Whats new with Ullrich?

[wicklow200]

I read Pevenage was invited to attend the conference by Jan.

He declined

Have I missed something here or was he just trying to keep the spotlight away. Wasn't he the man behind Jan. Has something happened between them? CH?

 

[jhuskey]

Jan is going to spend some time remodeling his Alp House that he aquired this post year for now.
When the team starts training he will be training with them. Every day is a new possibility.
Jan will be in form if something breaks of this I am confident.

 

[whiteboytrash]

Yes, with Rudy comments...

I regret his decision very much. But I must say I had seen it coming," Rudy Pevenage, Ullrich's former mentor and director sportif, noted to flandersnews.be. "Jan had already taken this decision months ago, but only announced it only today.
"It's the witch hunt in the media that made him decide to quit. He also lacked the motivation to work very hard for his sport. I can understand that, as his name was being tarnished time and again. Other riders that were named [in Operación Puerto] are back on their bicycles now. Jan isn't. I think that speaks for itself."

 

[bobke]

Well, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any current riders opining on Jan's retirement. All except Sevilla who said some hilarious ambiguous things like Jan was a scapegoat, and then, people should be respected whether they have done bad or good.

Sheeez, with friends like that....

Otherwise I would say the silence is deafening.
What does this mean?

 

[jhuskey]

I regret his decision very much. But I must say I had seen it coming," Rudy Pevenage, Ullrich's former mentor and director sportif, noted to flandersnews.be. "Jan had already taken this decision months ago, but only announced it only today.
"It's the witch hunt in the media that made him decide to quit. He also lacked the motivation to work very hard for his sport. I can understand that, as his name was being tarnished time and again. Other riders that were named [in Operación Puerto] are back on their bicycles now. Jan isn't. I think that speaks for itself."

Rudy is full of ****! Jan was excited and ready for another TDF just recently. I would like for him to have this discussion face to face with Jan.

 

[Flyer]

Rudy is full of ****! Jan was excited and ready for another TDF just recently. I would like for him to have this discussion face to face with Jan.

Sure you would.

Maybe you could review Jan's steroid dossier with him.

Ask him whether Tyler's postmenopause hormones HMG really keep his testes from turning off with all that daily dosing of testosterone?

Jan bailed now---because he knew he was defeated!

btw: That's how all of America media is already painting Jan---as a quiter, talented but without any work ethic. Unlike Lance Pharmstrong who is a Nike Pharma Champion and all round family man.

 

[Der Kranz]

Well, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any current riders opining on Jan's retirement. All except Sevilla who said some hilarious ambiguous things like Jan was a scapegoat, and then, people should be respected whether they have done bad or good.

Sheeez, with friends like that....

Otherwise I would say the silence is deafening.
What does this mean?

maybe it means those that have been able to return more or less (for now) unscathed, are just glad the attention's off of them. but i'm sure, eventually, guys like lance and basso, et al will speak up about the witch hunt, yeah? certainly LA, seeings how he knows what it's like to be unfairly hounded.

 

[whiteboytrash]

Well, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any current riders opining on Jan's retirement. All except Sevilla who said some hilarious ambiguous things like Jan was a scapegoat, and then, people should be respected whether they have done bad or good.

Sheeez, with friends like that....

Otherwise I would say the silence is deafening.
What does this mean?

Yep even musette has nothing to say !

 

[limerickman]

Bravo. You formed your own little court of personal opinion to decide there was no definitive proof against Ullrich, because you like him. You nod approvingly at other cyclists being banned for similarly unsubstantiated evidence and allegations, however, because you don't like them.

You are an example of what's wrong with the sport. People frothing at the mouth to get rid of the dopers, when their true aim is simply to use the spectre of doping to besmirch the reputations of certain cyclists.

Burdens of proof exist for a reason. Unfortunately, the powers that be have decided that suspicion equals guilt on an arbitrary basis. The sport is as full of ugly favoritism as this forum, which is why both are dying.

You're reply is perplexing to say the least.

The "evidence" against Ullrich from OP couldn't even be construed as being circumstantial.
The evidence amounted to a bag containing blood, with the label "JAN" on it,
and which was found in a Madrid lab.
Are you suggesting that this amounts to proof?

I do nod approvingly when riders, who have been clearly shown to have doped and who have lied repeatedly about their doping are exposed.
In those cases, the evidence presented is more compelling, more complete and is based upon samples provided by the accused rider and are tested accordingly.
In the JU case, no sample was provided by the accused rider.
No written documentation was provided linking the accused rider to the offence charged.

It should be noted that the trans-national authorised anti-doping authority, WADA, did not act in the JU case nor did WADA seek to investigate the OP case.
Nor did WADA seek to bring any action against JU.

 

[Flyer]

You're reply is perplexing to say the least.

The "evidence" against Ullrich from OP couldn't even be construed as being circumstantial.
The evidence amounted to a bag containing blood, with the label "JAN" on it,
and which was found in a Madrid lab.
Are you suggesting that this amounts to proof?

I do nod approvingly when riders, who have been clearly shown to have doped and who have lied repeatedly about their doping are exposed.
In those cases, the evidence presented is more compelling, more complete and is based upon samples provided by the accused rider and are tested accordingly.
In the JU case, no sample was provided by the accused rider.
No written documentation was provided linking the accused rider to the offence charged.

It should be noted that the trans-national authorised anti-doping authority, WADA, did not act in the JU case nor did WADA seek to investigate the OP case.
Nor did WADA seek to bring any action against JU.

Couple of points: Evidence of doping, lying and cheating against Ulrich appears damning indeed. Perhaps moreso than with Nike drug cheat, Lance Pharmstrong who NEVER quit or was fired from his employment.

1) Defending Jan Ulrich as a 'steroid-free' TDF Champion athlete is ludicrous. Much as it is to defend Nike drug cheats Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones, Justin Gatlin, Kelli White, Regina Jacobs, Michelle Collins, Tim Montgomery or Barry Bonds. They all dope at this level of compettion.

2) T-Mobile fired Jan Ulrich after reviewing his case. There action speaks louder than any wishing thinking about the popular German.

3) Germany refused to issue a race license to Ulrich, considers him a national embarassment and holds him in contempt.

4) Ulrich personally elected NOT to renew his resident host country Switzerland race license in an effort to evade doping investigation.

5) Ulrich is a longtime client of infamous blood and steroid doper quack Luigi Cecchini, as were Tyler Hamilton and teammate Bjarne Riis, Mr 60%.

6) The Jan Ulrich plasma bags were labeled 'Son of Rudy', implying Rudy Pevenage, Ulrich's longtime personal mentor.

7) WADA cannot take action againts any athlete---SPORT FEDERATIONS must. WADA has no money, no authority, no function other thsan to beat an anti-doping political drum.

WADA took no action against Lance, Tyler, Roberto, Benoit, Pavel, Manuel, Floyd, Johan Museeuw, Frank Vandenbouke, Ivan Basso nor Jan Ulrich

Inaction by WADA is hardly in an endorsement of a clean athlete.

Jan Ulrich is as clean as Lance Phamrstrong, but without a Chemo Cancer sales force, Nike shoes and an American marketing media campaign!

 

[IH8LANCE]

I do nod approvingly when riders, who have been clearly shown to have doped and who have lied repeatedly about their doping are exposed.
In those cases, the evidence presented is more compelling, more complete and is based upon samples provided by the accused rider and are tested accordingly.

Suspending riders based upon suspicion, without formal adjudication of guilt, is cart before the horse, and you demonstrate the danger of doing so in your post. You read some articles in the newspaper and suddenly you're the arbiter of truth? Do you know if the papers are printing all the relevant evidence? Do you know if your personal scales of justice are balanced in accordance with the burdens of proof involved in proving guilt in such cases? You think there's no possibility that the powers that have the power to suspend without proof would give more credence to investigating allegations about certain riders more zealously than others, and weigh the results differently if it pleased them to do so?

Every rider should be entitled to the privilege of requiring a finding of guilt through impartial tribunal before he is suspended or sanctioned. Otherwise you allow people with agendas to play favorites. That sort of thing is harmless in the context of this forum, where you and others can trash the reputations of cyclists that annoy you causing no harm except a waste of bandwidth. But the problem is that the powers that be have decided to apply the same knee-jerk, arbitrary philosophy in deciding the fates of men trying to earn a living. That's a shame, and it's part of the reason cycling has such a horrible reputation as among professional sports. Doping is occurring everywhere, but only professional cycling has cannibalized itself.

 

[limerickman]

Suspending riders based upon suspicion, without formal adjudication of guilt, is cart before the horse, and you demonstrate the danger of doing so in your post.

I agree - suspending riders without, at the very minimum, prima facia evidence, is horse before the cart as you put it.

But you need to read my direct reply to you earlier - the charge against JU from OP didn't even approach circumstantial evidence, let alone prima facia evidence.

You read some articles in the newspaper and suddenly you're the arbiter of truth? Do you know if the papers are printing all the relevant evidence? Do you know if your personal scales of justice are balanced in accordance with the burdens of proof involved in proving guilt in such cases? You think there's no possibility that the powers that have the power to suspend without proof would give more credence to investigating allegations about certain riders more zealously than others, and weigh the results differently if it pleased them to do so?

In the case of OP and JU, I agree with you entirely - the "evidence" isn't there.

Every rider should be entitled to the privilege of requiring a finding of guilt through impartial tribunal before he is suspended or sanctioned.

The rules are clear in terms of doping tests : if a rider is found to have a positive A sample - he/she is allowed a second chance by having the B sample tested in order to provide a chance of acquittal.

In the case of JU and OP - JU was not afforded this opportunity.

That sort of thing is harmless in the context of this forum, where you and others can trash the reputations of cyclists that annoy you causing no harm except a waste of bandwidth.

The rider destroys their own reputation by doping and by having their doping uncovered through the testing of A and B samples.

That's a shame, and it's part of the reason cycling has such a horrible reputation as among professional sports. Doping is occurring everywhere, but only professional cycling has cannibalized itself.

I disagree - if riders don't dope they wouldn't be found positive.
The sad fact is that riders do dope - they then fail two sample tests - and they then start putting out all kinds of conspiracy theories as to why the results are incorrect etc.

In the case of JU - JU wasn't even afforded the opportunity of having the minimum due process.
At least the other cases afforded the riders concerned the opportunity of having their samples tested and allowed them the recourse to the process of natural justice.
Ullrich wasn't even afforded that opportunity.

This is all tangential to the subject matter of the thread.

Suggest we get back on topic.

 

[Flyer]

Insofar as drug cheats and sporting fraud is concerned---COMPETENT LEGAL EVIDENCE is wholly irrelevant. Only the media image matters.

Doping tests are a wholesale joke. Most doping goes undetected. Insulin, hGH, EPO, testsoterone, IGF, blood transfusions are all ALLOWED by the Olympic Gold Standards---so called for deceptive PR reasons.

These drug addicts are invented by the media in order to 'market products and services'. No fact-checking about a warranty of good faith is ever performed on endorsed athletes. The sporting public accepts the media driven heroic news as the truth---without any validation whatsoever. Whatever ESPN, OLN, Phil Liggett or Eurosport David Duffield say---is the Gospel.

Paradoxically, when it becomes known that your favorite sporting athlete was a lemon, a fraud, a doping machine---the public decries foul. the system is broken, the lab is wrong, the dossiers are wrong, the leaks are wrong, the employers who fire the cheat are wrongful, the licensing boards are evil, etc.....

HOGWASH!

Both Lance Armstrong and Jan Ulrich are drug cheats. Armstrong NEVER quit, nor did his benefactors abandon him---hence he is deemed CLEAN/brave/noble, whilst Ulrich is now considered dirty/guilty/cowardly and running away.

That's how it will play over time. That is how Merkx became a clean rider after three drug busts.

Few will ever remember Jan Ulrich--while Nike will promote Pharmstrong into perpetuity.

The media marketing accounts will serve as the only relevant evidence.

 

[IH8LANCE]

Suggest we get back on topic.

By all means. Let's finish lamenting the sad end to the career of a sympathetic cyclist so we can get back to trashing the undesirables we don't like by saying "doper" and their names in the same sentence as often as possible.

 

[whiteboytrash]

All that is left is Fuentes to speak and tell us who was involved or not involved.... he did that for Contador.....

 

[jhuskey]

If you guys want to realize the truth, Jan's story is the basis story of big money controlling whatever it wants to control.
Guility or not he had no chance against the German media and the billions of dollars of T-Mobile.
Jan haters celebrate but this is a much bigger issue than one cyclist.
It is about the "Golden Rule",whoever has the gold makes the rules.
The real corruption is in the big business not in the sport.
Look deeper!
CH: The issue of sponsorship money behind sports and how it manipulates everyone could fill a full set of books.

Edit: Rant not over, just taking a break.

 

[Tim Lamkin]

Jan's story is the basis story of big money controlling whatever it wants to control.

Same as in politicks, it controls all.

 

[whiteboytrash]

If you guys want to realize the truth, Jan's story is the basis story of big money controlling whatever it wants to control.
Guility or not he had no chance against the German media and the billions of dollars of T-Mobile.
Jan haters celebrate but this is a much bigger issue than one cyclist.
It is about the "Golden Rule",whoever has the gold makes the rules.
The real corruption is in the big business not in the sport.
Look deeper!
CH: The issue of sponsorship money behind sports and how it manipulates everyone could fill a full set of books.

Edit: Rant not over, just taking a break.

Don't forget that West Germans hate East Germans making money..... most still think the wall is there and they can tell an East German by looking at their shoes.... true....

 

[Tim Lamkin]

Don't forget that West Germans hate East Germans making money..... most still think the wall is there and they can tell an East German by looking at their shoes.... true....

Sad ...I thought both sides had gotten past this, will they ever get past it? Or how many generations will it take?

 

[alibat]

Sad ...I thought both sides had gotten past this, will they ever get past it? Or how many generations will it take?

I've often suspected that anti East German prejudice has had some part to play in all this.