Ullrich burnt out
Comments
-
Like I say, he wasn't a proper GC rider. So the high mountains were not his thing. Yet he'd gone from anonymity to a tour contender. Strange, no?
You regard the EPO-era as 1994 onwards, I say it was earlier. For example see the 1991 Giro, where Franco Chioccioli stormed to a surprising win and the PDM team which had to abandon the Tour de France.0 -
Kléber wrote:Like I say, he wasn't a proper GC rider. So the high mountains were not his thing. Yet he'd gone from anonymity to a tour contender. Strange, no?
You regard the EPO-era as 1994 onwards, I say it was earlier. For example see the 1991 Giro, where Franco Chioccioli stormed to a surprising win and the PDM team which had to abandon the Tour de France.
Perhaps Chiapucci's decline shows when others got wise to it and started it too. You are swayed by the Lemond theory I think, possibly cause of your views on Armstrong vs Lemond..but Lemond had declined relative to some of his clean peers -1991-1993. Franco Chioccioli isn't a good example for you to pic..take a look at his pre EPO era GC results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Chioccioli0 -
Chioccioli is a perfect example, fairly decent pro suddenly turns into Coppi and dominates the Giro. How do you think he did it, mineral water?0
-
I didn't mention LeMond :?
Chioccioli was nudging the top-5 and then suddenly sticks three minutes into Chiapucci-Conconi. Of course LeMond declined, he was ageing. But riders didn't discover EPO in the mid 1990s, it was being used by a fair share of riders prior to this. Indurain famously began his collaboration with Conconi in 1991.
Still, we can agree to differ but remember nobody is saying Ullrich was a nobody. He had massive talent.0 -
Kléber wrote:I didn't mention LeMond :?
Chioccioli was nudging the top-5 and then suddenly sticks three minutes into Chiapucci-Conconi. Of course LeMond declined, he was ageing. But riders didn't discover EPO in the mid 1990s, it was being used by a fair share of riders prior to this. Indurain famously began his collaboration with Conconi in 1991.
Still, we can agree to differ but remember nobody is saying Ullrich was a nobody. He had massive talent.
Lemond only won the TDF 90 cause Indurain sat up at least once to lose minutes to help Delgado. Indurain's rise predates Conconi 1991.
Indirain used the kit for sure in that 7 years at some points but he was very good regardless, like LA0 -
His rise pre-dates 1991. But he made a big leap when he started working with Conconi.
We can play forum tennis for a long time here but do you think he went to Conconi for mere "training plans"?0 -
Kléber wrote:His rise pre-dates 1991. But he made a big leap when he started working with Conconi.
We can play forum tennis for a long time here but do you think he went to Conconi for mere "training plans"?
No, Indurain was tooled up...but my contention is many of these guys were good anyways...some of what we saw in the 90s was real. Argentin was a proven talent in 1980s, Giorgio Furlan, Rolf Jarman..
In 1990. Indurain only lost time to Lemond at Alpe D'huez but am pretty sure he did work for Delgado. I had nothing to do in life at 20 beyond watch cycling (rather a sad life!). Even 1989, Orciere Merlette MTT...he was I think 3rd. The guy was on the way up with or without EPO0 -
Dave_1 wrote: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 Rick
I'm not quite sure what you're sorry about?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote: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 Rick
I'm not quite sure what you're sorry about?
because it's dissonant, because this forum has an appetite for putting a lot of the great wins down to doping. I don't agree.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote: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 Rick
I'm not quite sure what you're sorry about?
because it's dissonant, because this forum has an appetite for putting a lot of the great wins down to doping. I don't agree.
I wasn't though. I was suggesting being shot probably adversely affects your ability to hold world class form in GTs, whether Lemond uses it as an argument or not. It's not either or anyway.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote: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 Rick
I'm not quite sure what you're sorry about?
because it's dissonant, because this forum has an appetite for putting a lot of the great wins down to doping. I don't agree.
I wasn't though. I was suggesting being shot probably adversely affects your ability to hold world class form in GTs, whether Lemond uses it as an argument or not. It's not either or anyway.
are you not on the same hymn sheet as Iainf and his band of 5 or 6 friends that run the doping threads?0 -
Nope. I have an ambivalent attitude towards doping, and it's not especially moral.Dave_1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote: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 Rick
I'm not quite sure what you're sorry about?
because it's dissonant, because this forum has an appetite for putting a lot of the great wins down to doping. I don't agree.
I wasn't though. I was suggesting being shot probably adversely affects your ability to hold world class form in GTs, whether Lemond uses it as an argument or not. It's not either or anyway.
are you not on the same hymn sheet as Iainf and his band of 5 or 6 friends that run the doping threads?0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote: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 Rick
I'm not quite sure what you're sorry about?
because it's dissonant, because this forum has an appetite for putting a lot of the great wins down to doping. I don't agree.
I wasn't though. I was suggesting being shot probably adversely affects your ability to hold world class form in GTs, whether Lemond uses it as an argument or not. It's not either or anyway.
are you not on the same hymn sheet as Iainf and his band of 5 or 6 friends that run the doping threads?
OWWWWWW, that hurt. Good one. Gave me a chuckle or two though.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
are you not on the same hymn sheet as Iainf and his band of 5 or 6 friends that run the doping threads?
Why have I been elevated to the position of doping thread kingpin? I know I start a lot of threads.
Hell, I don't think I've even said much on this thread.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
are you not on the same hymn sheet as Iainf and his band of 5 or 6 friends that run the doping threads?
Why have I been elevated to the position of doping thread kingpin? I know I start a lot of threads.
Hell, I don't think I've even said much on this thread.
Long live the King(pin). Don't argue, it's good to be the King.
0 -
Sorry guys gotta pitch in...............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.
Mmm - EPO started to rear its head in the early 90's , so I wouldn't be suprised if UJ was already on juice when he won the shamatuer RR.
I don't think anyone deines the guy had talent, but seemingly sustained via the pharmacy cupbaord with a dash of training.
Notwithstanding Lemonds somewhat sour grapes, I still think he is probably the best and most complete rider of the 'modern' generation.
Pharmstrong doesn't seem to realise that if it wasn't for Lemond blazing a trail for increased riders salaries he (and others) wouldn't be the millionaires they are now(well not w/o that cupboard)0 -
itisaboutthebike wrote:Sorry guys gotta pitch in...............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.
I don't think anyone deines the guy had talent, but seemingly sustained via the pharmacy cupbaord with a dash of training.
Pharmstrong doesn't seem to realise that if it wasn't for Lemond blazing a trail for increased riders salaries he (and others) wouldn't be the millionaires they are now(well not w/o that cupboard)
I'm not so sure that anyone ever got to be as good as JU with "a dash of training".
I probably do what might be called "a dash of training" and I doubt that all the drugs in the world won't help me win the TDF.
As for LA who, "doesn't seem to realize......", I would say, not possible. I believe everyone(you, me, them) realizes the debt they owe to people who came before them, helped them with whatever careers they chose, showed them the ropes, etc. I definately
know who's shoulders I stood on in all my years in various engineering and drafting offices and while it wasn't quite as glamorous a career as some, it was mine and I was glad for all the help and advise from those who went before me. So I say NO to LA not realizing..... He knows who's shoulders he stands on. He may or may not like one of them as a person but he knows where he stands.0 -
He knows who's shoulders he stands on. He may or may not like one of them as a person but he knows where he stands.
Yes point taken -altho he could(and should) show more respect (altho difficult when someone's constantly taking a pop at you.
I used to stand on me dad's shoulders as a nipper. Hopefully my 9 month old will do likewise with moi.0 -
andyp wrote:Chioccioli is a perfect example, fairly decent pro suddenly turns into Coppi and dominates the Giro. How do you think he did it, mineral water?
what kind of previous results/form would we expect a rider to have for their grand tour win to have credibility.
I guess poor old Marco Giovanetti must surely get same treatment Andy? Another Melcho Mauri?? The drugs didn't change the podiums as much as bike radar doping threads try to have us believe0 -
Historically, a rider destined to win grand tours has won stage races from a very early age, i.e. Coppi, Merckx, Hinault, Fignon et al, and finished in the top ten in their debut GT.
What we've seen since the advent of EPO and blood doping is riders suddenly coming good late in their careers and dominate in a way that is rare, i.e. the likes of Chioccioli, Tony Rominger, Jalabert, Armstrong, where previously they've shown talent - and anyone who turns pro has natural talent - but not necessarily in stage races or the high mountains.
The drugs did, and still do, change podiums.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:andyp wrote:Chioccioli is a perfect example, fairly decent pro suddenly turns into Coppi and dominates the Giro. How do you think he did it, mineral water?
what kind of previous results/form would we expect a rider to have for their grand tour win to have credibility.
I guess poor old Marco Giovanetti must surely get same treatment Andy? Another Melcho Mauri?? The drugs didn't change the podiums as much as bike radar doping threads try to have us believe
Yep, and this flat earth is at the centre of the universe :roll:0 -
Dave_1 wrote:andyp wrote:Chioccioli is a perfect example, fairly decent pro suddenly turns into Coppi and dominates the Giro. How do you think he did it, mineral water?
The drugs didn't change the podiums as much as bike radar doping threads try to have us believe
Great observation, and very true IMHO. Why do you think it is that some poeple on this forum are so threatened by pro athletes using drugs?? What is it to them? It's as if someone uses drugs and somehow this puts them, and their families, in danger. I mean I really don't buy into the idea that they "care" about fair play, athletes health, an even playing field, and all that. Why are they so threatened?? :? :? :?0 -
dennisn wrote:Dave_1 wrote:andyp wrote:Chioccioli is a perfect example, fairly decent pro suddenly turns into Coppi and dominates the Giro. How do you think he did it, mineral water?
The drugs didn't change the podiums as much as bike radar doping threads try to have us believe
Great observation, and very true IMHO. Why do you think it is that some poeple on this forum are so threatened by pro athletes using drugs?? What is it to them? It's as if someone uses drugs and somehow this puts them, and their families, in danger. I mean I really don't buy into the idea that they "care" about fair play, athletes health, an even playing field, and all that. Why are they so threatened?? :? :? :?
You can't know how much doping did or didn't change results.
People can't even prove beyond doubt who was doing it in the first place.0 -
dennisn wrote:
Great observation, and very true IMHO. Why do you think it is that some poeple on this forum are so threatened by pro athletes using drugs??
Who's threatened? I think we'd all prefer they didn't break the rules, that's all. And it does skew the results.
There is this thing called "science" which could probably quantify the benefits which could be gained from doping. But lets not let that get in the way of a guy with zero interest in pro cycling saying his 2c.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:
Great observation, and very true IMHO. Why do you think it is that some poeple on this forum are so threatened by pro athletes using drugs??
Who's threatened? I think we'd all prefer they didn't break the rules, that's all. And it does skew the results.
Makes for some baddass cycling too.0 -
dennisn wrote:I mean I really don't buy into the idea that they "care" about fair play, athletes health, an even playing field, and all that.
Why? Have you given up on humanity? Do you think that we can't be motivated by what is right and wrong?
Have you forgotten why doping controls were introduced in the first place? It was to stop repeats of Tom Simpson's death.
Could you answer these questions for me: as a cycling fan, are you happy to see people die of drugs because of the sport? And do you care about fair play?0 -
johnfinch wrote:dennisn wrote:I mean I really don't buy into the idea that they "care" about fair play, athletes health, an even playing field, and all that.
Why? Have you given up on humanity? Do you think that we can't be motivated by what is right and wrong?
Have you forgotten why doping controls were introduced in the first place? It was to stop repeats of Tom Simpson's death.
Could you answer these questions for me: as a cycling fan, are you happy to see people die of drugs because of the sport? And do you care about fair play?
Well, given all the badmouthing that some people, on this forum, seem to spew out, towards riders, I would say that "humanity" is definately not on their minds.
I also don't think right or wrong is part of their equation either. Once again all the name calling seems more about hatred and /or fear than right and wrong.
I have no problems with doping controls.
As for seeing people die of drugs in sports, that's a shame, but the dopers themselves
are the ones who dig or have dug their own graves. Riders all know the Simpson story yet they don't learn from it. Sure, we should all learn from history, but look around you and tell me that actually happens. Noble idea, but doesn't really happen.
Fair play? I'm all for it. Games and sports are as fair as the people involved in them want them to be. Still everyone is looking for an edge. Go to Vegas. Is it fair that the slot machines favor the house?0 -
dennisn wrote:
Well, given all the badmouthing that some people, on this forum, seem to spew out, towards riders, I would say that "humanity" is definitely not on their minds.
You seem to live in delusional world where this only happens on "this forum"
If someone is doping, and someone calls them a doper, is that a problem? Or a cheat?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:
Well, given all the badmouthing that some people, on this forum, seem to spew out, towards riders, I would say that "humanity" is definitely not on their minds.
You seem to live in delusional world where this only happens on "this forum"
If someone is doping, and someone calls them a doper, is that a problem? Or a cheat?
You may call people whatever you like. Happens all the time, everywhere. Not just on this forum. Humanity is not about name calling though.
I think if you research past posts on the subject of doping you'll find more than a fair share of name calling by more than a few posters. You yourself insist that this or that
person is a doper or worse and you've done it a lot. If you think that it shows your humanity toward your fellow man I've got to disagree. It shows hate and fear. Not that you'll agree with that observation but I would expect as much from you. I think you need to quit worrying about who's doing what and why and when who has seen this or that and when. Get a hobby other than obcessing about cyclists.0
