MarkvW said:Of course Ullrich needed to dope to win the Tour de France. Anybody who wanted to win the Tour de France in Ullrich's era had to dope to win the Tour de France.
The response to this argument is always the ahistorical "what if" argument: The argument that if everybody else was clean and if Ullrich didn't dope, then Ullrich could not have ever won the Tour.
That's two too many "ifs" for me. It's basically just saying: "In my ideal mental world-view of what cycling ought to be, Jan Ullrich could never have won the Tour de France clean."
That argument is fine and dandy, but to insult other posters when they beg to differ is rather ridiculous.
Mark, 100% agree. The guy coming 79th on GC at the Tour was doping. Way too many what it's to even begin to pick a clean winner.
Couldn't even pick the best doped up rider let along the best clean one. That entire era was a mess.
It was an arms race, with doping regimes differing from team to team, from rider to rider. Selecting out one rider and saying he was worse than the others will never be an argument.