# Stephen Roche



## rich p (22 May 2012)

Every time I hear him on Eurosport he comes over as a smug, sarcastic know-all. By the way, I'm allowed to be personally insulting, as cyclingnews have given him space to do the same to Cav in a strange, non-article.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/st.../my-love-hate-feelings-towards-mark-cavendish

Apparently the Roche 'hate' bit is due to the fact that Cavendish doesn't look into the camera during interviews and he always thanks his team-mates after a win.

He came over as less than appealing in Nico's book too.

Nobber, as Noodley might say.


----------



## Noodley (22 May 2012)

...and a drug cheat nobber at that.


----------



## raindog (22 May 2012)

"non-article" describes that perfectly.
Always liked Roche as a rider - as a bloke, I'm not so sure....


----------



## Noodley (22 May 2012)

I think "gobshite" would be an apt term to use for him.


----------



## 400bhp (22 May 2012)

Stephen Roche - Mr Monotone.


----------



## Crackle (22 May 2012)

Great rider, suss piece of journalism. Perhaps CyclingNews could give me some column space to write about odd things people do which make me dislike them without even knowing them. I could keep going forever.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 May 2012)

You do realise this is a blog don't you? No 'journalism'. This is pure, unvarnished Roche, and I'm afraid Roche, great rider though he was, is a complete dipshit when it comes to analysis (cf. also his recent comments about the problems afflicting pro-cycling).


----------



## Crackle (22 May 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You do realise this is a blog don't you? No 'journalism'. This is pure, unvarnished Roche, and I'm afraid Roche, great rider though he was, is a complete dipshit when it comes to analysis (cf. also his recent comments about the problems afflicting pro-cycling).


 
Yeah, it's a cycling news blog isn't it, correct me if I'm wrong. Just like blogs on other news sites. You may see some nuanced difference that I don't but it's journalism, CyclingNews's journalism rather than Roche being a journalist, which he plainly isn't. I care not for the finer points of definition, it's news, in a news website ergo it's journalism.


----------



## Noodley (22 May 2012)

Just highlighting why blog's should be banned!!!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 May 2012)

Crackle said:


> Yeah, it's a cycling news blog isn't it, correct me if I'm wrong. Just like blogs on other news sites. You may see some nuanced difference that I don't but it's journalism, CyclingNews's journalism rather than Roche being a journalist, which he plainly isn't. I care not for the finer points of definition, it's news, in a news website ergo it's journalism.


 
I think I'll leave you to your weird definitional arguments which apparently you aren't interested in...


----------



## raindog (22 May 2012)

Dizzy heights? Eleven posts - and that includes the whinge from you and two or three that are just inter-bickering. 
If the remarks had been made against an Italian rider, I'm sure there would've been posting to dizzy heights on Italian forums. Same for French, Spanish etc etc.


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 May 2012)

There's a lot of bitterness in Roche. Injury and poor career decisions meant he failed to capitalise on his golden year in '87 and he seems to have developed a resentment of the other English speakers who've reached the top. I recall him being quite critical of Lemond on a few occassions too.


----------



## black'n'yellow (22 May 2012)

Roche is paid to have opinions - and if he's getting a reaction (which he appears to be) then he is obviously doing his job. Give it another 10 years and Cav will be doing exactly the same thing...


----------



## bof (23 May 2012)

Some years back when the Prutour had a Sportive, Stephen Roche was the celebrity guest rider. At the end of the ride he held an "open session" where you could ask him anything about cycle racing etc. I was one of the last riders to finish and he'd obviously been doing it for some time, but he was interesting in what he said, friendly and patient answering questions he must have had several times.


----------



## festival (23 May 2012)

Why do people have to use words like "love and hate" when they clearly don't do either.
If Roche doesn't want to be " too dramatic about it" then he shouldn't use these words.


----------



## Noodley (24 May 2012)

bof said:


> ... he held an "open session" where you could ask him anything about cycle racing etc..


 
I bet nobody asked him about his doping.


----------



## Noodley (24 May 2012)

User said:


> Yawn.....


 
Yes, I am rather tired of doping as well. Roche should come out and tell the truth...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 May 2012)

Noodley said:


> Yes, I am rather tired of doping as well. Roche should come out and tell the truth...


 
Especially now he's in the position he is in at the UCI, telling contemporary riders and teams what they are doing wrong. If he was just a private individual who kept himself to himself, I wouldn't really care. But he's not.


----------



## Noodley (24 May 2012)

It depends what you categorise as "proof"...I have what I would consider "proof" in that his name appears in a blood test file/ document which has been authenticated as genuine and marked against his name under Treated (with EPO) is Yes. (see page 285 of Matt Rendell's Biography of Marco Pantani for details).

You say that Roche is free to opinionate to his hearts content, as am I. I don't happen to sit on the Professional Cyclist Commission of the UCI. I see doping as a big problem in pro cycling, Roche doesn't; he is more interested in making his way up the UCI chain of bullshit by waffling about whether riders should zip their jerseys up, and not using team cars to draft.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 May 2012)

Noodley said:


> You say that Roche is free to opinionate to his hearts content, as am I. I don't happen to sit on the Professional Cyclist Commission of the UCI. I see doping as a big problem in pro cycling, Roche doesn't; he is more interested in making his way up the UCI chain of bullshit by waffling about whether riders should zip their jerseys up, and not using team cars to draft.


 
Exactly. If he is going to lecture anyone else about 'cheating' from a UCI pulpit, he's got to set an example. As I said, if he was just an opinionated individual with no official position, it wouldn't really matter...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 May 2012)

User said:


> anyway these threads are really all about a personal dislike of an individual.


 
No, they aren't. Given your alias, I suggest you are slightly blinkered by patriotism. I don't dislike Roche as a person (I don't know him), I think a lot of what he has been saying of late has been stupid. Of other great Irish cyclists - Sean Kelly almost never says anything that isn't insightful and has a dry wit. I imagine I'd like him a lot if I knew him...


----------



## Noodley (25 May 2012)

User said:


> again I'll state, Roche has not been found guilty, not matter what we believe to be true and until found guilty, he's entitled to his opinion, entitled to climb whatever ladder he wishes and lets be honest if pro cycling ever cracked down on alledged drug cheats, who'd run the UCI, be team managers, tv commentators, all the ex pros who now work for the teams need I go on, anyway these threads are really all about a personal dislike of an individual.
> I know drug cheating is a major problem in many sports but I just enjoyed the sport (whichever one) irrespective of who takes or doesn't take what..


 
And, liekwise I am entitled to my opinion and I'll state it clear for you: Roche was a drug cheat. I have no personal dislike of him, but he was a drug cheat - there is evidence. He will not be found "guilty" but it does not mean he did not do it. Even if he had been found guilty, he'd still be entitled to his opinion. If he admitted what he did, then I would have more respect for him, but he just carries on with his denial and speaks bullshit.

And as for "who'd run the UCI if we got rid of all the cheats?" line...ex-clean riders, ex-dopers who admit their errors and want to see change, people with no vested interest in maintaining the silence, people who give a shoot...


----------



## Noodley (25 May 2012)

User said:


> I know drug cheating is a major problem in many sports but I just enjoyed the sport (whichever one) *irrespective of who takes or doesn't take what*..


 
You, then, are part of the problem.


----------



## Noodley (25 May 2012)

No, Roche is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. I am entitled to pass comment on Roche as he cheated during his cycling days and is now putting himself forward as a cycling "politician" and commentator on cycling matters.

Irrespective of whether or not he was convicted or not, he cheated. I have given you the "evidence", so feel free to access this and make your own mind up.


----------



## Buddfox (25 May 2012)

But not solely convicted by an armchair judge and jury - you will have seen the reference above to the evidence presented in Matt Rendell's book. Roche won't ever be found guilty because there's no point in charging him, that bird has flown. But to attest his innocence flies in the face of the available evidence.

There's a growing number of people in cycling who really don't like doping being a part of the sport. It's not necessary and it undermines the magic of the sport and the challenges it sets. I noticed today in the Eurosport commentary that they occasionally add in when a rider who is doing well has in the past been caught for doping, rather than burying their heads in the sand. I think this is a good thing, putting an asterisk next to the achievements of cheaters. I believe there is less doping in cycling today than there has been in the past, and based on today's stage of the Giro can it be denied that cleaner athletes putting themselves through these sorts of tests yields compelling sport, compelling viewing and compelling competition? Those who were involved in endemic doping in the eighties and nineties should no longer be afraid to come out and admit it. The fans know it happened - better to be honest about it and perhaps in that way salvage some of the reputation of their era in the sport.


----------



## rich p (25 May 2012)

User said:


> Buddfox, I agree totally, I myself feel-think-suspect-"know" Roche took drugs and many others in many different sports, but hey lots of people have skeletons in the closet, thats life but the law of the land is innocence until proven guilty and until that changes Roche has the right to do and say as he pleases...


 FYI, this is not a court of law - it's an internet forum where we discuss things


----------



## black'n'yellow (25 May 2012)

the 'clean' years are not necessarily 'clean' - they just happen to be the years when most of the teams get the right combination between doping and masking agents.

And FFS give Roche a break - it's not clever. If you accuse him of doping, you would have to accuse every other rider of his generation - and the previous generation and all subsequent generations. 

That's not an endorsement of doping, incidentally.


----------



## Noodley (25 May 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> the 'clean' years are not necessarily 'clean' - they just happen to be the years when most of the teams get the right combination between doping and masking agents.
> 
> And FFS give Roche a break - it's not clever. If you accuse him of doping, you would have to accuse every other rider of his generation - and the previous generation and all subsequent generations.
> 
> That's not an endorsement of doping, incidentally.


 
If any other riders of his generation want to step up and put themselves forward as "cycling politicians" then I shall treat them similarly.


----------



## black'n'yellow (25 May 2012)

Noodley said:


> If any other riders of his generation want to step up and put themselves forward as "cycling politicians" then I shall treat them similarly.


 
good for you fella - have you considered becoming a football fan instead..?


----------



## Noodley (25 May 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> good for you fella - have you considered becoming a football fan instead..?


 
Instead of what?


----------



## black'n'yellow (25 May 2012)

well, er, pro cycling presumably..?


----------



## Noodley (25 May 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> well, er, pro cycling presumably..?


 
Sorry, I must have missed something...explain?


----------



## black'n'yellow (25 May 2012)

it just doesn't sound like you're cut out to be a fan of procycling, if it gets you this upset.....


----------



## rich p (26 May 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> it just doesn't sound like you're cut out to be a fan of procycling, if it gets you this upset.....


 I have to agree. Fancy a cycling fan getting irritated by drug cheats who pontificate about radios, zippers on jerseys and hate Cav because he praises his team. Noodley should be applauding Roche all the way to the top job while fights the issue of drafting after puncturing. Get your priorities sorted out Noodley before you come on here shouting about non-issues like doping and hypocrisy.


----------



## Paul_L (26 May 2012)

^ + 1.

And what about the scourge of cycling whereby Cav doesn't even look at the chuffin camera when interviewed. That should carry a mandatory 2 year ban!


----------



## Paul_L (26 May 2012)

User said:


> I'd hate to read the comments if people disliked Roche....
> Noodley from your comments I gather I should refrain from enjoying old school cycling, Eddy Merckx, laurent Fignon etc and my all time favourite Sean Kelly..drug cheats (allegedly) but I don't or won't allow drugs to take away the enjoyment I get from watching the old masters or infact any sport were drugs are presumed to be used...to be fair I don't really care, I'm a self confessed sports nut, for me it's all about the game, the politics are a side issue for me.


 
We all know use of PEDs was endemic in the past, and for me at least that doesn't take away my enjoyment of say Roche at La Plagne in 87, or Fignon's 8second tour.

But the difference with people like Fignon (RIP) is he admitted use of amphets, and as Noodley has repeatedly tried to say, Roche has always followed the omerta AND is climbing the UCIs gravy train. I'd have no problem with Roche taking a senior position in cycling on the basis that he admitted what went on, admitted he was involved and used his influence to make sure it doesn't ever happen again.

The finish of yesterday's Giro (where everyone looked absolutely farked at the finish) does give some confidence that cycling is as clean now as it's ever been.


----------



## rich p (26 May 2012)

User said:


> ...to be fair I don't really care, I'm a self confessed sports nut, for me it's all about the game, the politics are a side issue for me.


  Drugs aren't politics. Politicking is what Roche is doing to get on the gravy train. Arguing about non-issues a la Pat McQuaid.
I enjoyed all those feats of endurance by the old masters too and can forgive some for taking a few amphetamines. Watching Pantani chock full of EPO and admiring Armstrong bully his way past Fat Jan leaves a bitter taste now though.


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 May 2012)

User said:


> I'd hate to read the comments if people disliked Roche....
> Noodley from your comments I gather I should refrain from enjoying old school cycling, Eddy Merckx, laurent Fignon etc and my all time favourite Sean Kelly..drug cheats (allegedly) but I don't or won't allow drugs to take away the enjoyment I get from watching the old masters or infact any sport were drugs are presumed to be used...to be fair I don't really care, I'm a self confessed sports nut, for me it's all about the game, the politics are a side issue for me.


 
spot on. I rarely follow the pro side of the sport, as I don't have much interest in it, but there seems to be an awful lot of armchair whinging going on here, which is why I suggested football as an alternative pursuit...


----------



## Paul_L (26 May 2012)

User said:


> hold on, Roche is a drug fiend but Fignon only took amphetamines ? but "if" Armstrong took drugs then passing Jan, surly it was a level playing field...
> Roche 87 collapses, next day rides like nothing happened, yet todays riders do the same and they are giants of cycling, (for the moment)...


 
La Plagne was different. Roche rode a "superhuman" solo effort to pull nearly a minute and a half back on Delgado. The Giro yesterday, was the whole of the leading contenders slogging it out km after km in a real attritional battle. It's also pretty clear to me, that the "recovery" from day to day is not what it once was and i contest the comment that they ride the day after like nothing happened.


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 May 2012)

yep - that must be true - because you saw it on the telly.....


----------



## Diggs (26 May 2012)

Well he's on http://thebikeshow.net next month and Jack is asking on various social networking sites for their opinion


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 May 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> I rarely follow the pro side of the sport, as I don't have much interest in it


 
But enough interest, apparently, to argue about something you aren't interested in. 

Look, it's very simple: Roche was a great rider. He also took drugs. He refuses to talk about it. He's now a pro-cycling politician. He is in a position where he lectures contemporary cyclists about cheating and proper behaviour. But neither you nor i.o.t.c.b seem to think this is a problem, and you also can't apparently think of any motivation for our criticism than the idea that we must not like Roche personally. 

Given that you don't have much interest in the pro sport, have you actually read the kind of stuff that Roche has been coming out with recently? I really advise you to take a look at the thread I started a few weeks back. It might be an eye-opener.


----------



## black'n'yellow (26 May 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> But *enough* interest, apparently, to argue about something you aren't interested in.


 
'Enough' being the operative word, yes. Either you like watching people racing each other on bicycles - or you don't. If you do, then just enjoy it for what it is.



Flying_Monkey said:


> Look, it's very simple: Roche was a great rider. He also took drugs. He refuses to talk about it. He's now a pro-cycling politician. He is in a position where he lectures contemporary cyclists about cheating and proper behaviour. But neither you nor i.o.t.c.b seem to think this is a problem, and you also can't apparently think of any motivation for our criticism than the idea that we must not like Roche personally.


 
It's not a problem. Most sports usually get the politicians they deserve. I'm sure if the teams were that upset they would do something about it.



Flying_Monkey said:


> Given that you don't have much interest in the pro sport, have you actually read the kind of stuff that Roche has been coming out with recently? I really advise you to take a look at the thread I started a few weeks back. It might be an eye-opener.


 
I've just read the stuff. Roche says one thing - Vaughters says something different. Disagreement between two different sets of vested interests is hardly anything new...


----------



## Noodley (26 May 2012)

Omerta seems to stretch beyond the peloton to cycling forums


----------



## Noodley (27 May 2012)




----------



## black'n'yellow (27 May 2012)

Noodley said:


> Omerta seems to stretch beyond the peloton to cycling forums


 
Get protesting then fella, if you feel that strongly, while I continue to show a relative lack of interest in stuff I can't do anything about. As a start, may I suggest marching on the national velodrome with a banner..?


----------



## rich p (27 May 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Get protesting then fella, if you feel that strongly, while I continue to show a relative lack of interest in stuff I can't do anything about. As a start, may I suggest marching on the national velodrome with a banner..?


 Eh? I can't do much about many world events but I still take an interest. Doping in cycling doesn't come close to a tsunami or a terrorist bomb but it still registers as a blight on the sport we love to watch. By all means remain as blinkered as you want, but don't tell us who care about the integrity of the sport to forget about it.


----------



## black'n'yellow (27 May 2012)

that's my point - if you care that much - what are you doing about it? Apart from posting on the internet. All of this just strikes me as a bit '_Daily Mail_', that's all....


----------



## Crackle (27 May 2012)

User said:


> stupid comments have no bounds


 
Absolutely but do you really think what you and BnY have written below, doesn't, in part, fall into this category



User said:


> I don't understand this obsession with what they did or didn't do, we all know drugs are part of cycling always was and always will be, more so in the past,


 
I'll miss out the Roche for thhe moment and yes, drugs have always been a part but do really think they should be? If the answer is yes it requires a different discussion but if the answer is no, how should we tackle it and more pertinent to this thread, should we care.

Personally I think we should, particularly the way drugs like EPO have changed the face of the sport completely, turning carthorses to race winners. How many good but clean riders and they exist, have been robbed of rightful wins, how many young riders have been drawn into it because they thought there was no choice. Would you be happy if it was your son was risking his health on drugs or even slogging his guts out clean with no chance of ever winning?



black'n'yellow said:


> Get protesting then fella, if you feel that strongly, while I continue to show a relative lack of interest in stuff I can't do anything about. As a start, may I suggest marching on the national velodrome with a banner..?


 
Why can't you do something about it? Your opinion counts, if you express it, it goes into a groundswell of opinions which influence others and so on, it's what's happening now. It may or may not make a difference but if you don't express it, it never will.


----------



## rich p (27 May 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> that's my point - if you care that much - what are you doing about it? Apart from posting on the internet. All of this just strikes me as a bit '_Daily Mail_', that's all....


 I have no idea what you're talking about re the Daily Mail but hey ho.
I'm not sure what an old bloke in Brighton could do about 'it'. I suspect writing to my MP or marching to Laussanne would have less effect than raising the issue among the good souls of CycleChat. Us talking about it has certainly persuaded more than a few on here that the problem exists and as such we raise awareness and interest. Vilification of those caught cheating is a good start and something we can all do. Dwain Chambers, Ben Johnson, Ricardo Ricco, Floyd Landis ....

...none of them Irish either.


----------



## Noodley (27 May 2012)

rich p said:


> ...none of them Irish either.


 
Ricard O'Ricco and Damian O'Cunego apart that is...


----------



## rich p (27 May 2012)

Noodley said:


> Ricard O'Ricco and Damian O'Cunego apart that is...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 May 2012)

User said:


> agenda


 
So what's my 'agenda'? Since you can apparently spot one, I'd quite like to know.


----------



## rich p (28 May 2012)

User said:


> I'll be honest lads, getting a little bored, we seem to be going around in circles...
> but let me clear a few points up..
> I think drugs in all sports are wrong and clean sports would be good, but as I don't live in utopia and I'm not important enough to make a difference and won't let drugs ruin a sport for me, then my only option is too enjoy the sport and hope it's as clean as can be.....
> *crackle*, trust me I'm under no illusion that my questions and answers are full of stupid opinions, but hey thats me...
> ...


above or below protesting about Roche threads?

I know, I know, I couldn't resist.


----------



## raindog (5 Jun 2012)

Interview with SR.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/04/tour-de-france-stephen-roche
He has a go at Brad in this one. Not sure why he has to do this really.


----------



## Noodley (5 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> Not sure why he has to do this really.


 
Cos he's a nobber.


----------



## Crackle (5 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> Interview with SR.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/04/tour-de-france-stephen-roche
> He has a go at Brad in this one. Not sure why he has to do this really.


 
Brad has got better at interviews but he was seriously weird at first, nevertheless, why Roche sees fit to criticise him, I dunno.

I remember the year he won the Giro and Tour, I remember him collapsing and Ligett going wild as he appeared out the mist. Same tour I also remember him descending so fast, he got ahead of the camera bike and official cars. I've even got a picture of him somewhere on slide, in Liverpool, in the Tour of Britain.

Noodley might be right but I'm not sure.


----------



## raindog (5 Jun 2012)

Crackle said:


> Same tour I also remember him descending so fast, he got ahead of the camera bike and official cars.


It was amazing wasn't it? I watched it live on French tv. Wonder if it's up on youtube?


----------



## Crackle (5 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> It was amazing wasn't it? I watched it live on French tv. Wonder if it's up on youtube?


 
La Plagne is there but that descent doesn't seem to be but as I can't remember which descent it was, that makes it hard to find.


----------



## raindog (5 Jun 2012)

I can't find anything either, but I've been checking that day's racing out on various sites, and I think it was the same stage. He was out on his own when he climbed the Madeleine that day so I think it was descending the Madeleine where he went really fast before the climb of La Plagne when Delgado and his team mates caught and passed him.


----------



## Noodley (6 Jun 2012)

He's got a book out, which may account for him spouting crap to anyone who'll listen. No such thing as bad publicity and all that...


----------



## black'n'yellow (8 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> He's got a book out, which may account for him spouting crap to anyone who'll listen. No such thing as bad publicity and all that...


 
as a matter of interest, are you an Armstrong fan..?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Jun 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> as a matter of interest, are you an Armstrong fan..?


 
ROTFLMAO


----------



## Herzog (8 Jun 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> as a matter of interest, are you an Armstrong fan..?


 
?


----------



## Noodley (12 Jun 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> as a matter of interest, are you an Armstrong fan..?


----------



## black'n'yellow (12 Jun 2012)

so - just to be clear - is that a yes, or a no..?


----------



## PpPete (12 Jun 2012)

please Sir .... please Sir ... I know....


----------



## just jim (12 Jun 2012)

The thread should have been locked after that question, just to leave it hanging there.
It was a C.C perfect moment.


----------



## black'n'yellow (12 Jun 2012)

It's always nice being patronised by others who have been here longer than I have... 

Anyway - having used the search facility, it appears that he is not a fan. Which is obviously good - at least he is consistent.


----------



## Herzog (12 Jun 2012)

PpPete said:


> please Sir .... please Sir ... I know....


 
Be quiet at the back (throws blackboard duster in the direction of PpPete).


----------



## PpPete (12 Jun 2012)

/blows raspberry when mods arent looking/


----------



## Noodley (12 Jun 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> good - at least he is consistent.


 
Yep, all drug cheat deniers incur the pointy finger of the witch hunter...


----------



## Dayvo (12 Jun 2012)

But I bet Noods wore a yellow Livestrong band with pride, eh, Noods!


----------



## Noodley (12 Jun 2012)

I did.


----------

