Jan Ullrich

[blackcat]

All this is very interesting, but there is no evidence, anywhere, that Ullrich was a 10x responder to EPO compared to his main competitors, just in RR's and Udo Bolt's mind it seems...If anything, everything points to the fact that he was a true champion before getting on EPO, but we've been over all that before

dont have to be a 10x responder. Just a little bit more.

Jan always had those pistons that built cobbled classics riders. Putting epo in those pistons, made him a TdF winner.

And Wiggins was ****e on the road for a decade after Linda Mac. If he was French, he would have been pulling ales in a pub by the time he was 25. His lack of results would not have been tolerated.

 

[webvan]

"Just a little bit more" - same baseless argument as 10x, the reality is we'll never know, maybe yes, maybe not...

Hardly anti Ullrich, I like the guy......but that does not mean I should ignore reality.

Jan is far from the only former doper who is trying to use the level playing field defense. Pointing out the absurdity of their position is not a crusade, just common sense

What "reality" ?! You've got nothing to back up your "Ullrich was a 10x responder" other than some trivial comment by Udo Bolts and he didn't say that, he said Ullrich couldn't climb without EPO or something like that.

What Ullrich is saying is that he HAD TO DOPE to be competitive, no one can argue with that with what we know now for a fact. The "level playing field" is a slight variation on that theme and while I can understand that it bothers you if applied to ALL the peloton, it is certainly valid when looking at the subset of potential GT winners, Dopestrong, Virenque, Pantani, Beloki, etc...

 

[thehog]

What Ullrich is saying is that he HAD TO DOPE to be competitive, no one can argue with that with what we know now for a fact. The "level playing field" is a slight variation on that theme and while I can understand that it bothers you if applied to ALL the peloton, it is certainly valid when looking at the subset of potential GT winners, Dopestrong, Virenque, Pantani, Beloki, etc...

Not only HAD to dope. Was PRESSURED to dope.

FGL put together Jan's results pre-EPO/Transfusion era.

You can see he could ride a bike.

Super responder? Not so sure on that. The evidence says otherwise.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1194783

 

[sniper]

Hardly anti Ullrich, I like the guy......but that does not mean I should ignore reality.

Jan is far from the only former doper who is trying to use the level playing field defense. Pointing out the absurdity of their position is not a crusade, just common sense

JV among them
"not having to make that choice", i take that as a choice between doping to be competitive, or not doping and not be competitive.
apparently most agree that you had to dope to be competitive in the (late) 90s and 00s.

 

[Race Radio]

"Just a little bit more" - same baseless argument as 10x, the reality is we'll never know, maybe yes, maybe not...



What "reality" ?! You've got nothing to back up your "Ullrich was a 10x responder" other than some trivial comment by Udo Bolts and he didn't say that, he said Ullrich couldn't climb without EPO or something like that.

What Ullrich is saying is that he HAD TO DOPE to be competitive, no one can argue with that with what we know now for a fact. The "level playing field" is a slight variation on that theme and while I can understand that it bothers you if applied to ALL the peloton, it is certainly valid when looking at the subset of potential GT winners, Dopestrong, Virenque, Pantani, Beloki, etc...

Where did I say Jan was a 10X responder?

Jan is very clear on what I am talking about

In the interview he pointed out that he believed that everyone in that era was cheating and he was only leveling the playing field.

"Almost everyone at the time was taking performance-enhancing substances," he said. "I didn’t take anything that was not taken by the others. It would only have been cheating for me if I had gotten an advantage which was not the case. I just wanted to ensure I had an equal opportunity.”

The majority of riders did not do transfusions and there is nothing equal or level about the response to doping. Pointing out these facts is not a crusade.

 

[Race Radio]

JV among them
"not having to make that choice", i take that as a choice between doping to be competitive, or not doping and not be competitive.
apparently most agree that you had to dope to be competitive in the (late) 90s and 00s.

I have not said anything different, you had to dope.....but lets not pretend that everyone got the same benefit or went to the same extremes. It was not equal, it was not level

 

[sniper]

I have not said anything different, you had to dope.....but lets not pretend that everyone got the same benefit or went to the same extremes. It was not equal, it was not level

fair point.
but can we really expect a guy like Jan Ullrich to make such observations?
point being: he doesn't strike me as a guy who's desperately trying to apologize his own doping. (but i may well be wrong).
i think he may actually believe his own 'level playing field' account, even though you and I realize the story is much more complicated than that.

 

[red_flanders]

The majority of riders did not do transfusions and there is nothing equal or level about the response to doping. Pointing out these facts is not a crusade.

From Hamilton, it sounded like everyone who mattered in the GT race was doing BB's by 2003. That's all Jan is concerned with when he discusses it. Seems like he figures, of those who had a chance to be TdF winners, we were all doing what we could to win. He's satisfied he did all he was willing and able to do and he knew everyone that mattered was doing the same.

He does not seem particularly interested in discussions on whether Armstrong had an additional advantage. Personally, post reasoned decision I don't find it terribly interesting either. We get that Armstong had UCI protection and a lot of other advantages.

I think it's only relevant if we don't learn from it an apply it to what we see going on now. Sure looks to me like some teams are more equal than others...just like back then. But Armstrong was a complete a-hole, and it's a kindler, gentler uneven playing field now. And it has an accent.

 

[Race Radio]

From Hamilton, it sounded like everyone who mattered in the GT race was doing BB's by 2003. That's all Jan is concerned with when he discusses it. Seems like he figures, of those who had a chance to be TdF winners, we were all doing what we could to win. He's satisfied he did all he was willing and able to do and he knew everyone that mattered was doing the same.

He does not seem particularly interested in discussions on whether Armstrong had an additional advantage. Personally, post reasoned decision I don't find it terribly interesting either. We get that Armstong had UCI protection and a lot of other advantages.

I think it's only relevant if we don't learn from it an apply it to what we see going on now. Sure looks to me like some teams are more equal than others...just like back then. But Armstrong was a complete a-hole, and it's a kindler, gentler uneven playing field now. And it has an accent.

VDV was left off the Tour team because he would not do transfusions. Have to wonder what he would have done. Dave Z never did transfusions.

Jan has actually said that he was surprised by the level of protection Armstrong got from the UCI

 

[thehog]

JV among them
"not having to make that choice", i take that as a choice between doping to be competitive, or not doping and not be competitive.
apparently most agree that you had to dope to be competitive in the (late) 90s and 00s.

German cycling mit nicht cycling champion forever embraced Der Jan.

JVs world, USPS, Garmin very different.

I still love to see T&R and have him speak freely.

In 2007 Ullrich's quote to l'equipe; those who cannot put 1 and 1 together and figure out what happend to cycling, are beyond my help.

Or words to that effect (photographic memory at work).

A 19 year old Jan with the win/loss rate he had in cycling.

*** man. He would have obliterated everything.

I think he was more a one day man than a GT guy but the growth of the Tour meant those from non-traditional cycling nations had to compete at the Tour and nothing else.

Those who doubt should read the Boris Beckker story. Very similar in terms of the pressures faced. He contemplated suicde at the top of his career at 19.

Those the pressures.

It's a complex story. Let's not over simplify it or we'll learn nothing.

 

[thehog]

"Just a little bit more" - same baseless argument as 10x, the reality is we'll never know, maybe yes, maybe not...



What "reality" ?! You've got nothing to back up your "Ullrich was a 10x responder" other than some trivial comment by Udo Bolts and he didn't say that, he said Ullrich couldn't climb without EPO or something like that.

What Ullrich is saying is that he HAD TO DOPE to be competitive, no one can argue with that with what we know now for a fact. The "level playing field" is a slight variation on that theme and while I can understand that it bothers you if applied to ALL the peloton, it is certainly valid when looking at the subset of potential GT winners, Dopestrong, Virenque, Pantani, Beloki, etc...

Vaughters and Livingston said Ullrich never raced over 42%.

42% and finished second at the Tour.

Not bad at all!

Not sure he is the drug hound or super responder some make him out to be...

Cyclevaughters: so, that's when you start thinking... hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%--- yeah moreau in 2000-2001

 

[Race Radio]

Vaughters and Livingston said Ullrich never raced over 42%.

What did he go to Fuentes for.....interval workouts?

 

[webvan]

Well he only went to Fuentes starting in 2003, right, and KL was no longer around. It seems he decided to "fight back" after being trounced by Dopestrong, in essence that's what Pevenage said to L'Equipe a few years ago.

We're hitting a bit of a wall here, let's try to sum it up :
- everyone seems to agree that you had to dope be competitive when Ullrich was racing
- some of us are interpreting Ullrich's "level playing field" as "I did what I had to do to be competitive and my actual competition was doing the same" and there is no reason to doubt that (Hamilton story, Landis, etc...) -> so "I had to dope"="level playing field"
- RR doesn't accept Ullrich's "level playing field" argument because the whole peloton didn't have access to transfusions (does it really matter since the GT contenders most likely did) and because some riders responded better than others and Ullrich especially well based on some comment by Udo Bolts. Who knows...there's certainly no hard data on TDF 2003 results with/without dope so we'll never get to the bottom of this. It certainly seems a bit farfetched to keep hammering Ullrich for that statement

 

[veganrob]

The level playing field excuse is so much BS. People cheat, dope to tilt the field in their favor. They Cheat to win.

 

[thehog]

Well he only went to Fuentes starting in 2003, right, and KL was no longer around. It seems he decided to "fight back" after being trounced by Dopestrong, in essence that's what Pevenage said to L'Equipe a few years ago.

We're hitting a bit of a wall here, let's try to sum it up :
- everyone seems to agree that you had to dope be competitive when Ullrich was racing
- some of us are interpreting Ullrich's "level playing field" as "I did what I had to do to be competitive and my actual competition was doing the same" and there is no reason to doubt that (Hamilton story, Landis, etc...) -> so "I had to dope"="level playing field"
- RR doesn't accept Ullrich's "level playing field" argument because the whole peloton didn't have access to transfusions (does it really matter since the GT contenders most likely did) and because some riders responded better than others and Ullrich especially well based on some comment by Udo Bolts. Who knows...there's certainly no hard data on TDF 2003 results with/without dope so we'll never get to the bottom of this. It certainly seems a bit farfetched to keep hammering Ullrich for that statement

There were over 200 cyclists on the Fuentes list.

Appears there went many missing out on transfusions and the like.

Then add in Leinders & Ferrari and I'd say cyclists were well looked after top down, bottom up.

Which is very sad.

But my problem begins with the UCI and teams management.

Vaughters statement is compelling.

Despite the mass usage of drugs and transfusions Ullrich appears from Livingstons account wasn't hitting them very hard along with his EPO use.

Appears he wanted to be in the safe zone. And if his performances are to go by he did mighty well at only 42%.

 

[hrotha]

Regardless of what Bölts said and whether or not Ullrich would have won 48 Tours if the peloton had been clean, the level playing field theory is ridiculous.

As for this low hematocrit - maybe he was using a minimum of EPO just to keep his hematocrit from falling during a GT? Anyway, it's not like you can't have a very successful and blood-manipulation-heavy program and still keep a relatively low hematocrit. Just look at Rasmussen.

 

[hfer07]

Regardless of what Bölts said and whether or not Ullrich would have won 48 Tours if the peloton had been clean, the level playing field theory is ridiculous.

As for this low hematocrit - maybe he was using a minimum of EPO just to keep his hematocrit from falling during a GT? Anyway, it's not like you can't have a very successful and blood-manipulation-heavy program and still keep a relatively low hematocrit. Just look at Rasmussen.

agreed. What appears not be in the discussion is the fact that -with his already unveiled doping usage out of the question-I now ask how come he seemed NOT TO IMPROVE when he was under Fuentes regimen-or rather say when he decided to play the game at the peloton level's conditions???

 

[MarkvW]

Professional cycling has never been a level playing field, and as the years go by the cheating tools of the professional cyclist distort the playing field more and more. EPO is nothing compared to what gene doping will be.

 

[thehog]

agreed. What appears not be in the discussion is the fact that -with his already unveiled doping usage out of the question-I now ask how come he seemed NOT TO IMPROVE when he was under Fuentes regimen-or rather say when he decided to play the game at the peloton level's conditions???

Correct.

Vino, Kloden and Basso got much better.

Jan got worse since 2003.

Appears blood wasn't much good for him. He was better naturally and on a low(er) dose of EPO.

If Livingston is correct (he knew his stuff as he was in the infamous Ferrari files) and Jan was at 42% for a GT then he was a surpreme athlete.

 

[red_flanders]

VDV was left off the Tour team because he would not do transfusions. Have to wonder what he would have done. Dave Z never did transfusions.

Jan has actually said that he was surprised by the level of protect Armstrong got from the UCI

Dunno what VDV would have done, but I'd rather think of what they'd all have done w/o any of the doping. Dave Z? Eh...too much of a stretch IMO. Don't see him as a champion in any circumstance.

I'm sure Ullrich considered neither a threat in any case.

 

[Race Radio]

There were over 200 cyclists on the Fuentes list.

.......Link?

 

[Race Radio]

agreed. What appears not be in the discussion is the fact that -with his already unveiled doping usage out of the question-I now ask how come he seemed NOT TO IMPROVE when he was under Fuentes regimen-or rather say when he decided to play the game at the peloton level's conditions???

Jan had his best Tour in 6 years after he started using Fuentes

 

[Race Radio]

Well he only went to Fuentes starting in 2003, right, and KL was no longer around. It seems he decided to "fight back" after being trounced by Dopestrong, in essence that's what Pevenage said to L'Equipe a few years ago.

We're hitting a bit of a wall here, let's try to sum it up :
- everyone seems to agree that you had to dope be competitive when Ullrich was racing
- some of us are interpreting Ullrich's "level playing field" as "I did what I had to do to be competitive and my actual competition was doing the same" and there is no reason to doubt that (Hamilton story, Landis, etc...) -> so "I had to dope"="level playing field"
- RR doesn't accept Ullrich's "level playing field" argument because the whole peloton didn't have access to transfusions (does it really matter since the GT contenders most likely did) and because some riders responded better than others and Ullrich especially well based on some comment by Udo Bolts. Who knows...there's certainly no hard data on TDF 2003 results with/without dope so we'll never get to the bottom of this. It certainly seems a bit farfetched to keep hammering Ullrich for that statement

I suggest you actually read what I write.

 

[red_flanders]

VDV was left off the Tour team because he would not do transfusions. Have to wonder what he would have done. Dave Z never did transfusions.

Jan has actually said that he was surprised by the level of protection Armstrong got from the UCI

Anyway, I get your point. I just only care as it applies to now.

I don't see enough difference between then and now.

 

[thehog]

There were over 200 cyclists on the Fuentes list.

Appears there went many missing out on transfusions and the like.

Then add in Leinders & Ferrari and I'd say cyclists were well looked after top down, bottom up.

Which is very sad.

But my problem begins with the UCI and teams management.

Vaughters statement is compelling.

Despite the mass usage of drugs and transfusions Ullrich appears from Livingstons account wasn't hitting them very hard along with his EPO use.

Appears he wanted to be in the safe zone. And if his performances are to go by he did mighty well at only 42%.

I'd add Cecchini to that list of doping doctors. He managed some in and between Fuentes.

At a guess Ferrari during the Armstrong exclusive era had abiut 20-30 riders, perhaps more? (Evans, Rogers etc.), Fuentes 70-200. Cecchini 44 known riders, Leinders, all of Rabo - 30, 40 riders, maybe more freelance?

That's a lot of blood work going on.

Interesting about Fuentes work was he had a lot of lower ranked riders along with amateurs on his list.

That's 200+ riders on the conservative side.

I mean Matt White was transfusing to 123rd in the Vuelta for crying out loud.

My view Jan, naturally would still win the Tour. He'd smash the ITTs, kill the lumpy stages but I don't think he'd climb as well. He'd be able to hang on. But if Pantani wasn't doping he couldn't ITT and wouldn't be as explosive on the mountains. So it might still be a good race. Seeing Jan's early results I can't see him as anything but a great talent.

And that's the sad fact. We may never know just how good.

Over to you Cookson and T&R.