LeMond: Ullrich is the best rider of his generation, he would have won every Tour

[Bavarianrider]

In the German "Sportbild" there's a longer interview with Lemond about his experiences with Armstrong.

Towards the end of the interview the question is discussed, how doping affected the race and who would have won in a clean field.

" I've always liked Jan. He has a real, naturally given talent.
Although he has been linked to doping, too. I am against corruption and doping but i can understand the riders. They have lots of pressure to perform well.
I think it's the job of the sport and the UCI to make sure that clean riders stand a chance to win. Ullrich was a lot more talented than Lance....

(In a clean field) Ullrich would have been the winner all the time. I am absolutely sure about this. I've always seen it this way. He is the best rider of that generation.

 

[deviant]

Lance said the same thing but added that Ullrich didnt have the mentality, drive or organisational skills to compete with USPS.

Lim worked with both Lance and Landis and reckons Landis's numbers are far better than Lance's and Floyd could have been a multiple champ too, didn't that recent Juliet Macur book suggest Landis rode the 2005 TdF clean and came 9th anyway, if true that's a remarkable achievement in that era.

 

[red_flanders]

Armstrong also said the same thing in about 1997 when asked if he would ever go for a TdF win by a fairly naive American reporter. Don't recall the exact response but it was along the lines of "we've just seen the guy who can/will win the next 10 Tours, I don't think with the emergence of Ullrich that me riding to win the Tour is realistic."

 

[veji11]

Hard to say. That Ulrich was way better than Armonstrong, who is a pure product of doping, is well known. ie quite a few elements of Ulrich limiting his doping in the first years after Festina. That Ulrich was the best talent of his generation, we don't know. After all who is to say that a Moncoutié wouldn't have won a few GTs in a 100% clean peloton (half joke here).

To compare, when Fignon won the Tour in 83 and then smashed it in 84 people said the new boss was there and barring injury, he would win more than 5 Tour de France. But then Lemond came along and Fignon's carreer proved somewhat underwelming after that. Was Ulrich apparently the best in those late 90s years ? yes. But who is to say that a young talent in the early 00s wouldn't have toppled him in more normal circumstances ?

 

[No_Balls]

No doubt Ullrich was (probably) more naturally talented to win a Tour then what Armstrong showed before he went full *** with the substances. However, this quote is more directed against Lance then it is to upheld Ullrich.

We dont know much about Ullrich before 1996 when he arrived doped to the gills.

 

[nomapnocompass]

Lemond coming out with nonsense like this only confirms my opinion of him, a very talented bike rider but a bit of an idiot.

The fact is that no one knows who was the best undoped. Ullrich's career was heavily dominated by doping and his wins came at the height of the EPO doping era. Conjecture about who was the best was idiotic.

 

[D-Queued]

Lemond coming out with nonsense like this only confirms my opinion of him, a very talented bike rider but a bit of an idiot.

The fact is that no one knows who was the best undoped. Ullrich's career was heavily dominated by doping and his wins came at the height of the EPO doping era. Conjecture about who was the best was idiotic.

Ullrich emerged from the former East Germany just after the wall came down. That timing puts his formative years effectively at the height of the Stasi supported doping programs. Well documented to initiate doping in teenage years.

1. We know that he doped. That is enough to mess up any conjecture right there.

2. And, we know that he associated with former E. German experts. Minimally, that taints his formative years.

Using his own comments:

Adding 1 + 1 = you cannot separate his talent from the doping that we know of and of that doping which almost certainly preceded what we know of.

Dave.

 

[blackcat]

udo bolts says no

 

[zlev11]

Lemond really likes to talk out of his ***, doesn't he?

 

[Digger]

In the German "Sportbild" there's a longer interview with Lemond about his experiences with Armstrong.

Towards the end of the interview the question is discussed, how doping affected the race and who would have won in a clean field.

" I've always liked Jan. He has a real, naturally given talent.
Although he has been linked to doping, too. I am against corruption and doping but i can understand the riders. They have lots of pressure to perform well.
I think it's the job of the sport and the UCI to make sure that clean riders stand a chance to win. Ullrich was a lot more talented than Jan....

(In a clean field) Ullrich would have been the winner all the time. I am absolutely sure about this. I've always seen it this way. He is the ebst rider of that generation.

Poor Race Radio has to reconcile what Greg says with what he has been saying about Jan last year

 

[jens_attacks]

lol lemond, funny old man

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I see Lemond has decided to join the

and why not.....

 

[Race Radio]

Poor Race Radio has to reconcile what Greg says with what he has been saying about Jan last year

I feel sorry for people who can only be friends with those who agree with them 100%. That would be boring.

Greg is a very smart guy, perhaps he is right......but we will never know

 

[sniper]

I see Lemond has decided to join the

and why not.....

and indeed why not. nobody wants to spoil the party these days.
even kimmage is saying things are better (though you hear him coughing and scraping his throat)

 

[jw1979]

In the German "Sportbild" there's a longer interview with Lemond about his experiences with Armstrong.

Towards the end of the interview the question is discussed, how doping affected the race and who would have won in a clean field.

" I've always liked Jan. He has a real, naturally given talent.
Although he has been linked to doping, too. I am against corruption and doping but i can understand the riders. They have lots of pressure to perform well.
I think it's the job of the sport and the UCI to make sure that clean riders stand a chance to win. Ullrich was a lot more talented than Jan....

(In a clean field) Ullrich would have been the winner all the time. I am absolutely sure about this. I've always seen it this way. He is the best rider of that generation.

Was Ullrich the thin doped one? Jan was the fat natural one?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I feel sorry for people who can only be friends with those who agree with them 100%. That would be boring.

Greg is a very smart guy, perhaps he is right......but we will never know

Nothing against you. But you pretty much declared Ullrich as donkey (ifn´t on EPO/extra blood) last year. You brought strong arguments. So how comes you changed your mind?

 

[hrotha]

Nothing against you. But you pretty much declared Ullrich as donkey (ifn´t on EPO/extra blood) last year. You brought strong arguments. So how comes you changed your mind?

Where did he say he changed his mind?

 

[eagleofditchling]

To compare, when Fignon won the Tour in 83 and then smashed it in 84 people said the new boss was there and barring injury, he would win more than 5 Tour de France. But then Lemond came along and Fignon's carreer proved somewhat underwelming after that. Was Ulrich apparently the best in those late 90s years ? yes. But who is to say that a young talent in the early 00s wouldn't have toppled him in more normal circumstances ?

Yeah well Fignon did get injured.
And underwhelming? A giro and twp Milan san Remos and losing a Giro Tour double by 8 seconds whilst Lemond resorted to using Tri bars to beat him.

 

[roundabout]

He didn't point and laugh at Lemond for making that idiotic statement.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Where did he say he changed his mind?

"Greg is a very smart guy, perhaps he is right......but we will never know"

 

[Escarabajo]

All we know is that Ullrich was more talented than Armstrong. And that's it. Everything else is full of speculation.

Moncoutie could have lacked the drive to be a winner. In an interview he sounded like a very relaxed guy who did not put urgency in winning. To be a winner you need many more things than just being talented.

The list of talented riders who have not fulfilled the fans dreams is long. This applies for all eras.

 

[Digger]

I feel sorry for people who can only be friends with those who agree with them 100%. That would be boring.

Greg is a very smart guy, perhaps he is right......but we will never know

So because Greg says it, then it might be right.

 

[Berzin]

We're not having this turn into a Race Radio complaint-athon.

As for what Lemond said, his opinion on Ullrich merits comments on their own, so stay on topic.

 

[GuyIncognito]

udo bolts says no

This

Bolts says Ullrich was very good in the TT and possibly could've been good in classics but was dropped by sprinters when the road went up, until they gave him EPO and he flew.
Which makes perfect sense, he has the physical build type associated with EPO superresponders

 

[Big Doopie]

All we know is that Ullrich was more talented than Armstrong. And that's it. Everything else is full of speculation.

this.

i love how lemond is constantly demonized when he voices his opinion. it's just an opinion. but why the demonization? is it because he has been right about everything else when it was unpopular? he even knew not to take armstrong's call pre-oprah because (unlike the wonderful betsy) he figured armstrong was going to use it. again he was right. also in the interview -- note that he puts the responsibility squarely on the authorities (not the riders) to provide a fair playing field for clean riders. this is what he has always said. and yet for years it was reported as sour grapes about the doped riders who beat him. sure it ruined the end of his career, but he is smart enough to realize that the responsibility was for the sport governors to provide a clean competition not the riders who constantly feel the pressure to win.