• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Jan Ullrich

Page 55 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
roundabout said:
30 million net as of July 2014 or whenever the date for that RTL program was
RTL? Ahh ... I know, the same company who just used a reporter to work undercover in a demo to give them (demonstrants) a bad name in public. Great source. :rolleyes:

Serious: Did Ullrich show them his accounts? I mean he was sooo naive, I sometimes couldn´t believe how he acted in public. But certainly he is no idiot to show strangers his net worth...

Wish him well. Be it 30 mios (impossible), 10 (maybe), or 2.5 (likely)... Most likely: Filing for bankruptcy in the near future like it happened to many sports stars who were not educated in keeping the millions in place...
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
RTL? Ahh ... I know, the same company who just used a reporter to work undercover in a demo to give them (demonstrants) a bad name in public. Great source. :rolleyes:

Serious: Did Ullrich show them his accounts? I mean he was sooo naive, I sometimes couldn´t believe how he acted in public. But certainly he is no idiot to show strangers his net worth...

Wish him well. Be it 30 mios (impossible), 10 (maybe), or 2.5 (likely)... Most likely: Filing for bankruptcy in the near future like it happened to many sports stars who were not educated in keeping the millions in place...
Yeah, I am not naive to take as gospel. But it also seems reasonable that he made a ****ton of money in 1997-2006 to have about that much left now
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
roundabout said:
Yeah, I am not naive to take as gospel. But it also seems reasonable that he made a ****ton of money in 1997-2006 to have about that much left now
No doubt he made a ton of money (still wayyy less than this overpaid US dopers in MLB, NFL, etc).
But dont forget taxes. Especially in Germany, they kill bank accounts (dont remember when Ullrich left for Switzerland). Keep in mind the other things too. Another money killer: Ex-wife support... Now Ullrich wasnt someone like Woods screwing around each night, so he certainly kept some money... but then the creepy lawyers come into play...

Whatever, here is a great docu of how sports stars lose über-millions (Ullrich is a small fish in comparison)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSOAwNSv8EM

My bet stands: A few years and Ullrich will have to file for bankruptcy. OTOH, I wish him well, that he kept some millions to live a life of peace with his family, freedom, joy, and beers ... thus proving me wrong.

Either way: Nobody has to feel sorry for him, nor to hate him. He is just like you and me. A hard working guy who paid his dues... That´s all.
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
(dont remember when Ullrich left for Switzerland)
You may missed that part Hog. Anyway, his golden years (97-03) he was still in Germany? Dont know. Whatever, Germany takes care very very well to get every coin of taxes of their citizens either living here, or earning the money here...
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
No doubt he made a ton of money (still wayyy less than this overpaid US dopers in MLB, NFL, etc).
But dont forget taxes. Especially in Germany, they kill bank accounts (dont remember when Ullrich left for Switzerland). Keep in mind the other things too. Another money killer: Ex-wife support... Now Ullrich wasnt someone like Woods screwing around each night, so he certainly kept some money... but then the creepy lawyers come into play...

Whatever, here is a great docu of how sports stars lose über-millions (Ullrich is a small fish in comparison)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSOAwNSv8EM

My bet stands: A few years and Ullrich will have to file for bankruptcy. OTOH, I wish him well, that he kept some millions to live a life of peace with his family, freedom, joy, and beers ... thus proving me wrong.

Either way: Nobody has to feel sorry for him, nor to hate him. He is just like you and me. A hard working guy who paid his dues... That´s all.
Since Ullrich hasn't clocked up 40 years yet, whats preventing him from getting his arze off the couch and make money again?
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
Since Ullrich hasn't clocked up 40 years yet, whats preventing him from getting his arze off the couch and make money again?
Why should he? He rode more kms on his bike in his short career than overpaid politcans or banksters did by sitting on their stools doing nothing, respectively stealing hard-worked-for dollars/euros from citizens... Ullrich made people happy, "created" the careers of the young guys we have now (Kittel, etc.), helped bike producers to sell their products. He paid his dues... more than that.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Why should he? He rode more kms on his bike in his short career than overpaid politcans or banksters did by sitting on their stools doing nothing, respectively stealing hard-worked-for dollars/euros from citizens... Ullrich made people happy, "created" the careers of the young guys we have now (Kittel, etc.), helped bike producers to sell their products. He paid his dues... more than that.
Well, if he doesn't have enough brains to manage his cash the alternative could be bc. His choice, I don't care either way.
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
Well, if he doesn't have enough brains to manage his cash the alternative could be bc. His choice, I don't care either way.
So then, where is the prob? You dont need to care, I dont need to... All I said is, I wish him well, and that he was the best, and showed it in perfection when the playing field was as leveled as possible (1997) since 1989
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
You may missed that part Hog. Anyway, his golden years (97-03) he was still in Germany? Dont know. Whatever, Germany takes care very very well to get every coin of taxes of their citizens either living here, or earning the money here...
I some how doubt that a professional sportsperson takes earnings as basic income to be taxed at PAYE rates.

Tax systems tax the worker and allow those whom are effectively private companies to exempt themselves down well below corporate tax rates.

Although the Germans did eventually catch up with Steffi & Boris.

Jan to be commentating on NBC by the year 2016 :rolleyes:
 
Jun 30, 2014
5,465
0
0
thehog said:
I some how doubt that a professional sportsperson takes earnings as basic income to be taxed at PAYE rates.

Tax systems tax the worker and allow those whom are effectively private companies to exempt themselves down well below corporate tax rates.

Although the Germans did eventually catch up with Steffi & Boris.

Jan to be commentating on NBC by the year 2016 :rolleyes:
Eurosport should fire LeMond and hire Jan:D
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Why should he? He rode more kms on his bike in his short career than overpaid politcans or banksters did by sitting on their stools doing nothing, respectively stealing hard-worked-for dollars/euros from citizens... Ullrich made people happy, "created" the careers of the young guys we have now (Kittel, etc.), helped bike producers to sell their products. He paid his dues... more than that.
All of that is also true of Armstrong. And to a lesser extent Horner.
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
The Hitch said:
All of that is also true of Armstrong. And to a lesser extent Horner.
Not yet. LA is about to pay his price. My hate is almost gone towards him...
Horner? What price did he pay? Earning money from his doping for two decades now, and may well into the future (as TV talking head, or adviser for alien heads, who knows?) if he isn´t caught soon...
 
May 11, 2014
51
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
So then, where is the prob? You dont need to care, I dont need to... All I said is, I wish him well, and that he was the best, and showed it in perfection when the playing field was as leveled as possible (1997) since 1989
If 97 was as close as we came to a level playing field in the EPO era, what does that say about Pantani's performance that year?
 
Jun 5, 2014
652
0
0
Amazinmets73 said:
If 97 was as close as we came to a level playing field in the EPO era, what does that say about Pantani's performance that year?
Pantani was no clown like Riis. He was as fast or faster in the < 50 % era as in the full-gas era. Well he entered his peak years in '97.
If we assume that '97 was close to a level playing field...we can't know what Pantani would have done on Alpe d' Huez in '99 at his absolute peak in the shape of his life. Maybe 36 flat. That would put the other performances into another context.

However, after '96, it was less ridiculous...it was a bless at that time (50% rule). Before Armstrong bought the UCI. Doping yes but a sane HCT and more or less same conditions for everybody. 97-99 were nice (99 before the Pantani scandal + Motoman in the Tour)
 
burning said:
I think LeMond did fine after a few stages, they should fire Kirby instead of him. :D
LeMan is still a bit shaky in front of the camera. I hope he gets better next year.

As for Kirby, I used to like the guy but he's taken to screaming a bit too much. I can't watch any hockey broadcasts with that annoying egghead guy who screams, Kirby is closing in on necessitating a muting...
 
Some posters seem to think the 50% rule made the playing field more level. It may have saved some lives, but it made the playing field less level, not more level.

It favored riders with a naturally low HT (as both LA and JU are reported to have). If you have a natural HT of 40, you can raise it 25% by doping up to 50. If your natural HT is 48, you can raise it only about 4%.

Before the 50% rule, riders with naturally high HTs probably raised them to higher absolute levels than riders with naturally low HTs, making the playing field much leveler. E.g., going from 48 to 60 is a 25% increase, the same as going from 40 to 50.

To keep it simple, assume all riders can put out 5 W/kg. when undoped, and that the % increase in power is equal to the % increase in HT. Going from 40 to 50 means a power increase to 6.25 W/kg, while going from 48 to 50 means a power increase to about 5.20 W/kg. As a result of doping, the rider with the lower natural HT now has 20% more power than the rider with a high natural HT. This is the situation with the 50% rule in effect.

Now consider the situation prior to the 50% rule. Going from 48 to 60 also results in an increase in power to 6.25 W/kg, so now the rider with a naturally low HT, if he continues to dope to just 50%, has no power advantage over the rider with a high natural HT. Of course a rider with a naturally low HT might raise it beyond 50, maybe even to 60, in which case he would put out 7.5 W/kg., and maintain his 20% power advantage. But it would take much more EPO than the high natural HT rider would need to do this. If we assume there were rough self-imposed limits on EPO use, the playing field would be far more level.

The most unlevel playing field began with the 50% rule, and probably did not end until the biopassport more than ten years later. That is probably the most significant effect the biopassport has had. It doesn't stop doping, but it does prevent riders with naturally low HTs from raising their HTs any more than riders with higher natural HTs.
 
Sep 6, 2014
241
0
0
Merckx index said:
Some posters seem to think the 50% rule made the playing field more level. It may have saved some lives, but it made the playing field less level, not more level.

It favored riders with a naturally low HT (as both LA and JU are reported to have). If you have a natural HT of 40, you can raise it 25% by doping up to 50. If your natural HT is 48, you can raise it only about 4%.

Before the 50% rule, riders with naturally high HTs probably raised them to higher absolute levels than riders with naturally low HTs, making the playing field much leveler. E.g., going from 48 to 60 is a 25% increase, the same as going from 40 to 50.

To keep it simple, assume all riders can put out 5 W/kg. when undoped, and that the % increase in power is equal to the % increase in HT. Going from 40 to 50 means a power increase to 6.25 W/kg, while going from 48 to 50 means a power increase to about 5.20 W/kg. As a result of doping, the rider with the lower natural HT now has 20% more power than the rider with a high natural HT. This is the situation with the 50% rule in effect.

Now consider the situation prior to the 50% rule. Going from 48 to 60 also results in an increase in power to 6.25 W/kg, so now the rider with a naturally low HT, if he continues to dope to just 50%, has no power advantage over the rider with a high natural HT. Of course a rider with a naturally low HT might raise it beyond 50, maybe even to 60, in which case he would put out 7.5 W/kg., and maintain his 20% power advantage. But it would take much more EPO than the high natural HT rider would need to do this. If we assume there were rough self-imposed limits on EPO use, the playing field would be far more level.

The most unlevel playing field began with the 50% rule, and probably did not end until the biopassport more than ten years later. That is probably the most significant effect the biopassport has had. It doesn't stop doping, but it does prevent riders with naturally low HTs from raising their HTs any more than riders with higher natural HTs.
Excellent post, take a bow
 
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.
Ullrich's best year was neither 97 or 2003. It was CLEARLY 2001. Yet he was climbing a lot slower than in those two years. But that's the difference between 43% and 49%.
Ullrich's 2001 Tour might actually be one the greatest cycling performance ever. Sadly 99,99% of people will never understand that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS