Jan is still my favorite...right Foxxy? ![Smile :) :)]()
a gorgeous rider on the bike..full of spirit off the bike and a nice person
a gorgeous rider on the bike..full of spirit off the bike and a nice person
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
mewmewmew13 said:Jan is still my favorite...right Foxxy?
a gorgeous rider on the bike..full of spirit off the bike and a nice person
mrhender said:Don't bump this thread...
Maybe if he had I would have disliked him too...
Funny world...
MonkeyFace said:He was getting praises as the second coming of Merckx at the time.And the year before, it was obvious that he was superior to Riis as was shown in the final time trial
MonkeyFace said:No one was praising Lance as the second coming of anything but just a guy who one because all the former active winners had missed the race.
mewmewmew13 said:^^^
nice summary!
I sure miss him in the peloton..
MarkvW said:I understand that Jan is a good doper. Is Bjarne Riis a good doper, or a bad one?
yespatterns said:Personally I think he was a good bike racer, but don't know enough about his numbers to say if he was a good responder or could have held his own in a bread and water environment. Politically, he is still at the helm of a flagship team, so I wouldn't call him stupid. Maybe he's just a clever person?
yespatterns said:Personally I think he was a good bike racer, but don't know enough about his numbers to say if he was a good responder or could have held his own in a bread and water environment. Politically, he is still at the helm of a flagship team, so I wouldn't call him stupid. Maybe he's just a clever person?
MarkvW said:I understand that Jan is a good doper. Is Bjarne Riis a good doper, or a bad one?
FoxxyBrown1111 said:So it lasted just one year when teams still struggled with the 50% rule. That´s why Ullrich dominated in 1997. Nobody could out-dope him like before (no 50%-rule) and after (the win-at-all-costs-dopers without any morals left; and teams having found ways to circumvent the 50%-rule). Thus true talent prevailed for just this one beautiful summer of 1997... in dramatic and dominating fashion by a 23 year old boy. Watta story. A true one, not a fake one like this Cancer-Jesus one.
roundabout said:Excellent satire. Thumbs up.
roundabout said:der Jan who still thinks that taking away his win would be unfair.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:Take 97, when no team yet figured out the 50% rule (IOW: how to get around it)... or the contemporary witnesses within cycling, of whom almost all said Ullrich was the real deal (even the most doped up agree on this).
Don´t let yourself be fooled by Mark. It´s not about good or bad doper. It´s about common sense. No former mid-pack rider in his late 20s like Indurain, Rijs & LA would have been able to win a TdF under normal circumstances. Ullrich was the great lone exception of the ongoing faulty era.
Dr. Juice said:1. 1995: 36:40 Marco Pantani 22.58 km/h
2. 1997: 36:53 Marco Pantani 22.45 km/h
3. 1994: 37:15 Marco Pantani 22.23 km/h
4. 2004: 37:36 Lance Armstrong 22.02 km/h
5. 1997: 37:40 Jan Ullrich 21.98 km/h
6. 2001: 38:03 Lance Armstrong 21.76 km/h
Even with Lance - the clown of the clowns - governing the UCI ...Jan only had to repeat his '97 form to win multiple TdF. He did not achieve that...even though the 50% rule was already there in 97. So partly political issues....but in first place it was his form. Since his injury in '99 I have never seen Ullrich climb as fast as in 96-98 (Andorra Arcalis '97 or Col de La Madeleine '98 ). He really seemed the next Indurain.
After '99 he was just "ok-ish" in the mountains, except 2003 where he came close to the former Jan.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:1st of all: He didn´t seem like the next Indurain. Ullrich as dom did finish 2nd at age 22, while Indurain did ok somewhere... well, where actually?... as dom for Delgado. IOW: He looked more like the next Hinault or un-injured Fignon. That would be a fair comparison.
I dont know about the after 97-numbers. To get a true picture we need to see all numbers in context. AFAIR, "Bavarianrider" did a good job on this, hidden in the countless threads (so sorry I cant come up with hard evidence now). It wasn´t that Ullrich declined, it was more like Cancer-Jesus just out-doped him...
All I have is eye witnesses now like TH. Something like "He was the athlete"... (for correct describing go back to his book, first quarter of it)
Dr. Juice said:You're probably right concerning the young age Ullrich vs Indurain. And surely Lance out-doped most of the peleton...but...doping rules were consistent since '97 with the 50% rule...so Ullrich could dope as much in 2001 as he did in '97....why he climbed the Alpe 2 and a half minutes slower is the other question (not only Alpe...he simply couldn't climb as many W/kg anymore)
The question ..why did he never climb as fast again when dope levels were consistent?
This is IMO where his attitude and motivation comes into play.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:Fair points. I agree.
May he peaked too early like Winnen? Who knows? Anyway, there is no doubt that LA would have just "do(ne) more because others do more (TH)". No way Ullrich beats LA in any years after 1997 (as seen in 2003 when Ullrich was doped up to max level).
But I still say: the 50% rule worked to some good extend in 1997... Like the BP worked until circa 2010/11 when Horner showed the world "Phuck you all, see what I do, the BP is not working (anymore), we (Über-dopers) always find ways around the rules"...
Dr. Juice said:Yeah, Über-dopers like Riis couldn't go as fast anymore in '97 as they did in 94-96.
Dr. Juice said:About 2010 I'm not so sure. Climbing speeds were pretty high in 2009 already.
Dr. Juice said:Regarding Horner...he is just a mystery.
Dr. Juice said:And concerning Ullrich...he always started the season too late and was overweight...his climbing in the Tour de Romandie was pathetic. That way you can't be at 100% at the Tour ( you can get to a good weight but to rush the kg is never good). Then look at 2003....he came out of the winter in decent shape and was on form in April/May when he won Rund um Köln. Good Tour.
I always state the opinion that one should be in decent shape from the beginning, never gruppetto style.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:OFC it would be unfair. Other than Cancer-Jesus, he paid his due before finishing his career, and next to Rasmussen and Mancebo was one of the few scapegoates, while criminals like Valv-Piti, LA, and AC rode/ride on more or less unharmed.
You may also missed the part when "Der Kaiser" was going trou a true "Hexenverbrennung" in Germany, ending up with serious depressions and countless attacks by hypos like Dr Franke.
Ullrich paid a big price. And those who are jeaulos of him not losing every cent of his hard work shall remember what he did good: Without using a shield like LA , or attacking people like him, he alone sold bikes, hopes, and influenced careers of riders like Kittel, Degenkolb, Martin, and so on, who might have ended up in a (now) more doped up sport like athletics if he wasn´t there...
roundabout said:Let's see. For a career doper
+he made 30 million
-had 14 months worth of results taken away
+/- retired at 33 when he could have taken the ban and kept on riding for a bit more
Don't really see how he is a scapegoat, nor do I feel sorry for him.
roundabout said:Let's see. For a career doper
+he made 30 million
-had 14 months worth of results taken away
+/- retired at 33 when he could have taken the ban and kept on riding for a bit more
Don't really see how he is a scapegoat, nor do I feel sorry for him.