Am I imagining it...?

Ghost Rider

... or wasn't there a thread here last week about Messrs Roche and Kelly?

Was it removed?

BeardyGit

Yeah,

There was a thread suggesting one of the two was involved in illegal doping activities during the 80's, without any evidence to support the allegation/rumour.

I'm as surprised as you to see it removed without any reference, but I'm sure it was the libelous content that leads to the threads disappearance.... It was a bit precarious in that respect.

Nicely done though GR, you noticing its absence - Come on Mods, who-dun-it?

Gil

Ghost Rider

Yeah, I would have thought that anyone who posted on that thread deserved an explanation.

chicoben

true

RainyDay

Ghost Rider wrote:

Yeah, I would have thought that anyone who posted on that thread deserved an explanation.

I would have thought that anyone who posted on that thread should be giving the explanations, not seeking them. Remember you are dealing with unpaid volunteer moderators on a free service. Those who posted on the thread have cost the moderators time and effort for a bit of spicy gossip with no factual base.

uberwolf

it was soft deleted to allow the mods some time to consider whether it was libelous, or headed that way.

In the end it was just going to be hearsay and conjecture. I'd allow the conversation if something new broke and we found out something. But as it was it rumour and opinion, and that's potentially libelous.

E@gle.

in all fairness the mods were right to delete it

1. it contained no source of information

2 @ the original poster it was phrased badly

Ghost Rider

Did you read the thread? Or are you just content to make a blanket statement without checking the facts? I posted on that thread and I challenge you to show me how what I wrote was "spicy gossip", much less potentially libellous.

You make the point that the mods work for free. But it takes an awful lot more than mods to make a community like this. This site would be nothing without the people who spend their valuable time posting here. Your implication is that they’re basically just in it for a laugh. Granted, there are some who don't spend much time thinking about the implications of what they say. But plenty of us do – and I, for one, don't like it when what I write disappears without explanation.

I await the final decision of the mods with interest...

RainyDay wrote:

I would have thought that anyone who posted on that thread should be giving the explanations, not seeking them. Remember you are dealing with unpaid volunteer moderators on a free service. Those who posted on the thread have cost the moderators time and effort for a bit of spicy gossip with no factual base.

Ghost Rider

By that logic, they'd be right to delete your post too.

E@gle. wrote:

in all fairness the mods were right to delete it

1. it contained no source of information

2 @ the original poster it was phrased badly

BeardyGit

RainyDay wrote:

I would have thought that anyone who posted on that thread should be giving the explanations, not seeking them. Remember you are dealing with unpaid volunteer moderators on a free service. Those who posted on the thread have cost the moderators time and effort for a bit of spicy gossip with no factual base.

Just a second now. This isn't about anyone having to justify their actions sunshine. It's about the members of this community letting each other know what's going on, that's all.

If the mods see fit to delete a thread, go for it, they're here for a reason and as a subscribed member of boards I'm grateful for their contributions. But it's equally okay for someone who was taking part in a thread conversation to ask where it's gone to, isn't it?

Don't go turning this into something bigger than it really is - It serves no purpose other than to cause strife on a board that's generally one of the most supportive I've seen here. If Ghost Rider was just told the content was libelous, I'm sure that would have been plenty for him to nod and move on.....

Now, let's get back to business, okay?

Gil

Civilian_Target

uberwolf wrote:

In the end it was just going to be hearsay and conjecture. I'd allow the conversation if something new broke and we found out something. But as it was it rumour and opinion, and that's potentially libelous.

But it was rumours I'd never heard before :rolleyes: Couldn't we have Sports->Cycling->Tea, Biscuits and Gossip ?

uberwolf

Civilian_Target wrote:

But it was rumours I'd never heard before :rolleyes: Couldn't we have Sports->Cycling->Tea, Biscuits and Gossip ?

I have read far more explicit material referring to these riders, and others of course!

The situation is that as mods, we're not in the same position as editors of a paper. We have no solicitors to refer material to, and whilst the legal position of message boards has not been clarified, I'd much rather this forum was not the test case!

Quigs Snr

I think cycling is what it is. There is no evidence against Roche or Kelly and both, particularly Kelly do wonderful things for cycling in this country to this day. Look at Kelly out there with the blazing saddles every year. He rides the clonmel league races and waterford ones too on a regular basis offering advice to the stragglers at the back, including myself on more than one occasion. In clonmel I have seen him turn up on wet nights to go out with the junior group and teach them how to ride pacelines etc... Not to mention the sean kelly charity ride and the fact that if there is any cycling related charity (e.g. cystic fibrosis cycle) going he will turn up for a photo to promote it. No questions asked. Setting up and academy in Belgium, bringing the Nissan Classic over here, helping to get the tour here in 98...etc...I could go on all night about how much good he has done for cycling in this country. Plus how many of us of a certain age would even have thought to get on a bike and race if it wasn't for himself and Roche.

I am all for free speech, but they were legends among their peers at the time and finished their careers with no real marks on their record. I see no need to drag the names of these riders through the mud for no reason. I doesn't benefit cycling and it doesn't benefit Ireland. Topical as it may be considering vino's news today.

RainyDay

Ghost Rider wrote:

Did you read the thread? Or are you just content to make a blanket statement without checking the facts? I posted on that thread and I challenge you to show me how what I wrote was "spicy gossip", much less potentially libellous.

I've no idea who wrote what, so my 'spicy gossip' comment was not specifically directed at you. However, one poster did specifically imply that a named cyclist had used drugs, without any attempt to back up this claim. This is 'spicy gossip'.

Gil_Dub wrote:

Just a second now. This isn't about anyone having to justify their actions sunshine.

If you are interested in keeping this boards as 'one of the most supportive', I'd suggest you don't address anyone as 'sunshine'.

Ghost Rider wrote:

You make the point that the mods work for free. But it takes an awful lot more than mods to make a community like this. This site would be nothing without the people who spend their valuable time posting here. Your implication is that they’re basically just in it for a laugh. Granted, there are some who don't spend much time thinking about the implications of what they say. But plenty of us do – and I, for one, don't like it when what I write disappears without explanation.

Gil_Dub wrote:

If the mods see fit to delete a thread, go for it, they're here for a reason and as a subscribed member of boards I'm grateful for their contributions. But it's equally okay for someone who was taking part in a thread conversation to ask where it's gone to, isn't it?

Don't go turning this into something bigger than it really is - It serves no purpose other than to cause strife on a board that's generally one of the most supportive I've seen here. If Ghost Rider was just told the content was libelous, I'm sure that would have been plenty for him to nod and move on.....
l

Community is a two-way street. It 's easy to get uppity over rights and expectations while forgetting about responsibilities. The responsibility lies with all posters
a) not to post potentially libellous materials
b) not to post uppity threads saying 'where's my potentially libellous thread gone'.

If you want to know where a dodgy post has gone, why not send a simple, polite PM query to mod.

Gil_Dub wrote:

Now, let's get back to business, okay?

Hear, hear.

E@gle.

Quigs Snr wrote:

I think cycling is what it is. There is no evidence against Roche or Kelly and both, particularly Kelly do wonderful things for cycling in this country to this day. Look at Kelly out there with the blazing saddles every year. He rides the clonmel league races and waterford ones too on a regular basis offering advice to the stragglers at the back, including myself on more than one occasion. In clonmel I have seen him turn up on wet nights to go out with the junior group and teach them how to ride pacelines etc... Not to mention the sean kelly charity ride and the fact that if there is any cycling related charity (e.g. cystic fibrosis cycle) going he will turn up for a photo to promote it. No questions asked. Setting up and academy in Belgium, bringing the Nissan Classic over here, helping to get the tour here in 98...etc...I could go on all night about how much good he has done for cycling in this country. Plus how many of us of a certain age would even have thought to get on a bike and race if it wasn't for himself and Roche.

I am all for free speech, but they were legends among their peers at the time and finished their careers with no real marks on their record. I see no need to drag the names of these riders through the mud for no reason. I doesn't benefit cycling and it doesn't benefit Ireland. Topical as it may be considering vino's news today.

i agree entirely with this whole statement. The general opinion around is that Roche was a doper and kelly was not. i personally think that neither of them were dopers


I can see this post getting locked

uberwolf

we're certainly not reopening the converstation in this thread.