Lefevere : "1997 had the last clean TDF winner"
- Thread starter limerickman
- Start date
...one final point about this article is that Delgado was 7 minutes behind after the TTT on stage 3 and it took him 18 stages to claw his way back to within 2 minutes of Fignon and LeMond. Now think Landis clawed back 8 mintutes in one stage.... come on !!!!! ?????? Drug user.DiabloScott said:
I was comparing a tri to a time trialer, not just any type of event.. I am willing to bet that the world class tri-athlete has the physical conditioning to challenge 95% of the profession riders in the time trial event only.Bro Deal said:
I am willing to bet that several world class tri's could beat Savoldelli and others in a long time trial with equipment being equal. [And focusing a few months on the cycling part only. ]
Now do I think all tri's could compete with Savoldelli in the mountains? I doubt it. Could they sprint against Cipo without specific training? Not in a million years.
But the issue here was Lance. He was a gifted athlete before he ever took up the cycling as a single sport. We know know JU was probably doped the past several TDF's. Let's also assume that Lance was doped. I think the time Armstrong passed JU on the course is all that is needed to be said. So ..... Why is it that if the riders were all clean Armstrong would not have been in the top group of riders?
Wolf : you're talking rubbish here.
In fact several top tri-athletes attempted to turn professional - and no one managed to make a career as a top cyclist.
Being a good triathlete doesn't mean that one will be a good cyclist.
Actually Udo Bolts (TM pro) destroyed the field in the Iron Man competition in 1997.
He said that although the IronMan was a tough competition (because he was a relatively poor swimmer) - he said a first cat professional would wipe the floor with the cyclists in the IronMan competition.
Wolf - the systematic doping that went on at USPS/DC has been uncovered documented and proven.
Armstrong doped.
So let's not assume anything - we know that he doped.
Thats how his results improved 1999-2005, compared to 1992-1996.
In the case of JU - the jury is still out as to whether he may have doped or not.
wolfix said:
In fact several top tri-athletes attempted to turn professional - and no one managed to make a career as a top cyclist.
Being a good triathlete doesn't mean that one will be a good cyclist.
wolfix said:
Actually Udo Bolts (TM pro) destroyed the field in the Iron Man competition in 1997.
He said that although the IronMan was a tough competition (because he was a relatively poor swimmer) - he said a first cat professional would wipe the floor with the cyclists in the IronMan competition.
wolfix said:
Wolf - the systematic doping that went on at USPS/DC has been uncovered documented and proven.
Armstrong doped.
So let's not assume anything - we know that he doped.
Thats how his results improved 1999-2005, compared to 1992-1996.
In the case of JU - the jury is still out as to whether he may have doped or not.
I am referring to a tri making it as a time trialer only cyclist. Not a one day rider or a grand tour rider. Simply solo on the bike against the clock. ...I am suggesting that a world claas triathlete is as in good a condition as any cyclist. Maybe in better overall condition.limerickman said:
I bet there are tri's with a years training specifically on the bike that could break in the top 10 at the UCI World's time trial event. They have the physical capabilities to do so, just not the specific training.
JU has too been tried. T-Mobile tried him and dumped him. Mc Quaid tried him and is in the process of eliminating him from cycling. And these people have the inside story. There is no one on the horizon looking in Jan's way for a rider. I see no one defending him. The Swiss are allowing him to apply, but not because they think he is innocent. They are doing it because of paperwork that has not been placed correctly.
{However in JU's defense I think he is getting the raw treatment. They are coming down on him harder then other riders.}
To think he is not guilty is reaching. He is not co-operating to prove his innocence and there are so many things that point his way. Including his name on a bag. Anyone that suggests that it another #1 Jan is really reaching. Total lack of EPO..... With a refrence to powder on a bag with Jan on it.
But the issue here is this........ Bro Deal said Armstrong could not compete if all the riders were clean.....
And I am saying is that he was world class in a very difficult sport at a very early age. He showed promise as a world class heart and lung athlete.
So Bro Deal..... Explain to me why LA who was the 7x TDF winner in a totally doped riding group isn't any good??? Winning one TDF might be a fluke as this year shows, but not 7 in a row.
And then saying you are right about the first years of LA not being on the product..... he still won races. Big races at a very early age. So he showed great potential as a rider. He wore the rainbow jersey.......
So bro...... Why is LA not a rider who could compete on a level playing field??????
And Bro Deal...... You rant on about everyone doping. Why do you follow the sport? You had to know what was going on shortly after becoming interested in the sport. I knew the sport was dirty back when I was in high school in the 70's. And I was an American fan... Even in the low level races I competed in, I took it for granted there was dope in the group. I knew there was dope in the group. But I just figured it was the way it was.
But this is not to say the sport does not to be cleaned up. That would be great. Totally unrealistic with the way cycling is organized, but wishful thinking. But this total witchhunt that is going on right now by those holier then thou individuals is damaging the sport. Say what you want about LA but he opened a huge market for world wide cycling. Far more then any other rider. The public hanging of JU and others have set back what LA did for the sport.
wolfix said:
Wolf : Ullrich was fired by TMO because TMO were given a document by the UCI which was supplied by the Spanish police - which appeared to show that JU had communicated with Fuentes. The evidence that shows that there was communication broke the TMO rule which required riders to sign a document stating that they had no communication with Fuentes.
At the time of writing - this is the extent of the evidence against JU.
Ullrich maintains that he never had any communication with Fuentes.
There is no other evidence - at the time of writing - that Ullrich doped.
McQuaid can make as much noise as he likes - but he (McQuaid) knows that that level of evidence is insufficient to contest JU re-entering the sport.
Unless McQuaid or the UCI or the Swiss turn up something more substantive,
then it is likely that JU will be successful in reapplying for his licence.
wolfix said:
Wolf : a bag is found with the name Wolf on it, in a lab.
I decide that "wolf" is "wolfix" and I ban you.
Do you really think that this amounts to a charge that can standup to scrutiny?
Do you really think that this amounts to a evidence that can standup to scrutiny?
Unless there is something else - a positive sample of some kind - then all we have (a bag with the name Jan on it) doesn't even qualify as circumstantial evidence.
wolfix said:
I agree somewhat with you Wolf.
To try to have a clean sport should be the objective.
Wishful thinking ? Perhaps it is wishful thinking.
But spare us the lauding of LA and opening the sport up.
In Europe, LA's name barely registers and if it does it registers as a doper.
He's Flo-Jo.
American cycling's reputation has nosedived since the days of LeMond and Hampsten, unfortunately.
As I said earlier, we're still at Festina 1998.
Behind the curtain: T-Mobile paid Ullrich a huge pay off because they couldn't even proof that Jan Ullrich had contact with Fuentes
cyclingheroes said:
Thanks for letting us know this CH.
That doesn't surprise me, CH - TM paying JU.
The fact of the matter is that under EU employment law, JU could have sued TM for unfair dismissal, given the paucity of the TM case based on the OP documentation in firing JU.
Under EU employment law, an employer has to have an iron clad case to dismiss an employee without remedy.
TM had to settle and pay Ullrich, if he had sued TM they would have to take him back to the team (German law) and the whole pr strategy in the German media would have fallen apart (by the way i don't think Ullrich would have wanted too start for TM again, but that's another story..)limerickman said:
I think the swiss federation are doing the right thing: applying the law without bias. If there is not enough evidence to take him down then you can't take him down even if he is doping. Otherwise the system looses its integrity (much like it does when the correct procedures aren't followed in the labs). But it seems the UCI want to make an example out of him. By all means send him to CAS, but if the Swiss federation find nothing to convict him, neither will CAS. It will just drag the process out.
Eldrack said:
I agree Eld.
The Swiss Federation are in an invidious position.
They know that the evidence is not complete enough to disbar JU from getting a licence.
The UCI wanted the Swiss to try to do their work for them.
If JU applies to the Swiss Federation, they won't refuse him his licence.
This then puts the UCI in the frame.
Will the UCI appeal to CAS to try to deny JU a licence?
I think they would be crazy to do so - the evidence of Puerto is not compelling enough to disbar JU.
CAS would throw out the case.
Unless there is evidence which the UCI has and which is compelling enough to stop JU from getting a licence - JU can, if he chooses, to apply for and receive a licence for 2007.
...I think thats the idea. Do what they did to Pantani.... eventually Ullrich will break and hang up his cleats....Eldrack said:
Strohband (manager Jan Ullrich) told reporters of German daily newspaper "Tagesspiegel" they would apply for a 2007 license and that Jan will race again next year. So but now i am really off... Have to drive to France now (Paris-Tours).
limerickman said:
whiteboytrash said:
The UCI wants a cleaner image. They feel they need to be more aggressive in penalties. It is always the individual cyclists who will be sanctioned, but there is a whole system and economy behind them, that still thrives unabated. Pantani was not so much chastised or abandoned by the UCI as by the Italian system. In fact, I remember the UCI defending him against the Italian media when he bore the brunt of criticism after high hematocrit levels were found for a couple of Italian olympic cyclists. Pantani was not one of them, but that didn't matter, he had been marked for destruction from the time he claimed himself a victim of a setup in 1999 giro.
You have a very good point here meehs. LOL. But also bear in mind that truth is always truth. Recognizing truth in the world, there is the challenge. It is true that I will always defend the one who has had and continues to have very little defence of his name. Is what I write true, mostly true, or completely false? I believe it to be truth. I believe that his story is one of the great injustices in the history of sport. I believe that "sport" as we once knew it, no longer exists at the highest levels. It has been morphed by capitalism into an means to an end (profit).meehs said:Yes and I would expect a forum member that goes by the name ilpirata to offer a completely unbiased opinion with regard to Pantani and doping.
The more time passes sounds the like the effect of Operation Puerto has. Look what has happened, Botero has bleen cleared. Most of the Spanish connections have been cleared. Basso looks like will have his case dropped, the Swiss aren't going after Jan.limerickman said:
Looks like the biggest ripple at the moment OP has done is havethe country of Kazakhstan getting into sponsoring cycling due to the dismantling of Liberty-Wurth. It sounds sinsiter, but something that had the appearance of being something big, has turned otu to be more of an annoyance for many riders. I know this is not entirely true, but this how it seems to have been unraveling at the moment.
Again I will call ********. If someone could compete in a 180k time trial with pro cyclists then he should be able to be competitive in flattish one day races. Even as a pure time trialist Millar has done very well for himself financially as a time trialling specialist. The bottom fell out of triathlon in the mid nineties; the money is much better in cycling.wolfix said:
Next month Tyler Hamilton is doing the 112 mile cycling leg of the Silverman triathlon. I think he will be motivated to show that he still has it. I think he will crush the field--assuming he does not crash, which is always a possibility with Hamilton.
Before EPO became endemic Arsmtrong never showed any ability to time trail or climb any where close to the top of the sport. Contrast that with riders like Lemond and Fignon.wolfix said:
Similar threads
