Ullrich speaks up for Armstrong

dilemna

stating Armstrong should have his TdF victories re-instated. He says you can't have one rule for one then let others off. He's got a point.

The whole peloton in the 70s, 80s, 90s and naughties was doped up to it's eyeballs, as all riders were taking something. So it was actually a level playing field so Armstrong can be given back his 7 TdF titles.

http://road.cc/content/news/89699-jan-u ... 80%99s-how

B3rnieMac

dilemna wrote:

So it was actually a level playing field

*sigh* how often does this need to be shot down. It wasn't.

dilemna

B3rnieMac wrote:

dilemna wrote:

So it was actually a level playing field

*sigh* how often does this need to be shot down. It wasn't.

Have you even read the article?

Name me one rider that was clean during these decades of racing, not one who has simply kept their mouth shut and only fessed up when faced with incontrovertable evidence Zabel, Bjarne Riis to name two.

thomthom

http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing- ... ping-myth/

But there's already a Lance-thread. Why didn't you post the nonsense there?

dilemna

ThomThom wrote:

http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/

But there's already a Lance-thread. Why didn't you post the nonsense there?

No need to be so rude. It's not nonsense. It's about what Ullrich says not Armstrong. Ullrich makes wider points. But then of course you would know this had you read it or do you make a habit of replying to posts you haven't read properly. Fail.

B3rnieMac

dilemna wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/

But there's already a Lance-thread. Why didn't you post the nonsense there?

No need to be so rude. It's not nonsense. It's about what Ullrich says not Armstrong. Ullrich makes wider points. But then of course you would know this had you read it or do you make a habit of replying to posts you haven't read properly. Fail.

Well even if it was abut Ullrich and not Armstrong, you still brought in your opinion that the whole peloton was doping for decades (they weren't) and it was a level playing field (it wasn't). As a forum member as long as you've been I would have thought you would have already seen these arguments play out and be refuted ad nauseum.

Crankbrother

So is it an equal playing field now?

SKY use all the resources of British Cycling ... Do Euskatel (for example) get that same level of access to facilities?

Should the 2 most recent TdF winners be removed from the records as well?

roscoe

In Tyler Hamilton's book, it states that of 80 something retrospective tests of riders in 2005 from the 1999 Tour, only 8.6% of the tests were positive.

If true, hardly a level playing field

TheBigBean

Two of Armstrong's tour de france wins were within WADA's eight year limit. Any rider admitting drug use within this time frame would have been stripped of the wins. This is the same for all atheletes.

For the other five, USADA used an interpretation of the WADA code that meant the eight year limit could be extended if there was evidence of a cover-up / consipracy. USADA felt this was applicable. The UCI and WADA had the opportunity to appeal this interpretation and chose not to. Other cycling federations have not used this interpretation, but then most offences came to light entirely after the eight year limit.

Armstong has been treated slightly differently, but not unfairly, for five of his wins.

oneof1982

dilemna wrote:

stating Armstrong should have his TdF victories re-instated.

B3rnieMac

Also, jan is too nice. You could have pissed on his chips and he would still smile and thank you.

lostboysaint

Crankbrother wrote:

So is it an equal playing field now?

SKY use all the resources of British Cycling ... Do Euskatel (for example) get that same level of access to facilities?

Should the 2 most recent TdF winners be removed from the records as well?

It just means that Sky and British Cycling have got their act together and the other nations haven't.

You really are a sad little man aren't you.

bockers

Crankbrother wrote:

So is it an equal playing field now?

SKY use all the resources of British Cycling ... Do Euskatel (for example) get that same level of access to facilities?

Should the 2 most recent TdF winners be removed from the records as well?

So are you saying that using all the legal resources at your disposal is cheating :shock:

Doping is against the rules for the sport and in the regulations. Using sports science and effective training programs alongside use of the best equipment is all within the rules of the sport.

So I fail to see any reason that anyone could manage to connect the two. :roll:

Crankbrother

lostboysaint wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

So is it an equal playing field now?

SKY use all the resources of British Cycling ... Do Euskatel (for example) get that same level of access to facilities?

Should the 2 most recent TdF winners be removed from the records as well?

It just means that Sky and British Cycling have got their act together and the other nations haven't.

You really are a sad little man aren't you.

USPS had their doping program together when others hadn't ... All had the ability to dope and in the most part did (find me a team from the Armstrong era without a positive or doper in it's midst) ...

Plus, don't start being a complete countdown conundrum ... keep the personal abuse to your trouser region ...

rick_chasey

Obviously he was going to think that.

1) he has Stockholm Syndrome.

2) it legitimises his own behaviour.

People can't be surprised.

It's just he said it that's unusual.
I just love his naivety. Standard Ulle.

deejay

dilemna wrote:

So it was actually a level playing field so Armstrong can be given back his 7 TdF titles.

Rude, you call people Rude, yet you post a sentence like this one.
What sort of Muck Raker are you.
You want me to listen to one Cheat, Fraud, Villain (or just a plain scumbag, whatever) talking about another Low Life that he knows so well in competition who was as despicable as himself in finding ways to cheat pro cycling.
Their being there, has made an empty "Void" in the sport along with some others.
The riders in the 70's, 80's and early 90's did not have the opportunity to use these advanced PED's like these two had although some of them would probably have tried.
This thread should be in with the armstrong rubbish where it has been regurgitated so many times.

mididoctors

You know....Thinking on it now I don't give 2 5hits what ullrich thinks or says about any of this.

joelsim

I suspect Sky pay to use the facilities available. But when your whole system is about numbers...

It wasn't exactly a level playing field, the EPO etc was very expensive so only the richest could use what they wanted, albeit it appears the vast majority did something.

Mind you, not everyone paid of the UCI to forget about their positive test, nor bullied and ostrasized (sp?) various detractors/riders/sceptics under the threat of lawsuits.

Nice fella anyway.

In truth I don't believe he should be made the scapegoat even though he created and abused his power. IMO he should be given the titles back. Then every rider Including mr nice who has been caught should then just have an asterisk next to the name whether 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Lanterne or KOM or whatever in every single race for the period of the offence whether it be the Tour of a classic or whatever.

RichN95.

Why do people keep going on about a 'level playing field'. Sport has never had a level playing field. There are many aspects that are unlevel - genetics, upbringing, nationality, opportunities, coaching, money etc, etc.

With doping no-one had exclusive excess to some special sauce, so between dopers it just became another variable. You can't really disapprove of someone more just because they did it better.

lostboysaint

Crankbrother wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

So is it an equal playing field now?

SKY use all the resources of British Cycling ... Do Euskatel (for example) get that same level of access to facilities?

Should the 2 most recent TdF winners be removed from the records as well?

It just means that Sky and British Cycling have got their act together and the other nations haven't.

You really are a sad little man aren't you.

USPS had their doping program together when others hadn't ... All had the ability to dope and in the most part did (find me a team from the Armstrong era without a positive or doper in it's midst) ...

Plus, don't start being a complete countdown conundrum ... keep the personal abuse to your trouser region ...

And the two are linked how? Either come out and say that you think that British Cycling and Sky are running a sophisticated doping program and that's how this bears comparison or apologise for making such a ridiculous reference to a national team and pro race team having the ability to share legitimate resources and facilities and the knowledge that improves both teams.

It won't be the latter because you're a sad, twisted little man who will clutch at any straw to try and prove his point, whilst not actually offering an educated or salient argument.

And is your last sentence an attempt to tell me off for calling you a sad little man? Whilst trying a clever bit of word play to insinuate I'm something else? So you're hypocritical as well.

Tom Butcher

RichN95 wrote:

With doping no-one had exclusive excess to some special sauce, so between dopers it just became another variable. You can't really disapprove of someone more just because they did it better.

Agreed, or because they happen to respond better to doping than some others.

RoadPainter

lostboysaint wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

So is it an equal playing field now?

SKY use all the resources of British Cycling ... Do Euskatel (for example) get that same level of access to facilities?

Should the 2 most recent TdF winners be removed from the records as well?

It just means that Sky and British Cycling have got their act together and the other nations haven't.

You really are a sad little man aren't you.

USPS had their doping program together when others hadn't ... All had the ability to dope and in the most part did (find me a team from the Armstrong era without a positive or doper in it's midst) ...

Plus, don't start being a complete countdown conundrum ... keep the personal abuse to your trouser region ...

And the two are linked how? Either come out and say that you think that British Cycling and Sky are running a sophisticated doping program and that's how this bears comparison or apologise for making such a ridiculous reference to a national team and pro race team having the ability to share legitimate resources and facilities and the knowledge that improves both teams.

It won't be the latter because you're a sad, twisted little man who will clutch at any straw to try and prove his point, whilst not actually offering an educated or salient argument.

And is your last sentence an attempt to tell me off for calling you a sad little man? Whilst trying a clever bit of word play to insinuate I'm something else? So you're hypocritical as well.

It wasn't a clever bit of word play.

deejay

Joelsim wrote:

It wasn't exactly a level playing field, the EPO etc was very expensive so only the richest could use what they wanted, albeit it appears the vast majority did something.

Expensive equipment to change the blood resources .
Expensive to obtain a back dated TUE and keep producing new TUE's (Therapeutic Exemption certificates) which help avoid most testing procedures. ?

Crankbrother

...

mfin

Crankbrother wrote:

financial doping

That's a new one... is this 'using money that's not permitted'?

slim_boy_fat

mfin wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

financial doping

That's a new one... is this 'using money that's not permitted'?

Maybe it's using less money than some teams have but doing it more effectively...

morstar

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

mfin wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

financial doping

That's a new one... is this 'using money that's not permitted'?

Maybe it's using less money than some teams have but doing it more effectively...

Because this board is heavily UK centric, cb has taken it upon himself to portray every comment as British jingoist nationalism and sees it as his role to counter that by whatever means he can. If he did this constructively, he could actually facilitate some interesting debate. However, his attempts are pretty abstract and based on some huge mental leaps that suggest a paranoid mind. I'd steer clear!

Paul 8v

UJlrich does have a point about the DQ being treated differently, how come in other cases such as Contador it was awarded to the second place rider but in the Armstrong case it was entered as "No winner" Now I realise that in some cases the second, third, 4th placed riders are convicted dopers but it is odd the way they have done that.

I don't personally think he should be reinstated though.

Vino'sGhost

here we go again, another thread where anyone who has a different view (based on nothing less legitimate than the fan boy massiv's own frothings ) is shot down as having mental problems. or dismissed as a troll.

But the venom in the attacks suggests lack of confidence, an indefensible position and the need for aggression to distract from the facts which are that Sky is just as likely to be doping on an organised scale as any other team. Armstrong was a a nasty piece of sh it but could possibly have been treated more harshly than others. (unless his crimes were so heinous he should have a set of sanctions just for himself to appease the frothings) and that Crankbrothers view is as legitimate as anyone elses.

Paul 8v

I do believe sky aren't the most highly funded team in the peloton, they must be financially doping...

I think the problem with crankbrothers comments are that no matter what the subject is he manages to turn it round to some conspiracy theory about sky so when he does say something of worth its lost in the barrage of hatred...

Comparing sky to Euskatel is like comparing Man Utd to Ipswich town, I would be bloody surprised if Ipswich had better training facilities and players...

RichN95.

The term "financial doping" was coined by Michel Platini to describe football teams that were running up huge debts to gain success. It refers to spending money you don't have, not to spending you do have. (Hence the new UEFA financial fair play rules).