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

Jan Ullrich

Page 56 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 5, 2014
652
0
0
Bavarianrider said:
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.
Why should Ullrich ride with 43% HCT when it's possible to have 49? Ullrich was at his best when he TTed better than Armstrong ( which he should have done in every Tour) - 2003 and 96-98 he was supreme in that category...in 2003 crushing Armstrong and in 96-98 crushing everybody by minutes.

You knew immediately that he wasn't at his best when he failed to gain more than 2 minutes on the likes of Beloki in a 50 km TT. But again - why should he stick to 43 HCT in 2001? I never heard of that.

EPO of second generation just came into the scene in 2000/2001 ( Aranesp etc)
 
Jun 18, 2009
891
0
0
Bavarianrider is trying to suggest that Ullrich was clean in (2000 and) 2001. If that's true, I agree with him. Maybe a book from Jan will tell us.
 
Jul 11, 2013
2,656
0
0
roundabout said:
uh, why would he have ridden clean all of a sudden when he himself sees doping as a means of leveling the playing field
Not saying he did..

But I think it is possible..

In our lives we sometimes do, or not do something -due to a variety of circumstances. Combined with a complex life and always "on the edge personalities" -I would consider it possible that some dopers lay off their medicine from time to time.. That could also help them create cognitive consonanse to their prior actions -thus justifying getting back on the dope..

From a logical pov it doesn't make (more) sense than just doping non-stop..
But humans aren't always logical...
 
Apr 20, 2012
4,238
0
0
mrhender said:
Not saying he did..

But I think it is possible..

In our lives we sometimes do, or not do something -due to a variety of circumstances. Combined with a complex life and always "on the edge personalities" -I would consider it possible that some dopers lay off their medicine from time to time.. That could also help them create cognitive consonanse to their prior actions -thus justifying getting back on the dope..

From a logical pov it doesn't make (more) sense than just doping non-stop..
But humans aren't always logical...
Me too:

Roberto Laiseka 23 min 5 Bonascre Aix les Thermes 664 8.9 1375 Tour de France 2001

Lance Armstrong 23min 7 Bonascre Aix les Thermes 664 8.9 1375 Tour de France 2001

Jan Ullrich 23min 30 Bonascre Aix les Thermes 664 8.9 1375 Tour de France 2001

Cleans!
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
Dr. Juice said:
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)
Yes, maybe true that it was a three year period of leveled playing field as possible (if we look solely at the TdF).
In 97 teams still figured out how to circumvent the 50% rule.
In 98 teams were feared to death, flushing most of their PEDs down the toilet (IOW: shortage of PEDs as numerous time witnesses told)
In 99 teams were still feared to death, but one (LA didn´t care if he goes to a french prison, thus this reckless idea with the motoman. It was kind of roulette)...

After all, that´s more years that worked well enough for a level playing field, than the one or two when the BP was to some extend effective...
 
Aug 1, 2011
185
0
0
What a load of crapp in this thread. Ullrich is a career doper, he cheated and lied throughout his career. He only came forward, when the lies where no longer believable. Huge Talent, but a crook all the same.
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
RiccoDinko said:
What a load of crapp in this thread. Ullrich is a career doper, he cheated and lied throughout his career. He only came forward, when the lies where no longer believable. Huge Talent, but a crook all the same.
What a load of crap... this post is. Tell me which "career doper" did came forward before his lies were no longer believable?
 
RiccoDinko said:
What a load of crapp in this thread. Ullrich is a career doper, he cheated and lied throughout his career. He only came forward, when the lies where no longer believable. Huge Talent, but a crook all the same.
Like the other 296 guys in the pro peloton at the time... not to mention all of the continental riders & juniors. Even the DSs medical teams were trying out the gear.

No doubt our friend Brian with his CIRC will uncover all these issues and make an apology for the UCI enablement of the enmasse doping era.
 
RiccoDinko said:
What a load of crapp in this thread. Ullrich is a career doper, he cheated and lied throughout his career. He only came forward, when the lies where no longer believable. Huge Talent, but a crook all the same.
Well how do you explain then that Ullrich is respected among 99% within the cycling world.
You most likely won't find a rider from the "EPo era" who gets more respect than him.
 
Aug 1, 2011
185
0
0
99% percent of the peloton respected Armstrong until it was no longer fashionable. I have nothing against Ullrich, he was correct for the period. I have something against the double standards in the Clinic. Building up dopers, based on their nationalities, or some ridiculous chance that in 99 he rode clean. The amount of speculation, and fan favoritism that goes on here, is nauseating.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
RiccoDinko said:
99% percent of the peloton respected Armstrong until it was no longer fashionable. I have nothing against Ullrich, he was correct for the period. I have something against the double standards in the Clinic. Building up dopers, based on their nationalities, or some ridiculous chance that in 99 he rode clean. The amount of speculation, and fan favoritism that goes on here, is nauseating.
we know Ricky Riccio was clean tho.
 
RiccoDinko said:
99% percent of the peloton respected Armstrong until it was no longer fashionable. I have nothing against Ullrich, he was correct for the period. I have something against the double standards in the Clinic. Building up dopers, based on their nationalities, or some ridiculous chance that in 99 he rode clean. The amount of speculation, and fan favoritism that goes on here, is nauseating.

2000/01 not 99
 
Aug 1, 2011
185
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
What a load of crap... this post is. Tell me which "career doper" did came forward before his lies were no longer believable?
So what's your problem with Horner then? Is he supposed to stop his success, and tell all?
 
Alpechraxler said:
with many kg's you still get a lot of power ;)
Ullrich in 1997 was just marking Virenque. There's little doubt he could have gone faster if he pushed himself to the limit.
He was in the 6.5 -7 Watt/ Kilo range on multiple stages that year.
In 2000 though, Joux Plane was his best day of the tour and he was going all out. Yet he only managed 5.9Watt/ Kilo.

5.9 to 6,5 that's a difference in power of 9%. Pretty much the difference you would excpect between clean and blood manipulated.
 
May 11, 2014
51
0
0
Bavarianrider said:
Ullrich in 1997 was just marking Virenque. There's little doubt he could have gone faster if he pushed himself to the limit.
He was in the 6.5 -7 Watt/ Kilo range on multiple stages that year.
In 2000 though, Joux Plane was his best day of the tour and he was going all out. Yet he only managed 5.9Watt/ Kilo.

5.9 to 6,5 that's a difference in power of 9%. Pretty much the difference you would excpect between clean and blood manipulated.
He was visibly heavier in 2000
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS