you like, might be interesting. Not that worried about that one. The whole unzipping of the jerseys thing is like the minimum sock length, very stupid. Who cares!0 -
I would definately like to see less cars following the races. If you go to watch a large race like the Tour, it's staggering the number of vehicles the come past both before and after the actual race. Gerard Vroomen had some interesting ideas a while back.
http://gerard.cc/2011/05/26/car-solution-1/
Of course it will NEVER happen.
0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
The doping or the unzipped jersey?Art Vandelay wrote:Do as I say, not as I do...
Hearsay I know, and 'doubtless' it is untrue, but I was once told by someone who was probably in a position to know such things that Roche's lack of success in the years after his amazing 'triple' of 1987 was more a consequence of the 'heroic' level of doping he had indulged in, rather then just a dodgy knee. Allegedly his health was seriously affected.
Rubbish!0 -
Maybe...Dave_1 wrote:
Rubbish!BikingBernie wrote:
The doping or the unzipped jersey?Art Vandelay wrote:Do as I say, not as I do...
Hearsay I know, and 'doubtless' it is untrue, but I was once told by someone who was probably in a position to know such things that Roche's lack of success in the years after his amazing 'triple' of 1987 was more a consequence of the 'heroic' level of doping he had indulged in, rather then just a dodgy knee. Allegedly his health was seriously affected.
Does anyone know how Roche responds in his book to the 'unequivocal' conclusion of the Italian judge that he was guilty of Epo use? "I never tested positive" perhaps...0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Maybe...Dave_1 wrote:
Rubbish!BikingBernie wrote:
The doping or the unzipped jersey?Art Vandelay wrote:Do as I say, not as I do...
Hearsay I know, and 'doubtless' it is untrue, but I was once told by someone who was probably in a position to know such things that Roche's lack of success in the years after his amazing 'triple' of 1987 was more a consequence of the 'heroic' level of doping he had indulged in, rather then just a dodgy knee. Allegedly his health was seriously affected.
Does anyone know how Roche responds in his book to the 'unequivocal' conclusion of the Italian judge that he was guilty of Epo use? "I never tested positive" perhaps...
Not disputing what the Italian judge found..very disappointing to say least..but why traduce him further regarding his 1980s results when there is photographic evidence of him laid out on track with bust knee and many of his results are before EPO was even in clinical trial stage.when talent mattered more.0 -
I agree that the drugs used in the pre-Epo era could not turn also-rans into 'winners' as Epo can, so Roche's talent was no doubt authentic. However, before Epo lots of other drugs were abused, often to the extent of harming the rider's health and it is often easy to blame something else for a loss of form (or come to that the attainment of form) when doping is the true reason. Difficulties in recovering from an injury and doping have also been linked, as in the case of Freddie Maertens who was seemingly unable to recover from a wrist injury for a long period, something that many attributed to cortisone abuse.Dave_1 wrote:Not disputing what the Italian judge found..very disappointing to say least..but why traduce him further regarding his 1980s results when there is photographic evidence of him laid out on track with bust knee and many of his results are before EPO was even in clinical trial stage.when talent mattered more.
Bottom line is that there is very good evidence that Roche was quite prepared to dope, as is witnessed by his 'alleged' Epo use, and given the doping culture even in the pre-Epo era it certainly seems possible that he indulged in other products as well.
I am sure that Roche will probably continue to deny everything. His loyalty to the 'omerta' will no doubt mean that he will fit right in at the UCI!0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Bottom line is that there is very good evidence that Roche was quite prepared to dope, as is witnessed by his 'alleged' Epo use...
Oh well, that proves it for me. :roll:0 -
OK, the 'unequivocal' conclusion of the Italian inquiry that he doped with Epo.greasedscotsman wrote:
Oh well, that proves it for me. :roll:BikingBernie wrote:Bottom line is that there is very good evidence that Roche was quite prepared to dope, as is witnessed by his 'alleged' Epo use...0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
OK, the 'unequivocal' conclusion of the Italian inquiry that he doped with Epo.greasedscotsman wrote:
Oh well, that proves it for me. :roll:BikingBernie wrote:Bottom line is that there is very good evidence that Roche was quite prepared to dope, as is witnessed by his 'alleged' Epo use...
Fantastic, so that proves he cheated throughout his career!0 -
Yes, every rider is as clean as the driven snow, right up to the point they are busted.greasedscotsman wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
OK, the 'unequivocal' conclusion of the Italian inquiry that he doped with Epo.greasedscotsman wrote:
Oh well, that proves it for me. :roll:BikingBernie wrote:Bottom line is that there is very good evidence that Roche was quite prepared to dope, as is witnessed by his 'alleged' Epo use...
Fantastic, so that proves he cheated throughout his career! 0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Yes, every rider is as clean as the driven snow, right up to the point they are busted.
Yes, your right. It's quite simple, you either cheat your entire career or you don't. :roll:0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:BikingBernie wrote:Yes, every rider is as clean as the driven snow, right up to the point they are busted.
Yes, your right. It's quite simple, you either cheat your entire career or you don't. :roll:
yes, by biking bernie logic we can also assume..every criminal should really be kept in jail because if they got caught breaking the law once, it means they must have been breaking the law their whole life. :roll:0 -
No, rather you either have the mentality of a doper, or you don't, and being busted shows that you do...greasedscotsman wrote:
Yes, your right. It's quite simple, you either cheat your entire career or you don't. :roll:BikingBernie wrote:Yes, every rider is as clean as the driven snow, right up to the point they are busted.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
No, rather you either have the mentality of a doper, or you don't, and being busted shows that you do...greasedscotsman wrote:
Yes, your right. It's quite simple, you either cheat your entire career or you don't. :roll:BikingBernie wrote:Yes, every rider is as clean as the driven snow, right up to the point they are busted.
No it doesn't. Don't be silly.0 -
Ah, the 'straw man' argument raises it's head once again.Dave_1 wrote:by biking bernie logic we can also assume..every criminal should really be kept in jail because if they got caught breaking the law once, it means they must have been breaking the law their whole life. :roll:
Do I take it that you feel that, for example, keeping child sex offenders under supervision for years after they have been found guilty of a crime is also wrong?0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Ah, the 'straw man' argument raises it's head once again.Dave_1 wrote:by biking bernie logic we can also assume..every criminal should really be kept in jail because if they got caught breaking the law once, it means they must have been breaking the law their whole life. :roll:
Do I take it that you feel that, for example, keeping child sex offenders under supervision for years after they have been found guilty of a crime is also wrong?
Quick Dave, post some pictures of Nazis to invoke Godwin's law to counter BB's straw man and you'll win! 0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Ah, the 'straw man' argument raises it's head once again.Dave_1 wrote:by biking bernie logic we can also assume..every criminal should really be kept in jail because if they got caught breaking the law once, it means they must have been breaking the law their whole life. :roll:
Do I take it that you feel that, for example, keeping child sex offenders under supervision for years after they have been found guilty of a crime is also wrong?
How could it possibly be a straw man argument???? You said as Roche has broken the rules,we can assume he has broken the rules previously. Therefore if someone has broken the law once, they have done it before. By your logic it would be safe on first offence, as you are so sure they are habitual rule breakers, to prosecute them for a career or lifetime of offences. No straw man argument just your logic. I think you should give the benefit of the doubt retrospectively to Roche.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
How could it possibly be a straw man argument???? You said as Roche has broken the rules,we can assume he has broken the rules previously. Therefore if someone has broken the law once, they have done it before. By your logic it would be safe on first offence, as you are so sure they are habitual rule breakers, to prosecute them for a career or lifetime of offences. No straw man argument just your logic. I think you should give the benefit of the doubt retrospectively to Roche.BikingBernie wrote:
Ah, the 'straw man' argument raises it's head once again.Dave_1 wrote:by biking bernie logic we can also assume..every criminal should really be kept in jail because if they got caught breaking the law once, it means they must have been breaking the law their whole life. :roll:
It is a 'straw man' because you caricature my position as an argument in favour for locking up all criminals permanently on the basis of a single crime, when I had argued no such thing. You now compound the error by saying:
Again, I never said any such thing. Rather, I said that if someone dopes, then it can be assumed that they have the sort of personality / psychological outlook that sees such actions as being, in some way, acceptable. If they did not then they would have refused to ever dope. Given the additional pressures to dope that arise in sport with a culture of doping, then it is not unreasonable to assume that someone caught doping might have also done so previously. However, there can be no certainty (as you seem to be claiming is what I was arguing), which I acknowledged when I said that the rumours that I heard (via an ex-pro) were 'maybe', as you put it, 'rubbish'.You said as Roche has broken the rules,we can assume he has broken the rules previously. Therefore if someone has broken the law once, they have done it before.
Whatever, there is good evidence that Roche was, at least during some of his career, a doper, which is surely the most pertinent point.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
How could it possibly be a straw man argument???? You said as Roche has broken the rules,we can assume he has broken the rules previously. Therefore if someone has broken the law once, they have done it before. By your logic it would be safe on first offence, as you are so sure they are habitual rule breakers, to prosecute them for a career or lifetime of offences. No straw man argument just your logic. I think you should give the benefit of the doubt retrospectively to Roche.BikingBernie wrote:
Ah, the 'straw man' argument raises it's head once again.Dave_1 wrote:by biking bernie logic we can also assume..every criminal should really be kept in jail because if they got caught breaking the law once, it means they must have been breaking the law their whole life. :roll:
It is a 'straw man' because you caricature my position as an argument in favour for locking up all criminals permanently on the basis of a single crime, when I had argued no such thing. You now compound the error by saying:
Again, I never said any such thing. Rather, I said that if someone dopes, then it can be assumed that they have the sort of personality / psychological outlook that sees such actions as being, in some way, acceptable. If they did not then they would have refused to ever dope. Given the additional pressures to dope that arise in sport with a culture of doping, then it is not unreasonable to assume that someone caught doping might have also done so previously. However, there can be no certainty (as you seem to be claiming is what I was arguing), which I acknowledged when I said that the rumours that I heard (via an ex-pro) were 'maybe', as you put it, 'rubbish'.You said as Roche has broken the rules,we can assume he has broken the rules previously. Therefore if someone has broken the law once, they have done it before.
Whatever, there is good evidence that Roche was, at least during some of his career, a doper, which is surely the most pertinent point.
Now you are changing your argument. You say as he's broken the rule once he "might" have done so previously..but far from certain but let's taint Roche's whole career just in case eh. And you're only too happy to roll out the argument that EPO was the game changer in the 1990s, that previous doping didn't affect the results like EPO does where super responders beat the rest, but now you want to smear the non-EPO era riders again even though you conveniently held up their era in your previous Armstrong related threads as more authentic as pre dated EPO. :roll: :roll: :roll:0 -
'Scuse me if I but in here, but the initial point was that Roche's career may actually have been hampered by past drug use.
I'd have thought that even a doctor with full access to Roche's medical history (including precisely which substances he took and when) would have a difficult job extrapolating that. While it's not entirely implausible as conjecture even the full evidence wouldn't make it easy to establish any causation.
So all told I'll consider it as minimally founded conjecture, and certainly not as possible evidence of earlier doping.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:'Scuse me if I but in here, but the initial point was that Roche's career may actually have been hampered by past drug use.
I thought it was about un-zipped jerseys!0
