Jan Ullrich

[mewmewmew13]

Jan is still my favorite...right Foxxy?
a gorgeous rider on the bike..full of spirit off the bike and a nice person

 

[yespatterns]

Despite the doping, he did always seem a consummate sportsman, and pretty likeable besides.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Jan is still my favorite...right Foxxy?
a gorgeous rider on the bike..full of spirit off the bike and a nice person

OFC mine too. Last time I was a fanboy of somebody. This guy brought me back to cycling after a 7-year-off-period with absurd results starting at around 1990...

Jan was young, talented, and is praised as the best up today by those who rode against or saw him (Hinault, Ricco, TH, D´Hont). Only RR wouldn´t agree (even though I most often agree with his other opinions, and like his infos...).

He played as fair as he could (remember the waiting issue with LA in 2003) ...

He is the 100% opposite of LA. You never hear anybody talk bad of him. Not even his ex. That´s quite an accomplishment. And he never talked bad of others.

And he was/is down to earth "like you and me". Made human mistakes, paid for it, never was going for "win-at-all-costs". 2nd was enough for him (may even 10th if german press and entourage didn´t press him into a role he never wanted). Also share his love for a good beer and freedom.

Wish him well.

 

[mewmewmew13]

^^^

nice summary!
I sure miss him in the peloton..

 

[MonkeyFace]

Don't bump this thread...

Maybe if he had I would have disliked him too...

Funny world...

I doubt it just based on the fact that he isn't an *******. The hatred towards Lance has not much to do with the fact that he cheated. It is everything else that he did. Even after Jan won the TDF in a dominate fashion, had he been the kind of person to turn into an egotistical ***, that would have been the time. 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. Armstrong's first win in comparison was edging out Zulle who lost most of his time due to getting stuck behind on a washed over bridge. 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.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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

Not only then. He was (slightly) better than Mr. 63% trou-out the TdF-96. He was "dieseling" Rijs all the time in this tour. My favo pic:

Even in 97, Ullrich only got the "green light" after Arcalis. So his 9.09 margin could have been even greater. He was the true future 7 times winner. There is no doubt it... until:

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.

And he (LA) was old even in 1999 already. Every TdF winner pre Rijs & Indurain was making a podium at a GT in his low 20s. Then came LA out of nowhere, setting new heights in grotesque performances, destroying all hope that the (true) old "Lemond-rule" ("(GT) talent shows early") became true again for good.

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.

And I thought LA was the low point... until Horner set the all time low in the "new clean era" at age 568 without even getting close to a T-10 pre age 35.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

^^^

nice summary!
I sure miss him in the peloton..

He could still make it back (he is still young in the new era, where young means below age 45*)....

In his depression year (AFAIR), out of shape, he beat just-retired Gazelli by 2 mins in a TT**. Just for fun.

* BTW, two years younger than in a safe way airgas-fueled-Horner
** May "Bavarianrider" can link the facts here. He knows it all. Thanks upfront.

 

[yespatterns]

The lesson is don't be a d ick. Even cheaters get a pass when competing against other cheaters, but you start killing careers and having a bully mentality, you can forget about it. Ulrich always kept it classy.

Edit: this also pays dividends in life for those of us not lucky enough to get paid to ride our bikes for a living.

 

[MarkvW]

I understand that Jan is a good doper. Is Bjarne Riis a good doper, or a bad one?

 

[yespatterns]

I understand that Jan is a good doper. Is Bjarne Riis a good doper, or a bad one?

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?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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?

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.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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?

MarkW was being sarcastic, at a guess. And meaning good vs evil doper, not good responder vs poor responder or anything else.

 

[roundabout]

I understand that Jan is a good doper. Is Bjarne Riis a good doper, or a bad one?

Bjarne wins on account of not trying to make a big deal out of his TdF win unlike der Jan who still thinks that taking away his win would be unfair.

 

[roundabout]

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.

Excellent satire. Thumbs up.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Excellent satire. Thumbs up.

Great, isn´t it?



But FYI, and my defense: Ulle is the last person (other than family members, and close friends) I look(ed) up to as a (young) "fanboy". So actually it wasn´t satire, but just exaggeration. IOW: There is some parts of hard truth in my post (like that he owned the cycling world when out-dopping others were not possible in 1997)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

der Jan who still thinks that taking away his win would be unfair.

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...

 

[Dr. Juice]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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)

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]

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.

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]

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"...

Yeah, Über-dopers like Riis couldn't go as fast anymore in '97 as they did in 94-96. About 2010 I'm not so sure. Climbing speeds were pretty high in 2009 already. Regarding Horner...he is just a mystery. As odd as Froome going from midpack to dominating the Tour.

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]

Yeah, Über-dopers like Riis couldn't go as fast anymore in '97 as they did in 94-96.

So we could agree in 97, that this year helped the talented more than the reckless?
Imagine, Rijs was still going into this TdF as cap. The stage pre-Arcalis (when Ullrich was still the dom) Rijs showed he couldn´t keep up anymore... and then came "Der Kaiser" in dramatic fashion. Like a dog just freed of chains...

About 2010 I'm not so sure. Climbing speeds were pretty high in 2009 already.

Fair point again. May the BP just worked one single year as the 50% rule just worked one single year...

Regarding Horner...he is just a mystery.

He is no mystery. Actually it´s pretty simple: If young full trained riders can´t keep up with a 568 year old riding on one leg, there is only one logic:
While the BP does not work pretty well, it fears the death into young riders to be caught (risking 10+ future years of good salaries). That was/is the golden chance for old school dopers to beat the shit out of them. That´s why you get grotesque results out of old basterds like Horner/Rebellin beating young riders at their peak.

I think 97 OTOH was pretty "fair": Everybody was more or less on the same level. Just don´t go over 50... Simple as that. More level playing field than this "great new clean era".

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.

Absolutely agree. As I said (and Ullrich himself OFC) 2nd was enough for him. He wasn´t of the "win-at-all-costs-nature". A guy just like "you and me" doing his job. No foundations, no shields, no celebs to be phucked. Down to earth guy enjoying live. Pretty much likeable...

 

[roundabout]

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...

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.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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.

Depression. Career cut short. 500.000 Euro for the first case alone paid (not including lawyer fees)! Losing all sponsorships from one day to the other (something LA got trou only 6 years later; AC + Valv-Piti never had to endure that). More cases opened against him...

30 Mio? How? Where? He wasn´t a over-paid soccer player or a US celeb getting thrown millions after him for nothing...

But even if 30 mio. Cut off 50% taxes = 15 left. Ex-wife support, cut another 50% = 7.5 left. Lawyers/cases at estm. 2 mio = 5.5 left. Stupid expensive life style as a young atlete (happens to all of them) = at least another 3 mio out of the window = 2.5 Mio left for the rest of his life.

Pretty little for a ex-hero getting 50% of pipo thrilled at watching the TdF year in year out to see him finish 2nd (at best)...

Comparison: average life long worker in Germany (45 years) = 2 mio life net income...

 

[Dazed and Confused]

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.

Agree, the concept of Ullrich being a scapegoat is laughable.

Foxxy, a man in love surely.