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

pc7

pc7 wrote: »

Haven’t listened much at all over last few months but listened to Lizzie Lee interview on podcast. Really good and worth a listen if you missed it.

Lizzie is an interesting character. Not everyone's cup of tea for obvious reasons. I would say she doesn't lack in confidence and is not the most self aware person in the world but more power to her if she makes it to the Olympics at 40.

To be honest, I found the interview cringeworthy and I'm not sure Joe knew how to handle her as she just took off and he didn't need to ask her any questions. Her affected Cork accent is up there with Ronan O'Gara's - neither speaks remotely like that in real life!

pc7

I enjoyed it, fair fooks to her out running with three young kids. Found it interesting in that she came late to the sport and has done well. I like how she gets herself up and stays motivated. I’m struggling with couch to 5k

pc7

pc7 wrote: »

I enjoyed it, fair fooks to her out running with three young kids. Found it interesting in that she came late to the sport and has done well. I like how she gets herself up and stays motivated. I’m struggling with couch to 5k

Absolutely. She's a phenomenal athlete and the commitment and drive she has is off the charts.

Abel Ruiz

Aidric wrote: »

Gilroy is a different story. He always comes across as someone who can't be bothered to read his brief and instead goes on a monologue intended to induce clicks.

Absolutely. Ger was awful trying to discuss James McClean's comments on tuesday.
He was stuttering non stop, with lots of long pauses and couldnt make his point.
I guess Ger just wanted to tell James to cop on.
Eoin tried to rescue him and said it was poor timing.

The comments on the youtube video say it all. Comical

Muscles Schultz

Abel Ruiz wrote: »

Absolutely. Ger was awful trying to discuss James McClean's comments on tuesday.
He was stuttering non stop, with lots of long pauses and couldnt make his point.
I guess Ger just wanted to tell James to cop on.
Eoin tried to rescue him and said it was poor timing.

The comments on the youtube video say it all. Comical

Could only watch a few minutes of it. Pure trash. When did Gillette sart sponsoring on YouTube stuff?

Blanco100

Abel Ruiz wrote: »

Absolutely. Ger was awful trying to discuss James McClean's comments on tuesday.
He was stuttering non stop, with lots of long pauses and couldnt make his point.
I guess Ger just wanted to tell James to cop on.
Eoin tried to rescue him and said it was poor timing.

The comments on the youtube video say it all. Comical

Can you link that?

Abel Ruiz

Blanco100 wrote: »

Can you link that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FawCV_Ucg0

Comical that the main man now thanked my post, haha. Richie might do so also.
Sound lads!

Tell me how

Abel Ruiz wrote: »

Absolutely. Ger was awful trying to discuss James McClean's comments on tuesday.
He was stuttering non stop, with lots of long pauses and couldnt make his point.
I guess Ger just wanted to tell James to cop on.
Eoin tried to rescue him and said it was poor timing.

The comments on the youtube video say it all. Comical

Abel Ruiz wrote: »

Comical that the main man now thanked my post, haha. Richie might do so also.
Sound lads!

It's more comical that people who hate the show are now giving up more of their time to watch it on YouTube.

Whatever the show is doing, they should keep at it.

Abel Ruiz

Tell me how wrote: »

It's more comical that people who hate the show are now giving up more of their time to watch it on YouTube.

Whatever the show is doing, they should keep at it.

Where did I say I hate the show?
I just dislike ger. I dont have to love everything about otb.

Dry your eyes. Sorry for offending you.
You dont have to defend everything to do with newstalk.

BPKS

I think at this stage its fairly obvious that Ger Gilroy is going down the route of Joe Brolly and Eamon Dunphy before him.

Take a particular stance, back it to the hilt (no matter how foolish it makes you look at times), be as obnoxious and dismissive as you can to those who hold a different view.

I wonder is it an act that is designed to keep him relevant and to boost ratings.

Tell me how

BPKS wrote: »

I think at this stage its fairly obvious that Ger Gilroy is going down the route of Joe Brolly and Eamon Dunphy before him.

Take a particular stance, back it to the hilt (no matter how foolish it makes you look at times), be as obnoxious and dismissive as you can to those who hold a different view.

I wonder is it an act that is designed to keep him relevant and to boost ratings.

But does he really do this? He has an opinion, like others on the show, but does that mean that its contrived? I think it makes for more entertaining listening to be honest and I can say that without agreeing with him all the time.

In terms of staying relevant, he is the head of a show which has managed to spin off to become its own entity and has successfully transitioned from an evening show (which he founded) to weekends, mornings, podcasts, Youtube, and outside broadcasts. Think he is far from hanging on by his finger nails to stay involved or relevant.

BPKS

Tell me how wrote: »

But does he really do this? He has an opinion, like others on the show, but does that mean that its contrived? I think it makes for more entertaining listening to be honest and I can say that without agreeing with him all the time.

In terms of staying relevant, he is the head of a show which has managed to spin off to become its own entity and has successfully transitioned from an evening show (which he founded) to weekends, mornings, podcasts, Youtube, and outside broadcasts. Think he is far from hanging on by his finger nails to stay involved or relevant.

You may well be right. Gilroy just rubs me up the wrong way.

I've met many people across lots of aspects of my life who come across the same as Gilroy does (and Molloy to a slightly lesser degree) and its usually apparent within minutes of speaking to them.

He thinks he is better than you. Better educated. Better life experiences. Nicer car. Nicer house. Nicer wife. Kids are amazing at everything.

And if you have a different opinion to them, you can sense the sneer in their response.

But look you seem to know them personally and they are obviously lovely fellas and its me that's the problem;) Or maybe the fact that I prefer the likes of Eoin Sheehan and Nathan Murphy is my culchie bias.

Tell me how

BPKS wrote: »

You may well be right. Gilroy just rubs me up the wrong way.

I've met many people across lots of aspects of my life who come across the same as Gilroy does (and Molloy to a slightly lesser degree) and its usually apparent within minutes of speaking to them.

He thinks he is better than you. Better educated. Better life experiences. Nicer car. Nicer house. Nicer wife. Kids are amazing at everything.

And if you have a different opinion to them, you can sense the sneer in their response.

But look you seem to know them personally and they are obviously lovely fellas and its me that's the problem;) Or maybe the fact that I prefer the likes of Eoin Sheehan and Nathan Murphy is my culchie bias.

Yeah, sure I do, one of them hand delivers my cheque every week for defending them on here.

I of course don't have a culchie bias given I originate from the urban confines of West Clare.

Gergilroy

BPKS wrote: »

You may well be right. Gilroy just rubs me up the wrong way.

I've met many people across lots of aspects of my life who come across the same as Gilroy does (and Molloy to a slightly lesser degree) and its usually apparent within minutes of speaking to them.

He thinks he is better than you. Better educated. Better life experiences. Nicer car. Nicer house. Nicer wife. Kids are amazing at everything.

And if you have a different opinion to them, you can sense the sneer in their response.

But look you seem to know them personally and they are obviously lovely fellas and its me that's the problem;) Or maybe the fact that I prefer the likes of Eoin Sheehan and Nathan Murphy is my culchie bias.

Thanks for that Sigmund Freud.

For what it's worth, I think Gilroy is hands down the best interviewer on the show, with Molloy coming in second.

Gilroy is smart and I always find that he comes really well prepared with intelligent questions and is very much on top of his brief for the big interviews.

His pieces with Armstrong, Cathal McCarrron and David Walsh on Team Sky were masterful examples of the art of interviewing and made for outstanding radio. I wish there was more stuff like this on the show, but there seems to be a move away from this of late since the move online.

What irks me about Gilroy is that he suffers from a dose of the sports media disease that is smugness. It's a really dislikable quality - prevalent in loads of other sports broadcasters! - that makes it hard for me to listen to his contributions outside the interview-type pieces mentioned above. His attempts at banter with the younger lads on the show are a bit cringeworthy as well, but I'll forgive him that as it's an inevitable byproduct of having so much output every day now that a lot of it is going to be inane chatter.

With regard to his contributions here - I'm assuming that is you Ger? - then I would have imagined that the brains behind a hugely successful show that has branched out and expanded massively of late would have better things to be doing than following what a few lads with too much time on their hands have to say about him on here. And would care less, as long as he's not being libelled, to be honest.

As a public figure, people are going to have an opinion on him, and it's not all going to be to his liking.

If that is him, liking posts that are in any way critical of his style comes across as a little bit thin skinned and I'm not sure it reflects too well on him to be honest.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm assuming that is you Ger?

I wouldn't...

shockframe

In regard to mainstream media the coverage of Gaelic Football is the best that's out there.

Not that I'd always agree with it but it's light years ahead of RTE's. Nothing is ever good enough for the likes of Spillane and O'Rourke who are forever falling back into cliches. OTB has decent discussions and is at least enthusiastic. Hurling is alright but RTE is slightly more enegaging.

Soccer isn't bad but like across the water there's too much attention on Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc. Even last week they were linking John Egan to a move to Man Utd. Hard to stand out but there are a few better sources elsewhere for analysis of the game.

dominatinMC

shockframe wrote: »

In regard to mainstream media the coverage of Gaelic Football is the best that's out there.

Not that I'd always agree with it but it's light years ahead of RTE's. Nothing is ever good enough for the likes of Spillane and O'Rourke who are forever falling back into cliches. OTB has decent discussions and is at least enthusiastic. Hurling is alright but RTE is slightly more enegaging.

Soccer isn't bad but like across the water there's too much attention on Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc. Even last week they were linking John Egan to a move to Man Utd. Hard to stand out but there are a few better sources elsewhere for analysis of the game.

Perhaps not considered mainstream, but The GAA Hour (woolys podcast) is far superior and offers the best coverage of the topic IMO.

generalgerry

Interesting announcement tonight. A new series. With Andy Lee.

Andy Lee Meets..................

Did they just let the story die off before announcing I wonder.

Maybe by Christmas when the story has completely died down we could have Andy Lee Meets Daniel Kinahan?

healy1835

Brian Kerr took Brian O'Driscoll off the Dublin Mt Rushmore this morning and replaced him with Michael Carruth. Quite the take. Although I'm kinda disappointed he didn't go Full Kerr and stick in Stephen Geoghegan or something

Tell me how

healy1835 wrote: »

Brian Kerr took Brian O'Driscoll off the Dublin Mt Rushmore this morning and replaced him with Michael Carruth. Quite the take. Although I'm kinda disappointed he didn't go Full Kerr and stick in Stephen Geoghegan or something

Haven't listened to that yet but will do so. That was quite a bold move alright and not sure I'd agree with it. In fact, I'm sure I wouldn't in fact, BOD was deservingly recognized as being world class for at least ten years in a highly attritional sport and was a very good leader as well as player.

I've found the Mount Rushmore series excellent for something they started on the fly because of Covid. The fact that it is all so subjective is what made it so interesting. Some very interesting stories about contenders in various counties and having people from the county involved in the reveal made sure there was local knowledge involved.

Thomas Barr's inclusion in Waterford while Sean Kelly lost out was one of the few cases where partisan decision making led to a bad choice being made (in my view).

RugbyLover123

I like Kenny. But what was he on the other morning?

Saying he’d take Steven Carr every day of the week over any of the top right backs of the last few years.

It made me think that, imo, we definitely have a tendency to overrated some Irish players.

Kenny said that Carr could’ve played for any of the big Spanish, Italian, English teams etc, when in reality he played in a bang average spurs team and led Birmingham City to the league cup. Fair enough he played with him but talking about him in the same league as Alves or Lahm, who’d both be in the conversation for the best RB of all time is utter garbage.

Same with Coleman, a good solid player, but if United or Arsenal etc wanted him they’d have got him, simple as. I doubt there was any interest in him really from the top sides and mostly Irish journos speculating.

Muscles Schultz

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

I like Kenny. But what was he on the other morning?

Saying he’d take Steven Carr every day of the week over any of the top right backs of the last few years.

It made me think that, imo, we definitely have a tendency to overrated some Irish players.

Kenny said that Carr could’ve played for any of the big Spanish, Italian, English teams etc, when in reality he played in a bang average spurs team and led Birmingham City to the league cup. Fair enough he played with him but talking about him in the same league as Alves or Lahm, who’d both be in the conversation for the best RB of all time is utter garbage.

Same with Coleman, a good solid player, but if United or Arsenal etc wanted him they’d have got him, simple as. I doubt there was any interest in him really from the top sides and mostly Irish journos speculating.

Carr made the PFA Team of the Year in 2000-01 and 2002-03, each time the only outfield member not to be playing for a top-three team, and voted in ahead of Gary Neville in Manchester United title-winning seasons

Apt user name....

RugbyLover123

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Carr made the PFA Team of the Year in 2000-01 and 2002-03, each time the only outfield member not to be playing for a top-three team, and voted in ahead of Gary Neville in Manchester United title-winning seasons

Apt user name....

Ah yes, how naive of me not to realise that making the PFA team of the year twice puts you up there with the greats...

And making reference to a username.. nice.

Brock Turnpike

Tell me how wrote: »

I've found the Mount Rushmore series excellent for something they started on the fly because of Covid. The fact that it is all so subjective is what made it so interesting. Some very interesting stories about contenders in various counties and having people from the county involved in the reveal made sure there was local knowledge involved.

Really? Isn't it just copying what Second Captains done on their tv show a free years ago?

As for Andy Lee Meets... Isn't that just the same as having Richie Sadlier host "The Players Chair"?

Tell me how

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Really? Isn't it just copying what Second Captains done on their tv show a free years ago?

As for Andy Lee Meets... Isn't that just the same as having Richie Sadlier host "The Players Chair"?

By that rational, every show is just a copy of something else.
Doesn't take from something being entertaining or not.

shockframe

healy1835 wrote: »

Brian Kerr took Brian O'Driscoll off the Dublin Mt Rushmore this morning and replaced him with Michael Carruth. Quite the take. Although I'm kinda disappointed he didn't go Full Kerr and stick in Stephen Geoghegan or something

Not a Rugby fan at all but figured O'Driscoll would have been in there. Considering what he has done in the game I would have imagined him as an automatic choice. Certainly the easiest one in Dublin Rugby circles.

It was a bit unfair to him and countless others but Dublin really had to have 1 representative in both Football Codes. The international achievements in Soccer and the razzmatazz of the Dublin Football team stand apart. There's an element of working class heroes to them.

I would have gone for Heffo and Brady but a strong case was made for Gavin and Mcgrath.

As great as Carruth in 92 was it's largely overshadowed for being something of a one hit wonder. In terms of overall achievements he had no real business on that list.

But Dublin was nearly impossible to narrow down. You could have 4 completely different Mount Rushmore's for them.

Ol' Donie

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Really? Isn't it just copying what Second Captains done on their tv show a free years ago?

As for Andy Lee Meets... Isn't that just the same as having Richie Sadlier host "The Players Chair"?

The Good Wall? I love Second Captains, but if Clarkson, May & Hammond saw that, they would have been very upset/flattered.

Higgins5473

Where was Michelle Smith? Triple Olympic gold medal winner and quadruple European championship gold medal? Although she was juiced up to her eyeballs it was surely an obvious choice with the OTB crew because she has a vagina?

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

Haven't listened to that yet but will do so. That was quite a bold move alright and not sure I'd agree with it. In fact, I'm sure I wouldn't in fact, BOD was deservingly recognized as being world class for at least ten years in a highly attritional sport and was a very good leader as well as player.

I've found the Mount Rushmore series excellent for something they started on the fly because of Covid. The fact that it is all so subjective is what made it so interesting. Some very interesting stories about contenders in various counties and having people from the county involved in the reveal made sure there was local knowledge involved.

Thomas Barr's inclusion in Waterford while Sean Kelly lost out was one of the few cases where partisan decision making led to a bad choice being made (in my view).

Not least because his sister chose him. I mean come on......

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Not least because his sister chose him. I mean come on......

I know, that was a bit much. I'd say Thomas himself would apologize to Sean Kelly for that one.

Higgins5473

Tell me how wrote: »

I know, that was a bit much. I'd say Thomas himself would apologize to Sean Kelly for that one.

Sean Kelly didn't get on it because his doping past is just as dubious as Michelle Smiths.

Jayesdiem

Higgins5473 wrote: »

Sean Kelly didn't get on it because his doping past is just as dubious as Michelle Smiths.

I wouldn’t go that far, that’s very unfair to Sean Kelly.

deisedude

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I wouldn’t go that far, that’s very unfair to Sean Kelly.

Not as blatant as Michelle but he still had 2 positive tests.

The real omission from the Waterford selection was a hurler like Ken McGrath or John Keane. Hurling is the main sport in Waterford and to not have a hurler on the selection is just silly

Higgins5473

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I wouldn’t go that far, that’s very unfair to Sean Kelly.

You know he tested positive for banned substances several times throughout his career? Michelle Smith has not tested positive for any banned substance ever, yet we all know the truth. Kelly has a lifelong ban from the Olympics to add to his CV. You ever hear Kimmages stories on Kelly?

Are you actually suggesting he was clean? What did I say that was unfair?

healy1835

Higgins5473 wrote: »

You know he tested positive for banned substances several times throughout his career? Michelle Smith has not tested positive for any banned substance ever, yet we all know the truth. Kelly has a lifelong ban from the Olympics to add to his CV. You ever hear Kimmages stories on Kelly?

Are you actually suggesting he was clean? What did I say that was unfair?

Whether or not to select a cyclist on a Mt Rushmore is more the question here. The sport is/was/is rife with drugs and Kelly's era was no different. On what scale people put the unsophisticated, 'here's a little bag for you Signor Kelly, take these with some water' approach of the 80's versus the systematic doping culture of the 90's/00's is a different argument. For some they're seprate, for others there's a line in the sand that Kelly, Roche et al crossed, and thus irrevocably tainted their legacies.

Maybe I've picked up your post wrong, but are you actually putting up a defence of Michelle Smith!? I think in her case that, despite the lack of positive tests, the truth is very much out there.

Higgins5473

healy1835 wrote: »

Maybe I've picked up your post wrong, but are you actually putting up a defence of Michelle Smith!? I think in her case that, despite the lack of positive tests, the truth is very much out there.

Absolutely not, my original post on Smith was tongue in cheek. Neither Kelly nor Smith belong anywhere near any kind of tribute for Irish sporting accolades.

Jayesdiem

Higgins5473 wrote: »

You know he tested positive for banned substances several times throughout his career? Michelle Smith has not tested positive for any banned substance ever, yet we all know the truth. Kelly has a lifelong ban from the Olympics to add to his CV. You ever hear Kimmages stories on Kelly?

Are you actually suggesting he was clean? What did I say that was unfair?

We’ve got a cultural dichotomy here. You see, I’m not overly opposed to doping at the highest level of sport. In fact, I’m not opposed to it at all and I think it should be legalised, not least because the ostensible dangers to health are so overly inflated as to be false. You strike me as the type of ‘whiter than white’ individual who’ll tut tut and finger wag towards banned athletes because of their dereliction of duty as a societal role model, whilst giving a pass to the daily drug use most of us engage in for our entire adult lives. To you, a murderer is a rapist is a doper. To me, a doper is a doper. I’m more of the “laissez faire” type and would encourage highly talented athletes to optimise their potential for maximal performance and earning power. Careers are short and talent fleeting; unfortunately there’ll never be a shortage of Mother Theresa’s who see it their duty to inflate their own perceptions of virtue to the detriment of others’ moral integrity.

Higgins5473

Jayesdiem wrote: »

We’ve got a cultural dichotomy here. You see, I’m not overly opposed to doping at the highest level of sport. In fact, I’m not opposed to it at all and I think it should be legalised, not least because the ostensible dangers to health are so overly inflated as to be false. You strike me as the type of ‘whiter than white’ individual who’ll tut tut and finger wag towards banned athletes because of their dereliction of duty as a societal role model, whilst giving a pass to the daily drug use most of us engage in for our entire adult lives. To you, a murderer is a rapist is a doper. To me, a doper is a doper. I’m more of the “laissez faire” type and would encourage highly talented athletes to optimise their potential for maximal performance and earning power. Careers are short and talent fleeting; unfortunately there’ll never be a shortage of Mother Theresa’s who see it their duty to inflate their own perceptions of virtue to the detriment of others’ moral integrity.

Absolutely none of that has to do with what I said or asked. Why is it unfair to label Sean Kelly a doper and a cheat and compare him to Michelle Smith?

Jayesdiem

Higgins5473 wrote: »

Absolutely none of that has to do with what I said or asked. Why is it unfair to label Sean Kelly a doper and a cheat and compare him to Michelle Smith?

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.

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.