Jan Ullrich

Page 28 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Gregory said:
In a way, he owes something to the cycling fans who were watching him ride during his career. Why is that? Because all the cash cyclists receive is solely because millions of poeple want to watch them, and see the advertisements on their shirts, so the sponsors and Tv stations come up with the cash for the riders.
And at least 90% of people watching at the time believed that Jan and others were riding generally clean. If all the pople knew about the extent of doping, the majority of viewers would have left, and with them, the majority of cash that Jan received and which enables him to live a comfortable life right now. And he is a rich man.
All the cash riders recieve is not because they deserve it due to their hard work or being no.1. If no one would be willing to watch, then no matter how good you are and how hard you work, you don't deserve anything.
So yes, Jan owes us all an explanation, because it was we who put money in his pocket.
However he SHOULD NOT be viewed with contempt, regardless of wether he makes a confession or not.
I had to laugh at that one. 90% of the cycling audience where? Texas?
 
hrotha said:
Of course there's degrees of cleanliness, or rather of dirtiness if you want to be pedantic and argue semantics.

Rider A uses EPO to keep his hematocrit stable at its natural 43% level throughout a 3-week race.
Rider B uses EPO to raise his hematocrit from 43% to 58%, and uses HGH, insulin and testosterone on top of that.
They are both dopers.

Rider A is fooling himself, so is the bigger dope.

Dave.
 
Gregory said:
In a way, he owes something to the cycling fans who were watching him ride during his career. Why is that? Because all the cash cyclists receive is solely because millions of poeple want to watch them, and see the advertisements on their shirts, so the sponsors and Tv stations come up with the cash for the riders.
And at least 90% of people watching at the time believed that Jan and others were riding generally clean. If all the pople knew about the extent of doping, the majority of viewers would have left, and with them, the majority of cash that Jan received and which enables him to live a comfortable life right now. And he is a rich man.
All the cash riders recieve is not because they deserve it due to their hard work or being no.1. If no one would be willing to watch, then no matter how good you are and how hard you work, you don't deserve anything.
So yes, Jan owes us all an explanation, because it was we who put money in his pocket.
However he SHOULD NOT be viewed with contempt, regardless of wether he makes a confession or not.
Rubbish. Is that a contract you and Jan signed when you bought the TV? Or was it brokered through the cable company? The sponsor?
 
JPM London said:
I don't see it the same way...

If he were a coward he wouldn't write a blog where he basically admits to doping ("I was part of that"). He would simply either write nothing about doping or the past or not write a blog full stop.

He's not denying anything. He's not doing a forced confession Rasmussen or Lance style simply because it's the strategically best option. And in doing that he's not making a halfession either...
Got to take issue with this. You're suggesting that he's not denying anything, he's not confessing, but he's not making a half confession either. So what is he doing?

I guess the best you can call it is an implied, non-specific, quarter confession, couched in the vaguest possible terms. How that is somehow more noble than any of the other options I'm not sure.

And you seem to dismiss Rasmussen's confession as 'strategically the best option', but what the hell is Jan's strategically best option at this stage? Let's think it through:

Deny everything? H'mm, he's a convicted drugs cheat, who's lost half his results, so not a hugely credible option, and would just make him look a fool.

OK, what about confessing everything? Well this brings a whole lot of potential aggravation and blowback, maybe makes him look a lot less cuddly than at present, and to what benefit?

Let's try saying the bare minimum possible given what everyone knows, in the vaguest possible terms, scrupulously not incriminating yourself or any of your past sponsors in any more damage, while simultaneously appearing to be a frank, pragmatic, nice guy?

From a 'strategic' point of view I know which option I'd choose, and it's strangely close to Jan's preferred option as well.

JPM London said:
We all know he did it. We all know he did EPO and blood at some point. I think most of us have a clear understanding he did less so - and his team did less so - than LA and USPS did and that he was a far bigger talent than the American ever was... None of us really needs his confession - yeah, I'd still like it and I'd read it - but, no, at this point I don't think we really need it. He should - of course - tell everything to the proper authorities if there's anything to help clean up the sport.
And this really is the point - how do we have that clear understanding that he did less than LA and USPS, or that he really was a far bigger talent? Do we know that for certain based on any credible evidence (hint a full and frank confession would be credible evidence), or are we just making assumptions about the story that we want to be true cos Jan seems like a much nicer guy than Armstrong?

I don't want to bag on Jan, as I always wanted him to win, and I do think he seems like a nice guy. But for all I know he was just as dirty as anyone else at the time. And given his results (the second best GT rider of the era), our working assumption should be that he was in up to his neck - both pre and post LA's reign of terror.

Given all that, defending him for continuing to uphold omerta - when it's clearly the strategically best option for him, and him alone - is a little odd, in my opinion.

Man up Jan, the truth will set you free.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
will10 said:
Didn't Livingston say Ullrich never raced above 42% after 2000/2001?
Yeah well, I don't think that story will hold. He (and especially Rudy Pevenage) had no qualms about doping, so why stop at 42% when the cut of is at 50?

I like the guy, but I have no doubt Jan was fully charged during his career.
 
My first recollections of Ulrich was as Riis Teammate which pre dates Armstrong as a serious contender. That was when I used to think CB was useless when they hit the mountains (I have since changed my mind on why CB could not keep up :D), anyway he seened at the time this brash young German from the former DDR which raised a flag (how naive I was :D), I lost interst somewhat after 98 for a number of years, which is why I never actually saw Lances wins, the next stage I watched ironically was the Landis Stage in 2006.
 
Franklin said:
Yeah well, I don't think that story will hold. He (and especially Rudy Pevenage) had no qualms about doping, so why stop at 42% when the cut of is at 50?

I like the guy, but I have no doubt Jan was fully charged during his career.
It might be true: according to David Millar, he ( Millar) cut off at 43% when he started doping. And he did notice the improvement.

He was scared of being caught.....no reason for him to lie about that now.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
D-Queued said:
They are both dopers.

Rider A is fooling himself, so is the bigger dope.

Dave.
One thing you could never fault Lance for is his adherence to the old adage: "If you're going to do a job then do it properly."

Half-hearted doping is probably the worst offence of them all.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
will10 said:
Didn't Livingston say Ullrich never raced above 42% after 2000/2001?
I'm prepared to believe that, as he was always 5% or so down on power to Lance at the crucial points during his years of "running up".

God only knows what he was at in 96-98, given that the EPO era was in its prime at the time.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
will10 said:
Didn't Livingston say Ullrich never raced above 42% after 2000/2001?
It is my firm believe after the EPO test of the year 2000 43% was and is the new 50%.

A nice fresh 500cc of blood is much more effective. Or, a little calf blood for that matter.

Too bad Coyle forgot to measure pharmstrongs hematocrit. But, we know of 2009/2010 the pharmacist kept it between 39 and 46.

http://cdn-community2.livestrong.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/10/c981f7be-e46c-4245-aa9d-d61ae110a264.Full.jpg

So, a 42% for Ully would be 'normal'.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
One thing you could never fault Lance for is his adherence to the old adage: "If you're going to do a job then do it properly."

Half-hearted doping is probably the worst offence of them all.
It must be convenient to live in a black and white world.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
I'm prepared to believe that, as he was always 5% or so down on power to Lance at the crucial points during his years of "running up".

God only knows what he was at in 96-98, given that the EPO era was in its prime at the time.
He can't have been above 50 in 97 and 98 in any case. There was already the limit.

Ullrich totally dominated the first Tour that had the 50% limit, so there was some sort of even playing field. Everyone was using Epo at a similar level.
Ullrich was lighyears ahead of anyone. Most gifted rider ever, no doubt.
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
0
0
Bavarianrider said:
He can't have been above 50 in 97 and 98 in any case. There was already the limit.

Ullrich totally dominated the first Tour that had the 50% limit, so there was some sort of even playing field. Everyone was using Epo at a similar level.
Ullrich was lighyears ahead of anyone. Most gifted rider ever, no doubt.
I'm going to ask you to search for your own facepalm picture.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
I thought Ullrich's comments regarding stage 6 of T-A and the competition between GTs which leads to harder climbs and more MTFs in the search for spectacle and sponsors was very thought provoking. Would I be correct in saying while distances have generally come down in races, the climbing has become more brutal, as evidenced by the Vuelta last year?

From a spectator's point of view this is what we want, the drama of a brutal MTF, riders struggling up 30% gradients, but are the riders being pushed too far? I know cycling's a sport for suffering, I know rule no.5 and rule no.9, but I wonder how the collective need for a spectacle, from the race organisers, the sponsors, the TV channels in need of viewers, has pushed riders in the past and continues to do so in the present, towards nefarious means to endure these brutal demands. It certainly seems that Ullrich believes that.

Sorry if this has already been discussed but I got banned so may have missed it the first time round.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Bavarianrider said:
Ullrich was lighyears ahead of anyone. Most gifted rider ever, no doubt.
Jean Philippe Dojwa 'approves':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t5EocT-lKHI#t=698s

epopowerrrrrr
I thought Ullrich's comments regarding stage 6 of T-A and the competition between GTs which leads to harder climbs and more MTFs in the search for spectacle and sponsors was very thought provoking. Would I be correct in saying while distances have generally come down in races, the climbing has become more brutal, as evidenced by the Vuelta last year?
When u take a look at that Arcalis video, you will notice they rode for nearly eight hours that day.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Bavarianrider said:
He can't have been above 50 in 97 and 98 in any case. There was already the limit.

Ullrich totally dominated the first Tour that had the 50% limit, so there was some sort of even playing field. Everyone was using Epo at a similar level.
Ullrich was lighyears ahead of anyone. Most gifted rider ever, no doubt.
If by gifted you mean he was the best responder to the dope of the time then I agree.

There were 4 key elements to success in the EPO era

1. good Hct to Vo2 ratio
2. Muscle mass to weight ratio
3. Good doctors willing to take risks
4. Connections to the UCI to cover up questionable test

Jan had the first 3. Without them he never wins the Tour or gets on the podium. The level playing field you are referring to does not exist.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Jean Philippe Dojwa 'approves':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t5EocT-lKHI#t=698s

epopowerrrrrrWhen u take a look at that Arcalis video, you will notice they rode for nearly eight hours that day.
Such a disturbing video.

Dojwa is a victim. He had huge potential. Podium of Worlds, White jersey of the Tour. Refused to take EPO and this is the result. A bunch of riders going past him like they were on motorcycles.

He dropped out of the 97 Tour a couple stages later. Retired the next year. How many victories did he have that were stolen by guys like Jan and Riis?
 
Apr 21, 2012
410
0
0
Race Radio said:
Such a disturbing video.

Dojwa is a victim. He had huge potential. Podium of Worlds, White jersey of the Tour. Refused to take EPO and this is the result. A bunch of riders going past him like they were on motorcycles.

He dropped out of the 97 Tour a couple stages later. Retired the next year. How many victories did he have that were stolen by guys like Jan and Riis?
According to Voet, Dojwa was a very early EPO user in the '93 TdF
IMO he was not that much stolen as he was not a big talent as an amateur
 
Oct 25, 2009
591
0
0
Race Radio said:
Such a disturbing video.

Dojwa is a victim. He had huge potential. Podium of Worlds, White jersey of the Tour. Refused to take EPO and this is the result. A bunch of riders going past him like they were on motorcycles.

He dropped out of the 97 Tour a couple stages later. Retired the next year. How many victories did he have that were stolen by guys like Jan and Riis?
...and by teams like Festina.
 
Mar 11, 2009
4,751
0
0
Yeah who said Dojwa never touched EPO ? I also wonder why RR is so critical of Ulle...yeah he took stuff but was he really such a super responder? In 2001 his HCT was 41 or 42 according to KL and he didn't do too badly...
 
Apr 21, 2012
410
0
0
KL also said Moreau had 41 or 42 which in my opinion is a joke as Moreau was quite as good in the 2000 TdF as he was in his pre-98 years... Moreau (index 7) was one of the french riders who didn't change post 98, as Virenque or Jalabert.
 
Gregga said:
KL also said Moreau had 41 or 42 which in my opinion is a joke as Moreau was quite as good in the 2000 TdF as he was in his pre-98 years... Moreau (index 7) was one of the french riders who didn't change post 98, as Virenque or Jalabert.
Rasmussen was flying with a hematocrit of 39-40 in the 2005 Tour. I wouldn't dismiss Livingston's claim so easily.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
webvan said:
Yeah who said Dojwa never touched EPO ? I also wonder why RR is so critical of Ulle...yeah he took stuff but was he really such a super responder? In 2001 his HCT was 41 or 42 according to KL and he didn't do too badly...
Doh!. Sorry mixed Dojwa up with Bouwmans, 92 White jersey winner

Jan's Hct was not 41 or 42 during the Tour.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts