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

Ol' Donie · 07-08-2017 05:50PM

Is the football show back yet, anyone know?

dr.kenneth noisewater · 07-08-2017 06:44PM

Ol' Donie wrote:

Is the football show back yet, anyone know?

Next week i think

Ol' Donie · 07-08-2017 07:08PM

Bank holiday anyway.

As I've said before, i've no problem with anyone having a bank holiday off...but if you work in radio and you seem to have a team of 25 lads, surely they could have a couple of them in to cover?

Especially after that weekend.

Pherekydes · 07-08-2017 11:03PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

His fastest times in the 100 and 200 were set when he was 33 years old and supposedly clean.

That's a pretty big red flag to me.

Kim Collins set his 100m PB at age 40, and his 60m PB at age 38. He was world 100m champion at age 27.

There are no physical barriers associated with aging any more.

gormdubhgorm · 08-08-2017 08:00AM

Vahevala wrote: »

Think Richie is fantastic and a true asset to the show. Huge fan of the show.

His dog Frank was the real star of the show.

May he Bark in Peace.

http://www.the42.ie/frankie-sadlier-dead-850849-Mar2013/

Alf Veedersane · 08-08-2017 08:07AM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

The self-righteous atmosphere in the studio must be almost unbearable. Accusing the BBC of jingoism and ignoring the Mo Farah/Salazar situation. How many Irish journalists questioned Michelle Smith's amazing improvement in Atlanta? Very few, and those that did were told to shut up, and they seem to forget that RTE were her biggest cheerleader.

That it all happened in such short space of time and most got caught up in the euphoria of Ireland winning multiple golds.

The BBC have had plenty of time to digest the implications of Farah being coached by Salazar - it's been two years since the Panorama investigation and there still seems to be little unease with Farah's association with him.

It doesn't automatically make him guilty by any stretch but there's never even been a tacit acknowledgement of it.

PeterTheNinth · 08-08-2017 08:25AM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

He didn't say anything negative about her at the time of the Olympics, perhaps being hamstrung by the powers that be at RTE. This is what he said a couple of years later:

My argument with that would be that his level of knowledge about ALL of the swimming races at the time was so in-depth, he could not have been unaware of the massive improvements that Smith had achieved and how unlikely it was that those improvements were achieved through legitimate means.

Arghus · 09-08-2017 02:11AM

Re Coverage of Michelle Smith at the time -

We have to remember as well that it was a much, much different media environment back then. People got their information from the established papers, there was only two national TV stations, and the precursor to Today FM hadn't even been born yet. An entity like Newstalk, where Sport could be debated and pored for several hours most days of the week, wasn't even a twinkle in Dennis O' Brien's eye.

Her swimming achievements were massive news and got wall to wall coverage, but those walls were far smaller back in 1996. And once you filled everywhere you had with the totally understandable unquestioning first flush of national pride at her achievements - which people wanted to hear and read about - there wasn't much space left for critical analysis.

The Irish media wasn't very sophisticated back then when it came to even bringing to the conversation the suggestion that any of our sporting heroes might be less than squeaky clean. Those were, relatively, innocent times. I don't know how much of this I would blame solely on a type of moral failing on the part of journalism of the time. There just simply wasn't a lot of space for it.

I think if we were to get a Mchelle Smith type situation today people would be a lot less inclined to take it at face value. This isn't only down to the fact that we've all been jaded beyond easy belief, after two intervening decades of doping and skulduggery across all sports, but, also, to do with the fact that's there just more available space out there, just waiting to be filled with "news". Somebody would throw a dissenting opinion out amongst the babble, and the ball would get rolling...

Even though I was only a kid at the time, I do remember Gary O' Toole providing analysis for RTE during those Olympics. As I remember it was extremely technical and he was so busy breaking down the nuts and the bolts of swimming, that I don't recall questions of plausibility even coming into anything he had to say about Michelle Smith. I think it was a case of just as he said: RTE didn't want to ask the tough questions and, maybe, he didn't want to be put in a position of the one naysayer, by just merely pointing out what some people elsewhere were obviously thinking.

Having said all that though, I definitely remember RTE showing snippets of Janet Evans remarks to the US Media, Janet Evans being one of Michelle's competitors who wasn't backwards about coming forwards with her disbelief about Michelle's improbable improvements. The Irish media portrayed her as a bad and embittered loser, but the fact that they even mentioned her at all feels to me like there was a lot more misgivings below the surface amongst themselves about what was going on - even if they couldn't be seen or heard endorsing those opinions at the time.

Jayesdiem · 09-08-2017 05:13AM

Michelle Smith is an unappreciated national hero. Still has her medals too. I'm not saying what allegedly happened didn't happen but the playing field was, is and always will be level.

yosser hughes · 09-08-2017 06:50AM

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Michelle Smith is an unappreciated national hero. Still has her medals too. I'm not saying what allegedly happened didn't happen but the playing field was, is and always will be level.

Well she clearly isn't a national hero. Why do you think that is?

Ol' Donie · 09-08-2017 08:53AM

yosser hughes wrote: »

Well she clearly isn't a national hero. Why do you think that is?

Because he doesn't care if people dope. He said it above.

Jayesdiem · 09-08-2017 09:31AM

Ol' Donie wrote: »

yosser hughes wrote: »

Well she clearly isn't a national hero. Why do you think that is?

Because he doesn't care if people dope. He said it above.

^^^this

foxtrot101 · 09-08-2017 12:35PM

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I'm not saying what allegedly happened didn't happen but the playing field was, is and always will be level.

But if it was a level playing field she wouldn't have won? Unless you're implying everyone else was doping too, but it would have to be everybody else. Not just those in the final. Everybody who competed in the semi-final, heats and national championships. That would be some claim to make.

I assume you don't mean doping doesn't give an unfair advantage, because that would just be nonsense. So what exactly is your point?

Jayesdiem · 09-08-2017 12:46PM

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I'm not saying what allegedly happened didn't happen but the playing field was, is and always will be level.

But if it was a level playing field she wouldn't have won? Unless you're implying everyone else was doping too, but it would have to be everybody else. Not just those in the final. Everybody who competed in the semi-final, heats and national championships. That would be some claim to make.

I assume you don't mean doping doesn't give an unfair advantage, because that would just be nonsense. So what exactly is your point?

How do you know she wouldn't have won? How do you know who was or was not doping? I don't know myself but I do know that athletes have relatively equal access to drug therapies and those who want to keep up and win will do as they please to do so. That is modern sport and that is they way things will progress into the future. Those who don't like it need to reconsider what it is that they get from watching sport most particularly those topical to this thread - the OTB doping police.

foxtrot101 · 09-08-2017 01:00PM

Jayesdiem wrote: »

How do you know she wouldn't have won? How do you know who was or was not doping? I don't know myself but I do know that athletes have relatively equal access to drug therapies and those who want to keep up and win will do as they please to do so. That is modern sport and that is they way things will progress into the future. Those who don't like it need to reconsider what it is that they get from watching sport most particularly those topical to this thread - the OTB doping police.

Because everyone has equal access to banned performance enhancing drugs, that somehow makes it OK to take banned performance enhancing drugs. That's your logic? Really?

Jayesdiem · 09-08-2017 01:16PM

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

How do you know she wouldn't have won? How do you know who was or was not doping? I don't know myself but I do know that athletes have relatively equal access to drug therapies and those who want to keep up and win will do as they please to do so. That is modern sport and that is they way things will progress into the future. Those who don't like it need to reconsider what it is that they get from watching sport most particularly those topical to this thread - the OTB doping police.

Because everyone has equal access to banned performance enhancing drugs, that somehow makes it OK to take banned performance enhancing drugs. That's your logic? Really?

Yes, you got it in one, that is my logic. You might find it difficult to reconcile with that. I have no issue whatsoever with the use of performance enhancing drugs. I have few fears over their safety when used properly. I do not look down upon or criminalise those who decide to use them to improve their performance. I look forward to the unlikely day that their use becomes acceptable and we can finally put this nonsense of use/non-use to rest. And before you critique me you must respect that my opinion is as valid as yours despite the fact only a few people (mostly Americans) share my view. It is all subjective: how else can you explain why the performance-enhancing drug caffeine is legal or why pseudo-ephedrine was once banned, then un-banned, and then banned again. Are the properties of the drugs changing or are people's definitions of drugs fluid? What is wrong with enhancing performance with an ergogenic aid? Why do the OTB doping police demonise legal and commercially available products like L-Carnitine and even Whey Protein. Yes - whey protein: a by-product of cheese manufacturing! My questions don't have answers. They just serve to highlight the lack of a critical eye most people take to this doping phenomenon. "I'm told drugs are Bad so they must be really Bad - I will just accept that stance without considering the many shades of grey that the truth is really comprised of". Bolt = Good. Gatlin = Evil. To me, most people are idiots when it comes to this topic and I find it hugely frustrating because they lack facts and basic common sense. One of those can be found, the other maybe not.

foxtrot101 · 09-08-2017 02:38PM

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Yes, you got it in one, that is my logic. You might find it difficult to reconcile with that. I have no issue whatsoever with the use of performance enhancing drugs. I have few fears over their safety when used properly. I do not look down upon or criminalise those who decide to use them to improve their performance. I look forward to the unlikely day that their use becomes acceptable and we can finally put this nonsense of use/non-use to rest. And before you critique me you must respect that my opinion is as valid as yours despite the fact only a few people (mostly Americans) share my view. It is all subjective: how else can you explain why the performance-enhancing drug caffeine is legal or why pseudo-ephedrine was once banned, then un-banned, and then banned again. Are the properties of the drugs changing or are people's definitions of drugs fluid? What is wrong with enhancing performance with an ergogenic aid? Why do the OTB doping police demonise legal and commercially available products like L-Carnitine and even Whey Protein. Yes - whey protein: a by-product of cheese manufacturing! My questions don't have answers. They just serve to highlight the lack of a critical eye most people take to this doping phenomenon. "I'm told drugs are Bad so they must be really Bad - I will just accept that stance without considering the many shades of grey that the truth is really comprised of". Bolt = Good. Gatlin = Evil. To me, most people are idiots when it comes to this topic and I find it hugely frustrating because they lack facts and basic common sense. One of those can be found, the other maybe not.

It's suppose to be a competition between athletes not chemists. What about the athletes who don't dope and don't want to dope. There is an onus on the various governing bodies and WADA to protect them. WADA hasn't been doing a particularly good job and testers are always one step behind, but they are starting to catch people retrospectively.

There has to a line drawn somewhere in what is banned and what isn't. If there are certain anomalies or contradictions then make it even stricter still. Ban more stuff.

Jayesdiem · 09-08-2017 02:54PM

Ok I'll agree with you when you define for me not only where that line should be drawn, but also, why it should be drawn in your designated place.

Ban more stuff? What stuff? Please expand on that.

Alf Veedersane · 09-08-2017 03:33PM

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Yes, you got it in one, that is my logic. You might find it difficult to reconcile with that. I have no issue whatsoever with the use of performance enhancing drugs. I have few fears over their safety when used properly. I do not look down upon or criminalise those who decide to use them to improve their performance. I look forward to the unlikely day that their use becomes acceptable and we can finally put this nonsense of use/non-use to rest. And before you critique me you must respect that my opinion is as valid as yours despite the fact only a few people (mostly Americans) share my view. It is all subjective: how else can you explain why the performance-enhancing drug caffeine is legal or why pseudo-ephedrine was once banned, then un-banned, and then banned again. Are the properties of the drugs changing or are people's definitions of drugs fluid? What is wrong with enhancing performance with an ergogenic aid? Why do the OTB doping police demonise legal and commercially available products like L-Carnitine and even Whey Protein. Yes - whey protein: a by-product of cheese manufacturing! My questions don't have answers. They just serve to highlight the lack of a critical eye most people take to this doping phenomenon. "I'm told drugs are Bad so they must be really Bad - I will just accept that stance without considering the many shades of grey that the truth is really comprised of". Bolt = Good. Gatlin = Evil. To me, most people are idiots when it comes to this topic and I find it hugely frustrating because they lack facts and basic common sense. One of those can be found, the other maybe not.

The very fact that they are banned means someone is going outside of the rules to take something to improve their performance against other athletes who are playing within the rules. That's cheating.

But I do think that its worth discussing where the line is and why it is. Could a basic rule be that anything that produces a physiological reaction that improves performance, that isn't a foodstuff or beverage (those would also need defining), which wouldn't have otherwise occurred, should be banned.

That's not a tight description, I'm aware of that, but a starting point.

People argue that banned substances should be unbanned and let the playing field be level but would it? And that would inevitably lead to people going beyond what is healthy to elicit those 'marginal gains'.

As for why some drugs are permitted and then banned...I think that's always going to happen. Drugs that are prescribed for one thing may have an unintended benefit for sporting performance. Victor Conte may never have developed Meldonium for its intended use but he quite possibly would have developed something that elicited the same physiological effect for an athlete.

I do agree that the argument is reduced to black and white when it isn't always.

But knowingly taking something that's banned is cheating.

foxtrot101 · 09-08-2017 06:13PM

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Ok I'll agree with you when you define for me not only where that line should be drawn, but also, why it should be drawn in your designated place.

Ban more stuff? What stuff? Please expand on that.

Yes, it's is difficult...when is something a PED as opposed to a supplement...when is something been taken for a genuine medical condition or for performance enhancing purposes. That's why you form a body like WADA, to determine where that line is based on informed decisions. Not everyone is going to agree, there will be grey areas, but everyone at least knows what is banned and what is isn't. In an ideal world everyone would adhere to this and you would have that level playing field. In the real world you just have to police it the best you can. Why? because you owe it to the clean athletes to do so.

PeterTheNinth · 09-08-2017 06:13PM

I was listening to them talking about that Icarus movie, so I got a copy during the week. It's probably the best thing I've seen in five years. Amazing stuff. Oh and by the end of it you completel lose all faith in WADA and in "The Olympic Spirit", so Joe would like that bit as well. I can imagine him saying "Well I'm REALLY done with the Olympics now, and I'm done with the Paralympics as well".

Jayesdiem · 09-08-2017 06:30PM

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

I was listening to them talking about that Icarus movie, so I got a copy during the week. It's probably the best thing I've seen in five years. Amazing stuff. Oh and by the end of it you completel lose all faith in WADA and in "The Olympic Spirit", so Joe would like that bit as well. I can imagine him saying "Well I'm REALLY done with the Olympics now, and I'm done with the Paralympics as well".

It's on my list. All good reviews so far.

pc7 · 09-08-2017 06:59PM

Jayesdiem wrote: »

It's on my list. All good reviews so far.

It's fantastic, I watched it last week after hearing the film maker being interviewed by Ger. it's on Netflix if you have it.
Agree with Peter, the little faith I had left of any hope is gone, they are all at it at elite level I reckon.

Alf Veedersane · 09-08-2017 08:20PM

The whole Russian 'scandal' isn't the depressing bit for me. They weren't beating the tests, per se. They were riding roughshod over the whole thing with a blatant disregard for it.

It was more when Don Catlin admitted that it was a battle the testers couldn't win.

PeterTheNinth · 12-08-2017 03:23PM

I just don't get this Eoin Sheehan guy that they have added to the staff. He sounds like an accountant or something... Doesn't really fit in with the rest of them.

Surely there was a lot of competition for that presenters spot, I wonder why they gave it to him?

dr.kenneth noisewater · 12-08-2017 03:25PM

PeterTheNinth wrote:

I just don't get this Eoin Sheehan guy that they have added to the staff. He sounds like an accountant or something... Doesn't really fit in with the rest of them.

PeterTheNinth wrote:

Surely there was a lot of competition for that presenters spot, I wonder why they gave it to him?

Hes been filling in various roles for awhile, also does Team 33.

Jayesdiem · 12-08-2017 04:18PM

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

I just don't get this Eoin Sheehan guy that they have added to the staff. He sounds like an accountant or something... Doesn't really fit in with the rest of them.

Surely there was a lot of competition for that presenters spot, I wonder why they gave it to him?

Surely if he was different to them that's a good thing???

gormdubhgorm · 12-08-2017 07:30PM

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

I was listening to them talking about that Icarus movie, so I got a copy during the week. It's probably the best thing I've seen in five years. Amazing stuff. Oh and by the end of it you completel lose all faith in WADA and in "The Olympic Spirit", so Joe would like that bit as well. I can imagine him saying "Well I'm REALLY done with the Olympics now, and I'm done with the Paralympics as well".

pc7 wrote: »

It's fantastic, I watched it last week after hearing the film maker being interviewed by Ger. it's on Netflix if you have it.
Agree with Peter, the little faith I had left of any hope is gone, they are all at it at elite level I reckon.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The whole Russian 'scandal' isn't the depressing bit for me. They weren't beating the tests, per se. They were riding roughshod over the whole thing with a blatant disregard for it.

It was more when Don Catlin admitted that it was a battle the testers couldn't win.

I saw that Icarus film on netflix on the basis of these comments.
Jayus it's great viewing.

Really well produced.
Great artwork, great story, real tension.

It was like a drugs cheating version of 'Ocean's Eleven'
I almost felt at the end if they put that much time effort and money into it sure let them at it!

Jayesdiem · 12-08-2017 07:32PM

Watched it too. Fan fooking tastic. Started to forget it was an actual documentary and not a film.

PeterTheNinth · 12-08-2017 09:54PM

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Watched it too. Fan fooking tastic. Started to forget it was an actual documentary and not a film.

That actually sort of messed up half the movie for me Jay.... I watched this movie a couple of years ago about a guy who went missing. Compelling stuff. Followed along as they tried to track him down. People dying during filming of it and everything. And I deliberately didn't google it during the movie so as not to spoil it. Then I did google it and found out that it was a mockumentary... Boy, if I didn't feel like a right tool that day...

And when he was sooooo quickly able to get this Russian guy, who he did not know from Adam, to supply him with advice on doping..... I thought .. ah here. fool me once etc... I thought it was a mockumentary as well....

But the movie can be only described as a trip. You get carried along with the whole thing, amazing.

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

Comments