Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling
 


       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Cycling Forum
Jackov

Does Sean Kelly ever say anything about the doping issue.

I've listend to hours and hours of ES cycling these last two years and I've never heard Sean Kelly say one word on the subject. Even when the Riis news was breaking not a peep out of him on this subject.

I've heard Kelly go on...and on...about the most mundane details of cycling: how the mechanic will hose down the bikes, the various qualities of asphalt, etc. Do I just miss the part when he gives his opinion on this issue?
70kmph

perhaps this subject is off limits command by the ES admin
lanternrouge

Apart from "A bad batch of Intralipid" one time, Kelly knows nothing about Charging Up

Laughing Laughing Laughing
Bartali

I'd keep my head down if I were him! Wouldn't you?
lanternrouge

Better believe it

Remember the whole Pansonic team going home after the "Intralipid Incident" ?
ullrichfan

Kelly knows plenty about doping.

Don't remember Panasonic but I do remember his PDM team retiring from the 1991 TDF after an EPO overdose. Most of the team were shaking and shivering on their bikes and looked awful.
Ralphnorman

He probably is so sick of all that stuff that has been said about it that he can't be bothered talking about it
Bartali

I know how he feels!
bianchigirl

and he ended up at Festina...

seem to recall he chooses his words very carefully whenever the topic arises...
lanternrouge

ullrichfan wrote:
Kelly knows plenty about doping.

Don't remember Panasonic but I do remember his PDM team retiring from the 1991 TDF after an EPO overdose. Most of the team were shaking and shivering on their bikes and looked awful.


I stand corrected - it was in fact the PDM squad and not Panasonic
MCM

...... and wasn't the official story food poisoning?
kellyrocheearly

the offical story was that it was a batch of glucose that they usedafter the stage for recovery and the doctor forgot to put in the fridge.
Also although Kelly was with Festina he joined in 1992 before Roussel and Voet et al and left at the end of 1993 as he didnt get along with the Roussel or the whole new French look of the team
MS

I believe Kelly has spoken before about his own experience with doping, but I may be wrong.

As an aside, guess what I have laying around my pad somewhere? Kelly, a 1987 biography of the King by none other than...David Walsh. Good stuff.
Ralphnorman

David Walsh.....Oooooooo.......SK does know a lot about doping....as do most pro's.......it just depends on which part of doping...... Rolling Eyes
Jackov

70kmph wrote:
perhaps this subject is off limits command by the ES admin


Unlikely, since it was ES's own Harmon that kept talking about the subject during the broadcast, and Kelly silent as the grave. More likely that ES admin are wondering what are they paying him for.
Ralphnorman

Jackov wrote:
More likely that ES admin are wondering what are they paying him for.

To be better than Duffers? Cool
thunderthighs

sean kelly wa so jacked wjen he was riding that its a laugh.. ciao
grrr

didn't Paul Kimmage get in trouble for refusing to state that Kelly and Roche were clean on National TV? I know Kimmage's point was that 'I can only speak for myself', but they both did pretty well at a time when doping was pretty rampant.

It's easy for Harmon to get on his high horse because he's unlikely to have the media poking through his medical records looking for evidence that he doped.

This isn't a criticism of Kelly, whether he doped or not. If I was in his position I'd keep pretty quiet.
Ralphnorman

thunderthighs wrote:
sean kelly wa so jacked wjen he was riding that its a laugh.. ciao

It seems everyone else was also "jacked" so are you laughing at all the rider or just him? Shocked
Jackov

If Kelly was just some retired rider I wouldn't bother with this thread, but he's chosen a career as cycling broadcaster. I think he needs to comment to keep his broadcaster credibility.
grrr

But what can he do?

If he confesses to having doped, he'll lose his job.

If he comes out and says they are all at it and we should move on, he'll lose his job.

If he expresses outrage at dopers, someone will do some research into his medical records, find evidence of doping and he'll lose his job (even if it turns out the accusation is false - it'll take too long to prove innocence).

What would you do?
Jackov

grrr wrote:
But what can he do?

If he confesses to having doped, he'll lose his job.

If he comes out and says they are all at it and we should move on, he'll lose his job.

If he expresses outrage at dopers, someone will do some research into his medical records, find evidence of doping and he'll lose his job (even if it turns out the accusation is false - it'll take too long to prove innocence).

What would you do?


Why would he lose his job over any of those scenario's? If I was his employer I would find is complete silence a far worse sin than any of the above since I'm paying him to talk.

His comments might not fall into any the above.
grrr

Jackov wrote:

Why would he lose his job over any of those scenario's? If I was his employer I would find is complete silence a far worse sin than any of the above since I'm paying him to talk.


But his employer is a sports tv channel, and they may not be keen on employing someone who has 'cheated'.

I don't care if he doped, you may not care if he doped, but some football fan TV company chief executive would probably end up with a memo along the lines of 'our cycling expert is condoning drug cheats' or worse 'our cycling expert is a drug cheat' and he ain't gonna hang around waiting for CapeRoadie to explain the situation!

To be honest I think Harmon was ducking the issue as well. He expressed a kind of outrage at Riis's confession while also making it clear that it wasn't much of a surprise. It's easy for us to debate these issues because no-one's likely to sue us for slander or whatever. It's not so simple for theose whose livelihoods are on the line.

I take your point that SK's silence is interesting and frustrating, but I just think it's understandable if not inevitable.
Jackov

So you are concluding Sean Kelley doped?
paperman

He never says anything on the Issue because clearly he never doped!! Cool Cool
pantanifan

Does anyone know if Richard Virenque still works for French eurosport? Does HE have anything to say on the issue?
crash48

Would that sack the ex riders?

If they were to do that, there would not be any 'experts' on any TV, radio, internet or other form of press covering a cycling event as the experts are all ex riders and we all know what ex riders got up to when they were competing Wink
Ralphnorman

Innocent until proven guilty ring a bell for anyone? Shocked
shimouma

Kelly doesn't say anything because in some cases saying nothing is the best policy.

One of the things about Riis's comments that I don't understand are why he decided to admit it.

Actually, that's not strictly true either - I think he was backed into a corner and basically blackmailed by his former team-mates.
sabcarrera

Now cycling is going to be so clean that commentators are to be tested.
Are they allowed exemptions? Should we be testing the cameramen, TV channel executives, spectators?
Ralphnorman

sabcarrera wrote:
Now cycling is going to be so clean that commentators are to be tested.
Are they allowed exemptions? Should we be testing the cameramen, TV channel executives, spectators?

Are they winning things? Are they getting prize money? Do they get trophies? If they do then yes, if not then not..... Smile
crash48

Stuff them.

Most of them are shite commentators anyway. Ironically, one of the worst of them all is Phil Ligget (or however you spell it) who canít ride a bike to save his life.


And as for the Innocent until proven guilty statement...give me a break, they were all at it.
shimouma

crash48 wrote:
And as for the Innocent until proven guilty statement...give me a break, they were all at it.


Ordinarily, I'd agree, but they're not all getting punished. And that's f#cked.
Ralphnorman

So what do you suggest then? Shocked Confused
crash48

Hey if they don't get caught there is not much you can do as those are the rules.

However, all this 'I am the most tested person in the world' or 'I have bever flunked a drugs test' and riders always ignoring the drugs issue when it comes up in interviews is not going to convince me they are not on the juice.
Ralphnorman

So you will criticise the current system but not come up with a better idea? Brilliant you are Wink
crash48

Why on earth should I have to come up with another system? I am not in charge of it.

I just not stupid enough to think they are not doping-that was my point to start with.

And by the way I am bloody Brillant!

Its all about FIGJAM baby! Wink
grrr

Jackov wrote:
So you are concluding Sean Kelley doped?


I think it's likely. I would think that about any successful rider on the Anquetil 'bread and water' theory.

All I am saying in this case is that SK would have little to gain in wading into the debate and a lot to lose.

The only line he could take is that if riders don't get caught they are clean, and that if a rider does get caught (or confesses) he's a dirty cheat who is besmirching the name of our sport. He can't speculate along the lines of 'they are all at it' without incurring the wrath of the UCI, the riders, etc.

I suspect that his views aren't that different from the majority of the posters here, it's just that he would need hard a lot more evidence to back up any accusations than we need.
Jackov

grrr wrote:
Jackov wrote:
So you are concluding Sean Kelley doped?


I think it's likely. I would think that about any successful rider on the Anquetil 'bread and water' theory.

All I am saying in this case is that SK would have little to gain in wading into the debate and a lot to lose.

The only line he could take is that if riders don't get caught they are clean, and that if a rider does get caught (or confesses) he's a dirty cheat who is besmirching the name of our sport. He can't speculate along the lines of 'they are all at it' without incurring the wrath of the UCI, the riders, etc.

I suspect that his views aren't that different from the majority of the posters here, it's just that he would need hard a lot more evidence to back up any accusations than we need.


But Kelley seem completely silent. For example he could talk about Riis. He could say "I think it is good/bad/horrible/insane that Riis admitted" he could talk about the code of silence, etc...there are 101 things Kelly could talk about in the doping arena without ever:
1. admitting or denying personal use
2. accusing anyone else
3. being righteous

...but he doesn't bother. Fire him for being an almost zero as a commentator.
grrr

Jackov wrote:
Fire him for being an almost zero as a commentator.


can't argue with that!
kellyrocheearly

his job is to analysis what is happening in the race and he is the best around at that. Who would you prefer?? Bob Roll?!?!??!
So what if he doesnt have the most exciting personality
crash48

I do think kelly is very good at that.

I would rather listen to someone who know's what is going on than listen to a plonker like Ligget, who gets everything wrong.
grrr

I was just being cheeky - I think his analysis is pretty good, it's the other people in the box who get me down.
crash48

That duffers bloke needs to go out to pasture that is for sure.

I don't care if he knows about the history of the region, has good food and wine tips etc he is always missing key moves as he is babbling on about something else.
grrr

or getting excited about a crash/break which is actually a replay of something that he commentated on 2 minutes ago
cardinal guzman

crash48 wrote:
That duffers bloke needs to go out to pasture that is for sure


It's about time Duffers got his knighthood. Now I'm not into all that crap, but if people are going to get recognised for their achievements that way, then Duffers is about 20 years overdue - as Ralph would say, Evil or Very Mad
Ralphnorman

Was that a slant at me for the devil? Laughing
cardinal guzman

Didi

Indeed it was! Wink
Ralphnorman

So instead of putting the smiley up, are you just gonna put (Ralph) up? Razz
cardinal guzman

hehe - you should change your avatar!
Sooty

Leave Kelly out of it - it's all in the past - he's fine man. Some of you need to get a grip. If we outed every rider who ever doped we'd all end up watching darts.
I also think Sean is a damn fine commentator.
CapeRoadie

Ralphnorman wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty ring a bell for anyone? Shocked


Now, now, we should raise our indeces of suspicion according the available evidence. Either that or someone could drop a stack of doping positive test findings in your general vicinity... maybe your head? That would ring your bell.
bianchigirl

Oh you mean like all those positives hanging around Armstrong? And hasn't he been awfully quiet at this time when the clean riders need to stand up and defend their sport - like he was doing when he chased Simeoni down and threw Bassons off the Tour?
CapeRoadie

Sooty wrote:
Leave Kelly out of it - it's all in the past - he's fine man. Some of you need to get a grip. If we outed every rider who ever doped we'd all end up watching darts.
I also think Sean is a damn fine commentator.


Bravo, sooty! I think we should simply say it's okay if he did and let it be. "Leaving him out of it", as you say, though, is all well and good, but dragging him into to shouldn't make us think anything less of him as a man or rider. One of the greatest.

I was listening to NPR here a couple days ago and there is an ongoing debate about disabled athletes with prostheses (i.e., prosthetics) competing in the olympics--not the PAra-Olympics--THE Olympics. I thought this was an excellent analogy for the doping issue. I am infavor of their competing with the best prostheses available against the non-desabled athletes. They may not use a "bionic" prosthetic in any instance, but they may use non-bionic ones.

The show explained that those athletes like Oscar Pistorius, a 2-year old double amputee from South Africa, who calls himself the "fastest man on no legs", has an unfair advantage. He wants to race on prosthetics against the best two-legged sprinters in the world. But the international governing body on track and field declared that his prosthetics give him an unfair advantage.

It is not true. He has non-bionic prosthetics. The Olympic Committee says he's running on "springs" and that it would be an unfair advantage, but the energy return on his prosthetics do not actually do that, and a prosthetic expert, himself a paralympic athlete named Brian Frasure, explained it very well. Oscar's carbon-fiber (you road cyclists get excited by that wor--carbon--don't you...) legs don't give him unfair performance-enhancement advantage. Fraser shows how the lesgs are in many ways a disadvantage.

Here's the link to the radio program. It's a good listen, because it highlights the issue of the right to compete versus the right to fair play. This is also the issue in cycling, to a certain extent. We have lost our best athletes due to positive doping findings, yet the rest of the riders go unpunished who are most likely doping just under the radar. The issue is also discussed in terms of where to draw the line.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10580771

What's nice is that the discussion panel realizes there is not enough science to know if Oscar has an unfair advantage, but Mr. Frasure does a good job explaining much of the myth away. The same is true about drugs in cycling: just how much of an advantage do these drugs provide the riders? How much does the long, hard training, diet, cycling skill and experience, etc. does the work, and how much do the drugs do the work? No one knows the answer to this question. I have argued that the drugs absolutely do NOT do most of the work, and I have argued strongly for increasing research in real athletes in real time.

Of course, the only way to do that research is to allow riders to compete with the drugs in an open manner. That's also why I'm for taking them off the banned list: so we can finally know.

Anyway, enjoy it. Here's Oscar:



And if he's doping, I won't think any less of him, either.
Sooty

That's incredible don't you think? Best of luck to him.
cardinal guzman

Hi CR,

I thought they were still discussing Pistorius's future in the sport, I didn't realise a decision had been made? He actually has raced against 'able-bodied' athletes - he got a silver medal in the South African national championships with a time of 46.56 seconds. He is at a disadvantage because his 'springs legs' cannot impart energy into the system, but this is somewhat offset by the lack of mass, enabling a faster 'return stride'.
grrr

Thanks for the link - a very interesting debate.
CapeRoadie

Sooty wrote:
That's incredible don't you think? Best of luck to him.


Yes! I'd love to see him at the next Summer Games!
Ralphnorman

cardinal guzman wrote:
hehe - you should change your avatar!

What would you like me to put up? Rolling Eyes
Ralphnorman

CapeRoadie wrote:
That would ring your bell.

So would smashing the side of my head in with an iron mace.......avaliable evidence? like what exactly? Shocked Confused
I agree Sooty, well said Very Happy
CapeRoadie

bianchigirl wrote:
Oh you mean like all those positives hanging around Armstrong? And hasn't he been awfully quiet at this time when the clean riders need to stand up and defend their sport - like he was doing when he chased Simeoni down and threw Bassons off the Tour?


The difference between you and me is that I defend all the riders (even Wiggins). I do agree that it would be better if Armstrong made a statement. Now, that would be bold. But also stupid. What's 5 plus 8? 13? Right. 2013: the earliest LA will talk.

What's really good is that you don't like him when he's loudly and vigrously defending his "drug-free" status, and you also don't like him when he's being "awfully quiet".

Admit it. You just really dislike him. The guy will never be able to do anything right, in your view. I think we all understand that as much as we understand I like to post numerous boring diatribes about PEDs. Laughing
Ralphnorman

I don't particularly like LA, but I do respect him, there is a difference CR.... Rolling Eyes
CapeRoadie

Ralphnorman wrote:
I don't particularly like LA, but I do respect him, there is a difference CR.... Rolling Eyes


You know him?
Ralphnorman

Define know......
CapeRoadie

Ralphnorman wrote:
Define know......


Know him personally?
Ralphnorman

Afraid not....... Rolling Eyes
twiddler

Back to Kelly:
1984 Paris Brussels: Pemolin (1 month conditional ban/1000 S Franc Fine)
1988 Tour Basqueland (Codeine, but got off bacause of process error)
Ralphnorman

So there we go, but still not as bad as some of them Rolling Eyes
naspa

grrr wrote:
But what can he do?

If he confesses to having doped, he'll lose his job.

If he comes out and says they are all at it and we should move on, he'll lose his job.

If he expresses outrage at dopers, someone will do some research into his medical records, find evidence of doping and he'll lose his job (even if it turns out the accusation is false - it'll take too long to prove innocence).

What would you do?


Isn't the problem that he is still bound by the code of Omerta that rules the peleton.

If he says he was doping then his career loses credibility - if he points the finger at people who were riding at the same time as him then he will get flack for not having spoken up at the time.

Also, look at in this sense. Eurosport know that if they lay into any team ie Astana, Disco etc and give them negative coverage on the issue of doping then those teams will simply cut their links with ES. What the hell would Christy have to talk about if the teams refused to have anything to do with her.

We all know that most cycling hacks live off a diet of Press Releases and wouldn't know how to write a story if it bit them in the face. So they rely on the teams to tell them what is happening etc etc. If they start rocking the boat then what next.

Seriously, when was the last time DH, SK or anyone at ES had anything critical to say about doping? When was the last time anyone said that teams like Tikoff or Astana shouldn't be racing, or that Phonak were a disgrace to the sport?

Don't just blame SK for being a pussy about doping. You'll find more balls at a Eunch convention than in the cycling press corps.
Ralphnorman

naspa, DH & SK were slamming all the druggies at the start of the year, now they're onto the cycling, which is what we all want.....not mindess repetions of the same old crap
       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Cycling Forum
Page 1 of 1