UCI appeal decision to drop Ullrich case

iainf72

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/03/ ... um=twitter

Broadly I'm supportive of this.

dave_1

...JU is done, no return, so why dig up the bones of the past? what good can come of it?

moray_gub

Dave_1 wrote:

...JU is done, no return, so why dig up the bones of the past? what good can come of it?

+1

If he is coming back then maybe i could understand it but he isnt so surely the UCI have more pressing matters to attend to

rick_chasey

Dave_1 wrote:

...JU is done, no return, so why dig up the bones of the past? what good can come of it?

Would you be saying the same if this was Armstrong rather than Ulrich in 5 years time?


Shame though, I am a big fan of his, jungle juice or not.

dave_1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

...JU is done, no return, so why dig up the bones of the past? what good can come of it?

Would you be saying the same if this was Armstrong rather than Ulrich in 5 years time?


Shame though, I am a big fan of his, jungle juice or not.

yes

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

...JU is done, no return, so why dig up the bones of the past? what good can come of it?

It sends a message.

He bought (with money which he doped to earn) his way out of trouble in Germany so he should at least face a ban, even if it's just symbolic at this stage.

fastercyclist

Dave_1 wrote:

...JU is done, no return, so why dig up the bones of the past? what good can come of it?

None and that's why it should be done. I presume that most cycling fans would prefer cyclists considering doping to realise that they will not be allowed to exit the sport as heroes and rest their laurels. Even if it takes 10 years I think these people should be dethroned, harassed and humiliated. It is an important part of the war on doping - never let a known doper be a hero - or others will view it as something that be attained through doping.

Nothing against Jan Ullrich, love watching videos with him in but he isn't above the war on doping.

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

...JU is done, no return, so why dig up the bones of the past? what good can come of it?

It sends a message.

He bought (with money which he doped to earn) his way out of trouble in Germany so he should at least face a ban, even if it's just symbolic at this stage.

He's banned isn't he and it isn't symbolic, he'll never come back. end of story.

micron

Agreed, there are better cases the UCI could fight than that of a retired rider surely?

DaveyL

I don't believe it's "one at a time"...

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

He's banned isn't he and it isn't symbolic, he'll never come back. end of story.

If someone won the Tour this year, retired at the end of this year and had a positive result come to light, would you want them banned?

dennisn

Dave_1 wrote:

...JU is done, no return, so why dig up the bones of the past? what good can come of it?

Obviously someone out there wants to hang him out to dry. Whether it's to make a name for himself, or because he genuinely believes it's the right thing, or whomever it is is bored and feels the need to look busy, who can say? In any case none of us has this kind of power. So as to why, I guess we'll have to wait and see who, specifically, wants JU to PAY THE PRICE. One would hope that the accused still has the right to face his accuser. Or am I just old fashoned that way?

afx237vi

Am I remembering this completely wrongly, or didn't Vino retire after he copped a 1 year ban, and the UCI more or less said "we won't bother appealing the length of his ban, he's retired anyway".

I'm not saying Ullrich is going to come back, but he broke the rules, and should be subject to the punishment same as anyone else, even if that punishment is symbolic. Plus it would stop him coaching or starting a team or whatever.

DaveyL

dennisn wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

...JU is done, no return, so why dig up the bones of the past? what good can come of it?

Obviously someone out there wants to hang him out to dry. Whether it's to make a name for himself, or because he genuinely believes it's the right thing, or whomever it is is bored and feels the need to look busy, who can say? In any case none of us has this kind of power. So as to why, I guess we'll have to wait and see who, specifically, wants JU to PAY THE PRICE. One would hope that the accused still has the right to face his accuser. Or am I just old fashoned that way?

This is the way it goes Dennis. To quote John Goodman from The Big Lebowski, "This isn't 'Nam, Smokey, this is bowling - there are rules."

Or are you one of them survivalists that lives in the Montana backwoods, armed to the teeth in case the govinmint comes after yah?

secretsqirrel

afx237vi wrote:

Am I remembering this completely wrongly, or didn't Vino retire after he copped a 1 year ban, and the UCI more or less said "we won't bother appealing the length of his ban, he's retired anyway".

I'm not saying Ullrich is going to come back, but he broke the rules, and should be subject to the punishment same as anyone else, even if that punishment is symbolic. Plus it would stop him coaching or starting a team or whatever.

re Vino - yes you're right. Tho' they enforced 2 years when he announced his return.

re Ulle - they would back date to 2006? Then he has served it anyway.

takethehighroad

If they were going to back date, surely they'd do it from '96???

Seriously though, whatever they do to him won't make me think any differently of him. He performed admirably in a time when all around him were cheating, and gave me some magical moments as a young cycling fan growing up with just the Tour. I hold him and The Pirate in the same light, even though they were both rivals, and both as crooked as each other. In my eyes they performed on a level playing field, and so their achievements are worthy enough.

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

He's banned isn't he and it isn't symbolic, he'll never come back. end of story.

If someone won the Tour this year, retired at the end of this year and had a positive result come to light, would you want them banned?

I agree in principle, get the banning process started the minute he is caught is right but as it's 4 years ago, age 37 and and he isn't saying he's coming back in any official capacity...I'd wait rather than waste resources on someone who is banned anyway.

Kléber

Rules are rules, if you break them then you should face a ban. This should apply whether you are active or retired, with no distinction.

andyp

Indeed, what's stopping him from coming back into the sport in a management capacity now? Nothing.

Now I'm sure some will see no problem with that but would you feel the same way about Manolo Siaz doing the same?

takethehighroad

What about Riis? As far as I remember he wasn't banned, just told he wasn't welcome anywhere.

What about the majority of the riders from the Nineties who are now in some sort of "management capacity" (not singling you out andyp but yours is the last reply thus easiest to quote).

If the consensus is that it's worth banning him to stop him doing this, then what do we do about other riders who we know to have been doped, who then slipped into management before being rumbled, carrying on their doping ways with the riders they managed?

Kléber

TakeTheHighRoad, that's very true. Lots have question marks, few have evidence. If there's a case against Ullrich then both sides should set out their views and let a judge decide.

You could also offer an amnesty but few would be willing to come forward, there's no incentive for anyone to admit to the past, far from it.

iainf72

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

What about Riis? As far as I remember he wasn't banned, just told he wasn't welcome anywhere.

He couldn't have been punished because of the statute of limitations on doping offences.

Where as Ullrich can still be punished, as long as someone pulls their finger out.

micron

I can see the point about rule breaking & consistency of punishment but I would question whether this is the best use of resources?

eh

Looks more political than anything else, go after an well known rider and then the UCI can claim they are hard on doping. In reality the UCI should be looking at the present and future, not the past.

War on doping what a stupid phrase. Although it does fit in with the current thinking of picking wars you can't possibly ever win :roll:

finchy

Everyone knows how the authorities turned a blind eye to doping in the 90s and first part of this decade, so what's the point in going after the riders who were effectively given the prisoners' dilemma?

Maybe they could spend the money going after those who worked high up in the sport (and still do) who allowed this situation to develop, rather than hounding the cyclists who may end up paying a far higher price in terms of their health in years to come.