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

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
JRTinMA said:
87 samples, 13 positive for EPO and 6 belonged to Armstrong. I don't think anybody knows how many people the remaining seven samples may have belonged to, as little as 1 additional person or as many as 7 I suppose. Lets say it was 2 additional people, so we had three dopers of all the usable samples at the 99 tour. I think second place deserves that win, odds are good they were clean.
Odds are good most EPO-dopers didn't bring drugs to the race because of what happened in 1998 and EPO clears in a few days.
 
JRTinMA said:
87 samples, 13 positive for EPO and 6 belonged to Armstrong. I don't think anybody knows how many people the remaining seven samples may have belonged to, as little as 1 additional person or as many as 7 I suppose. Lets say it was 2 additional people, so we had three dopers of all the usable samples at the 99 tour. I think second place deserves that win, odds are good they were clean.
All prologue samples were positive. Armstrong, Beltran, Hamburger, and Castiblanco (?). That means the most positives for someone other than Armstrong was five. We can make a good argument that Armstrong was the most doped rider in the 1999 Tour. :)
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
VeloCity said:
Save 2003, Ullrich's Tour results and performances weren't really any better after 2002, when he supposedly started doping again, versus 2000/2001, when he was supposedly clean. So if what Pevenage is saying is true, then doping didn't seem to have much effect on Ullrich (if anything, again with the exception of 2003, Ullrich didn't ride nearly as well after he supposedly started doping). Or was everyone clean save Armstrong in 2000/2001 and the rest only started (or re-started) doping again in 2002? Not likely.

And he won Olympic RR gold and ITT silver (2000) and World's ITT gold (2001) while clean? Also not likely.
There were more (estimated) freak wattages at the Tour in 03-05 than 00-02. There's a nice graph for this somewhere.

Ullrich was definitely stronger in 2003, presumably because of more doping. His 2004 program was screwed up. First bag died and the second didn't arrive. That's what Tyler heard, anyway.
 
Tyler'sTwin said:
There were more (estimated) freak wattages at the Tour in 03-05 than 00-02. There's a nice graph for this somewhere.

Ullrich was definitely stronger in 2003, presumably because of more doping. His 2004 program was screwed up. First bag died and the second didn't arrive. That's what Tyler heard, anyway.
The cover story in 2004 was that he was sick for the first half of the Tour from something he caught from his child.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Bavarianrider said:
The limit for clean riding

Yup..most of the stuff I've read from physiologists seems to suggest around 6.2 watts per kilo is the absolute natural limit. If those figures are correct Jan looks to be credible that year.
 
Sep 5, 2011
99
0
0
IIRC Jan's FTP was about 15% lower in 2001 when compared to 1997/1998. If he was doping then he must have been behind the game in adjusting to the EPO test. (similar to Pantani... though Chourchevel was something else)
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
thehog said:
Interesting that he's saying Ullrich went clean 99 to 2001.


"We worked like this until 2001, believing that our rivals were doing the same. But Armstrong and U.S. Postal made us wonder. We were seeing that nothing was true with them. We were seeing that Armstrong had become superhuman," the Belgian added.

"What could we do? Let him play while no control could get him? We tried to find the recipe. The same recipe as Armstrong. Today we finally can say that we were all the victims of Lance Armstrong and (U.S. Postal manager) Johan Bruyneel."
ullrich 2001 was the best performance of any cyclist clean in the tour. with hematocrite from 43 to 41%. lance was a joke the way he rode away from him. ullrich was a superhuman talent. lance was not. even lance admitted this throughout his carere but he made people believe he won by training harder :eek:
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
Frosty said:
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.
it's so much bs that ullrich would never train in winters. he was lighter and less fat than lance armstrong except in the tour 2003, where he actually nearly beat armstrong. because there ullrich started doping himself and he was way more out of shape than in any other tour. 4 kg overweight during start of that tour. nobody gave him a chance to win. to me it prooves that ullrich was very clean until 2001, which was the best shape of his career.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
VeloCity said:
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.
that isn't true. guys like moncoutie and sastre would also finish near or in top ten. same for moreau. guys to be known clean at least post-festina moreau I've read.
 
Ryo Hazuki said:
ullrich 2001 was the best performance of any cyclist clean in the tour. with hematocrite from 43 to 41%. lance was a joke the way he rode away from him. ullrich was a superhuman talent. lance was not. even lance admitted this throughout his carere but he made people believe he won by training harder :eek:
Do we know that Ullrich was not simply old school transfusing to race such with low Hct?
I agree though on who the natural talent was. Equally doped they might be competitive, but both clean, Lance would barely make the time limit on a tough climbbing TT.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
the asian said:
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.
exactly and you can see it in how different the results were of those gt top tens. guys like van de wouwer in the top ten and niermann winning almost white jersey. lance changed everything though and very soon the spanish teams, csc and others had to/followed
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
Cloxxki said:
Do we know that Ullrich was not simply old school transfusing to race such with low Hct?
I agree though on who the natural talent was. Equally doped they might be competitive, but both clean, Lance would barely make the time limit on a tough climbbing TT.
what's the point of doing transfusions with blood that isn't any better?
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
happychappy said:
A massive lump like Ullrich that CANNOT climb that fast with oxygen vector doping. It just is not possible.
Ahhh the myths about Jan Ulrich still prevail. The truth is that Jan wasn't fat and that most photographic evidence is simply unflattering angles. Here is an example from a year when he was being called porky



Imagine the uproar...

Problem is that just a few days earlier this was how he looked:





Jan wasn't nearly as big as the Lance-media machine reported.
 
Ryo Hazuki said:
it's so much bs that ullrich would never train in winters. he was lighter and less fat than lance armstrong except in the tour 2003, where he actually nearly beat armstrong. because there ullrich started doping himself and he was way more out of shape than in any other tour. 4 kg overweight during start of that tour. nobody gave him a chance to win. to me it prooves that ullrich was very clean until 2001, which was the best shape of his career.
Ok, i actually meant that it would be interesting to see what he could still do if he trained hard this winter but i can see that what i wrote didnt make that completely clear.
 
Dec 29, 2009
409
0
0
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.


that's got to be the quote of the week....Bravo :D!
 
VeloCity said:
Says who? Pevenage?

And why then did Ullrich's performance level basically stay the same and even dropped when he was doping, ie 2004-05? Basically you're saying that Ullrich was stronger clean in 2001 than when doping in 2004/2005.

And what, Ullrich doped from 1996-99, stopped for a couple of years, and then started up again in 2002? And for those two years, Ullrich wasn't part of the Telekom team doping program that, according to d'Hont, started in 1996?
In 2004 Ullrich had a really bad winter, not denying that. Furthermore, he got ill right before the Tour.
In 2005 he crashed really bad twice.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Bavarianrider said:
Not true, that's simply a lie!
Great retort :rolleyes:

I'm a huge fan, but I accept he was a charger. He wasn't a pusher though and definitely didn't go out of his way to ruin others. And that's all the difference needed for me.

Lance was the strongest.. and he's a gangster who abused his position and abused his "fund". And it's good that he's being exposed.
 
Franklin said:
Ahhh the myths about Jan Ulrich still prevail. The truth is that Jan wasn't fat and that most photographic evidence is simply unflattering angles. Here is an example from a year when he was being called porky



Imagine the uproar...

Problem is that just a few days earlier this was how he looked:






Jan wasn't nearly as big as the Lance-media machine reported.
I fought this argument for years in regards to Jan. You don't bang out 150km a day for 6 months and remain fat. Simply not true.

I watched him train in Switzerland one year. He was doing hill repeats with Sevilla. Amazing to watch. Phenomenal athlete. He didn't say a lot but was fed up with the entire "train harder" rhetoric.

Similar upbringing to Armstrong also but never played on it. Loved his Mum.

PS Lance was always bigger than he claimed. Weighed a lot.
 
Franklin said:
Great retort :rolleyes:

I'm a huge fan, but I accept he was a charger. He wasn't a pusher though and definitely didn't go out of his way to ruin others. And that's all the difference needed for me.

Lance was the strongest.. and he's a gangster who abused his position and abused his "fund". And it's good that he's being exposed.
Please show me any evidence, any source, any what so ever, that something was found with Ullrich at the Giro 2001.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
Franklin said:
Great retort :rolleyes:

I'm a huge fan, but I accept he was a charger. He wasn't a pusher though and definitely didn't go out of his way to ruin others. And that's all the difference needed for me.

Lance was the strongest.. and he's a gangster who abused his position and abused his "fund". And it's good that he's being exposed.
well what's your prove he was on the juice in giro 2001? :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY