Jan Ullrich

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 7, 2011
4,148
0
0
webvan said:
Nah, he was 50 seconds down and after gaining 5 seconds in 5k it stayed level. On the other hand attacking earlier in the pyrenees might have helped, oh well...still the best tour ever for me with 1986 and 1989.

Is that a recent pic? Hope he's not sick.
Yepp it's from the bike show in Shanghai this May
He's not sick, he's on his bike again:D

 
Jul 28, 2009
251
0
0
webvan said:
Nah, he was 50 seconds down and after gaining 5 seconds in 5k it stayed level. On the other hand attacking earlier in the pyrenees might have helped, oh well...still the best tour ever for me with 1986 and 1989.
I agree about him not doing enough in the TT before he fell to win it anyway.
As for attacking earlier: According to pevenage he was sick at the start of the tour, which probably cost him the tdf (i think he had a very weak prologue, not sure though).
 
Apr 7, 2011
4,148
0
0
Roninho said:
I agree about him not doing enough in the TT before he fell to win it anyway.
As for attacking earlier: According to pevenage he was sick at the start of the tour, which probably cost him the tdf (i think he had a very weak prologue, not sure though).
He had agood prologue.
He got sick after the team time trial. He good 39°C feever. That's why he was so weak in Alpe.
 
Jul 28, 2009
251
0
0
Ah ok, was it the next year that he lost so much time at the prologue? (i'm getting old, it feels like yesterday but it's allready a decade...)
 
Mar 10, 2009
2,164
0
0
Roninho said:
Ah ok, was it the next year that he lost so much time at the prologue? (i'm getting old, it feels like yesterday but it's allready a decade...)
It was 2005. He caught a case of crashing-through-the-back-window-of-the-team-car-at-30km/h the day before the Tour started.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Neworld said:
I cannot entirely disagree with you. BUT, "being generally considered one of the good guys" he probably wouldn't have created a legion of people in and out of the sport that dislike, or even loathe, him. He probably wouldn't have a created a Jan Ullrich Foundation for Sons without Fathers making him millions....you can fill in the rest I'm sure. Clearly he wouldn't have bullied riders, journalists, WADA, the nation of France...

The opposite about Lance is true and that is why so many various people and groups are pursuing him full throttle. Live by the sword...

Ullrich deserved much much more. Hopefully now he can retire in peace and watch LA suffer climbing up his own personal mountain without the help of his borg.

NW
Oh all I was saying is, who knows what would've happened? Maybe Jan would've won 8 Tours and never once been linked to doping, maybe he would've gotten busted and retired in disgrace. I just think he dodged a bullet (for the most part) and that he's probably very relieved that things worked out the way they did, especially now, watching the Armstrong saga unfold.
 
Jan 27, 2010
796
0
0
VeloCity said:
Oh all I was saying is, who knows what would've happened? Maybe Jan would've won 8 Tours and never once been linked to doping, maybe he would've gotten busted and retired in disgrace. I just think he dodged a bullet (for the most part) and that he's probably very relieved that things worked out the way they did, especially now, watching the Armstrong saga unfold.


True.

If I take a step back, overall its pretty silly that I am even trying to pick one doper over another but...

For me breaking the 'cycle' of doping in the UCI, within managers/DSs and coaches, and attitudes amoungst riders (even for exdopers) is what makes me read and post on this site.

I like the notion that Jan was an amazing cyclist and a nice guy. In a world without doping its my impression that Jan would have raced hard without wanting to dope. Maybe I'm wrong.

NW
 
Oct 30, 2010
140
0
0
Did Jan really dodge a bullet? I'm not sure.

1999 was the year of the Tour of Redemption and all that guff. If we hadn't have had USPS, we may never have seen the level of 'professionalism' in dopage practices. Who were Ullrich's rivals - Pantani? Well that bloke was already as mad as cat's p*ss and banned too if I remember correctly (?) - so we hadn't seen the kind of systematic programme USPS initiated, everybody else was a bit odds-and-sods.

Ullrich, the big dog at that time, wasn't comfortable with doping. There's a chance (slimmer than paper, mind) there could have been real change within the sport. Maybe I've got the rosy specs on.

Just think, Lance could have come back, maybe got top 5 or a podium while clean, and now have a proud legacy. Not as a winner, cause Jan was better than him in every dept, but his cancer comeback could have been a truly great one.

Lance didn't actually need to win to be a winner. But the dozy get never had the self-awareness to realise that.

Jan may have dodged a bullet. But he'd never have done the things that Lance has done to lower what is acceptable for humans to get away with. There's a marked difference in the men.
 
Jul 28, 2009
251
0
0
Markyboyzx6r said:
Did Jan really dodge a bullet? I'm not sure.

1999 was the year of the Tour of Redemption and all that guff. If we hadn't have had USPS, we may never have seen the level of 'professionalism' in dopage practices. Who were Ullrich's rivals - Pantani? Well that bloke was already as mad as cat's p*ss and banned too if I remember correctly (?) - so we hadn't seen the kind of systematic programme USPS initiated, everybody else was a bit odds-and-sods.

Ullrich, the big dog at that time, wasn't comfortable with doping. There's a chance (slimmer than paper, mind) there could have been real change within the sport. Maybe I've got the rosy specs on.

Just think, Lance could have come back, maybe got top 5 or a podium while clean, and now have a proud legacy. Not as a winner, cause Jan was better than him in every dept, but his cancer comeback could have been a truly great one.

Lance didn't actually need to win to be a winner. But the dozy get never had the self-awareness to realise that.

Jan may have dodged a bullet. But he'd never have done the things that Lance has done to lower what is acceptable for humans to get away with. There's a marked difference in the men.
I understand what you are saying, but in the end imo someone else would have taken the step if armstrong hadn't (if there weren't allready other guys doing it). To much to win and dope that made to much of an impact without being detectable.
 
Oct 30, 2010
140
0
0
Roninho said:
I understand what you are saying, but in the end imo someone else would have taken the step if armstrong hadn't (if there weren't allready other guys doing it). To much to win and dope that made to much of an impact without being detectable.
I'm afraid I'll have to concede, and agree with you. There was no test for EPO in '99. The prize of the maillot jaune was still there. Someone else would probably have stepped into the haemological void if Armstrong hadn't been there.
 
Dec 13, 2010
169
0
0
Markyboyzx6r said:
Did Jan really dodge a bullet? I'm not sure.

1999 was the year of the Tour of Redemption and all that guff. If we hadn't have had USPS, we may never have seen the level of 'professionalism' in dopage practices. Who were Ullrich's rivals - Pantani? Well that bloke was already as mad as cat's p*ss and banned too if I remember correctly (?) - so we hadn't seen the kind of systematic programme USPS initiated, everybody else was a bit odds-and-sods.

Ullrich, the big dog at that time, wasn't comfortable with doping. There's a chance (slimmer than paper, mind) there could have been real change within the sport. Maybe I've got the rosy specs on.

Just think, Lance could have come back, maybe got top 5 or a podium while clean, and now have a proud legacy. Not as a winner, cause Jan was better than him in every dept, but his cancer comeback could have been a truly great one.

Lance didn't actually need to win to be a winner. But the dozy get never had the self-awareness to realise that.

Jan may have dodged a bullet. But he'd never have done the things that Lance has done to lower what is acceptable for humans to get away with. There's a marked difference in the men.
Lance wouldn't have even made top 20 without doping. Even he knows that. Not in that era.
 
Jul 7, 2009
562
0
0
Markyboyzx6r said:
Did Jan really dodge a bullet? I'm not sure.

1999 was the year of the Tour of Redemption and all that guff. If we hadn't have had USPS, we may never have seen the level of 'professionalism' in dopage practices. Who were Ullrich's rivals - Pantani? Well that bloke was already as mad as cat's p*ss and banned too if I remember correctly (?) - so we hadn't seen the kind of systematic programme USPS initiated, everybody else was a bit odds-and-sods.

Ullrich, the big dog at that time, wasn't comfortable with doping. There's a chance (slimmer than paper, mind) there could have been real change within the sport. Maybe I've got the rosy specs on.

Just think, Lance could have come back, maybe got top 5 or a podium while clean, and now have a proud legacy. Not as a winner, cause Jan was better than him in every dept, but his cancer comeback could have been a truly great one.

Lance didn't actually need to win to be a winner. But the dozy get never had the self-awareness to realise that.

Jan may have dodged a bullet. But he'd never have done the things that Lance has done to lower what is acceptable for humans to get away with. There's a marked difference in the men.
Lance was going for the big brass ring. I will focus on the only bike race the majority of Americains ever heard of. I will be the only cyclist to win it more than 5 times. I must crush any and all comers by any means necessary. It's just the way I do things.
 
Cervelo77 said:
Is it July? I could have sworn it was still May with 5 training weeks until TDF. Stupid me. Despite Phil and Paul's commentary, Schleck is at ATOC for training and nothing more. Most of the Euros are.

But nice try.
It wasn't just Phil and Paul's commentary. Andy was hyping himself up by saying he was in much better form at ToC this year than last year and would give it a go on the mountainous stages. Of course that didn't exactly work out too well.
 
Roninho said:
I understand what you are saying, but in the end imo someone else would have taken the step if armstrong hadn't (if there weren't allready other guys doing it). To much to win and dope that made to much of an impact without being detectable.
Armstrong's story was the perfect horse for cycling to ride in its hopes of redeeming itself with the sporting public. Armstrong/Bruyneel/UCI took it and ran with it for 7 years with the only bump in the road among the contenders at the Tour being Rumsas's wife getting busted with a car load of PED's. They didn't want to catch anyone doping, which is why no one ever tested positive in that entire period something that Armstrong is quite proud of and will not hesitate to remind the world. Part of his spiel upon his return to the sport was that he needed to comeback to "rescue the sport".
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
Markyboyzx6r said:
Did Jan really dodge a bullet? I'm not sure.

1999 was the year of the Tour of Redemption and all that guff. If we hadn't have had USPS, we may never have seen the level of 'professionalism' in dopage practices. Who were Ullrich's rivals - Pantani? Well that bloke was already as mad as cat's p*ss and banned too if I remember correctly (?) - so we hadn't seen the kind of systematic programme USPS initiated, everybody else was a bit odds-and-sods.

Ullrich, the big dog at that time, wasn't comfortable with doping. There's a chance (slimmer than paper, mind) there could have been real change within the sport. Maybe I've got the rosy specs on.

Just think, Lance could have come back, maybe got top 5 or a podium while clean, and now have a proud legacy. Not as a winner, cause Jan was better than him in every dept, but his cancer comeback could have been a truly great one.

Lance didn't actually need to win to be a winner. But the dozy get never had the self-awareness to realise that.

Jan may have dodged a bullet. But he'd never have done the things that Lance has done to lower what is acceptable for humans to get away with. There's a marked difference in the men.
Oh please, don't delude yourself. Ullrich's best years were 96-97 when he looked comfortably the strongest rider in a peloton that was almost all full to the brim with EPO (and no 50% limit in 96). Telekom were running 'systematic programmes' (by the admission of several riders) before US Postal existed. Plus Ullrich was a product of the East German sports system - riding clean was probably an alien concept to him.

The idea that he was reluctantly drawn into doping by Armstrong raising the bar is patently nonsense.

(And I say all that as someone who likes Ullrich)
 
Mar 6, 2011
1,414
0
0
Angliru said:
It wasn't just Phil and Paul's commentary. Andy was hyping himself up by saying he was in much better form at ToC this year than last year and would give it a go on the mountainous stages. Of course that didn't exactly work out too well.
To be fair u could argue he was at his best ever form at the atoc. He did get a 2nd place on a mtf and he didn't reli have much to beat
 
May 23, 2010
93
0
0
Mambo95 said:
Oh please, don't delude yourself. Ullrich's best years were 96-97 when he looked comfortably the strongest rider in a peloton that was almost all full to the brim with EPO (and no 50% limit in 96). Telekom were running 'systematic programmes' (by the admission of several riders) before US Postal existed. Plus Ullrich was a product of the East German sports system - riding clean was probably an alien concept to him.

The idea that he was reluctantly drawn into doping by Armstrong raising the bar is patently nonsense.

(And I say all that as someone who likes Ullrich)
yes i tend to agree- Ullrich's background is the complete reversal of Armstrong's. Ullrich had the sport chosen because of his natural abilities' Armstrong chose his sport, the essential difference between the communist and democratic societies (very generally speaking).
Comments that Ullrich got out of shape because of Armstrong are back dated and incorrect. He was well out of shape at the start of the 1998 season - and throughout his career had ,er lapses in his profesionalism (like reversing the Porche into a row of parked bikes after drugging it up in a nightclub and picking his new girlfriends brother for the TdF Team) - nice guy, I will agree. Saw him spending a lot of time signing autographs with fans on a few occasions - but Ullrich is Ullrich. He was and remains his own man.
Although the 2000 Tour was remarkable because three legends of cycling Pantani, Ullrich and Armstrong came together the result was predictable.
Pantani played the role of Captain Jack, Armstrong that of Captain America, and Ullrich of Marlon Brando.
Besides dopage there are a lot of other considerations ................
(and i say that as a Marco fan)
thanks
 
Aug 9, 2010
5,284
0
0
Interesting..I never heard Ulle compared to Marlon Brando. :)

Jan has always been one of my all time favorite riders. Hmmm...I might compare him to Gary Cooper, though. :D
 
Mar 10, 2010
112
0
0
Zweistein said:
I find it interesting how Jan wsd criticized for lackadaisical winters but at the same time was riding in a race that was fixed from the very beginning. UCI very much wanted Lance to keep winning because they thought it was good for cycling, which is evident from taking bribes and sweeping doping controls under the rug. Jan was ridiculed for being almost content with second place but how is he supposed to feel if the race is fixed. He gets paid and paid well to ride for second place. It is just a job. I was never given the impression that had Jan won the lottery that he would continue being a pro cyclist and continue with the charade. Maybe, he loved cycling when he was an amateur but he seemed to have lost the love for it following 1998.

I know that he doped but he never gave any illusions as to how cycling was. He never threatened anyone or coerced anyone into doping. His retirement was more of a relief for himself than anything. The thing that is unfortunate about this is that we will never truly know his place in the pantheon due to the fact that he doped. People claim he was the most talented cyclist they had ever seen in the amateurs but that doesn't always carry over into the pros. All, I can say is that I wish him well and it is a damn shame he entered the pro scene when he did.

very true ..so true he came crossed over to pro ranks in a bad time
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,169
0
0
Mambo95 said:
Oh please, don't delude yourself. Ullrich's best years were 96-97 when he looked comfortably the strongest rider in a peloton that was almost all full to the brim with EPO (and no 50% limit in 96). Telekom were running 'systematic programmes' (by the admission of several riders) before US Postal existed. Plus Ullrich was a product of the East German sports system - riding clean was probably an alien concept to him.

The idea that he was reluctantly drawn into doping by Armstrong raising the bar is patently nonsense.

(And I say all that as someone who likes Ullrich)
Yeah , before people go on moaning about Ullrich, the poor victim, and about those "amateurish" Telekom and other big doperteams, they should perhaps educate themselfes with some history and complete facts about Ullrich ("Die Werte spielen verrückt!" etc.), German history, and all the "facts" coming out after D'Hont published his book, and after Bert Dietz, JJ etc. admitting in media and on court.
Only Ullrich is missing. But of course he has more to lose than some average pros.

Of course US is always first and best, so USPS showed the whole world how real doping works.
Hidden in lunchboxes. lol
The future of professional doping and ready for Lance arrival to win the Tour easily.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY