Stephen Roche's 'Risotto Recipe
ratsbeyfus
Posts: 2,841
I had people spitting rice and wine in my face
To be served with a helping of 'Kimmage's soup'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/04/tour-de-france-stephen-roche
0
Comments
-
He forgot to mention this bit:
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.0 -
Nicolas a top 5 in TdF or top 3 in TdS? I don't think so...0
-
Holy wall of text Bernie!
0 -
what a revelation Bernie, you're a real investigative journalist you..an 80s pro used drugs! No sh*t sherlock :roll:0
-
Does anyone believe Roche was clean in 87?0
-
FlipFlopper wrote:Does anyone care Roche was clean in 87?
FTFY0 -
I do, that's why I asked. Pls take the first two letters off your post & re-read as if from me.Alan A wrote:FlipFlopper wrote:Does anyone care Roche was clean in 87?
FTFY0 -
I found that quite interesting Bernie thanks....0
-
FlipFlopper wrote:Pls take the first two letters off your post & re-read as if from me.
Settle down tiger. We try to be a little more civil to each other around here than that...0 -
The Mad Rapper wrote:Nicolas a top 5 in TdF or top 3 in TdS? I don't think so...
Erm, was the OP about Stephen or the currently riding (and ace) Nicky Roche?
Just want to be sure (to be sure, if you want an Irish cliche joke). Remember, I'm the Nicky fanboi? :oops:Ecrasez l’infame0 -
BelgianBeerGeek wrote:Erm, was the OP about Stephen or the currently riding (and ace) Nicky Roche?
Just want to be sure (to be sure, if you want an Irish cliche joke). Remember, I'm the Nicky fanboi? :oops:
Sorry
In the linked Guardian article it's a comment Stephen makes about his son. I just don't think he's as good as his Dad does. No offence 0 -
Cheers for clearing that up Mad Rapper. I'll sleep better tonight.
It could be Nicky's year... Ecrasez l’infame0 -
If it walks like a doper, quacks like a doper, it's a doper.FlipFlopper wrote:Does anyone believe Roche was clean in 87?0 -
Yep, I've been here a while so know how it works. I didn't like the way "Alan A" made his post - seemed very dismissive and I felt that merited a response in kind.The Mad Rapper wrote:FlipFlopper wrote:Pls take the first two letters off your post & re-read as if from me.
Settle down tiger. We try to be a little more civil to each other around here than that...0 -
Yep. I guess Millar's book re-adjusted my views on dopers a bit and am now overly generous to them.dougzz wrote:
If it walks like a doper, quacks like a doper, it's a doper.FlipFlopper wrote:Does anyone believe Roche was clean in 87?
I'm not familiar with any magic products from 87, so am interested in knowing whether he was only as dirty as the rest of the peloton, or whether his results were likely due to early access to stuff that was later commonplace (his argument that EPO wasn't around then particularly got my attention)
I enjoyed the article BB posted and am keen for any further info....0 -
FlipFlopper wrote:
Yep. I guess Millar's book re-adjusted my views on dopers a bit and am now overly generous to them.dougzz wrote:
If it walks like a doper, quacks like a doper, it's a doper.FlipFlopper wrote:Does anyone believe Roche was clean in 87?
I'm not familiar with any magic products from 87, so am interested in knowing whether he was only as dirty as the rest of the peloton, or whether his results were likely due to early access to stuff that was later commonplace (his argument that EPO wasn't around then particularly got my attention)
I enjoyed the article BB posted and am keen for any further info....
EPO was the big change, it marks a turning point in doping, and it wasn't available in 87.
There might have been transfusions going on prior to EPO though (LA Olympics 84 they certainly were in the US cycling team)Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
"EPO was available in the mid to late eighties. Combined with early HgH usage riders of note (and with a good team doctor) (Van Mol, Rijkaert spring to mind) and enough £££ behind them had easy access to labs/hospitals in Switzerland and Austria. This was common knowldge in the peloton of the day..."
Quote from a rider that raced with/against Roche and others in that time.0 -
T_Pucker wrote:"EPO was available in the mid to late eighties. Combined with early HgH usage riders of note (and with a good team doctor) (Van Mol, Rijkaert spring to mind) and enough £££ behind them had easy access to labs/hospitals in Switzerland and Austria. This was common knowldge in the peloton of the day..."
Quote from a rider that raced with/against Roche and others in that time.
Which rider? EPO was not widely available until 89/90. HgH I'm not sure about, but I thought that was even later. Not sure how much money you think cycling teams have.
I'm sure Roche used the same stuff everyone else did in the 80s. Read Fignon's book or Rough Ride for a view. If you are to strip him of 87, you might as well erase every GT result from the banning of dope in 67 to the present day. Maybe let Caritoux (Vuelta 84), Mottet (if we're counting placings), Lemond, Hamsten and Evans keep their palmares.
EPO though is a game changer. It allowed the likes of Rominger, Riis and Chiapucci (Roche's one time domestique) to become champions. No substance before that would have enabled such a change.
Roche tried it in 93 no doubt, but it didn't do him much good. His physiology probably didn't receive the same benefit of the likes of say Indurain or Olano who transformed their abilities.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Kelly got done in 80s, had finger pointed at him by Willy Voet in court too, caught up in PDM scandal 1991, Hinault refused to submit to dope control at post crit, said hormone rebalancing by notorious French Dr was fine, Fignon doped, Rooks doped, Theunisse doped, Argentin doped, everyone doped...so WTF have we got this anti Roche thread going...Roche showed guts and tenacity to stop the complete robbery of the 87 Giro by a local, as happened in 1984, and in Spain in 1985 when real cheating happened. Roche's wins are pre EPO. Talk about them all or are you just out to pick on Roche like the poisonous little biking bernie?0
-
How much he used in comparison to everyone else is another question though...Timoid. wrote:I'm sure Roche used the same stuff everyone else did in the 80s.
And of course the biggest beneficiary of its transformational potential was Armstrong...Timoid. wrote:EPO though is a game changer. It allowed the likes of Rominger, Riis and Chiapucci (Roche's one time domestique) to become champions. No substance before that would have enabled such a change.
Surely, the main reason was that he was at the end of his career and, or so I have heard 'on the grapevine', already knackered from his previous dedication to acting in a 'professional' manner?Timoid. wrote:Roche tried it in 93 no doubt, but it didn't do him much good. His physiology probably didn't receive the same benefit of the likes of say Indurain or Olano who transformed their abilities.
You have tried this 'talk about them all or say nothing' tactic before in relation to Armstrong. Thing is, like Armstrong, Roche fully deserves focused criticism for the venomous way he has attacked those brave enough to speak out against doping, such as Kimmage and Walsh.Dave_1 wrote:Roche's wins are pre EPO. Talk about them all or are you just out to pick on Roche like the poisonous little biking bernie?
(May I also suggest that you read the forum rules relating to personal abuse...).0 -
FlipFlopper wrote:
I do, that's why I asked. Pls take the first two letters off your post & re-read as if from me.Alan A wrote:FlipFlopper wrote:Does anyone care Roche was clean in 87?
FTFY
Charming! :roll:
Roche, Fignon, Big Mig et al rode 25 years ago. FFS that's a quarter of a century ago. If any of them were a monarch we'd be celebrating their silver jubilees.
As stated by others On this thread, they were cycling in different times with a different culture / sporting ethos. Why do people want to keep raking the coals of a long dead fire?
I used to watch the exploits of Roche, Big Mig, Fignon an others in awe. I only got to see them for 3 weeks a year on the wee black and white portable in the kitchen whilst I washed the dishes (my mum loved July). My viewing habits have changed enormously over 25 years... So has the sport. Worry about whether The Hog will make Schleck cry or if Bertie will set up a roadside BBQ van on Tourmalet, not about whether Delgado or Roche was the cleaner cyclist in 1987.
To put a late 80's cycling smile on your face enjoy this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=243BJu0z ... ata_player0 -
Timoid. wrote:T_Pucker wrote:"EPO was available in the mid to late eighties. Combined with early HgH usage riders of note (and with a good team doctor) (Van Mol, Rijkaert spring to mind) and enough £££ behind them had easy access to labs/hospitals in Switzerland and Austria. This was common knowldge in the peloton of the day..."
Quote from a rider that raced with/against Roche and others in that time.
Which rider?
HgH I'm not sure about, but I thought that was even later. Not sure how much money you think cycling teams have.EPO was not widely available until 89/90.
I'm sure Roche used the same stuff everyone else did in the 80s. Read Fignon's book or Rough Ride for a view. If you are to strip him of 87, you might as well erase every GT result from the banning of dope in 67 to the present day. Maybe let Caritoux (Vuelta 84), Mottet (if we're counting placings), Lemond, Hamsten and Evans keep their palmares.
EPO though is a game changer. It allowed the likes of Rominger, Riis and Chiapucci (Roche's one time domestique) to become champions. No substance before that would have enabled such a change.
Roche tried it in 93 no doubt, but it didn't do him much good. His physiology probably didn't receive the same benefit of the likes of say Indurain or Olano who transformed their abilities.
Do ya research mate...
and I know how much money cycling teams had back in the 80s & 90s. Enough to send nominated leaders to clinics and to bring them back with noted change in form.0 -
Thanks for the C4 link AlanA - happy memories indeed! (Glad to see Le Coq are doing the tour shirts again - they made my favourite Spurs shirts as well.) Like most I just assume that Roche was on something in the 80's like most of the other riders - after reading Rough Ride it would be strange to imagine anything else. I'm still really looking forward to reading his book - I hope it reads more like Fignon's recounts than Armstrong's fiction.0
-
EPO was first developed in 1983 and is suspected to have first been used in sport as from 1987.Timoid. wrote:
Which rider? EPO was not widely available until 89/90. HgH I'm not sure about, but I thought that was even later.T_Pucker wrote:"EPO was available in the mid to late eighties. Combined with early HgH usage riders of note (and with a good team doctor) (Van Mol, Rijkaert spring to mind) and enough £££ behind them had easy access to labs/hospitals in Switzerland and Austria. This was common knowldge in the peloton of the day..."
Quote from a rider that raced with/against Roche and others in that time.
L’Equipe first mentioned the use of EPO in sport in January 1988. Then, its use was suspected amongst sportsmen in Italy (Italian sports bodies encouraged research by doctors at universities, so it was assumed sportsmen were used as guinea pigs, which later definitely happened in Sweden) and by Soviet cross-country skiers at the Winter Olympics in Calgary. The same year, FIS (the International Skiing Federation) put EPO on its list of banned substances, even though it still wasn’t officially allowed to be used even for legitimate medicinal treatment – only in 1989 was it allowed on the market.
The first deaths amongst cyclists attributed to EPO were in 1989. The UCI put EPO on its banned list in 1991.
HGH’s heyday in cycling (and also amongst track athletes) was in the 1990s, but HGH in different forms has been around since about 1980, and since 1985 in gen-modified form.0 -
knedlicky wrote:
EPO was first developed in 1983 and is suspected to have first been used in sport as from 1987.Timoid. wrote:
Which rider? EPO was not widely available until 89/90. HgH I'm not sure about, but I thought that was even later.T_Pucker wrote:"EPO was available in the mid to late eighties. Combined with early HgH usage riders of note (and with a good team doctor) (Van Mol, Rijkaert spring to mind) and enough £££ behind them had easy access to labs/hospitals in Switzerland and Austria. This was common knowldge in the peloton of the day..."
Quote from a rider that raced with/against Roche and others in that time.
L’Equipe first mentioned the use of EPO in sport in January 1988. Then, its use was suspected amongst sportsmen in Italy (Italian sports bodies encouraged research by doctors at universities, so it was assumed sportsmen were used as guinea pigs, which later definitely happened in Sweden) and by Soviet cross-country skiers at the Winter Olympics in Calgary. The same year, FIS (the International Skiing Federation) put EPO on its list of banned substances, even though it still wasn’t officially allowed to be used even for legitimate medicinal treatment – only in 1989 was it allowed on the market.
The first deaths amongst cyclists attributed to EPO were in 1989. The UCI put EPO on its banned list in 1991.
HGH’s heyday in cycling (and also amongst track athletes) was in the 1990s, but HGH in different forms has been around since about 1980, and since 1985 in gen-modified form.
I think the first deaths in cycling show when the timeline of EPO use in cycling starts. People didn't know the dangers of it. What we saw through all of the 1980s was non EPO use pretty much
From wikipedia
In the 1980s, Adamson, Joseph W. Eschbach, Joan C. Egrie, Michael R. Downing and Jeffrey K. Browne conducted a clinical trial at the Northwest Kidney Centers for a synthetic form of the hormone, Epogen produced by Amgen. The trial was successful, and the results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 1987.[42]
In 1985, Lin et al. isolated the human erythropoietin gene from a genomic phage library and were able to characterize it for research and production.[43] Their research demonstrated that the gene for erythropoietin encoded the production of EPO in mammalian cells that is biologically active in vitro and in vivo. The industrial production of recombinant human erythropoietin (RhEpo) for treating anemia patients would begin soon after.
In 1989, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the hormone, called Epogen, which remains in use today.0 -
0
-
T_Pucker wrote:Timoid. wrote:T_Pucker wrote:"EPO was available in the mid to late eighties. Combined with early HgH usage riders of note (and with a good team doctor) (Van Mol, Rijkaert spring to mind) and enough £££ behind them had easy access to labs/hospitals in Switzerland and Austria. This was common knowldge in the peloton of the day..."
Quote from a rider that raced with/against Roche and others in that time.
Which rider?
Do ya research mate...
and I know how much money cycling teams had back in the 80s & 90s. Enough to send nominated leaders to clinics and to bring them back with noted change in form.
You did not answer my question.
If you know so much about team's budgets, tell me the turnover of the La Vie Claire and Carrera teams in 87.
State facts or stop trolling.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Kelly got done in 80s, had finger pointed at him by Willy Voet in court too, caught up in PDM scandal 1991, Hinault refused to submit to dope control at post crit, said hormone rebalancing by notorious French Dr was fine, Fignon doped, Rooks doped, Theunisse doped, Argentin doped, everyone doped...so WTF have we got this anti Roche thread going...Roche showed guts and tenacity to stop the complete robbery of the 87 Giro by a local, as happened in 1984, and in Spain in 1985 when real cheating happened. Roche's wins are pre EPO. Talk about them all or are you just out to pick on Roche?
Quite.0 -
So Bernie, why do you follow cycling at all if you cannot take any joy from any victory in living memory?It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0
-
Timoid. wrote:So Bernie, why do you follow cycling at all if you cannot take any joy from any victory in living memory?
He doesn't. He's like one of those people who moans about modern music but the last thing they heard was by the Beatles.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
