Either Ullrich is clean, or he is crazy

Why would he go under oath, deny doping, and risk perjury? What's in it for him, when everyone will still consider him a doper regardless. At first, I thought he wanted the money, but I guess not.

If he is clean, that would mean there are two clean Tour de France winners.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/nov08/nov13news

 

Yes with Lemond he is the second clean winner of the EPO years!

Sometimes you can be right

 

Orrrrrr........ He's just lying and is safe because they'll never retro test his samples. Like they'll never test Lance's samples. Just because he said what he said in court doesn't really mean anything. Same applies to LA.

 

That's interesting.

 

rrrrr

 

Ullrich didn't deny that he had doped in his lifetime just for the four month at team Coast. He got around the issue of Fuentes saying he didn't know him or pay for services in 2003 at Coast. So he's not lying. Where he may come unstuck is if proof comes out later that he did dope in 1997+ then Mr. Coast can say that the performance enhancing nature of EPO can last beyond the time of usage. ie make an athlete stronger for the rest of his career.

Besides Ullrich will not get the money and if he does will donate it away to a children’s charity.

 

Agreed on all points.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-40239.html

when is talent doping?

 

When your pharmacist has superior abilities.

 

Yep, Lemond managed to beat a whole load of EPO using riders because he trained harder and had better natural ability and...... oh wait I think I've heard this bull**** before? Mr Armstrong please stand up....

 

According to LeMond himself, that's not correct. He has stated several times that he started the tour in 91 in the best shape of his life, but somehow several of his competitors were a lot stronger than in 90. He probably beat a lot of epo-users, but 6 of them beat him.

 

Charly Mottet had a very clean reputation yet he beat Lemond by 5 and a half minutes in 1991 coming fourth overall. Was Mottet allowed to gain a lot of time in a breakaway (i see he won two stages) or did he just consistently finish ahead of Lemond?

 

Mottet was clean.
I've spoken to several professionals of that era and each one said that Mottet
was a clean rider, without question.
In fact, Mottets reputation was such that most of the peleton regarded mottet as the best rider of that era, given that he rode 100% clean.

If I recall 1991 correctly, Mottet did take advantage of Chiapucci and Indurains cat and mouse game in the early stages of the Pyrennees and won the stage starting at Pau (can't remember where the stage that he won, finished!).

But you raise an interesting point.
Mottet did finish 4th in 1991.
Lemond finished top 10 in 1991 (can't recall his final placing).
If the gap was over 5 mins as you say, I think that might be explained by the decrease in leMond performance vis-a-vis Mottet.

(Mottet was a consistent top 10 finisher in the TDF).

 

Mottet lost 6 mn in the first long ITT before mountain stages. That allowed him to go in breakaways.
Before the fist mountain stage he had a 10mn pace on Lemond!
He won the first pyrennees stage with more than 6'40 on the contenders.

http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_1978_2005/tdf1991_12.php

The use of EPO was not "perfect" and less used than later. Most of the riders were very carefully with it because of death risk. Probably used for particuliar stages.

 

Willy Voet said Mottet was the only rider who refused drugs at all times. Even vitamin shots...... Willy would know.

 

Good recall there WBT.

Now that you mention it, Willy Voet did state that in his book.

 

Does anyone know if LeMond was able to compare himself in the early 90's to his form in the mid to late 80's with some absolute measure like a same-course-and-conditions ITT time? There was always conjecture, I seem to recall, that he had other things going on... like a mild muscular dystrophy... or some undetected virus perhaps? But if he was able to get the same TT times over the same courses as a benchmark... then he would know that he had stayed the same while everyone else had dramatically improved.

I hear jonjungel's reference here that he felt as good as ever coming into the '91 season. But was this backed up by tests? Could it have been an illusion? I don't doubt the EPO phenomena he observed... but Mottet's relative performance seems to suggest he may have been below his late 80's form as well.

I wish I could make a point or a question in less words. I'm working on it. Also apologise if I'm veering off topic a little.

 

I did not know about Mottet's reputation as a clean rider, so I just assumed everyone were doping. Thanks to Whiteboytrash for correcting me.

About Lemond's form in '91, I heard it in a radio interview that I downloaded as an mp3 file. I think I got the link from this forum. But I am ofcourse too lazy to try to look it up. If i recall correctly, Lemond based this on his performance when motor-pacing during the final build-up for the tour. So I guess he was able to go at the same speed longer than before, or something.

 

mottet, along with hampsten was probably my favorite rider of the late 80's. he was a classy rider, who couldnt keep up with the dopers over a period of 3 weeks, but always made the race interesting. the way he destroyed jean francois bernards chances for the gc in the 87 tour was genius. good example of tactical racing. that stage.....the one after mont ventoux, would have never played out so dramatically had they had radios like they do nowadays.

 

dss