Rudy Pevenage: " I am shocked about the level of drug abuse by Armstrong gangsters"

[thehog]

True, you can't dope year 'round.

Do you remember how well Tyler did in those races?

Off the back.

But Ullrich was a machine. He was pure class. Even Tyler admits this. You won't have any one tell you different in regards to Ullrich's obvious talent. You just have to watch him. A beautiful beautiful bike rider.

Similar to Conador. Dope or no dope it's obvious Contador is an extremely talented bike rider.

 

[Frosty]

Not convinced by Pevenage but it would be interesting to see what Ullrich could achieve if he was to train hard all winter, publish blood tests, etc.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Not convinced by Pevenage but it would be interesting to see what Ullrich could achieve if he was to train hard all winter, publish blood tests, etc.

Indeed, it would have been so cool if Jan did that and came back.
I think he really could have regained his reputation if he did that

 

[happychappy]

I believe Ullrich was cleaner than the average GT contender in the early 00s, but no way I believe they were completely clean. No ****ing way.

A massive lump like Ullrich that CANNOT climb that fast with oxygen vector doping. It just is not possible.

 

[Speedzero]

I have to say, I am treating anyone's statement that they are "shocked and suprised" by all this as, in effect, an admission of guilt.

 

[Frosty]

hey people can be shocked at how many people testified

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Tyler's first "siberia" transfusion for the 2004 TdF had gone bad and his second was intercepted by customs. He says the same thing happened to Jan. Still finished 4th overall.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Rudy saying these things is like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[VeloCity]

Even if he lost to Armstrong, Ullrich still finished ahead - by many minutes - of a number of known and confirmed dopers in the 2001 TdF. Isn't that what we used to ridicule Armstrong supporters for claiming, that Armstrong was a clean rider who somehow managed to beat the dopers by minutes? But now some are making the exact same claim for Ullrich.

Even setting aside what we know about Ullrich/Pevenage, like Armstrong, there's no way that a clean Ullrich could've beaten dopers by minutes over a brutal 3-week Tour.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Even if he lost to Armstrong, Ullrich still finished ahead - by many minutes - of a number of known and confirmed dopers in the 2001 TdF. Isn't that what we used to ridicule Armstrong supporters for claiming, that Armstrong was a clean rider who somehow managed to beat the dopers by minutes? But now some are making the exact same claim for Ullrich.

They are much much much more plausible in Jan's case, that's the difference
And of how many riders do you know that used EPO or blood doping in 2001?

 

[Von Mises]

Ironically, what we might get out of all this stuff coming out, is not how dirty it was - but how CLEAN it was. I mean, at this point, most or all of the posters in the Clinic believe the peloton was 100% dirty for more than 10 years, and at least 25% dirty (the pointy end) for another 10! Additionally, I think I could safely say that the Clinic thinks that 100% of riders in the pro peloton between 1994 and 2008 doped at some time during those years! The ones who got caught or were about to get caught 'fessed up to some minor indescretion - the smallest they felt they could admit and still look like they were telling us something. That much has been such a common pattern! So, if it turns out that somebody really COULD have been riding "clean" in those years, it would be a jolt upward.

I do not think that 100% riders doped. Landis came 2nd at Dauphine and was clean - it is the pointy end result. Moncoutie achieved even during very dirty years some preetu good results (the pointy end). I am sure there are others and I ma sure that we can found even more clean riders and clean rides at lower levels of pro ranks.
I am confident that today it is possible to get into top 10 of any GT and to be clean (sadly I am not sure about winning GT clean, yet).

 

[Maxiton]

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cnt/DMF20121011_100

Maybe someone who speaks the language might have the time to produce a coherent translation.

The most important statements are clear, though.

-Pevenage is shocked by the doping policy of Armstrong and his team.
- He is especially suprised how they could use Epo for so lang.
- He says compared to what US Postal did, he was just a tiny little fish
- He says that Bruynell's arrival changed everything
- He was always astonished how Armstrong turned to a GT winner after his illness. He says before that , he wa sa solid one day or short tour rider, but nothing indicated he could ever perform over a whole GT
- He says it was very frustrating to be thrown out of the Tour, while knowing that the others were simply going on with their programms.
- He says now it's up to the UCi to decide what happens with Armstrong's Tour wins, as well as what happens to Bruynell

Please. Pavenage is Bruyneel in lederhosen. "Shocked and surprised" - give me a break.

 

[Robert21]

How 'clean' Ullrich was between 1999 and 2001/2 is obviously an open question. However, Ullrich did give every appearance of being of Tour winning calibre right from the off, coming second in his first Tour in 1996 to 'Mr 60%' when aged just 22 and winning overall in 1997. This is fully in line with the 'norm' of Tour winners of the past who almost always showed well from the off (Merckx, Lemond, Fignon etc.)

If he had taken three attempts to even finish the Tour, and then had only managed to come in one and half hours behind the winner, as did Armstrong, there would be much more reason to doubt his ability to compete 'clean' against doped rivals of lesser natural ability.

Maybe.

 

[Bavarianrider]

How 'clean' Ullrich was between 1999 and 2001/2 is obviously an open question. However, Ullrich did give every appearance of being of Tour winning calibre right from the off, coming second in his first Tour in 1996 to 'Mr 60%' when aged just 22 and winning overall in 1997. This is fully in line with the 'norm' of Tour winners of the past who almost always showed well from the off (Merckx, Lemond, Fignon etc.)

If he had taken three attempts to even finish the Tour, and then had only managed to come in one and half hours behind the winner, as did Armstrong, there would be much more reason to doubt his ability to compete 'clean' against doped rivals of lesser natural ability.

Maybe.

Exactly.
Ullrich at age 27 and in superb shape had about 5- 10 (depending on the stage) perecent less power output in 2001 compared to 1997 at age 23
Another strong indication.

 

[Digger]

How 'clean' Ullrich was between 1999 and 2001/2 is obviously an open question. However, Ullrich did give every appearance of being of Tour winning calibre right from the off, coming second in his first Tour in 1996 to 'Mr 60%' when aged just 22 and winning overall in 1997. This is fully in line with the 'norm' of Tour winners of the past who almost always showed well from the off (Merckx, Lemond, Fignon etc.)

If he had taken three attempts to even finish the Tour, and then had only managed to come in one and half hours behind the winner, as did Armstrong, there would be much more reason to doubt his ability to compete 'clean' against doped rivals of lesser natural ability.

Maybe.

Ullrich was doing EPO in 1996 so your argument is mute.

 

[Cloxxki]

How 'clean' Ullrich was between 1999 and 2001/2 is obviously an open question. However, Ullrich did give every appearance of being of Tour winning calibre right from the off, coming second in his first Tour in 1996 to 'Mr 60%' when aged just 22 and winning overall in 1997. This is fully in line with the 'norm' of Tour winners of the past who almost always showed well from the off (Merckx, Lemond, Fignon etc.)

If he had taken three attempts to even finish the Tour, and then had only managed to come in one and half hours behind the winner, as did Armstrong, there would be much more reason to doubt his ability to compete 'clean' against doped rivals of lesser natural ability.

Maybe.

It would be good if Riis were able to say something about the level of doping he allowed or suggested for his domestiques. And you'd need to be a really evil person, for a doping doc, to push Ullrich as far as the well-accustomed Riis. Ullrich was young, and young riders on EPO were dying like snow flakes on the equator. No way did Ullrich need to dope as much to ride in such a supporting role, dragging and pushign Riis to Victory basically. Kloden took note and later did this for Lance BTW, but that's another issue.

I don't doubt though that USPS's level of doping was greater than that of most other teams. It was just like ONCE, acting like nothing changed, while the rest of the peloton were scared sh!t for getting caught.

And then still, Tyler wrote hwo in the beginning he didn't know how to ride on transfusions, get the most out of it. Making the effect effectively kick in years after he started on it.

 

[VeloCity]

They are much much much more plausible in Jan's case, that's the difference
And of how many riders do you know that used EPO or blood doping in 2001?

In 2001, Ullrich finished 2nd overall, beating Beloki (ONCE/Saiz) by 3 minutes, Gonzalez de Galdeano (also ONCE) by 7 minutes, and Sevilla and Botero (Kelme) by 12 and 14 minutes, respectively. He finished 3 secs behind Armstrong in the prologue, was 2nd on the Alpe, 2nd again the very next day on the mountain ITT, 3rd on the final ITT, and finished right with or just behind Armstrong on just about every mountain stage.

And he did this clean? Not a chance.

 

[RichWalk]

In 2001, Ullrich finished 2nd overall, beating Beloki (ONCE/Saiz) by 3 minutes, Gonzalez de Galdeano (also ONCE) by 7 minutes, and Sevilla and Botero (Kelme) by 12 and 14 minutes, respectively. He finished 3 secs behind Armstrong in the prologue, was 2nd on the Alpe, 2nd again the very next day on the mountain ITT, 3rd on the final ITT, and finished right with or just behind Armstrong on just about every mountain stage.

And he did this clean? Not a chance.

Thats impressive 'natural' talent

 

[Bavarianrider]

It would be good if Riis were able to say something about the level of doping he allowed or suggested for his domestiques. And you'd need to be a really evil person, for a doping doc, to push Ullrich as far as the well-accustomed Riis. Ullrich was young, and young riders on EPO were dying like snow flakes on the equator. No way did Ullrich need to dope as much to ride in such a supporting role, dragging and pushign Riis to Victory basically. Kloden took note and later did this for Lance BTW, but that's another issue.

I don't doubt though that USPS's level of doping was greater than that of most other teams. It was just like ONCE, acting like nothing changed, while the rest of the peloton were scared sh!t for getting caught.

And then still, Tyler wrote hwo in the beginning he didn't know how to ride on transfusions, get the most out of it. Making the effect effectively kick in years after he started on it.

Jeff D'Hont said that Ullrich played it very safe with Epo and never went above 50.
In 1997 there was the 50% rule, anyway.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

While I agree Jan was a great natural talent, and he was probably clean during that Tour, we also know he doped during his career, and I would agree it's 50/50 during those years he was at one time or another on something or another.

Then again, there's doping, and then there's Armstrong doping.

 

[Bavarianrider]

In 2001, Ullrich finished 2nd overall, beating Beloki (ONCE/Saiz) by 3 minutes, Gonzalez de Galdeano (also ONCE) by 7 minutes, and Sevilla and Botero (Kelme) by 12 and 14 minutes, respectively. He finished 3 secs behind Armstrong in the prologue, was 2nd on the Alpe, 2nd again the very next day on the mountain ITT, 3rd on the final ITT, and finished right with or just behind Armstrong on just about every mountain stage.

And he did this clean? Not a chance.

How do you know if Once used Epo or blood doping that year?

 

[WildspokeJoe]

While I agree Jan was a great natural talent, and he was probably clean during that Tour, we also know he doped during his career, and I would agree it's 50/50 during those years he was at one time or another on something or another.

Then again, there's doping, and then there's Armstrong doping.

I think Ullrich doped throughout his career just like everyone else. He just was as fanatically about it as Lance was.

To quote the Hamilton Book - The other guy is doing more

But obviously not as much as Armstrong.

 

[Robert21]

While I agree Jan was a great natural talent, and he was probably clean during that Tour, we also know he doped during his career, and I would agree it's 50/50 during those years he was at one time or another on something or another.

Then again, there's doping, and then there's Armstrong doping.

I would say that Armstrong's doping played a MUCH greater role in his success than many other riders, transforming him as it did from a Tour also-ran to multiple 'winner'. Even if Ullrich doped as well (and the suggestion is that his program was, at least between 1999 and 2001, remarkably restrained) it is still credible to think that his natural talent was more significant than his doping programme. In comparison Armstrong was his doping programme.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Järmann described it something like this:
Group A: The junkies. They take it all, experiment with everything like there is no tomorrow. He gave Virenque as example. After all we know about Armstrong now, he fits perfectly in this group.
Group B: The guys doing it moderately. He said himself being in that group. Only Epo (& some small stuff) to keep the job. But taking care of the future. There has a life to be lived. After all we know from D´Hont and Livingston, Ullrich falls in that group.
Group C: The clean guys. AFIR he talked about Delion being such a guy.

Clean or not, Ullrich was the far superior guy than Armstrong. No doubt about that. A potential 10 time TdF-Winner in a perfect clean world (D`Hont).

Ulrich was stolen. He is a tragic figure as for example Bassons. Firstly Armstrong ruined the years 99-05, then Ullrich was one of the few scapegoats in the Puerto affair. What if he was born 10 years later? 10 Pfvcking years. Just 10 years...

 

[the asian]

In a conversation between Vaughters and Frankie Andreau, in 2002 JV says that according to Peloton rumour Ulrich's HCT level never rose above 42.

I think we can believe that Ulrich toned down his doping after Festina, and only went full scale after he hooked up with Fuentes quite possibly in 2003.

Also agree that Ulrich was also a big natural talent so he would not need to be on a doping program to the same extent as Lance in order to succeed.

Also i believe after the new EPO test was developed in 2000 riders would have been more cautious in their EPO and until blood doping became widespread with the availability of Fuentes to a majority of cyclists,it could have been quite possible to ride a top ten in the Tour clean.

Certainly the Top 10 in the Tour between 1999-2002 are not as notorious as the top 10 between 2003-2005.

Furthermore among the retested urine samples of the 99 Tour, of the 81 Urine samples that were not Armstrong's only 7 tested positive for EPO, whereas 6 of 15 Armstrong samples tested positive, so o2 vector doping may have not been as widespread as people assume in the years 1999-2001 specially after the Festina scandal.