Jan Ullrich

[Anonymous]

Doing his Rocky Balboa act

I always loved der Kaiser

 

[The Mayor of BBQ]

This has been stuck on my fridge thru 4-5 moves and it still cracks me up every time I look at it

The Caption Reads:
"Look, but don't touch-- Jan Ullrich gets an eyeful at the rider presentation before the Tour of Cologne. After he reported the incident to his Telekom team-mates, Gian Matteo Fagini was inspired to win the race just so he could verify Ullrich's description of Miss Cologne's ample charms."

from Cycle Sport, 2002(?)

 

[knewcleardaze]

Not on his sunglasses or TT helmet?

I am uncertain, but I've always been under the impression that former World Champions may wear the rainbow hoops on the sleeves of their jersey, and former National Champions may wear their country's colours on their sleeves.
ie: In a TT, a former National TT Champion may wear his country's colours on his sleeve. In a road race, a former World Champion may wear the Rainbow hoops on his sleeve during the road race.

 

[Bagster]

The Caption Reads:
"Look, but don't touch-- Jan Ullrich gets an eyeful at the rider presentation before the Tour of Cologne. After he reported the incident to his Telekom team-mates, Gian Matteo Fagini was inspired to win the race just so he could verify Ullrich's description of Miss Cologne's ample charms."

from Cycle Sport, 2002(?)

His double chin is almost as big as her boobs!

 

[Bagster]

=Angliru;198505]If these forums are "just a "joke" then why keep making your cameo appearances? Aren't you just contributing to the circus? In some eyes Ullrich is portrayed as a "villainous drug cheat" same as Armstrong. I'm sure there are forums that have a pro Armstrong slant which is apparently what you're more happier with.

I've always been a Jan fan for many of the same reasons stated. He was a humble, flawed athlete who took all the criticism that was constantly thrown his way with great dignity.

I actually harbour no grudge against Ule. What ****es me off is the hypocrisy of a lot of posters on here who dump on Armstrong and yet hold Ule up to be some kind of a hero when he wasn't he was a cheat, same as Vino, Basso, Millar and numerous others.

You say you admire him as a rider and admire his humility. What sort of humility is it when you are winning races drugged up and still taking the accolades? I realise that LA gets slagged of because his personality does not meet the standards of the perfect personalities who post on here and that it rankles some who feel aggrieved that, in their opinion he has not been held to account for alleged doping violations. Having said that though, I stand by my comment that it is a joke to hold Ule up to be some sort of hero when he is far from it. It is just as valid, perhaps more so to hold up Armstrong, who at the end of the day beat him year after year.

 

[Bagster]

As someone once noted, if Jan had the training discipline of Zabel, he would have won 10 Tours.

My favorite Jan races were the 1996 Tour, as he was so young, and showed so much promise. And 2003. He was on a very weak team up against LA's USPS powerhouse, but fit, and showed just tremendous heart. He should have won that year.

Always seemed like a likable guy. Hope some day he will honestly tell all, and I think he will when he's ready.

My favorite Jan photo, "The Look, 2":

Lol that look is: "oh no here here comes" not see ya later Lance

 

[Bagster]

IF you go to Cycling Forums...there is a blogger there who calls himself "Roadhouse". Roadhouse is either Bagster or his inbred, illiterate, deadbeat brother.

Bagster, this is a thread just talking about Jan, about his attributes on and off the bike. Most cyclists and fans like Jan because he is not a C__t like your hero. Please do not vilify Jan with your vitriolic thoughts. Open up another thread discrediting JU there.

NW

You are a sad man Newworld. Cycling is not a personality pageant it is a hard mans sport. I am sure that Roadhouse, whoever he is, and it is not me has probably committed the heinous offence of supporting LA, which I realise is unforgivable amongst idiots like you. Maybe you look at the sport through rose tinted lenses or maybe you are too young to remember that most of the great champions were not exactly likeable or liked in their day by the people a lot like yourself who hated winners...Antequiel , Merckx, Hinault.

I find it laughable that people of your ilk feel that it is perfectly acceptable to vilify one rider but when someone questions your fawning over another convicted cheat you suddenly become affronted. You probably lack the self awareness to see that.

 

[Bagster]

Facts. Learn them. It will be one small step towards seeming intelligent. By the way, what was that in Lance's pee again? And... TUE? I aint' got no TUE. Oh yeah... that TUE. Thanks Doc.



I don't think historians nor cycling fans will look at Ulle as a loser. Lance... well I hope he's dumb enough to run for public office one day. The dirt-diggers on his opponents' sides will make CN forists seem very very tame. Anyway, enough thread-jacking. This thread is about someone who had the 'cool' factor, something that Lance has always lacked.

By the way - Sydney 2000 was after 1999. Who won?

Lance only lacks the cool factor to the hatboyz on this site, not the general public. Do you not notice (and you probably don't) that you are blindingly quick to point to Armstrong's drug indiscretions whilst you totally ignore Ule's...amazing. Even if LA was doped up, so was Ule so the best doper still won. Also I never said he was a "loser" per se, I said he was "first loser", meaning in a race there can be only one winner.

Sydney? That was a good win for him. He obviously got the drug regime right on the money for that one.

 

[craig1985]

Bagster, mate I give everybody a fair shot in life, so don't take it as I'm being harsh or being a 'hater', but if you stop and consider and read your posts and the tone it comes across as, you can see what people who support Armstrong are not tolerated that well on here.

I'm not going to lie and the reason I got interested in pro cycling is because of the Texan himself, but I;ve akways kept an open mind about things. Your posts make you loook like but nothing but a douche.

 

[Bagster]

Bagster, mate I give everybody a fair shot in life, so don't take it as I'm being harsh or being a 'hater', but if you stop and consider and read your posts and the tone it comes across as, you can see what people who support Armstrong are not tolerated that well on here.

I'm not going to lie and the reason I got interested in pro cycling is because of the Texan himself, but I;ve akways kept an open mind about things. Your posts make you loook like but nothing but a douche.

Hi Craig

I think that if you look at the LA hating posts on these forums you would see that the vitriol that a lot of these posters reserve for this one guy is...well it's disturbing. You may think I am a douche and that is your prerogative. I think that if you were objective you would realise that if I started a post similar to this one praising LA, then my posts would pale into comparison with what would be posted on there. Yes the hypocrisy angers me....not that people like Jan, people can like who they want...what angers me is the fact that the very same people who slag off LA at every opportunity, totally disregard the same failures in someone else.

One poster referred to Jans era as; "the golden days of German cycling'. In reality the 'golden days' were systemic, organised and team sanctioned doping fueled campaigns. I am sorry but that kind of cheating doesn't make you a star. If Armstrong wasn't around, I agree, Ule would have won a lot of tdf's. But they would have been drug fuelled wins and yet if you read the posts on this thread it somehow doesn't matter because he was a 'good guy' and Armstrong is just 'that ***'. So if me calling that sort of hypocrisy out makes me a douche then so be it.

 

[markene2]

@Bagster

You realy think Armstrong never doped? There are plenty of evidence, and you keep saying that Ulle was drug fulled all the time? So what? All riders dope, Ulle will be 100 times better than Armstrong as a person, he is respectfull. Armstrong is just and a$$, i am a Armstrong fan but he is a spoiled son of a *****

 

[CycloErgoSum]

=Angliru;198505]If these forums are "just a "joke" then why keep making your cameo appearances? Aren't you just contributing to the circus? In some eyes Ullrich is portrayed as a "villainous drug cheat" same as Armstrong. I'm sure there are forums that have a pro Armstrong slant which is apparently what you're more happier with.

I've always been a Jan fan for many of the same reasons stated. He was a humble, flawed athlete who took all the criticism that was constantly thrown his way with great dignity.

I actually harbour no grudge against Ule. What ****es me off is the hypocrisy of a lot of posters on here who dump on Armstrong and yet hold Ule up to be some kind of a hero when he wasn't he was a cheat, same as Vino, Basso, Millar and numerous others.

You say you admire him as a rider and admire his humility. What sort of humility is it when you are winning races drugged up and still taking the accolades? I realise that LA gets slagged of because his personality does not meet the standards of the perfect personalities who post on here and that it rankles some who feel aggrieved that, in their opinion he has not been held to account for alleged doping violations. Having said that though, I stand by my comment that it is a joke to hold Ule up to be some sort of hero when he is far from it. It is just as valid, perhaps more so to hold up Armstrong, who at the end of the day beat him year after year.

+1

Nostalgia does funny things to people's heads. Ulrich, LA and the Puerto characters all belong in the same boat, a sinking one preferably. The beloved Ulle is just as avoidant and unrepentant as the rest of them. The only thing that can be granted is that he had the grace to slink off and stay out of everyone's face. If only certain others would do the same...

 

[Bagster]

@Bagster

You realy think Armstrong never doped? There are plenty of evidence, and you keep saying that Ulle was drug fulled all the time? So what? All riders dope, Ulle will be 100 times better than Armstrong as a person, he is respectfull. Armstrong is just and a$$, i am a Armstrong fan but he is a spoiled son of a *****

I have never said at anytime that Armstrong never doped. what i have said is that he has never been banned, which is just a statement of fact.

Like I have also said, if it is a personality thread then fine, I'm sure Ule is a splendid chap. (Apart from the character flaw of being a cheat at his sport of course)

However this is a cycling forum and as a cyclist he was a doping cheat for a number of years. Whatever Armstrong did or didn't do is totally irrelevant to that fact. The only relevancy of that argument is that even if Armstrong was on the juice then the best doper still won.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Lol that look is: "oh no here here comes" not see ya later Lance

I think Jan was thinking that Tex had a lot to learn.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I have never said at anytime that Armstrong never doped. what i have said is that he has never been banned, which is just a statement of fact.

Like I have also said, if it is a personality thread then fine, I'm sure Ule is a splendid chap. (Apart from the character flaw of being a cheat at his sport of course)

However this is a cycling forum and as a cyclist he was a doping cheat for a number of years. Whatever Armstrong did or didn't do is totally irrelevant to that fact. The only relevancy of that argument is that even if Armstrong was on the juice then the best doper still won.

I admired your logic when you stated earlier that it's inconsistent to beatify Ullrich while demonising Armstrong; they're peas in a pod.

But 'best doper?' It's an oxymoron. It's like admiring a fraudster for being a good criminal, or like those sad types who admire gangsters, bikies, etc., for being 'hard a$$.'

A doper is a fraud, is a thief, is a liar. At the moment I don't know which of those is worse.

 

[Bagster]

I think Jan was thinking that Tex had a lot to learn.

Umm lol..no I don't think he was thinking that. He was more likely thinking..."I remember winning one of those yellow jerseys once"

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

This is an Ullrich thread and not an Armstrong thread.

Thank you.

Susan

 

[Bala Verde]

Keep it on topic.

It's JAN ULLRICH and it's NOT IN THE CLINIC.

That means NO EXCLUSIVE FOCUS ON LANCE ARMSTRONG (there is another thread for it) and NO DOPING (you can open a thread in the clinic)

Anyone who will talk armstrong & doping, ullrich & doping will get an infraction.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Keep it on topic.

It's JAN ULLRICH and it's NOT IN THE CLINIC.

That means NO EXCLUSIVE FOCUS ON LANCE ARMSTRONG (there is another thread for it) and NO DOPING (you can open a thread in the clinic)

Anyone who will talk armstrong & doping, ullrich & doping will get an infraction.

OK, let's talk about Ulle's shoe size, or how cute his freckles are. How are we meant to talk about him whilst ignoring certain facts of his biography? On a broader matter, where do you stand in relation to censorship? Perhaps you should specify the manner in which we are talk about him and completely ignore the leder-housened elephant in the room. Or just move the friggin thread.

 

[elapid]

Just to weigh into the argument here. I thought Craig's post regarding Bagster was quite accurate, but then Bagster's subsequent two posts were redeeming. You don't have to resort to insults and vitriol to state your point of view. LA is a polarizing person and the reasons are more than whether he doped or not. His dislikable personality probably has a lot do with people's perception of him as a person, and Bagster is right that previous champions, before my time and probably the majority of others on this forum, may have had the same persona. But that doesn't mean that people cannot like Ullrich. Every interview I've seen, he was always polite and gracious. If you want comparisons, then he was the polar opposite to the brash and rude LA. Ullrich also had oodles of talent, but occasionally lacked the motivation to get into the shape he needed to be competitive. However, this makes him fallible and human. Again, if you want comparisons, this is very different to LA who seems very clinical and cold. And before anyone starts to use labels of haters and lovers, I am not an Ullrich fan, I am not an LA hater, but I prefer to judge people on the available evidence. I am a fan of some cyclists who have or probably have doped, but I am not delusional about the current state of affairs and I don't think that this makes me a hypocrite (similar to someone liking Ullrich but not LA is not a hypocrite).

 

[Race Radio]

rambling troll babble.........One poster referred to Jans era as; "the golden days of German cycling'...... Inane fanboy justification

There was a period in Germany that had large WC races that are now a shadow of their former self, if not gone all together. Large town center Crit's with start money for the riders....these are also mostly gone.

 

[Bagster]

I admired your logic when you stated earlier that it's inconsistent to beatify Ullrich while demonising Armstrong; they're peas in a pod.

But 'best doper?' It's an oxymoron. It's like admiring a fraudster for being a good criminal, or like those sad types who admire gangsters, bikies, etc., for being 'hard a$$.'

A doper is a fraud, is a thief, is a liar. At the moment I don't know which of those is worse.

I only meant 'best' in the sense of how they rode.

 

[mikkemus23]

My favourite rider, after Indurain retired.
Like most who like him, it was not just his cycling, but the fact that he seems so much more human & likeable than most champions - & one that you could have a beer with.
Favourite Jan moments:
- The penultimate (TT) stage of the 1996 TdF - when he came close to dethroning Riis
- Andorra stage of the 1997 TdF
- Sydney 2000 & more specifically, the 2nd last time up the Bronte Hill
- the constant hopes that he had kept his weight under control over the winter
- the first time trial stage in the 2003 TdF, when he obliterated the entire field.

I second that

 

[Bagster]

Just to weigh into the argument here. I thought Craig's post regarding Bagster was quite accurate, but then Bagster's subsequent two posts were redeeming. You don't have to resort to insults and vitriol to state your point of view. LA is a polarizing person and the reasons are more than whether he doped or not. His dislikable personality probably has a lot do with people's perception of him as a person, and Bagster is right that previous champions, before my time and probably the majority of others on this forum, may have had the same persona. But that doesn't mean that people cannot like Ullrich. Every interview I've seen, he was always polite and gracious. If you want comparisons, then he was the polar opposite to the brash and rude LA. Ullrich also had oodles of talent, but occasionally lacked the motivation to get into the shape he needed to be competitive. However, this makes him fallible and human. Again, if you want comparisons, this is very different to LA who seems very clinical and cold. And before anyone starts to use labels of haters and lovers, I am not an Ullrich fan, I am not an LA hater, but I prefer to judge people on the available evidence. I am a fan of some cyclists who have or probably have doped, but I am not delusional about the current state of affairs and I don't think that this makes me a hypocrite (similar to someone liking Ullrich but not LA is not a hypocrite).

I agree with almost everything you say. Apart from the bit about you agreeing with Craig that I'm a douche But then LA probably thinks that he is a nice guy too, and yes, Ule has those cute freckles.

 

[Bagster]

There was a period in Germany that had large WC races that are now a shadow of their former self, if not gone all together. Large town center Crit's with start money for the riders....these are also mostly gone.

Stop a moment...and think about what you have just posted. Why are they gone? Perhaps it is because the sponsors and the public just got fed up with all the "naughty stuff"...and by the way...thanks. In your attempt to discredit me with your putdown you have actually reinforced my comments. The "golden age" in terms of the local crits you remember so fondly were destroyed by the antics of Jan and his mates.