Ulrich, apparent doper

IH8LANCE said:

You have to consider the plight of some of those on this forum, who need to find a way to differentiate between the transgressions of disliked riders from those they favor. Everyone dopes, and apparently everyone since and including Merckx has always doped, but if you acknowledge that, where's the fun in branding the ones you dislike with the scarlet "D"?

This is very true. It is particularly disgusting how a poor, defenseless liar and cheater like Lance Armstrong is mercilessly mocked and insulted on this forum. How dare you!? Lance is incapable of defending himself! Everyone should just leave him alone because even though he is a cheater and a liar, he's an honest cheater and liar.

Can't we all just please ignore doping and go back to pretending like Lance is the bestest ever and Tyler loves puppies and Floyd used to be in some silly religion? Those were happy times!

tcklyde said:

This is very true. It is particularly disgusting how a poor, defenseless liar and cheater like Lance Armstrong is mercilessly mocked and insulted on this forum. How dare you!? Lance is incapable of defending himself! Everyone should just leave him alone because even though he is a cheater and a liar, he's an honest cheater and liar.

Can't we all just please ignore doping and go back to pretending like Lance is the bestest ever and Tyler loves puppies and Floyd used to be in some silly religion? Those were happy times!

Sour grapes taste so good.

I think more than anything we have seen that it is not one man who is responsible for what goes on in cycling. It is a system wide problem involving every team to some level. Either it gets fixed or it doesn't. We as fans get to decide what that means as to whether we remain loyal to the sport or not. I suspect most of us will as this has been going on for the last 35+ years.

Just remember one thing also. If Ullrich doped then most everyone around his same level of ability most probably also doped. Does that mean that Ullrich is not a champion to be admired. I say unless you have walked a mile in his shoes you can't really answer that question. He had a remarkable career as did Armstrong. In 20 years will any of this doping [censored] really detract from that in either's case. Just think Eddy. His name is like God in cycling, but we all no he doped too.

limerickman said:

That's where you're wrong.

If you know your cycling history - you'd know that guys like Ullrich were destroying the opposition as an amateur.
His debut as a professional was a continuation of what he was doing as an amateur.
His finishing second in his first TDF is not an exception.
Fignon, Hinault, Merckx, LeMond - all did the same.

A guy like Basso had a stellar amateur career also.
Both of these guys have ridden at a pretty consistent level - in Basso's case he has managed to improve.

You're correct to say that it is wrong to suggest that doping only began after 1996.

[font=Times New Roman]If JU has been consistent throughout his pro career, and if – as it now appears – he was doping during at least one point in that career, then it’s not unreasonable to deduce he was doping throughout his pro career. If his amatuer performance was at the same level, then it's not unreasonable to extrapolate backward to that period as well. Given his power output figures (consistently >400W, which apparently wasn’t even remotely possible during 100 years of the pre-EPO era), then it shouldn’t come as a huge shock. Disappointing all the same.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman] [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]To the other posters who say this just proves doping has always been around, so no big deal and let’s enjoy the show as before, I think it’s worthwhile to make a distinction between two eras of doping. If you believe Greg Lemond, in the pre-EPO era of doping, the effectiveness of doping was still modest enough that the best competitors still won most of the time. In the post-EPO era, the situation has changed to the extent that a rider whose natural talents are several notches down the ladder could conceivably beat someone much higher up, based solely on superior artificial chemistry, the typical variations in true sporting parameters such as hard work and mental toughness not being significant enough to overcome a modern day doping disadvantage. To me, this is where modern doping technology has turned the current sport into a fraud that is hard for me to feel any enthusiasm for. If I could watch a race and know that the playing field was fairly even wrt doping, and the deciding factors in race outcomes were still the sporting parameters that we all respect, then I might be able to reconcile my misgivings about doping. But when the effects of doping are so significant that race results are almost entirely attributable to them, that’s where I quit watching.[/font]

+1, Nothing to change!

One bemol: I don't know for when he was amateur.
I am convince he was a genetic well-natural equiped rider, certainly the most of his generation.

tcklyde said:

Do you really think so? After all, it was German authorities that pushed to get Ullrich's blood and the Italians have already dropped the investigation against Basso. Barring some major change, I don't see what does Basso in other than the strong implication that already existed.

I hope the UCI goes after cheater & lier supreme Tyler Hamilton, but I don't think they have blood on Tyler?

[font=Times New Roman]Now that the first high-profile suspect has been DNA tested and the alleged Fuentes connection apparently confirmed, there will be tremendous pressure from many directions to test the other riders implicated in OP. Of all the others, Basso is the one with the biggest target on his head. If the Spanish authorities make a provision for voluntary DNA comparisons for riders to clear their names, many race organizers will be under pressure to block participation of riders who refuse to cooperate. Also, any race organizer, sponsor or fan could sue Basso for sporting fraud just as they did with JU, and a new case could be opened. Follow on investigations could reveal new evidence against Basso that could lead to new charges.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman] [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]If #1 in OP has been brought down with a DNA test – confirming the accuracy of allegations by the same officials who also alleged Basso’s involvement – I don't think that Basso will be allowed to just merrily show up and race the TdF without serious challenges somewhere between now and then.[/font]

JU could be prosecuted for allegations of German law. If he is convicted, he will be demonstrated through a process that had procedural protections to have been a doper! :p

It is a sad day for a great rider like Jan. Period.

As to the doping, its worth pointing out that we now all know for certain that there was systematic doping at Telekom when Riis won which would mean when Jan was riding. Recall his unbelievable ITT at the end of Riis Tour victory. Now in retro it seems, well, too bad.

And given that he came from the East German program, I think that makes it all but likely as an amateur as well but I dont know, just speculation. None of us know for sure what his power was as a junior, do we? But he was, as Lance often said, probably the most naturally talented athlete in the peloton.

Then of course he did have personal problems and his lack of training may have made his reliance on doping more severe. And as to the idea that he did not have more problems with weight or whatever, nonsense. He always gained 10 kilos and sometimes more. That is a lot of weight folks.

Anyhoo, all in all just a real bummer.

Why have he stored so much blood?
I think it was to avoid the possible future new test for EPO, so for top riders who want avoid what has happened to Armstrong with him 1999 samples.
[censored] are kept but no blood!
I heard too that Fuentes was "boosting" their blood, but I don't know how.

bobke said:

But he was, as Lance often said, probably the most naturally talented athlete in the peloton.

And to think that Armstrong -- who was most certainly clean because he wouldn't do such a thing as dope -- could beat such a talented, doped athlete.

Well, it really is unbelievable.

limerickman said:

Which goes back to the point - Ullrich's career traverses both eras : yet his speed/power output remain consistent.

You've always used that bit as evidence that he didn't cheat, and now we have other evidence to show that he did.

Which brings back the point - being consistent and having a pedigree is as much evidence of lifetime doping as anything else.

Felt_Rider said:

I fully agree with that statement because as an athlete that was my mentality, but don't overlook the motivations of others outside of the athlete. The circle outside of the athlete is just as big and then ask yourself what is the motivation of the circle outside of the athlete. Ultimately the motivation is fame and fortune.

Without the support of this outer circle it would be more difficult for the athlete to actually get away with using PED's or anything else that may give an unfair advantage. There must be support and sometimes that support is merely looking the other way.

In the activity that I competed there was this type of support. To get access to the PED's, by the promoters supporting the use because it attracts bigger crowds and ticket sales, by coaches who if they have winning athletes on their resume can benefit greatly and therefore demand larger fees and be more selective with clients. So ultimately money and limelight do effect many of those on the outer circle and in the inner circle. I am not accusing anyone here, but Lance because of his wins has generated more revenue outside the of cycling by sponsorship and advertisements. Because Lance has won so many times he has carried others into higher revenue as well like Chris Carmichael. Again not to accuse, but wouldn't you agree that most people around Lance have also benefited as well.

If there is support in the circle and outside the circle it becomes harder to control substance abuse, however, if the outer circle was fully against the illegal use of PED's it would become very difficult for that inner circle of athletes to slip through.

I was rewarded in my days of competitions by the federation and by the promoters with wins and on their side they were rewarded with higher ticket sales by having a large number of competitors like me desiring to take the risks in order to win.

To create a drug free environment one must understand all facets of the subject and the subjects from the atheletes, to the promoters, to the federations and throughout. And once one begins to understand it all they will begin to understand how hard it will be to control this issue. There are no easy solutions.

All points well taken and I agree with them. I am merely pointing out that even if all money is removed from sport, doping and other forms of cheating will continue to occur.

To remove the doping pressure from outside interests, there needs to be punitive measures for those entities when their athletes dope. It is a very difficult solution and will never have 100% compliance, but there are certainly measures that can be easily instituted that will reduce doping prevalence.

Another thing that has fascinated me about doping is how it is tolerated, by riders and fans alike. Put simply, it is a form of cheating. If a rider cheats by rigging his bike, taking a shortcut, screwing with competitor's equipment, etc..., I can't see it being tolerated. He would be maligned as a "cheater" both within the peloton and by the fans. Dopers seem to escape this branding; and even more interesting is that they have a whole group of people that support them, even give them money!

DiabloScott said:

You've always used that bit as evidence that he didn't cheat, and now we have other evidence to show that he did.

Which brings back the point - being consistent and having a pedigree is as much evidence of lifetime doping as anything else.

I suggest that you re-read FB's post and his comment regarding two eras.

To the other posters who say this just proves doping has always been around, so no big deal and let’s enjoy the show as before, I think it’s worthwhile to make a distinction between two eras of doping. If you believe Greg Lemond, in the pre-EPO era of doping, the effectiveness of doping was still modest enough that the best competitors still won most of the time. In the post-EPO era, the situation has changed to the extent that a rider whose natural talents are several notches down the ladder could conceivably beat someone much higher up, based solely on superior artificial chemistry, the typical variations in true sporting parameters such as hard work and mental toughness not being significant enough to overcome a modern day doping disadvantage

Ullrich's career traversed both eras - his performances were consistent throughout both eras.
His performances were consistent in the pre-EPO era and the post-EPO era.
He didn't suddenly "improve".

Ullrich's pedigree as a cyclist was there from day one.

bobke said:

And given that he came from the East German program, I think that makes it all but likely as an amateur as well but I dont know, just speculation. None of us know for sure what his power was as a junior, do we?

Speak for yourself.

Some of us were present at amateur international races when JU was destroying the opposition in those races.

And if you want to look at cycling doping programs - suggest you look at the Los Angeles 1984 Olympics.
That's as good a place to start as any.

limerickman said:

Speak for yourself.

Some of us were present at amateur international races when JU was destroying the opposition in those races.

And if you want to look at cycling doping programs - suggest you look at the Los Angeles 1984 Olympics.
That's as good a place to start as any.

Speak for myself? Thanks you, I was, obviously.

And it figures I would write a post basically agreeing with you and then you find a reason to come back and disagree.

The fact that "some of us" were present at amateur races when JU was destroying the opposition is a reduction ab adsurdum and bears in no way as to the question of whether he was doping or not.

In fact, since he rarely ever again destroyed the opposition as he did as an amateur and in the 97 TdF, the argument could be turned around and presented as: JU detroyed the oppostion as an amateur when his talent and doping combined destroyed the competition, but then when the rest got older and wiser and on the gear also, the field narrowed considerably and his results speak for themselves.

whiteboytrash said:

….and don’t even mention Armstrong because he’s the one who started all of this.

Well, let's not forget Bjarne Riis! Massive manipulation of blood probably goes back further, but who knows. That said, no question that Armstrong was a prodigious and compulsive doper.

bobke said:

Speak for myself? Thanks you, I was, obviously.

And it figures I would write a post basically agreeing with you and then you find a reason to come back and disagree.

Speak for yourself.

You weren't basically agreeing with me.

bobke said:

The fact that "some of us" were present at amateur races when JU was destroying the opposition is a reduction ab adsurdum and bears in no way as to the question of whether he was doping or not.

That's right - you weren't there.

And if he was doping pre EPO era and doping post EPO era (and you've said he doped throughout his career in your earlier "contribution"😉, why didn't his race performances increases incrementally between eras?

bobke said:

In fact, since he rarely ever again destroyed the opposition as he did as an amateur and in the 97 TdF, the argument could be turned ..........

Yeah his record was disasterous after 1997.........if you exclude his 5 TDF 2nd placings, his 1999 Vuelta win, his Tour de Suisse wins, his Olympics victories.........

bobke said:

but then when the rest got older and wiser and on the gear also, the field narrowed considerably and his results speak for themselves.

When riders suddenly improved, you mean?
As in donkeys become Ferrari's?

Still doesn't manage to answer why JU's times/speeds didn't fluctuate throughout his career.

wolfix said:

The posters on here that say the TDF's that Armstrong won were boring because they are Armstrong haters.

It could not possibly be because it was true, could it? Maybe it's the Lance lovers who cannot objectively look at the race. Are you trying to claim the Tour was as exciting as the Giro or the Vuelta during the last decade?

wolfix said:

As far as Disco domination of the TDF....... Do you think the other TDF multiple winners didn't have dominating teams?????? Their teams clamped down exactly like Disco did.......

Yeah, it was perfectly normal for the lead group of twenty riders on a climb to consist of eight Disco riders, including their rouleurs.

tcklyde said:

Do you really think so? After all, it was German authorities that pushed to get Ullrich's blood and the Italians have already dropped the investigation against Basso. Barring some major change, I don't see what does Basso in other than the strong implication that already existed.

I am betting that with confirmation of Ullrich's guilt, the ASO will not allow Basso to start the Tour. I am also betting that more info will leak out.

tcklyde said:

I hope the UCI goes after cheater & lier supreme Tyler Hamilton, but I don't think they have blood on Tyler?

They have Hamilton's doping schedule and FAXes to to his wife for payment.

davidbod said:

I think more than anything we have seen that it is not one man who is responsible for what goes on in cycling. It is a system wide problem involving every team to some level. Either it gets fixed or it doesn't. We as fans get to decide what that means as to whether we remain loyal to the sport or not. I suspect most of us will as this has been going on for the last 35+ years.

Just remember one thing also. If Ullrich doped then most everyone around his same level of ability most probably also doped. Does that mean that Ullrich is not a champion to be admired. I say unless you have walked a mile in his shoes you can't really answer that question. He had a remarkable career as did Armstrong. In 20 years will any of this doping [censored] really detract from that in either's case. Just think Eddy. His name is like God in cycling, but we all no he doped too.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Less than two years ago the Armstrong lovers were swearing up and down that Armstrong did not dope and because he survived cancer he was akin to a saint and was incapable of doping. Instead they were blaming his doping troubles on conspiracies and the French. Now, they have fallen back on the "it doesn't matter because they all do it" defense, even invoking the name of Merckx, as though an amphetamine or steroid or two is equivalent to EPO. Unlike Eddy, Armstrong made his money not so much by winning races but by deceiving people who suffer from a disease. It takes a real piece of work to make money by lying to the sick.

Going from he never, ever doped to admitting that he did is quite a big step. One wonders what the next step will be. I would like to hear the Lance lovers speak about the ethics of deceiving cancer sufferers. Is that okay? Was Hamilton soliciting donations for his defense, a much, much milder form of fraud, also okay?

wolfix said:

I like everyone saying that the Indurain/Armstrong years were boring..... Did you think the Eddy years were boring? .......

At least Eddy attacked!

In 2004, apparently Lance led into the wind for a total of 8km (apart from TT's). Eddy would never have wanted to win a Tour like that.