Ullrich burnt out
Comments
-
BB/aurelio showed no interest in Cavendish until it was alleged he had made an anti-French remark to a rider during the Tour last year...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
What was I saying about you making ad hominem attacks, rather than an attempt to address the points I raise? In fact you appear to be developing something of an obsession yourself...RichN95 wrote:You on the other hand are a one trick pony. A one cause crusader. A joke, a clown, a fool, our village idiot.
And yet, to take just this thread as an example, mrushton, andyp, matthew h, DaveyL and you all made references to Armstrong before I did, with my comment being simply a response to what had already been said...RichN95 wrote:we still want to chat about cycling and only bring Armstrong into the discussion when appropriate
'Anti-american bile'? There is no 'bile', it is just that when you take a look at the reality which lies behind 'The American dream' (and most of what I link to comes from American commentators) the picture is hardly a pretty one. It is not my fault if the truth leaves a bitter taste in the mouth...RichN95 wrote:The biggest joke being your comments about Armstrong feeding 'anti-french' sentiment, while continually spewing anti-american bile
I take it that you are not actually denying that Armstrong has frequently played "The French hate me because I a a 'winner' / American" line in order to distract people away from the the evidence showing he doped?0 -
nope bb along with dennisn you are a genuine tool.0
-
I think the derailing of the threads by you know who is bad enough that we should perhaps start flagging, to keep threads on track or at least vaguely on track. e.g. debates about philosophy have no place in Pro Race, just as a purely Ullrich thread gets derailed above.I'm not perfect , probably post off topic a bit, but none of which are related...just meandering off on a tangent, whereas a single purpose user railroads every thread into one topic purely to antagonise and remind us all of what we already know and indeed mostly agree on..the allegations are true.
JU will likely have been brought into contact with stuff via the East German system in the lat 1980s as he's old enough -was a teen, and then again at 21 when he arrived on doping team...what realistic chance was there of staying clean with a double whammy like that in formative years of a persons life ?0 -
In this thread mrushton, andyp, matthew h, RichN95 and you all made references to Armstrong before I did, with my comment being simply a response to what had already been said...Dave_1 wrote:I think the derailing of the threads by you know who is bad enough that we should perhaps start flagging, to keep threads on track or at least vaguely on track. e.g. debates about philosophy have no place in Pro Race...I'm not perfect , probably post off topic a bit, but none of which are related...just meandering off on a tangent, whereas a single purpose user railroads every thread into one topic...
What you are effectively saying is that other posters are allowed to bring Armstrong into any thread they please, or even to try to make 'philosophical' points, but the self-appointed forum 'police' such as yourself have decided that I alone am not 'allowed' to post responses to such posts. You have no such authority. :roll:0 -
When it’s not because of some news item about Werner Franke and his radical oneman campaign against Ullrich, nowadays the only time you see Jan Ullrich’s name in the German media is the odd-column inch given to his participation in a charity event for handicapped, sick or socially-deprived children.afx237vi wrote:
Who even knew he was in public life? What is the perception of him in Germany? Is he still a big star there, doing the chat shows and the lifestyle magazines and the other celebrity nonsense? I thought he had disappeared soon after OP and was enjoying his retirement.Kléber wrote:I think some like Ullrich because of his human failings.
- it was probably never his choice to dope but the East German system started giving him "vitamins" in his mid-teens, probably steroids. What later became EPO was probably only a progression
- he failed and this endears him to people, the cake-eating guy who was too chubby is just more human than the borderline psychopath who weighs his food portions.
- he's been humiliated. He cheated and got busted.
I don't have too much sympathy for him but clearly he's part-victim in the story here. As pointed out above, it's amusing to see him vanish from public life on the day his legal case against Werner Franke collapses, the same day anyone is allowed to call Ullrich a doper in public.
I agree with everything else you wrote. He's a cheat, for sure, but some cheaters are easier to sympathise with than others.
He does 2-3 of these type events per year, where he teams up with the likes of TV celebrities and current/retired sportsmen to do go-karting, ride in a 24-hour bike ride, etc, for charity, e.g. in the last 12 months, with former top-skier Marc Giradelli, popsinger Lutricia McNeal, cycle-cross star Hanka Kupfernagel and various TV moderators.
Evenso, while trying to do something socially useful, the way he’s reported, one never gets the feeling he’s enjoying retirement, rather continually on tenterhooks about the next legal wrangle.
Amongst German cycling enthusiasts, about 2/3 think Ullrich should be excused, even 95% if he would just admit more definitely what he got up to.
Part of this sympathy has to do with the feeling that if he were a southern European, he probably wouldn’t have been hounded so much to begin with, around the Mediterranean there being a more pragmatic view of doping in cycling. While Ullrich’s been continually confronted with his past, perhaps more than all other caught or suspected dopers (despite never testing positive - clubbing drugs apart), it's noticed that elsewhere those caught weren’t just allowed to return after sitting out their bans, but were often also joyfully welcomed back.
There’s also sympathy for the fact (as Ullrich's always said) he never cheated anyone in cycling circles, and so was only trying to compete with the likes of others doing the same (I don’t think anybody in Germany regards Armstrong as innocent). In this sense, it’s felt enriching one’s blood with oxygen shouldn’t mean someone should lose the right to any respect and sympathy, it's not like committing a major crime or anything.0 -
-
Ullrich was very fast regardless of doping. Axel M spoke some nonsense today and should shut It IMO. JU was class like LA..some of u don't like that random aspect of sport!0
-
Dave_1 wrote:Ullrich was very fast regardless of doping. Axel M spoke some nonsense today and should shut It IMO. JU was class like LA..some of u don't like that random aspect of sport!
There's nothing random about highly organised and systematic doping. We'll never know how good he really was since he chose to cheat his fellow competitors, his audience and himself of ever knowing.
Dave, the science has been explained many times, EPO doesn't improve everybody equally, the performance gain varies considerable from person to person. So all we really know about the LA JU era is that that they were amongst the best cyclists around, little else. Given LA's behaviour it's really hard to see how the word 'class' belongs in a description of him.0 -
We'll never know how good he really was since he chose to cheat his fellow competitors, his audience and himself of ever knowing
In Ulrich's defence the decision to dope was probably made for him and was all he, and the rest of his generation of East German/Soviet bloc athletes, knew.
As for Lance I think his early results in tri prove he had class. He only really reached his full potential under the tutelage of Ferrari and Bruyneel though.0 -
this months Pro Cycling has an article on the withdrawl of JU0
-
-
I don't think it would be that cool if he came back. But then again I was following cycling when he was riding first time round.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
DaveyL wrote:I don't think it would be that cool if he came back. But then again I was following cycling when he was riding first time round.
I was watching him "way back then" too. What the heck, why not ride again if you want to. It's not like being 37 means you can't or shouldn't do things like that. I'm 62 and still like
going out and hammering with the guys. Of course, these days it doesn't take long to get spit out the back but like I said "what the heck".0 -
dennisn wrote:DaveyL wrote:I don't think it would be that cool if he came back. But then again I was following cycling when he was riding first time round.
I was watching him "way back then" too. What the heck, why not ride again if you want to. It's not like being 37 means you can't or shouldn't do things like that. I'm 62 and still like
going out and hammering with the guys. Of course, these days it doesn't take long to get spit out the back but like I said "what the heck".
Problem is, I never got the impression Ullrich actually liked cycling very much.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
dennisn wrote:I was watching him "way back then" too. What the heck, why not ride again if you want to. It's not like being 37 means you can't or shouldn't do things like that. I'm 62 and still like going out and hammering with the guys. Of course, these days it doesn't take long to get spit out the back but like I said "what the heck".
He can come back if he wants to, I didn't say he couldn't. I just proferred my own opinion that I wouldn't be that bothered.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:dennisn wrote:I was watching him "way back then" too. What the heck, why not ride again if you want to. It's not like being 37 means you can't or shouldn't do things like that. I'm 62 and still like going out and hammering with the guys. Of course, these days it doesn't take long to get spit out the back but like I said "what the heck".
He can come back if he wants to, I didn't say he couldn't. I just proferred my own opinion that I wouldn't be that bothered.
I'm not one way or another either. Might be sort of interesting though. I always cheer for the OLD GUYS.0 -
Ulle wouldn't come back.
It was Puerto that broke the camel's back mentally.
He's got a fair bit tucked away, has paid the price for Puerto, literally, so why put himself through all that media horror?
I think Ulle does like cycling. I think he doesn't like the professional aspect of it - the monkish lifestyle (let's be honest, who actually would like that?) and above all, the media intrusion.
I got the impression it was that he hated, not the actual part where he sits on a bike and goes f*cking fast on pretty much any road you give him.0 -
Ullrtich was great. He's done a 4.5 year ban and stayed away from cycling races and media
Only the injury in 1999 and 2002 prevented him from racking up 7 second places at the TDF. He has won it once as well and only bad luck stopped him winning a 2nd TDF in 2003. Roche and Lemond could never have sustained this long term level of performance..He's won the Vuelta, the Olympic RR, the World TT...for me he's better than Lemond and Roche, His TDF 2nds are not minor placings...I suspect the all time world rankings confirm this
Lemond's story about 1991-1993 amount to a pile of excuses. How come Mottet and Hampsten could still ride in top 5 of tour GC, and Fignon (in 91) then when they were considered cleanest. Also, Roche, has no reasonable explanation for 1988-1993. He couldn't sustain his level either. This what makes a rider like Ullrich worthy of a bit more respect-he could do it year in year out for near 10 years...and he made a lot less excuses than these 80s greats too!0 -
Jesus wept. You come up with some hogwash from time to time, but that really takes the biscuit.
Someone who doped could sustain his level, whilst someone who is widely viewed as a non-doper couldn't when many around him were?
Ullrich cheated throughout his career and chose to retire when he was rumbled rather than face the music. That's the actions of a coward, and is not worth a modicum of respect.0 -
andyp wrote:Jesus wept. You come up with some hogwash from time to time, but that really takes the biscuit.
Someone who doped could sustain his level, whilst someone who is widely viewed as a non-doper couldn't when many around him were?
Ullrich cheated throughout his career and chose to retire when he was rumbled rather than face the music. That's the actions of a coward, and is not worth a modicum of respect.
Everyone cheated! Nobody was clean. Ullrich , was world amateur RR champion pre EPO, in 1993 and not surprisingly became one of the best tour riders in the world.
2011..another year of expert insights from Andyp
0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
Everyone cheated! Nobody was clean. Ullrich , was world amateur RR champion pre EPO, in 1993 and not surprisingly became one of the best tour riders in the world.
2011..another year of expert insights from Andyp
1993 wasn't pre EPO. When I criticise JU for choosing to dope the response is that he was part of the East German machine and knew no better, if you believe that then there was never a pre anything era for Jan.
As for your dig at Andyp Dave, me thinks pot black kettle.............0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
Lemond's story about 1991-1993 amount to a pile of excuses. How come Mottet and Hampsten could still ride in top 5 of tour GC, and Fignon (in 91) then when they were considered cleanest. Also, Roche, has no reasonable explanation for 1988-1993. He couldn't sustain his level either. This what makes a rider like Ullrich worthy of a bit more respect-he could do it year in year out for near 10 years...and he made a lot less excuses than these 80s greats too!
I think being shot takes something out of your body (or perhaps more accurately, leaves stuff in that shouldn't be there), especially when you then decide to ride the Tour with it, in fairness.0 -
dougzz wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
Everyone cheated! Nobody was clean. Ullrich , was world amateur RR champion pre EPO, in 1993 and not surprisingly became one of the best tour riders in the world.
2011..another year of expert insights from Andyp
1993 wasn't pre EPO. When I criticise JU for choosing to dope the response is that he was part of the East German machine and knew no better, if you believe that then there was never a pre anything era for Jan.
As for your dig at Andyp Dave, me thinks pot black kettle.............
I've had this discussion with you before you loon. Why did you quit bernie?0 -
It's hard to know exactly what his problems are but being put on a conveyor belt in his early teens that saw him injected with "vitamins" and turned into a robotic cycling machine could have had a role in his troubles.
Later on EPO abuse itself is known to cause depression in some, as apparently it acts as an anti-depressive and when the user stops their happiness falls back. Merely saying "they were all at it" ignores that some can react very badly to the medical abuse, others might struggle to cope with the lies involved.
Who knows? Either way he's had a rollercoaster of a life.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
Lemond's story about 1991-1993 amount to a pile of excuses. How come Mottet and Hampsten could still ride in top 5 of tour GC, and Fignon (in 91) then when they were considered cleanest. Also, Roche, has no reasonable explanation for 1988-1993. He couldn't sustain his level either. This what makes a rider like Ullrich worthy of a bit more respect-he could do it year in year out for near 10 years...and he made a lot less excuses than these 80s greats too!
I think being shot takes something out of your body (or perhaps more accurately, leaves stuff in that shouldn't be there), especially when you then decide to ride the Tour with it, in fairness.
Yes,Lemond's used it as the reason for his decline in 1991-1993 and then changed it to EPO use..but reputedly clean riders e.g...Hampsten 4th at TDF 1992, Mottet 1991, 4th overal at TDF-two stage wins, Fignon 1991, still rode well, hampsten 1993..top 10 GC TDF all suggest it was still possible clean at TDF GC level. Where does this leave Lemond's theory? oh, and I did race with a certain Giro winner just two years short of his win, and the guy who lead Tour Du pont 2 years previous at 19, humbled and in awe I was...so I have this old fashioned view that some people are just very very good at cycling regardless of drugs. Sorry about that Rick0 -
How do you explain Chiappucci's rise?
EPO was in use throughout 1991-1993 but it became much more widespread in the mid-1990s as knowledge of it spread. In the very early 1990s only a few riders were using it, predominantly clients of Conconi and Ferrari.0 -
andyp wrote:How do you explain Chiappucci's rise?
EPO was in use throughout 1991-1993 but it became much more widespread in the mid-1990s as knowledge of it spread. In the very early 1990s only a few riders were using it, predominantly clients of Conconi and Ferrari.
he got given a 10 minute lead on stage 1 of the 1990 TDF and Lemond was able to drop him on serious climbs like Alpe du huez, Saint etienne, Luz Ardiden and hammer him in the last TT. The 10 minute lead made Chiapucci look better than he was. Chiapucci's rise was over by 1993 actually..he was not a GC threat by 1994. He didn't ride well in the EPO era in GT GCs anyways.0 -
Chiapucci didn't have the build to be a great GC rider, he was no good in the TTs and tactically weak. But he did seem to spring up from nowhere in 1990, his Tour break was no fluke as he had already taken wins in Paris-Nice etc. My explanation of his rise would be a move towards scientific training under Conconi, coupled with the use of EPO.0
-
Kléber wrote:Chiapucci didn't have the build to be a great GC rider, he was no good in the TTs and tactically weak. But he did seem to spring up from nowhere in 1990, his Tour break was no fluke as he had already taken wins in Paris-Nice etc. My explanation of his rise would be a move towards scientific training under Conconi, coupled with the use of EPO.
1994-2000 is regarded as the EPO era...but...
Chiapucci was blown away on the Galibier during the stage over it in 1993 in the battle where Rominger won from Indurain and that was the end of his time as a serious GC threat. He couldn't hold Rominger, Inudrain, Berzin, Riis, Pantani. So where does that leave your theory Kleber? Chiapucci had cracked before EPO was very widely used by the looks of it? Perhaps others came later to it? Also, Bugno got wiped out same stage over the Galibier in 1993 and was never the same again in the years after
I guess Chiapucci stopped using EPO or everyone else got wise and started it? His 1990 TDF looked clean enough. Everyone rides well once in yellow0
