Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

Jayesdiem

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Because the cultural acceptance of doping in cycling was far greater than that in swimming. You can fool yourself all you want. If Sean Kelly hadn’t doped we wouldn’t even know his name right now. If Michelle Smith hadn’t, we might still know her name though I suspect doping is more common in swimming, despite being less “accepted” amongst its competitors. If it makes you feel whole, I’d have Smith in Dublin’s Mount Rushmore too. She is irrefutably our best ever Olympian and to her credit, still has the medals to prove it.

For what it's worth, Kelly was a freak as a youngster before the doping, capable of incredible feats of endurance and strength on a bike. He had the owners of French teams travelling over to his Dad's farm looking to sign him when he was still in school. Smith had no real pedigree, so I would say it is fair to say that drugs had a far greater impact on her career.

Brock Turnpike

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For what it's worth, Kelly was a freak as a youngster before the doping, capable of incredible feats of endurance and strength on a bike. He had the owners of French teams travelling over to his Dad's farm looking to sign him when he was still in school. Smith had no real pedigree, so I would say it is fair to say that drugs had a far greater impact on her career.

So having more talent means you get more leeway when it comes to a discussion on the rights and wrongs of your doping?

Brock Turnpike

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

So having more talent means you get more leeway when it comes to a discussion on the rights and wrongs of your doping?

Nope, that was a response to the line that we wouldn't even know Kelly now. Kimmage was a household name in Ireland in the late '80s and never doped (kind of). Kelly was 10 times the athlete he was.

Higgins5473

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Because the cultural acceptance of doping in cycling was far greater than that in swimming. You can fool yourself all you want. If Sean Kelly hadn’t doped we wouldn’t even know his name right now. If Michelle Smith hadn’t, we might still know her name though I suspect doping is more common in swimming, despite being less “accepted” amongst its competitors. If it makes you feel whole, I’d have Smith in Dublin’s Mount Rushmore too. She is irrefutably our best ever Olympian and to her credit, still has the medals to prove it.

In spite of your earlier judgment of me being purer than pure. I actually believe there are degrees of doping and there should not be a blanket ban on certain athletes who took too many panadols or smoked a bowl at the weekend. But Sean Kelly and Michelle Smith were on the ‘taking the piss’ level of doping. Because cycling is rife with it you think it’s unfair to compare him to Michelle Smith but now you think she should also be up there with the four best? I’m confused, earlier you said it was unfair to compare Michelle Smith and Sean Kelly but now she is one of the best also?

Jayesdiem

Higgins5473 wrote: »

In spite of your earlier judgment of me being purer than pure. I actually believe there are degrees of doping and there should not be a blanket ban on certain athletes who took too many panadols or smoked a bowl at the weekend. But Sean Kelly and Michelle Smith were on the ‘taking the piss’ level of doping. Because cycling is rife with it you think it’s unfair to compare him to Michelle Smith but now you think she should also be up there with the four best? I’m confused, earlier you said it was unfair to compare Michelle Smith and Sean Kelly but now she is one of the best also?

Yes that’s what I’m saying. You seem obsessed by that one comment, but I stand by it nonetheless and I’ve explained why.

BPKS

Kudos to Joe Molloy and the guest (Shane?) discussing Mark Horgans new podcast about George Gibney.

Discussing it the Shane fella talks about the Second Captains crew leaving Newstalk and how both OTB and Second Captains have progressed since.

Would have been easier to OTB to steer clear of that side of it so credit where its due.

BTW, that podcast is on BBC sounds this week and I'd say it will be a vital listen.

Ol' Donie

BPKS wrote: »

Kudos to Joe Molloy and the guest (Shane?) discussing Mark Horgans new podcast about George Gibney.

Discussing it the Shane fella talks about the Second Captains crew leaving Newstalk and how both OTB and Second Captains have progressed since.

Would have been easier to OTB to steer clear of that side of it so credit where its due.

BTW, that podcast is on BBC sounds this week and I'd say it will be a vital listen.

When was that on?

BPKS

Ol' Donie wrote: »

When was that on?

On the paper review I'd say between 1.50 and 2pm

generalgerry

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Because the cultural acceptance of doping in cycling was far greater than that in swimming.

Good man Jay. This is an interesting topic which I have thought about as well. I struggle to find some sort of balance with the "he's a cheat but he's not" type of argument. Here's how I have managed to make sense of the whole thing in my head.

1. Kelly and Roche - I would say that they did take whatever was going at the time, but did not gain any significant advantage over the other competitors, who were on the same stuff.
2. Michelle Smith - I think she did gain an unfair advantage with the means that she used. Her crazy rate of improvement was indicative of this. Therefore I think the c word is appropriate (no, not that one, the five letter one :pac:)
3. Lance Armstrong - I have a big problem with the fact that OTB look down their nose at Armstrong, but treat all the other confessed drugged cheats who ratted on him as heroes. Lance was better at the doping than others, so that was an unfair advantage he would have had, but they were all doping.

Tell me how

generalgerry wrote: »

Good man Jay. This is an interesting topic which I have thought about as well. I struggle to find some sort of balance with the "he's a cheat but he's not" type of argument. Here's how I have managed to make sense of the whole thing in my head.

1. Kelly and Roche - I would say that they did take whatever was going at the time, but did not gain any significant advantage over the other competitors, who were on the same stuff.
2. Michelle Smith - I think she did gain an unfair advantage with the means that she used. Her crazy rate of improvement was indicative of this. Therefore I think the c word is appropriate (no, not that one, the five letter one :pac:)
3. Lance Armstrong - I have a big problem with the fact that OTB look down their nose at Armstrong, but treat all the other confessed drugged cheats who ratted on him as heroes. Lance was better at the doping than others, so that was an unfair advantage he would have had, but they were all doping.

1 - Kelly and Roche. Maybe I am being naive, but I think Kelly's talent was always there so I don't suspect that doping played a massive part in his success, but given the sport and the he did fail some tests, there is the suspicion. Roche had remarkable success for someone who suffered knee injuries from fairly early in his career. He was rumoured to have worked with the infamous Michele Ferrari and so I think again unfortunately, there will always be suspicions.
2 - Michelle Smith. Made huge improvements in her performance late in her career having started to work with someone who had been banned by the IAAF for doping himself. No doubt in my mind she was doping.
3 - Lance deserves the disdain aimed at him because at least others showed some degree of remorse both in words and actions. Lance looked to slander and ruin the life of anyone who accused him and even to this day has that F you towards people such as Betsy Andreu who called him on his BS from early on. He used his cancer fundraising as a weapon to further attack people and I suspect to this day is not sorry he doped, only that he got caught.

Jayesdiem

generalgerry wrote: »

Good man Jay. This is an interesting topic which I have thought about as well. I struggle to find some sort of balance with the "he's a cheat but he's not" type of argument. Here's how I have managed to make sense of the whole thing in my head.

1. Kelly and Roche - I would say that they did take whatever was going at the time, but did not gain any significant advantage over the other competitors, who were on the same stuff.
2. Michelle Smith - I think she did gain an unfair advantage with the means that she used. Her crazy rate of improvement was indicative of this. Therefore I think the c word is appropriate (no, not that one, the five letter one :pac:)
3. Lance Armstrong - I have a big problem with the fact that OTB look down their nose at Armstrong, but treat all the other confessed drugged cheats who ratted on him as heroes. Lance was better at the doping than others, so that was an unfair advantage he would have had, but they were all doping.

Exactly what I am getting at. Doping is never a “will I, won’t I” decision. Dopers aren’t dastardly cartoon villains waiting around every corner to trap and hurt their nemesis. They make rational (some will argue irrational) economic decisions, as applied to their scenario and sport. Amongst the factors that will drive the decision making of a doper (like anybody who takes a risk) are the risk-to-reward ratio of the behaviour, the likelihood that close rivals are also doping, the cultural acceptance of doping in a given sport and maybe the moral beliefs of the individual. This creates a multivariate decision making process for the athlete, not the exclusive morally-driven univariate decision process implied to exist by OTB. For all the athletes we have just mentioned, each one will have encountered a different set and combination of these factors, and more. Let’s speculate for fun: Kelly and Roche competed in a sport in which success without doping was simply not possible. Maybe this factor drove their alleged decisions to dope by a factor of 90%. Don’t dope? Don’t win. Maybe Smith saw that her rivals were less likely to exhibit a chemical advantage so knowing she was late in her career, the potential rewards outweighed the risks whilst her personal relationship with a former doper “dulled” her moral opposition to doping. Lance was in the same spot as Kelly and Roche and with his sport’s cultural acceptance of the practice, saw the opportunity to enhance his public brand. His dissenters were maybe not attacked for their interference in his cycling performance but for the potentially enormous damage they could do to the rewards he could attain outside of cycling.

I’m just playing with make believe scenarios in my head but we see this in real life ALL the time. UFC, NFL and MLB report doping bans like they do hamstring injuries: 4 weeks out. Our morally-driven egos in this part of the world report them in a similar vein to rape and murder. I don’t know why this is but for the “multivariate” decision making process I’ve explained, I don’t, and will never, buy into it. Life’s not that simple.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Exactly what I am getting at. Doping is never a “will I, won’t I” decision. Dopers aren’t dastardly cartoon villains waiting around every corner to trap and hurt their nemesis. They make rational (some will argue irrational) economic decisions, as applied to their scenario and sport. Amongst the factors that will drive the decision making of a doper (like anybody who takes a risk) are the risk-to-reward ratio of the behaviour, the likelihood that close rivals are also doping, the cultural acceptance of doping in a given sport and maybe the moral beliefs of the individual. This creates a multivariate decision making process for the athlete, not the exclusive morally-driven univariate decision process implied to exist by OTB. For all the athletes we have just mentioned, each one will have encountered a different set and combination of these factors, and more. Let’s speculate for fun: Kelly and Roche competed in a sport in which success without doping was simply not possible. Maybe this factor drove their alleged decisions to dope by a factor of 90%. Don’t dope? Don’t win. Maybe Smith saw that her rivals were less likely to exhibit a chemical advantage so knowing she was late in her career, the potential rewards outweighed the risks whilst her personal relationship with a former doper “dulled” her moral opposition to doping. Lance was in the same spot as Kelly and Roche and with his sport’s cultural acceptance of the practice, saw the opportunity to enhance his public brand. His dissenters were maybe not attacked for their interference in his cycling performance but for the potentially enormous damage they could do to the rewards he could attain outside of cycling.

I’m just playing with make believe scenarios in my head but we see this in real life ALL the time. UFC, NFL and MLB report doping bans like they do hamstring injuries: 4 weeks out. Our morally-driven egos in this part of the world report them in a similar vein to rape and murder. I don’t know why this is but for the “multivariate” decision making process I’ve explained, I don’t, and will never, buy into it. Life’s not that simple.

Armstrongs behaviour, both in public and that reported by people who were at one time close to him is pretty much exactly that of the part in bold.

I haven't seen doping reported in same vein as rape and murder but one of the reasons many, including me, are so against it is because of the collateral damage of those who pay the ultimate price when doing so. There have been several deaths of young cyclists with heart failure in Europe, the latest being just a couple of weeks ago. For every one of these who actually die, I expect there are several more who don't die but have life long side affects from the practice.

Also, you say 'morally driven egos' like it is a bad thing. Many would simply see it as decency.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

Armstrongs behaviour, both in public and that reported by people who were at one time close to him is pretty much exactly that of the part in bold.

I haven't seen doping reported in same vein as rape and murder but one of the reasons many, including me, are so against it is because of the collateral damage of those who pay the ultimate price when doing so. There have been several deaths of young cyclists with heart conditions in Europe, the latest being just a couple of weeks ago. For every one of these who actually die, I expect there are several more who don't die but have life long side affects from the practice.

Also, you say 'morally driven egos' like it is a bad thing. Many would simply see it as decency.

Look, you and I are cut from very different moral cloths. You are the good guy and I, clearly am the dastardly villain. There is no collateral damage exerted by dopers on those who chose not to dope. The ones who did and got away with it are heroes, those who didn’t were naive and will be forgotten (assuming they had the physical raw materials to compete in the first place). I question the deaths that you loosely cite can be attributed to doping or doping alone. Young people die suddenly all the time though if it is due to doping for argument’s sake, there can be no better rationale for legalising their use and having qualified medical professionals administer doses.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Look, you and I are cut from very different moral cloths. You are the good guy and I, clearly am the dastardly villain. There is no collateral damage exerted by dopers on those who chose not to dope. The ones who did and got away with it are heroes, those who didn’t were naive and will be forgotten (assuming they had the physical raw materials to compete in the first place). I question the deaths that you loosely cite can be attributed to doping or doping alone. Young people die suddenly all the time though if it is due to doping for argument’s sake, there can be no better rationale for legalising their use and having qualified medical professionals administer doses.

Just to be clear, I don't see myself as a good guy or you as a villain, those are your words, I don't really know why you need to presume such positions in a discussion. All I'm doing is expressing an opinion.

You can question the deaths, of course, but, you yourself has said that the sport is rife with it, and there seems to be a larger proportion of such athletes dying from heart failure at young ages than there seems to be in other sports or generally in the population. Maybe we just hear about these cases more.

I don't see this as a rational for legalising doping because if so, young athletes will become absolute guinea pigs at the whims of unscrupulous coaches or, those in the shadows or just outside the elite will push the boundaries even more to try to gain an advantage. There will still be illegal doping, just on top of a widespread foundation of legalised doping.

Jayesdiem

Right, I’m such a moaning b@stard so I want to give credit where it’s due and because it’s the only OTB show I listen to anymore, despite it being more miss than hit, the paper review was very good this week. It should come as no surprise that this was because they actually talked about sport instead of social justice issues that happened to intertwine with sport. And they only talked about Covid as relevant to context, so that was welcome. I’m actually not entirely sure who head presented it but to do so without any major sporting stories at the moment was no mean feat.

dr.kenneth noisewater

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Right, I’m such a moaning b@stard so I want to give credit where it’s due and because it’s the only OTB show I listen to anymore, despite it being more miss than hit, the paper review was very good this week. It should come as no surprise that this was because they actually talked about sport instead of social justice issues that happened to intertwine with sport. And they only talked about Covid as relevant to context, so that was welcome. I’m actually not entirely sure who head presented it but to do so without any major sporting stories at the moment was no mean feat.

Will O'Callaghan was presenting. Used to really enjoy his show on Midlands 103 and hoped he'd be presenting more since he moved to OTB full time. Hopefully he gets more chances over the next while

dr.kenneth noisewater

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

Will O'Callaghan was presenting. Used to really enjoy his show on Midlands 103 and hoped he'd be presenting more since he moved to OTB full time. Hopefully he gets more chances over the next while

He was very good in the hotseat. Really enjoyed the job he did. Has a strong voice but let the guests do their stuff.

The last few times I've listened to the paper review there has been at least one wally of a guest - Sweeney and Declan Lynch from the Indo, Cliona Foley - or someone who doesn't make much of a contribution and it can ruin it. D

an McDonnell and Kieran Cunningham are both strong and straight talkers and really made for good listening on Sunday just gone.

If I were a boss in Newstalk I'd be throwing money at Dan McDonnell to get involved full time. The show has lost an awful lot of its journalistic integrity of late and they could do with someone who's not just a show pony.

Jayesdiem

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He was very good in the hotseat. Really enjoyed the job he did. Has a strong voice but let the guests do their stuff.

The last few times I've listened to the paper review there has been at least one wally of a guest - Sweeney and Declan Lynch from the Indo, Cliona Foley - or someone who doesn't make much of a contribution and it can ruin it. D

an McDonnell and Kieran Cunningham are both strong and straight talkers and really made for good listening on Sunday just gone.

If I were a boss in Newstalk I'd be throwing money at Dan McDonnell to get involved full time. The show has lost an awful lot of its journalistic integrity of late and they could do with someone who's not just a show pony.

Just shows how good it can be when sticking to the bread and butter and leaving the morally outraged outside of the conversation. Also, just picking the best contributors instead of this Noah’s Ark philosophy.

Ahwell

Deleted User wrote: »

If I were a boss in Newstalk I'd be throwing money at Dan McDonnell to get involved full time.

He was full-time on the football show for a couple of years, but they decided to go with Ex-Pro's like Kevin Kilbane instead. I much preferred it with Dan, Kilbane didn't add a whole lot imo.

Tell me how

Ahwell wrote: »

He was full-time on the football show for a couple of years, but they decided to go with Ex-Pro's like Kevin Kilbane instead. I much preferred it with Dan, Kilbane didn't add a whole lot imo.

Kevin was very good in the first year or so I felt and definitely helped them to get some key interviews with the likes of Chris Waddle and Alan Shearer. Dan is very good though, wouldn't mind to see him getting back in to a more regular fixture.

dr.kenneth noisewater

Tell me how wrote: »

Kevin was very good in the first year or so I felt and definitely helped them to get some key interviews with the likes of Chris Waddle and Alan Shearer. Dan is very good though, wouldn't mind to see him getting back in to a more regular fixture.

I'd imagine Dan got tired doing it everyday. I'd guess he's doing 2-5 articles a day for the Indo and hanging around Newstalk for a few hours in the evening, something had to give

Muscles Schultz

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

I'd imagine Dan got tired doing it everyday. I'd guess he's doing 2-5 articles a day for the Indo and hanging around Newstalk for a few hours in the evening, something had to give

Interacting with the woke dweebs would get tiresome for most tbf

Ahwell

Tell me how wrote: »

Kevin was very good in the first year or so I felt and definitely helped them to get some key interviews with the likes of Chris Waddle and Alan Shearer. Dan is very good though, wouldn't mind to see him getting back in to a more regular fixture.

Maybe I'm being too harsh on Kilbane, but I was annoyed at the time when Dan lost the gig.

Tell me how

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Interacting with the woke dweebs would get tiresome for most tbf

Did somebody hurt you?

Jayesdiem

Ahwell wrote: »

Maybe I'm being too harsh on Kilbane, but I was annoyed at the time when Dan lost the gig.

Did he “lose” it though? In my own experience (I have some) - when a company gets rid of me, I’d refuse to interact with them again. I think that is human nature?

Jayesdiem

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Did he “lose” it though? In my own experience (I have some) - when a company gets rid of me, I’d refuse to interact with them again. I think that is human nature?

He's a full-time employee of the Independent. He was just moonlighting for OTB in the evening as a freelancer. He has gotten married and was renovating a house according to LOI pod so I am sure he stepped back himself. I meant that OTB should get him on board as a full-time presenter rather than a regular contributor.

Ahwell

Ahwell wrote: »

He was full-time on the football show for a couple of years, but they decided to go with Ex-Pro's like Kevin Kilbane instead. I much preferred it with Dan, Kilbane didn't add a whole lot imo.

I don't think that's true at all. I'm sure he stepped back himself as doing his daily full-time job and then heading into Newstalk four nights a week must have been punishing.

On a sidenote, I'm not sure if anyone has ever listened to the Dadcast, but mother of God it is the single most cringeworthy item ever committed to the airwaves. I've two small kids and should in theory be interested but it's hard to listen to.

generalgerry

Have they ever addressed the issue of MTK with Andy Lee since he has come back or are they expecting us all to have forgotten about that?

Felexicon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On a sidenote, I'm not sure if anyone has ever listened to the Dadcast, but mother of God it is the single most cringeworthy item ever committed to the airwaves. I've two small kids and should in theory be interested but it's hard to listen to.

Really enjoyed it at first but it's gone down hill now. They kind of just talk about old episodes.

Think Dave is the best out of them.