Commentators discussing Doping

[auscyclefan94]

During the coverage of yesterday's time trial, Alexandre Vinokourov was competing in the time trial. Matt Keenan, who was commentating, started talking about Vino. He talked about Alexandre's doping charges and it went on and on and on. This really infuriated me because I watch cycling because it is a great sport, not because I want to discuss doping. I go to the forums and the news sites if I want that.

My question is, is it appropriate for a commentator to discuss doping during race coverage when it isn't relevant to the race?

 

[noddy69]

During the coverage of yesterday's time trial, Alexandre Vinokourov was competing in the time trial. Matt Keenan, who was commentating, started talking about Vino. He talked about Alexandre's doping charges and it went on and on and on. This really infuriated me because I watch cycling because it is a great sport, not because I want to discuss doping. I go to the forums and the news sites if I want that.

My question is, is it appropriate for a commentator to discuss doping during race coverage when it isn't relevant to the race?

Doping is a relevant subject to fill air time. If they dont discuss it then, when exactly do you want it discussed in the open so people know it goes on?

If doping was only ever discussed on forums or news websites then the general public dont get to hear about it. Why do you think there are so many part time fans in the dark. Its relevant.

 

[simo1733]

Matt Keenan should just talk less.It is annoying that he feels the need to fill every second of air time with the sound of his own voice.If he toned it down a bit he could be good.
I don't mind him mentioning doping, but in moderation.It's just not that interesting.

 

[Maxiton]

Matt Keenan should just talk less.It is annoying that he feels the need to fill every second of air time with the sound of his own voice.If he toned it down a bit he could be good.
I don't mind him mentioning doping, but in moderation.It's just not that interesting.

Like all the other commentators, Matt Keenan does what his producers tell him to do. If they tell him to talk, he talks. Very few of these talking heads have any authority whatsoever. And in Keenan's case he's handling the whole thing by himself, something that is extremely difficult to do. He used to bore the **** out of me, but he's improved quite a bit over the years.

Here in the Clinic commentators catch hell for not talking about doping. Nobody seems to understand that's not their job, and in any case they wouldn't have the job long at all if they talked about it very much. So I'm surprised to hear Keenan was talking about it at length.

In the case of Vino, though, it's certainly warrants mentioning, especially since he's never come clean on the matter and he's still a participant (in racing, and who knows what else).

 

[Normandy]

During the coverage of yesterday's time trial, Alexandre Vinokourov was competing in the time trial. Matt Keenan, who was commentating, started talking about Vino. He talked about Alexandre's doping charges and it went on and on and on. This really infuriated me because I watch cycling because it is a great sport, not because I want to discuss doping. I go to the forums and the news sites if I want that.

My question is, is it appropriate for a commentator to discuss doping during race coverage when it isn't relevant to the race?

I am happy for commentators to discuss doping providing they show no favoutism/victimiis a to any team, rider, or ountry.

Harmon and co are happy to discuss doperes if they are British, to the extent they are unprofessional. HIs commmentary during the Tour of Qatar when Contador was banned for 2 years was grossly offensive and unprofessional and I am not a Contador fan and am totally against doping. He is also happy to mention Valverde etc and any other rider.

He never mentions millar, and yeasterday, as I have already mentuioned was an insult to the intelligence to the viewers when they did not mention Wiggins, offensive rant, the discussion going on etc.

 

[orangerider]

Riders in the race who were convicted of doping in the past should be openly discussed by the commentators. Seems like fair game when you have the nerve to compete again, like Vino. It simply becomes a part of their life - no different than discussing where they live, marital status/kids, hobbies. They doped, they face the music.

 

[hrotha]

I'm more frustrated when they don't discuss current doping events.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I'm more frustrated when they don't discuss current doping events.

This. I am very surprised that anyone here would prefer that doping was kept off the TV. The more informed people are the better it is for the sport. Sure I don't want them talking about it during a sprint finish but there is enough time during most races to discuss it rationally. If they can tell me when the Eglise Saint Martin was built they can also talk about something so intertwined with the sport.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I am happy for commentators to discuss doping providing they show no favoutism/victimiis a to any team, rider, or ountry.

Harmon and co are happy to discuss doperes if they are British, to the extent they are unprofessional. HIs commmentary during the Tour of Qatar when Contador was banned for 2 years was grossly offensive and unprofessional and I am not a Contador fan and am totally against doping. He is also happy to mention Valverde etc and any other rider.

He never mentions millar, and yeasterday, as I have already mentuioned was an insult to the intelligence to the viewers when they did not mention Wiggins, offensive rant, the discussion going on etc.

Typo?

10 charac

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

I'm more frustrated when they don't discuss current doping events.

Which current doping events would you like them to discuss?

 

[Fergoose]

My question is, is it appropriate for a commentator to discuss doping during race coverage when it isn't relevant to the race?

I welcome a brief factual reminder that a certain rider has served a doping related suspension as it is hard for people to keep track of that and it is definitely of potential relevance to the events and performances unfolding before you.

Going on and on about it during a race? No thanks.
Speculating about people who have not previously been proven to dope? Again, no thanks.
Saying a performance is really quite surprisingly strong given a rider's previous performances and leaving the rest unsaid: Fine by me.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Which current doping events would you like them to discuss?

Not directed at me but... The Armstrong case is the obvious one. Rather than just saying 'Hopefully it will be resolved soon' why not explain what is going on, who are the key people, etc...

What about elaborating on drug testing such as why certain products are used and what testers look for? Perhaps even focus on the fact that people get tested in cycling far more than other sports which in its own way is a positive (no pun intended).

So long as they do not wildly speculate I don't see the problem.

 

[hrotha]

Which current doping events would you like them to discuss?

I don't usually watch Eurosport, so I can't really say much about the commentators you guys know.

But, for example, the other day the main Spanish commentator was repeatedly calling Thibaut Pinot "Bruno Thibout" and correcting himself immediately afterwards, saying "Why do I have that name in my tongue all the time?". Then he got an SMS from Pedro Celaya who explained that Bruno Thibout was a former pro who rode for Motorola when he was in that team. You know, the Pedro Celaya. USADA and all that. Not a peep from the commentators. They've never really discussed this matter.

 

[BYOP88]

I don't mind the doping chat, it just annoys me when only a few dopers are singled out and others(generally english speakers) are given a free pass.

 

[Mr Pumpy]

I am happy for commentators to discuss doping providing they show no favoutism/victimiis a to any team, rider, or ountry.

Harmon and co are happy to discuss doperes if they are British, to the extent they are unprofessional. HIs commmentary during the Tour of Qatar when Contador was banned for 2 years was grossly offensive and unprofessional and I am not a Contador fan and am totally against doping. He is also happy to mention Valverde etc and any other rider.

He never mentions millar, and yeasterday, as I have already mentuioned was an insult to the intelligence to the viewers when they did not mention Wiggins, offensive rant, the discussion going on etc.

There is a massive difference between Millar and many of the other dopers including Contador, Valverde, Vino etc... can you spot what it is?

As for Wiggins 'offensive rant', many of the big mouths on this forum are spouting accusations against him without the slightest hint of any credible evidence. Now, that is offensive, and his words were spot on.

If and when he or any of his team mates test positive, or if and when anybody in a position to know comes out with evidence, then it is time to talk about it in public. These guys are professionals and won't engage in idle gossip like many on this forum.

 

[Benotti69]

There is a massive difference between Millar and many of the other dopers including Contador, Valverde, Vino etc... can you spot what it is?

Oh Millar said sorry and is now seen as anti-doping because he talks about Ricco, Ricco and Ricco, but does not mention Armstrong!

 

[Square-pedaller]

There is a massive difference between Millar and many of the other dopers including Contador, Valverde, Vino etc... can you spot what it is?

Yes, Millar never tested positive. If he hadn't been resident in France, he would not have been caught.
He also, pre-being caught, painted himself as a clean rider. This fits with the prevailing British belief in fair-play in sports, and the readiness (hope) that British athletes are competing clean. Some other cultures have a prevailing culture that everyone in sports are doping, and regard admitting to doping as a sign of weakness. I would say that how most athletes behave after being gaught is a matter of expediency.

 

[Mr Pumpy]

Oh Millar said sorry and is now seen as anti-doping because he talks about Ricco, Ricco and Ricco, but does not mention Armstrong!

He admitted it, and regardless of his motivations he did at least admit it. Contador hasn't not have many others.

As for Lance, it is a really simple point that many on here don't get. Wiggins, Millar etc CAN'T comment on Lance because, as yet he has nothing proven against him. They haven't got the luxury of anonymous unsubstantiated gossip that you and I have.

 

[hrotha]

He admitted it, and regardless of his motivations he did at least admit it. Contador hasn't not have many others.

As for Lance, it is a really simple point that many on here don't get. Wiggins, Millar etc CAN'T comment on Lance because, as yet he has nothing proven against him. They haven't got the luxury of anonymous unsubstantiated gossip that you and I have.

Pinotti has discussed Armstrong openly, and he's doing fine.

The plain truth is they're starstruck, which makes them hypocrites.

 

[Benotti69]

He admitted it, and regardless of his motivations he did at least admit it. Contador hasn't not have many others.

As for Lance, it is a really simple point that many on here don't get. Wiggins, Millar etc CAN'T comment on Lance because, as yet he has nothing proven against him. They haven't got the luxury of anonymous unsubstantiated gossip that you and I have.

Of course he admitted it, He was being held by the Gendarmes, not UCI. He was scared. Brailsford didn't hang around after the Gendarmes stopped questioning him, he bolted like a rat.

Wiggins had plenty to day about Armstrong before 2009. Go do a search.

'Unsubstantiated gossip'? Now that is Armstrong fanboy posting.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

lolzzzzzzz solid.

 

[Square-pedaller]

He admitted it, and regardless of his motivations he did at least admit it.

I'm not clear whether you're talking about his confession to the police, or to the public. Anyway, ...
As pointed out, the police were holding him (and in France could, I believe, hold him idefinitely). They also found old EPO syringes in his house. Given these circumstances, I don't think that confessing to the police can be regarded as anything more than the most expedient course of action.
Now, what are his options in how he subsequently behaved. He could:
a) Refuse to admit publicly that he doped, saying that the French legal process was flawed.
b) Admit publicly, but say that he is unrepentant.
c) Admit publicly, and say he is sorry.
If he was acting entirely out of self-interest, what would you advise him to do? Do you think Brailsford would have dared to select him to ride the Olympics if he'd done (a) or (b)?

 

[Mr Pumpy]

'Unsubstantiated gossip'? Now that is Armstrong fanboy posting.

No, it is understanding the difference between the likes of you and me, and professionals involved in the sport. Like it not, until last week Armstrong had never even been charged with doping and therefore the evidence has not even been formally presented.

My own personal belief is that everything Landis said is most likely true, but were I a pro tour cyclist I wouldn't comment conclusively until after the case is heard. That wouldn't make me a hypocrite.

 

[Benotti69]

No, it is understanding the difference between the likes of you and me, and professionals involved in the sport. Like it not, until last week Armstrong had never even been charged with doping and therefore the evidence has not even been formally presented.

My own personal belief is that everything Landis said is most likely true, but were I a pro tour cyclist I wouldn't comment conclusively until after the case is heard. That wouldn't make me a hypocrite.

So all those hyporcrite Pro cyclists who lambasted Ricco on twitter when he was rushed to hospital are what exactly?

The difference between the likes of you and me is that i am not the UCI/WADA/CAS but have read the evidence, heard Walsh and Kimmage discuss it and come to the conclusion, Armstrong doped. He beat dopers, he couldn't perform at GTs then he could win 7 in a row. Now that to me is doping apart form his failed test in '99 and the subsequent analysis of his urine which found epo. But i can make an informed decision on what i read and hear. It is how people function in the modern world.

 

[Mr Pumpy]

So all those hyporcrite Pro cyclists who lambasted Ricco on twitter when he was rushed to hospital are what exactly?

They were commenting in a convicted doper, not an unconvicted doper like Armstrong

The difference between the likes of you and me is that i am not the UCI/WADA/CAS but have read the evidence

No you haven't because the evidence has yet to be released.

There is a difference between the court of public opinion and the court of arbitration... it is a difference that you and I, anonymously on the Internet, are not forced to respect. However, named professionals do need to respect it in order to maintain part of their professionalism.

I'm pretty certain that if you and I were to compare notes on LA we would come to the same conclusion, as would many pro riders in private.