# Bob Roll



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

It's kinda funny listening to Bob Roll on the Paris-Nice commentary. His hardline stance and condemnation of the dopers who are ruining the sport of cycling. 

The biggest Lance fanboi and apologist there was.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

From the thread title I thought Bob Roll was caught doping... Whew! I didn't know beer was a UCI banned substance!


----------



## go do it (Sep 12, 2007)

Reminds me of politicians who are all of a sudden "outraged and disturbed" by any number of issues that the media or the public illuminate and is somewhat of an open secret. Just one that come to mind.


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

So are you mad he was a fan and now not? I don't get it, that's a sensible response.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

thighmaster said:


> So are you mad he was a fan and now not? I don't get it, that's a sensible response.


Are you kidding?

Roll had no idea all his buddies like Carmichael and Armstrong, the Hog and everyone else were up to their eyeballs in drugs? 

Makes you wonder how he kept up.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Jackhammer said:


> Are you kidding?
> 
> Roll had no idea all his buddies like Carmichael and Armstrong, the Hog and everyone else were up to their eyeballs in drugs?
> 
> Makes you wonder how he kept up.


He really didn't, keep up that is...


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

He kept up as much as most domestiques keep up


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

thighmaster said:


> So are you mad he was a fan and now not? I don't get it, that's a sensible response.


I'm not mad. I just think it's laughable how he now seems to be portraying himself as an adamant opponent of doping, and worrying about how that effects the public face of the sport, when he spent all those years cheering on and standing up for Lance. 

Whenever the subject of Lance doping would come up, there would be Bobke, echoing the line about how Lance has been tested 500 times and never tested positive, how it's all jealousy and resentment toward lance, who is as innocent as the day is long.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

rufus said:


> I'm not mad. I just think it's laughable how he now seems to be portraying himself as an adamant opponent of doping, and worrying about how that effects the public face of the sport, when he spent all those years cheering on and standing up for Lance.
> 
> Whenever the subject of Lance doping would come up, there would be Bobke, echoing the line about how Lance has been tested 500 times and never tested positive, how it's all jealousy and resentment toward lance, who is as innocent as the day is long.


You mean all those years that Lance denied doping and anyone who said he was, was threatened with a lawsuit??? What was he supposed to do? Say Lance was doping with no proof? Or even if he suspected something, he couldn't say anything until there was actual proof. Oh wait there was no proof from the governing body or ADA. It wasn't until much later when there was actual proof. I am sure he wanted to believe he was clean as most people did until he got caught. He isn't defending Lance so I don't see what the issue is.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

jmorgan said:


> You mean all those years that Lance denied doping and anyone who said he was, was threatened with a lawsuit??? What was he supposed to do? Say Lance was doping with no proof? Or even if he suspected something, he couldn't say anything until there was actual proof. Oh wait there was no proof from the governing body or ADA. It wasn't until much later when there was actual proof. I am sure he wanted to believe he was clean as most people did until he got caught. He isn't defending Lance so I don't see what the issue is.


Anyone who was following at the time could clearly see the difference between the messages Bob Roll and Juliet Macur, for example, were sending.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

jmorgan said:


> You mean all those years that Lance denied doping and anyone who said he was, was threatened with a lawsuit??? What was he supposed to do? Say Lance was doping with no proof? Or even if he suspected something, he couldn't say anything until there was actual proof. Oh wait there was no proof from the governing body or ADA. It wasn't until much later when there was actual proof. I am sure he wanted to believe he was clean as most people did until he got caught. He isn't defending Lance so I don't see what the issue is.


LOL! First off, your contention is absurd, there's zero chance he didn't know LA was doping.

Secondly, he didn't have to jump up and down cheering and waving his pompoms.


----------



## brady1 (Aug 18, 2011)

Jackhammer said:


> LOL! First off, your contention is absurd, there's zero chance he didn't know LA was doping.
> 
> Secondly, he didn't have to jump up and down cheering and waving his pompoms.


Exactly.

After spending so much time with Lance, there is no way he wasn't privy to the drug use going on. I'm sure he saw his share of it from his own racing days, chalking it up to "that's what you do to compete".

However, he didn't have to defend him so vehemently when he HAD to know he was juicing. He could have just remained silent on the matter.

I remember a similar scenario just before the Reasoned Decision came out, Phil Liggett was adamantly defending Lance, saying that there was no way he would ever take drugs, that he looked him on the eye an told him he as clean, etc. After commentating on so much cycling and seeing a guy just absolutely demolish known dopers, you have to let common sense tell you something isn't right. Even if there isn't "proof". 
Again, he didn't have to jump up and down and be a cheerleader for Lance. He could have simply not said anything.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jmorgan said:


> You mean all those years that Lance denied doping and anyone who said he was, was threatened with a lawsuit??? What was he supposed to do? Say Lance was doping with no proof? Or even if he suspected something, he couldn't say anything until there was actual proof. Oh wait there was no proof from the governing body or ADA. It wasn't until much later when there was actual proof. I am sure he wanted to believe he was clean as most people did until he got caught. He isn't defending Lance so I don't see what the issue is.


I can only assume you are joking. There was a ton of proof. The EPO positives from the 99 Tour were proof enough for any rational person

What did Roll say when Tyler and Floyd told the truth?



> “I wouldn’t believe either one of those guys (Landis and Hamilton) as far as I could throw them,”


Roll is a clown. Long after it was clear Armstrong was doping he continued to spew the "Witch Hunt" talking points. Some people wonder why so many people believed the myth for so long......it is because liars like Roll kept pushing it from their very public soap box


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I think Bobke was on one of the outer circles of trust with Lance, and absolutely thrilled to be there. He had his minor role in the Lance mythology. During that time he was a retired domestique, which isn't exactly a pathway to a commentary job or anything else of real substance. Not to say his unique personality didn't create opportunities, but the Lance connection opened a lot of doors. I think it's possible that he had no firsthand knowledge of Lance doping, but his proximity to Lance blinded him to what was obviously going on. There were many, many people like this. 

He should have known. He's been uncharacteristically quiet on the subject of Lance, probably because he knows he was very wrong, should never protested so loudly, and is likely dealing with that. He's no different than Sherwin and Liggett in this regard, with their muted references to Lance's guilt after years of proclaiming his innocence. It's got to be a shock to the system. They rode the gravy train like so many others for years with blinders happily in place.

I could be wrong, though. I wasn't there. They could have inserted the needles themselves. 

NBC is obviously grooming the next voices that will represent cycling to the US. Liggett and Sherwen are obviously nearing retirement, and Bob Roll is only sprinkled on for "color" here and there. It's a process, because it takes a special kind of commentator to fill the hours of a bike race with trivia and white noise. I certainly couldn't do that, and it doesn't seem like Bobke is able to do it either.

I watch a collection of about 30 old WCP videos in rotation on the trainer and have long since stopped paying attention to the words- I could probably not only point out each mistake as it happened, but recite them by now. What I mainly notice is the inflection and counterpoint of Liggett and Sherwen's voices, and how neither one is quite sufficient when the other isn't around. The sonorous drone of Sherwen plays off the staccato Liggett, which has a sort of ebb and flow that follows the race. They say the same things each and every year, so it's the semi-factual soundtrack that a lot of US cycling fans have come to expect in cycling coverage- tonal truthiness. Bobke just doesn't fit into that blueprint, and instead is used as a NFL-style color commentator.

Wow, I drifted there.

Anyway, I tend to think that Bobke got suckered. He's just not that good of an actor (have you seen the Road ID commercials?).


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Alaska Mike said:


> I think Bobke was on one of the outer circles of trust with Lance, ...


Really? Boone?


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

asgelle said:


> Really? Boone?


+1. Absolutely that gap-toothed fool knew about Lance from day 1. He was with Carmichael and Lance in Boone, NC back when LA was "formulating" his comeback. Of course he maintained his loyalty all those years in order to not stir the pot and keep the myth alive, it basically helped him keep his job. He wasn't the only one. He, Phil, and Paul all look foolish pretending to be shocked at Lance and doping in pro cycling. At least he no longer says "Tour Dee France".


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

You make Boone sound like some sort of secret Ferrari doping camp. I seriously doubt Lance was hanging blood bags for a few runs up Grandfather, or injecting EPO at each overlook. It's part of the Armstrong myth, and Bobke played a role because he was available.

Lance obviously had several layers of trust going on. Mom was the inner circle. Maybe family, College, and Johan on another. Team members a little further out... Takes a while to get out to a gap-toothed fool in the galaxy of Lance.

I think it's possible Bobke knew and was keeping his mouth shut all of those years to cash in on the gravy train. I also think it's possible he didn't know, and was blinded by all of that reflected glory Lance was throwing off. Other people closer to Lance than Bob were duped. Other people that knew a lot kept their mouth's shut for self preservation. I don't know, and I'm not really interested in beating them up for being blind or mute. Plenty of that sort of thing was going on by people far more influential than him.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

burgrat said:


> +1. Absolutely that *gap-toothed *fool knew about Lance from day 1. He was with Carmichael and Lance in Boone, NC back when LA was "formulating" his comeback. Of course he maintained his loyalty all those years in order to not stir the pot and keep the myth alive, it basically helped him keep his job. He wasn't the only one. He, Phil, and Paul all look foolish pretending to be shocked at Lance and doping in pro cycling. At least he no longer says "Tour Dee France".


LOL, I should suspec that anyone who likes/liked Lance would be subject to attacks. His looks? That's kinda low. 

I look at them as sports commentators. Is it their job to also be investigators? Unless you're a racer, watching cycling is boring because long races are mostly boring with a few flurries of activity. Even as a racer, watching races can get boring, especially towards the end of winter base.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Out of the three, Bob should have known, because he was still a pro during the early stages of the EPO era (although he switched to MTB) and certainly knew of the doping going on around him. If he didn't notice the sea change like LeMond and others did, than he was completely blind.

I think, Like many, he intensely wanted to believe in Lance and ignored what was obvious to others. Maybe he was too close and got caught up in the cult of personality.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Alaska Mike said:


> Out of the three, Bob should have known, because he was still a pro during the early stages of the EPO era (although he switched to MTB) and certainly knew of the doping going on around him.


did not matter much changing to MTB. after all that's where Hesjedal and Rasmussen were junking up to begin with.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Would RBR be much happier if instead of getting excited during the big moments of stage races if the likes of Gogo would say, "big attack, no way this isn't fueled by whatever they're using these days!"


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The EPO positives from the 99 Tour were proof enough for any rational person


What does the CIRC report say about these tests?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> What does the CIRC report say about these tests?


Why don't you tell us? http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/87/99/CIRCReport2015_Neutral.pdf


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

It was dumb of me to defend Roll in anyway. Not sure what I was on. I know the depth of doping and was naive enough to think Armstrong was clean, so I had considered it of roll at the time.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

Local Hero said:


> What does the CIRC report say about these tests?


It assumed the following



Doctor Falsetti said:


> The EPO positives from the 99 Tour were proof enough for any rational person.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> What does the CIRC report say about these tests?





> UCI purposely limited the scope of the independent investigator’s mandate to procedural issues contrary to what they told stakeholders and the public and against Emile Vrijman’s own suggestion. UCI, together with the Armstrong team, became directly and heavily involved in the drafting of the Vrijman report, the purpose of which was only partly to expedite the publication of the report. The main goal was to ensure that the report reflected UCI’s and Lance Armstrong’s personal conclusions.


What did the experts say? 

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the ’99 Tour."
Michael Ashenden - NYVelocity


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

There is no evidence to link the donation by Lance Armstrong and the Vrijman report, and the timing indicates that the two were not related.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> There is no evidence to link the donation by Lance Armstrong and the Vrijman report, and the timing indicates that the two were not related.


So? 

Armstrong legal wrote much of the report. It was not remotely independent. Why they worked so hard to cover up his obvious doping and smear WADA is another question.

The donation is a nice coincidence but the fact that at the time of the report Verbuggen and Armstrong were putting together financing in an attempt to buy the Tour for hundreds of millions of dollars may have had more influence


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What did the experts say?
> 
> "So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the ’99 Tour."
> Michael Ashenden - NYVelocity


Is that in the CIRC report?


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

View attachment 304592


----------



## philoanna (Dec 2, 2007)

How many people know who Bob, Paul, or Phil are without Lance? There are no OLN or VS. channels with out Lance. Sure they knew, but it made them pretty rich too.
Gravy train as someone said before.


----------

