Double Standards.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Why was Michelle Smith dragged through the mud but the likes of Stephen Roche wasn't?

Both most likely were cheats. Smith's name and her medals are buried in Irish sporting folklore, nobody ever talks about her anymore, while Roche's tour wins and achievements are still spoken about.

Didn't the Statute of Limitations save his arse when the team doc came forward during the 2004 Judicial Investigation in Italy?

DEFTLEFTHAND

And that big clown Haughey meeting him crossing the line in Paris.

Two of a kind. Chancers.

Realt Dearg Sec

Do people still talk about Stephen Roche? He got away with it because at the time, same as Michelle Smith, people wanted to believe. But Michelle Smith got caught quickly, he got caught slowly, via reasonably doubtable insinuation at first until it became pretty difficult to deny. But by then nobody really cared. But I don't think he'd be getting the red carpet treatment these days either. Just gets quietly erased from our cultural memory. Smith was vilified because everyone had to do their memory erasure more consciously. (Not me incidentally, I wasn't taken in by her **** at all, Roche I did make a hero of)

Jayesdiem

Heroes, both.

Pkiernan

It was the Galtee cheese ads that saved him.

D0NNELLY

*Whispers: follow the cheese
*Walks of into the shadows of Jervis st carpark

LincolnHawk

Roche has a monument to him in Dundrum

Samaris

Yeah, I'd say it was the timing. I think Michelle Smith had just won something big as well, so the nation was paying attention and celebrating - and then crashed down to earth again when the cheating was revealed. Also, at this point, I think people are more surprised when someone wins big in cycling without being on drugs. It wasn't quite as blatant when Roche's downfall happened, but it was kinda known that doping was a big issue in cycling even then and now it's just "eh, he was just one of a pack of chancers."

Must admit, really hoped it wasn't true. Was very disappointed by that. Glad Sonia O'Sullivan remained untainted by anything like that.

ThisRegard

It was proven with Smith, not with Roche during his career. And maybe it's the circles you're in but plenty have discussed Roche.

donegaLroad

Whatever about double standards, he has doubled in size since he won tour Dr France

Erik Shin

ThisRegard wrote: »

It was proven with Smith, not with Roche during his career. And maybe it's the circles you're in but plenty have discussed Roche.

Smith still has her Olympic medals, it wasnt proven

Ruat Caelum

I don't think there was any real investigation into Roche until the 00's well over a decade after he won the Tour De France.

I don't think Michelle Smith was banned or caught using banned substances or for doping ... (I think) she was banned for tampering with her samples.

Lucy8080

I've nothing but admiration for these two.

To win a tour or an Olympic medal on drugs is some achievement.

I challenge everyone here to even attempt to ride a bike or go for a swim on drugs!

It's feckin' hard.

suicide_circus

This is the first time Ive heard Roche was doping, what was the craic there?

The Rape of Lucretia

suicide_circus wrote: »

This is the first time Ive heard Roche was doping, what was the craic there?

Wha ? He was a successful cyclist. Therefore he was on PEDs.

They all were. They all are. There is no need to name check each one. The ones who won stuff were just brewed the best cocktails of drugs. Roche won some serious stuff => serious doping.

Teyla Emmagan

Stephen Roche was a drugs cheat???

But he was a hero!

Uncle Mclovin

Sean Kelly the same?

somesoldiers

suicide_circus wrote: »

This is the first time Ive heard Roche was doping, what was the craic there?

Me too, just let the cyclists take whatever they want.might be a chance I'd watch it then

Ruat Caelum

Of course ... Sean Kelly was banned for life from the olympics ... himself and another cyclist took part in a competition in South Africa, which wasn't allowed as international athletes were banned from competing in South Africa due to it's apartheid.

Wibbs

Samaris wrote: »

Also, at this point, I think people are more surprised when someone wins big in cycling without being on drugs.

It would be my humble that outside of one day events or stage winners in the tours there hasn't been a clean overall winner since Greg LeMond. I include up to the present day.

It wasn't quite as blatant when Roche's downfall happened, but it was kinda known that doping was a big issue in cycling even then and now it's just "eh, he was just one of a pack of chancers."

Doping was always an issue in Pro cycling and was one of the few sports way back when where it was widely acknowledged. Some pros like Anquetil(5 times Tour winner and towering talent) back in the 1960's openly admitted it. IIRC his quote was along the lines of "do you think we only have water in our bottles" and that it was not possible to stay up on a bike doing that kinda effort for day after day without some "help"(mostly stimulants back then).

The real difference came in the early 1990's. The drugs in use before then were mostly stimulants and drugs to speed up recovery(cortisone etc). They didn't fundamentally change the individual talents involved. That all changed with EPO. Blood doping had been around for a while. Where a rider donates blood, stores it, waits for his body to recover and then reintroduces the extra red blood cells and bingo, more O2 to the muscles and going faster for longer. Before it was banned it was even acknowledged by a few.

EPO essentially did the same thing via a drug, but was far easier to administer and much harder to test for and kept the gains more steadily and for longer. When EPO hit the pros the times went massively up from previous.

OK, so this meant the rising tide lifted all boats? Nope, that's the issue with EPO, people respond to it differently. Some respond far better than others. Unlike all previous drugs it could turn some carthorses into racehorses. Up until say 1990-92 when the drug became available, if all the riders were clean the overall results would have been much the same, after 1990 that changed. Essentially there was more "cheating" and riders won where they shouldn't have and clean riders regardless of talent quite simply couldn't compete in the overall rankings.

EG It would be my humble that without EPO and the other stuff Armstrong was on, no way would he have won so many tours. I'd go further and say that if he rode clean or in the 60/70/80's he'd be a mid field talent, expected to one some one day events and stages, but not a contender for the Grand Tours. I could name a few others like that. A broad test is this; All the previous pre EPO multiple Grand Tour winners placed in the top ten in their very first tours as juniors/new pros. Apply that test to the post EPO winners and go Hmmmmm...

Roche? His wins were in the pre EPO era. Was he clean? I can't say that, but if he wasn't, chances are still very good he was competing on a far more level playing field than those riders in the EPO era. Ditto for Kelly.

mosstin

donegaLroad wrote: »

Whatever about double standards, he has doubled in size since he won tour Dr France

In fairness, I think that's just because TV screens are bigger nowadays.