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

[Merckx index]

It was a theory, I've seen, been mentioned here a few years ago, that epo benefits those of greater physical build. Don't know what evidence there was to back it up.

RR was pushing this idea here about a year ago. The theory is that "densely-muscled" riders have a larger reservoir of tissue that can make better use of the increased oxygen transport with EPO. Supposedly, Armstrong, Ullrich and Pantani were all outstanding examples of this kind of build.

But RR never provided any evidence for this other than some insiders he talked to supposedly claimed so. There is no evidence for it in the literature that I know of, and just a consideration of physiology suggests it wouldn't be the case. RR didn't even provide any evidence that the riders he named had this kind of build, let alone that it mattered if they did.

That said, we do know that there are at least two ways in which some athletes can respond better to EPO than others. First, a given dose of EPO may have a greater effect on HT in some individuals than in others. Studies have demonstrated this, though we have no way of identifying which riders might have been better responders in this sense. This effect would be particularly important after a test for EPO was developed, and riders micro-dosed. When the amount of EPO you dare take is limited, the advantage goes to those who get the most effect from a given dose.

Second, a lower natural HT can be raised to a higher % than a higher HT. This was important before there was a test for EPO and you could take all you wanted, but it became particularly significant after the 50% limit was imposed. A rider with a natural HT of 40 could raise it 25% under these conditions, while a rider with a natural HT of 45 only about 10%. Armstrong was known to have a fairly low natural HT, though I'm not sure it was low enough to provide an advantage over most other riders. RR claims it was in the high 30s, but in the biopassport data that were published for 2009/2010, it's listed in the low 40s, hardly lower than the mean for males, which is around 43-44. Jan and Marco supposedly also had low natural HTs, but it's hard to find references to their precise values.

 

[hiero2]

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.

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.

Yeah - "idiot" is a bit strong, but Lemond has never been a good public speaker. Nor is he much into in-depth consideration of many of the issues he is asked to speak on. Yet, he is famous, and fame has brought him attention. And, when you are famous and get attention, people (media) ask you questions as though you WERE the sort of person who gave deep thought to the sorts of issues they are asking about. I think Greg is probably smarter than some other cyclists who've gotten into the fame circle. I'm thinking Tyler and Landis. But being smarter doesn't make him a better speaker.

This is actually one of the reasons the media jumped on the Armstrong bandwagon (way back). He was winning, AND he could sound moderately intelligent in a public interview.

Fwiw, holding your own in public speaking like that is not easy. It is hard, or at least I think it is hard. I don't think it is a common talent.

 

[manafana]

wonder what ullrich went through in his youth, surely doped by the east german programme.

 

[Tangled Tango]

I also do not understand what brings out such nasty comments toward LeMond, who was never a clever speaker in front of a microphone, but who was and still remains genuine and honest. Is it really so important that he speak with eloquence? Or does it still hurt when someone says something against LA? It certainly wasn´t LeMond who brought LA down. All he did was see the truth and speak it and for that even now, he continues to be called an idiot.

If we forget about what or how much they were doping and we compare LA to Ullrich there are many early signs showing Ullrich far stronger than LA. Ullrich´s TT abilities were strong as soon as he turned pro. At 20 yrs old he was third behind Chris Boardman in the Worlds TT. At 22 yrs old he not only finished his first Tour, he was second in GC and won the final TT stage. The next year he won the Tour, his second Tour. How many tours did LA abandon before his full on *** wins begin? How many TTs did LA win in those early Tours? There are plenty more comparisons to be made, but the GT talent usually shows early on as it did with Ullrich, LeMond, Fignon, Hinault. Call him an idiot if that makes you feel better about yourself, but LeMond is more than likely correct about this just as he was correct about LA.

 

[ultimobici]

I also do not understand what brings out such nasty comments toward LeMond, who was never a clever speaker in front of a microphone, but who was and still remains genuine and honest. Is it really so important that he speak with eloquence? Or does it still hurt when someone says something against LA? It certainly wasn´t LeMond who brought LA down. All he did was see the truth and speak it and for that even now, he continues to be called an idiot.

If we forget about what or how much they were doping and we compare LA to Ullrich there are many early signs showing Ullrich far stronger than LA. Ullrich´s TT abilities were strong as soon as he turned pro. At 20 yrs old he was third behind Chris Boardman in the Worlds TT. At 22 yrs old he not only finished his first Tour, he was second in GC and won the final TT stage. The next year he won the Tour, his second Tour. How many tours did LA abandon before his full on *** wins begin? How many TTs did LA win in those early Tours? There are plenty more comparisons to be made, but the GT talent usually shows early on as it did with Ullrich, LeMond, Fignon, Hinault. Call him an idiot if that makes you feel better about yourself, but LeMond is more than likely correct about this just as he was correct about LA.

The problem with this is Armstrong was riding his first TdFs when the use of EPO was in its infancy whereas Ullrich's rise was several years later.

 

[Cloxxki]

The problem with this is Armstrong was riding his first TdFs when the use of EPO was in its infancy whereas Ullrich's rise was several years later.

Yeah, but Lance was using along with the others. Racing against more clean riders. Just his team wasn't quite on board yet.
Ullrich was no cleaner, but competing against a higher density of dope in the peloton, and doing great right away. Night and day difference.
If Ullrich had planned to go for more stage wins and abandon his first GC early, it could still have been spectacular in a different way.
Lance got his win, Ulrich could have been Erik Dekker like, with a TT win in the mix. But he was not the prize rider but a domestique to Mr. 60%.

 

[Race Radio]

But RR never provided any evidence

Not exactly.

The equation of Hct and Vo2 basic science. In the late 90's every DS and manager understood it and looked for U23 riders who fit the profile as riders with a high vo2/low Hct benefited the most from oxygen vector doping.

JV mentioned the muscle mass topic as well

Also, an old Finnish study (if you can find it) found that athletes with higher Vo2 maxes benefitted less from EPO use than those who started with lower Vo2 maxes. The more talented athlete were (generally) benefitting less. Another observation of that study was that ectomorphic body types showed less increase than mesomorphic types. So, the variables on the exact advantage are endless and vary person to person (A BIG counterpoint to the argument that just letting everyone dope is fair). I read this study in about 1995 and haven't seen it anywhere since, so i cant find a link, sorry...

Building muscle mass was a key part of Ferrari's doping program, Hence the reason lance showed up to training camp looking like a linebacker shortly after starting to use Ferrari. Jan did the same....but people called him fat, not a linebacker.

These days seeing riders up close can be shocking. Disturbing. They are anorexic. If you saw Jan in 2003 or 2004 up close it would shock you. Muscles on top of muscles, thanks to a nice mix of HGH, Clen, Cortisone, and Thyroid medicine. Great way to get skinny and maintain muscle mass.

Every person responds differently to drugs. All drugs. One of the best selling drugs in history, Claritin, has a 50% response rate. The study JV refers to also explored that angle. Not intentionally, they were surprised to see the large difference in response rate, but it showed huge variances.

In addition to response it also comes down to the level of risk a rider is willing to take. Riis is a good example. He took huge risks, taking twice the amount of HGH and EPO as the rest of the riders on the team. Twice. His Hct was 64%. Few riders were willing to take that risk and few doctors would allow it. You will notice that Ullrich name hardly appears in the Freiburg report.....that's because he stopped using the team program in 1999. It was too conservative for him and Rudy.

The oxygen vector era is filled with riders who won because of the risk they were willing to take, the response they had to the drugs of the day, and the level of protection they had from the UCI. Some might want to pretend Jan was the exception but I don't agree.

 

[Neworld]

=Race Radio;1449332]Not exactly.

The equation of Hct and Vo2 basic science. In the late 90's every DS and manager understood it and looked for U23 riders who fit the profile as riders with a high vo2/low Hct benefited the most from oxygen vector doping.

JV mentioned the muscle mass topic as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JV1973 View Post
Also, an old Finnish study (if you can find it) found that athletes with higher Vo2 maxes benefitted less from EPO use than those who started with lower Vo2 maxes. The more talented athlete were (generally) benefitting less. Another observation of that study was that ectomorphic body types showed less increase than mesomorphic types. So, the variables on the exact advantage are endless and vary person to person (A BIG counterpoint to the argument that just letting everyone dope is fair). I read this study in about 1995 and haven't seen it anywhere since, so i cant find a link, sorry...


Some might want to pretend Jan was the exception but I don't agree.

I can't speak for everyone...but I don't 'know' if JU was an exception.

He sure appeared to be and did so early on, for years, during the evolution of doping from maximizing just EPO to injecting the kitchen sink. What I do know is that c/w the top 10 dopers there is evidence that he doped less. If you look at the JU - LA biometric comparisons... JU was better. And, contemporaneously biometrics are at least quantifiable and a lot better than the propaganda that the LA-liefest generated for years.

Also, one Finnish study referred to by JV, a non-physiologist, who cannot recall the exact citation, and, 'common knowledge from every DS' does not really add much to verify those potential variables.

There could me many many reasons why bulking up, to perform better over 3 weeks of racing that not only included flats and MTFs...but ITTs where an individual's power separates the leaders from the others. A skinny JV would never last over 60Kms against Bert Grabsch for eg: (who I imagine probably doped solidly too btw).

 

[Race Radio]

I can't speak for everyone...but I don't 'know' if JU was an exception.

Certainly possible Jan was the exception. The guy who would have won anyways...... but considering he won in 97, during the most "Top Fuel" days of the sport I doubt it.

When it comes to doping I prefer to listen to JV, Johan, and others who have played the game

 

[blackcat]

Not exactly.

The equation of Hct and Vo2 basic science. In the late 90's every DS and manager understood it and looked for U23 riders who fit the profile as riders with a high vo2/low Hct benefited the most from oxygen vector doping.

JV mentioned the muscle mass topic as well



Building muscle mass was a key part of Ferrari's doping program, Hence the reason lance showed up to training camp looking like a linebacker shortly after starting to use Ferrari. Jan did the same....but people called him fat, not a linebacker.

These days seeing riders up close can be shocking. Disturbing. They are anorexic. If you saw Jan in 2003 or 2004 up close it would shock you. Muscles on top of muscles, thanks to a nice mix of HGH, Clen, Cortisone, and Thyroid medicine. Great way to get skinny and maintain muscle mass.

Every person responds differently to drugs. All drugs. One of the best selling drugs in history, Claritin, has a 50% response rate. The study JV refers to also explored that angle. Not intentionally, they were surprised to see the large difference in response rate, but it showed huge variances.

In addition to response it also comes down to the level of risk a rider is willing to take. Riis is a good example. He took huge risks, taking twice the amount of HGH and EPO as the rest of the riders on the team. Twice. His Hct was 64%. Few riders were willing to take that risk and few doctors would allow it. You will notice that Ullrich name hardly appears in the Freiburg report.....that's because he stopped using the team program in 1999. It was too conservative for him and Rudy.

The oxygen vector era is filled with riders who won because of the risk they were willing to take, the response they had to the drugs of the day, and the level of protection they had from the UCI. Some might want to pretend Jan was the exception but I don't agree.

thnx rr,

long live RR

 

[Neworld]

Certainly possible Jan was the exception. The guy who would have won anyways...... but considering he won in 97, during the most "Top Fuel" days of the sport I doubt it.

When it comes to doping I prefer to listen to JV, Johan, and others who have played the game

You may be right, you're right about quite a bit. You're quoted in books FFS.

The issue with listening to the likes of JV, JB, B.Riis(and one Finnish study)...is that they only know to dope the 'good ole' traditional way'. Which may be similar to years of throwing eggs against the wall and seeing what works.

But, science doesn't work that way. And just because some elements of doping 'appear' to work, doesn't mean those biased hypotheses are valid. Insert the Cogger's logic and Dr. Coyle BS.

PS: Can we stop listing Udo Bolt's one bloody comment as a panacea for rating JU's talent gradation?

 

[Race Radio]

You may be right, you're right about quite a bit. You're quoted in books FFS.

The issue with listening to the likes of JV, JB, B.Riis(and one Finnish study)...is that they only know to dope the 'good ole' traditional way'. Which may be similar to years of throwing eggs against the wall and seeing what works.

But, science doesn't work that way. And just because some elements of doping 'appear' to work, doesn't mean those biased hypotheses are valid. Insert the Cogger's logic and Dr. Coyle BS.

PS: Can we stop listing Udo Bolt's one bloody comment as a panacea for rating JU's talent gradation?

I get what your saying about the 'Good old traditional way'.....but we are talking about a rider who prospered in the "Good old days". The points I am making are not pointed at Jan in specific, it is indicative of the era. Riders who took the most risk, and responded the best to those risks, prospered. Riis, Jan, Beloki, Basso, Armstrong, Berzin, etc. They all fall into this camp.

How much benefit Jan got from Oxygen vector doping? I doubt we will ever know......but we do know one bag of blood from Fuentes Fridge help him go from off the bag to winning the TT at the 2006 Giro

We can drop Udo's comments. It is always hard to look back to the 90's/00's and wonder what caused the huge changes in form......but can we add Cadel Evan's getting dropped at training camp? That guy is a freaking roller coaster

 

[blackcat]

I get what your saying about the 'Good old traditional way'.....but we are talking about a rider who prospered in the "Good old days". The points I am making are not pointed at Jan in specific, it is indicative of the era. Riders who took the most risk, and responded the best to those risks, prospered. Riis, Jan, Beloki, Basso, Armstrong, Berzin, etc. They all fall into this camp.

How much benefit Jan got from Oxygen vector doping? I doubt we will ever know......but we do know one bag of blood from Fuentes Fridge help him go from off the bag to winning the TT at the 2006 Giro

We can drop Udo's comments. It is always hard to look back to the 90's/00's and wonder what caused the huge changes in form......but can we add Cadel Evan's getting dropped at training camp? That guy is a freaking roller coaster

people wanting science and doping?

well, this is putting an inescapable roadblock as the barrier. There will be no double blind with enough pros as a sample to satisfy those holding up the scientific method in its strict and austere definition.

 

[D-Queued]

Yeah - "idiot" is a bit strong, but Lemond has never been a good public speaker. ...

He isn't perfect, but is arguably better than many.

However, he isn't silky smooth. Fortunate as this provides yet another refreshing and reassuring fundamental difference between a Lemond and a classic sociopath.

A psychopath never gets tongue-tied.

Dave.

 

[Tangled Tango]

The problem with this is Armstrong was riding his first TdFs when the use of EPO was in its infancy whereas Ullrich's rise was several years later.

Lance´s first TdFs were during Big Mig´s reign, a period when Once, Kelme, Festina, Mapie and Banesto were all enjoying the full benefits of EPO. My main point though was riders with a natural talent for GTs, normally show that talent early on, something we didn´t see in Lance at all, but was very evident in Ullrich from the start.

 

[simo1733]

There must be tons of data out there showing how the top pro's responded to EPO.Seems that even the one's who have been caught are not prepared to shed some light on the subject.
In fact even long retired supposedly clean riders aren't keen to divulge any data.

 

[Merckx index]

Not exactly.

We argued about this before, I don't want to dig all this up again, but interested posters can check the Ullrich thread about a year ago. I'll just reiterate there is no evidence I'm aware of. I looked long and hard for that one Finnish study JV claimed and never found it, and last I heard, he couldn't, either. The fact that Armstrong was getting muscled up may support the idea that some people believed in this theory, but it doesn't support the theory itself. Also, the notion that you can improve response to EPO by bulking up argues against super responders, who had a natural advantage over other riders. If you can do it in that manner, then anyone could increase response to EPO just by using muscle builders.

Let’s be clear about the claim. Certainly if you can increase the mass in the muscles used to push the pedals, that will provide you with more power, and if you then take EPO, you will be able to maintain this increased power longer. Nothing controversial or unappreciated about that. The issue is whether certain riders, with no more natural power and maybe even less power than other riders, could benefit more from EPO because their no more powerful muscles had a structure that allowed them to take better advantage of the increased oxygen transport. I’ll repeat the invitation I made last year. If you know someone who has evidence for this, tell him to come on the forum and explain it. Since it’s all past history it isn’t giving away any necessary secrets, and simply expounding the theory isn’t incriminating oneself as a former enabler of dopers.

In addition to response it also comes down to the level of risk a rider is willing to take. Riis is a good example. He took huge risks, taking twice the amount of HGH and EPO as the rest of the riders on the team. Twice. His Hct was 64%. Few riders were willing to take that risk and few doctors would allow it.

Definitely agree with this. The more potentially dangerous a doping regimen is, the greater its selective power. Some fools will rush in where angels fear to tread.

we do know one bag of blood from Fuentes Fridge help him go from off the bag to winning the TT at the 2006 Giro

We also know that he was riding that Giro only for training, that the reason he was off the back is because he wasn’t going all out, and that in fact he was targeting that stage.

There must be tons of data out there showing how the top pro's responded to EPO.Seems that even the one's who have been caught are not prepared to shed some light on the subject.
In fact even long retired supposedly clean riders aren't keen to divulge any data.

OTOH, Floyd and Tyler didn't seem to have much to say about that, except that Floyd claimed the effect was overrated, and Tyler implied Armstrong didn't respond any better than anyone else.

Would like to hear JB tell all, though.

 

[Franklin]

There must be tons of data out there showing how the top pro's responded to EPO.Seems that even the one's who have been caught are not prepared to shed some light on the subject.
In fact even long retired supposedly clean riders aren't keen to divulge any data.

You are grossly overestimating the scientific basis on cyclists doping. Most cyclists just popped drugs on advice of the guy who washed the jerseys and did their usual training, thus not getting the most out of it. That was why ferrari was so extremely succesful as he integrated dope and training.

Even in the 2000's it seems most team doctors were adept at keeping riders from becoming positive and were not really into the cutting edge of how to apply the dope with the training regimen.

Sports in general are scientifically a backwater and Cycling is one of the worst area's in that regard. Chances of there being some significant science worthy data is zero (especially since nobody would want to keep that data around).

 

[Race Radio]

I'll just reiterate there is no evidence I'm aware of.

Doping methods and results are not the kind of things you find in books. Riders , and their enablers, are always the same. They pretend their program was "Conservative". That everyone was doing the same thing and everyone responds the same way to dope. This is nonsense. Just like any pharmaceutical there is massive variance to an individuals response to oxygen vector doping. Some get outsized response, others don't. That is the story of the era.

Jan is a nice guy and was a fun rider to cheer for.....but that does not mean he was not the same as the other riders who received out sized gains from doping. There is nothing in Jan's U23 career that indicates 18 months later he would be on the podium of the Tour or do this

http://youtu.be/1yGEa39oH80

 

[Benotti69]

i think there is no way to tell how good or bad any riders natural ability was during the EPO era.

 

[stutue]

In my view Greg is just having a poke at Armstrong with this one.......and who can blame him?

 

[Benotti69]

In my view Greg is just having a poke at Armstrong with this one.......and who can blame him?

No one. But i think LeMond should forget about Armstrong.

 

[hrotha]

RR, what do you make of the second-hand claim, whose source was ultimately supposed to be Livingston, that Ullrich was racing with a low hematocrit of 42%, tops, in the early 2000s? Do you think JV misquoted Livingston, did he misremember, was Livingston simply wrong, or did Ullrich's program not rely on a particularly high hematocrit (kinda like Rasmussen in 2005)?

 

[stutue]

No one. But i think LeMond should forget about Armstrong.

I don't think anyone can forget about Armstrong just yet. It has framed the entire way the sport is viewed. To be honest, the entire sport may have changed....

......but I for one can't see anything that conclusively proves that it has.

(And to be clear, just because I can't see anything doesn't mean changes haven't happened)

 

[Franklin]

i think there is no way to tell how good or bad any riders natural ability was during the EPO era.

Hammer meets nail!

Fully agreed. All we know is that it did tremendous harm to cycling.