Ullrich announces he will take DNA test to prove innocence....



There has been another post on Ullrich's website. Interestingly, it is written entirely in the third person. In it Jan's fans are thanked for the many expressions of support that have been sent to him (over 2000 e-mails). It then goes on to indicate that he still has yet to be informed what he is being accused of. Given the state of affairs Ullrich has been advised by his lawyers not to make any statements, written or oral, on the topic. It is finally indicated that with a heavy heart Jan is following this advice.



http://www.janullrich.de/index.php?id=17&dat_id=11786
 
bobke said:
Yes, but if you are Rudy Pevange, already on thin ice with T-Mob, why do you call Fuentes? Why do you lie when they ask you (other than you'll be fired if you say yes) other than to cover up something?
I am at lots of Belgian races so i have a Belgian mobile phonecard which i bought there (to cut my expenses when i am in belgium). It's not registrated on my name although i have a Belgian number. I just went in the shop, bought the card and that's it. i know lots of people in the cycling scene with a Belgian phonecard which isn't registered.
 
cyclingheroes said:
I am at lots of Belgian races so i have a Belgian mobile phonecard which i bought there (to cut my expenses when i am in belgium). It's not registrated on my name although i have a Belgian number. I just went in the shop, bought the card and that's it. i know lots of people in the cycling scene with a Belgian phonecard which isn't registered.
I think I may have missed your point.
It was YOU who called Fuentes and not Pevanage!!!!
:D

like really, where are you going with this?
 
Huh ? Pound has had lots to say... http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2238

wolfix said:
What I am thinking is that WADA sure has been quiet. This is the golden egg for **** Pound. I'm thinking he gave blood samples of the riders to the Spanish civil authorities. Would WADA have samples? I would think they would.
Even though many of you claim it is against the law, that would not stop **** Pound. I'm not sure that the riders may have had to sign something allowing their blood to be tested at anytime in a investigation involving cycling.

The evidence released is not enough to stand up in court, but it is not hard to connect the dots. But the UCI seems to be so confident in their assessment.

And where the hell is WADA?
 
whiteboytrash said:
UCI to **** Pound:

(same article as WBT)\

In relation to Mr Pound, I would like to remind him of the following. On April 12 of this year you, along with thee of your collaborators, spent a full day in our offices to view presentations on all UCI anti-doping efforts, after many misleading statements you had made on cycling and the UCI in recent years. As a result, you had to come back on virtually all of the statements and had to write an open letter to the Guardian newspaper in London retracting elements of an interview you gave them.

Again Mr Pound why is it that the practises in Spain can go on under the radar of WADA without detection? Why not have made included in the World Anti-Doping Code and in national legislations effective mechanisms of mutual assistance between sporting authorities and judicial authorities? It is well known from various court cases that some forms of doping can be detected with police methods only. I think you and Mr Lamour would be far better served trying to assist the sports authorities instead of taking cheap shots geared towards shaping your own popularity.

I also find it extremely interesting that these negative comments should come from two people who have recently been charged with breaking ethical rules and a serious breach of the WADA Code by an independent investigator, both of whom refused to cooperate with that investigator. Comments from such persons should be more considered, more supportive and not made for political gain.
Yours sincerely,
Pat McQuaid
UCI President
 
bauerfan said:
There has been another post on Ullrich's website. Interestingly, it is written entirely in the third person. In it Jan's fans are thanked for the many expressions of support that have been sent to him (over 2000 e-mails). It then goes on to indicate that he still has yet to be informed what he is being accused of. Given the state of affairs Ullrich has been advised by his lawyers not to make any statements, written or oral, on the topic. It is finally indicated that with a heavy heart Jan is following this advice.



http://www.janullrich.de/index.php?id=17&dat_id=11786
Bad sign.
Ullrich has "lawyered up and shut up."
Very bad sign indeed.
 
micron said:
The UCI aren't concerned about rooting out the problem of doping, they're only concerned about protecting their own backs cf the laughable Vrijman report and making it seem as if the Festina scandal and Operation Puerto are isolated incidents and that this handful of riders are the bad apples and the rest of the peloton is clean - laughable and pathetic. And, once this is over, they'll stick their collective heads back up their collective butts until the next scandal breaks - with another opportunity to finally clean up the sport well and truly missed.

And all those riders who choose to prepare with other doctors - like the ones getting their Ferrari tune ups - must be laughing their socks off.

The thought that we, the fans, are supposed to buy that whoever wins this Tour is somehow 'clean' makes me sick

Micron - agreed.

The UCI's burying it's collective head.

If Puerto is a scandal (which it is), the UCI should act one way or the other.
As of now the UCI is ignoring the issue and palying pass the parcel back to the national federations concerned.
What can the national federations do - in the absence of conclusive proof?

This situation is very very frustrating for genuine fans.

I haven't tuned in to the TDF : I've lost interest in the race to be honest with you.
 
bobke said:
UCI to **** Pound:

(same article as WBT)\

In relation to Mr Pound, I would like to remind him of the following. On April 12 of this year you, along with thee of your collaborators, spent a full day in our offices to view presentations on all UCI anti-doping efforts, after many misleading statements you had made on cycling and the UCI in recent years. As a result, you had to come back on virtually all of the statements and had to write an open letter to the Guardian newspaper in London retracting elements of an interview you gave them.

Again Mr Pound why is it that the practises in Spain can go on under the radar of WADA without detection? Why not have made included in the World Anti-Doping Code and in national legislations effective mechanisms of mutual assistance between sporting authorities and judicial authorities? It is well known from various court cases that some forms of doping can be detected with police methods only. I think you and Mr Lamour would be far better served trying to assist the sports authorities instead of taking cheap shots geared towards shaping your own popularity.

I also find it extremely interesting that these negative comments should come from two people who have recently been charged with breaking ethical rules and a serious breach of the WADA Code by an independent investigator, both of whom refused to cooperate with that investigator. Comments from such persons should be more considered, more supportive and not made for political gain.
Yours sincerely,
Pat McQuaid
UCI President


.........and Pat, this exactly the problem, a chara.

Here's Pat having a go at WADA : I said it before and I re-iterate what I said at the time when pat was appointed : NOTHING WILL CHANGE AT THE UCI.

Pat's open letter illustrates clearly the power play that is going in the sport.
UCI resent WADA "interference".

I know Pat well (he coached me for 5 years).
I am not suprised that he's reciting the UCI 1998-2005 mantra.
He's Verbruggen's stooge.

I've got Pat on tape saying that there's no doping problem in the sport of cycling.
He said it at the Irish Federation AGM two years ago.
 
This is what concerns me.... Ullrich and Basso will be in limbo for weeks... the UCI won't sanction them so it will be up to there teams to reinstate them and let them ride the Vuelta and/or the D-Tour..... nothing will happen to them.... if the UCI did nothing with Armstrong then there is no way they can do anything with Ullrich and Basso on the strength of a text message from an unregistered Flemish mobile phone and dog's name on bit of paper....

limerickman said:
.........and Pat, this exactly the problem, a chara.

Here's Pat having a go at WADA : I said it before and I re-iterate what I said at the time when pat was appointed : NOTHING WILL CHANGE AT THE UCI.

Pat's open letter illustrates clearly the power play that is going in the sport.
UCI resent WADA "interference".

I know Pat well (he coached me for 5 years).
I am not suprised that he's reciting the UCI 1998-2005 mantra.
He's Verbruggen's stooge.

I've got Pat on tape saying that there's no doping problem in the sport of cycling.
He said it at the Irish Federation AGM two years ago.
 
whiteboytrash said:
if the UCI did nothing with Armstrong then there is no way they can do anything with Ullrich and Basso on the strength of a text message from an unregistered Flemish mobile phone and dog's name on bit of paper....
....then again....

In one significant development in the scandal which saw Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich kicked out of the Tour de France last Friday, La Gazzetta dello Sport has shed further light on Basso's alleged links with Eufemiano Fuentes.

According to the Italian newspaper, a flurry of telephone calls between Fuentes and Comunitat Valenciana directeur sportif José Ignacio Labarta during the recent Giro d'Italia appear to contradict Basso's claim that he is not among the Spanish doctor's clients.

In one conversation between Fuentes and Labarta, taped on the evening of May 14 - just hours after Basso's stage victory on the Passo Lanciano - Fuentes adopts a mischevous tone to tell his friend that "A strange rider won: Basso, Ivan Basso." Labarta replies knowingly: "A certain Ivan Basso".

According to La Gazzetta, Labarta later seems to be complementing Fuentes as he observes that Basso and another alleged client, José Enrique Gutierrez, occupy first and second place on general classification. Labarta: "Good, my boy, a certain Basso and a certain Guti are first and second." Fuentes: "My goodness". And, finally, Labarta: "You have first and second".

La Gazzetta quotes further telephone transcripts from the Giro in which investigators believe Basso is identified by the codename Birillo (also the name of the CSC rider's dog). The same presumed pseudonym appears on another handwritten note taken from Fuentes and referring to testosterone patches, blood plasma, the female hormone treatment gonadotropine, and also the code for a Swiss bank account.
 
whiteboytrash said:
This is what concerns me.... Ullrich and Basso will be in limbo for weeks... the UCI won't sanction them so it will be up to there teams to reinstate them and let them ride the Vuelta and/or the D-Tour..... nothing will happen to them.... if the UCI did nothing with Armstrong then there is no way they can do anything with Ullrich and Basso on the strength of a text message from an unregistered Flemish mobile phone and dog's name on bit of paper....


......................but the UCI won't reinstate them either and this is the problem.

Either these guys cheated or they didn't cheat.

The UCI is sitting on the fence (as always) but they refuse to help either the civcil authorities in their doping investigation OR WADA.
The UCI push it back on the national federations to take action.
Why can the UCI take action? If the proof is conclusive why can't the UCI take decisive action?
I suspect that they don't want to - and if they did in this case, Ullrich/Basso and the rest of them would cite the UCI's stance (or lack of stance) in other cases where doping was proven but where the UCI turned a blind eye between 1998-2005.

I will continue to say it - what is the purpose of the UCI?
They do nothing.

I have had my fill of them.
 
limerickman said:
......................but the UCI won't reinstate them either and this is the problem.

Either these guys cheated or they didn't cheat.

The UCI is sitting on the fence (as always) but they refuse to help either the civcil authorities in their doping investigation OR WADA.
The UCI push it back on the national federations to take action.
Why can the UCI take action? If the proof is conclusive why can't the UCI take decisive action?
I suspect that they don't want to - and if they did in this case, Ullrich/Basso and the rest of them would cite the UCI's stance (or lack of stance) in other cases where doping was proven but where the UCI turned a blind eye between 1998-2005.

I will continue to say it - what is the purpose of the UCI?
They do nothing.

I have had my fill of them.


An unnamed friend said "he just had enough, what after Armstrong doped through 7 Tours de France without being caught. When his hero Jan Ullrich was busted, well, it just took the sap out of him. Plus, he coulnd't stand the thought of facing the many Armstrong fans on cyclingforums.com"

Further follow up with our correspondent at News at 10... :)
 
whiteboytrash said:
....then again....

also the code for a Swiss bank account.

And now we have the Swiss banking authorities involved? Always blame the Swiss. The Swiss did that, the Swiss did this, the Swiss are always the scrapegoats....... So do we have to deal with 7 years of blaming the Swiss?
 
bobke said:
I think I may have missed your point.
It was YOU who called Fuentes and not Pevanage!!!!
:D

like really, where are you going with this?
I just wanted to explain how easy it is to get a Belgian phonenumber (in Germany it's not possible you even have to register with ID for a prepaid mobile phone number) and if the Guardia Civil don't know it's Pevenage who called Fuentes (and/or send messages) it could have been anybody.

I didn't call Fuentes, i lost his number after i stopped racing:D
 
limerickman said:
......................but the UCI won't reinstate them either and this is the problem.

Either these guys cheated or they didn't cheat.

The UCI is sitting on the fence (as always) but they refuse to help either the civcil authorities in their doping investigation OR WADA.
The UCI push it back on the national federations to take action.
Why can the UCI take action? If the proof is conclusive why can't the UCI take decisive action?
I suspect that they don't want to - and if they did in this case, Ullrich/Basso and the rest of them would cite the UCI's stance (or lack of stance) in other cases where doping was proven but where the UCI turned a blind eye between 1998-2005.

I will continue to say it - what is the purpose of the UCI?
They do nothing.

I have had my fill of them.
The ARD (German TV) broadcasted a feature about a report made by the UCI. It says that they investigated the blood of lots of riders and between 2001 and 2004 there are strong indications that lots of riders took blood doping. 40 times more in 2004 as in 2001. They saw it because with blood doping the body makes less red blood cells (is it called that way in English?). The anti-doping labatory complains that although the UCI knows this (it's their own study) the labatory still mostly examin urin nad not blood. The NADA and UCI didn't ask for more blood tests.

http://tour.ard.de/tdf/aktuell/kw27/blutdoping.htm (at the right side you can click to see interviews with doping experts about the study).
 
Well El Pais have finally picked up the story and according to Fuentes there are still riders in the Tour who he has treated !

“They have left names that not even I know and others to which I have still treated are in the Tour”.

http://www.elpais.es/articulo/deportes/Fuentes/indigna/filtracion/selectiva/elppordep/20060705elpepidep_23/Tes/

Go ahead McQuiad, make my day ! :p

cyclingheroes said:
The ARD (German TV) broadcasted a feature about a report made by the UCI. It says that they investigated the blood of lots of riders and between 2001 and 2004 there are strong indications that lots of riders took blood doping. 40 times more in 2004 as in 2001. They saw it because with blood doping the body makes less red blood cells (is it called that way in English?). The anti-doping labatory complains that although the UCI knows this (it's their own study) the labatory still mostly examin urin nad not blood. The NADA and UCI didn't ask for more blood tests.

http://tour.ard.de/tdf/aktuell/kw27/blutdoping.htm (at the right side you can click to see interviews with doping experts about the study).
 
cyclingheroes said:
The ARD (German TV) broadcasted a feature about a report made by the UCI. It says that they investigated the blood of lots of riders and between 2001 and 2004 there are strong indications that lots of riders took blood doping. 40 times more in 2004 as in 2001. They saw it because with blood doping the body makes less red blood cells (is it called that way in English?). The anti-doping labatory complains that although the UCI knows this (it's their own study) the labatory still mostly examin urin nad not blood. The NADA and UCI didn't ask for more blood tests.

http://tour.ard.de/tdf/aktuell/kw27/blutdoping.htm (at the right side you can click to see interviews with doping experts about the study).

Blood doping - if you want to dope - is practically undetectable.

Unlike EPO, there is no synthetic element to blood doping, it can be done and is safe (when using ones own blood).