German former pro cyclist Jan Ullrich, winner of the 1997 Tour de France, says that Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France victories should be restored.
Ullrich was Armstrong’s great rival during much of the American’s 1999-2005 run of Tour wins, and came second to him three times.
After the US Anti-Doping Agency found that Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs through the entire period, he was stripped of all his victories, including his Tour wins.
“If it were up to me, I’d give Armstrong back his victories in the Tour,” Ullrich told German news magazine Bild.
Ullrich pointed out that it would not be the first time a Tour winner has had his title removed then restored. Bjarne Riis – now owner of the Riis Cycling team currently sponsored by Saxo Bank and Tinkoff Bank – had his 1996 victory stripped after he admitted doping, then restored a year later.
Riis and Ullrich were team-mates at the Telekom team at the time, and Ullrich’s support of Riis in that 1996 Tour saw him finish second overall. The following year the roles were reversed as Riis turned super-domestique and supported Ullrich to his only Tour win.
Both riders, most of their team-mates and just about every other significant pro cyclist of the era have since admitted doping.
“Bjarne Riis was given back his victory from 1996. That’s how things were at the time. It’s not helping anyone to have lines struck through the roll of honour.”
Acknowledging the issues of the time, the Tour de France organisers and cycling’s governing body the UCI have not nominated anyone as the winner of the Tours stripped from Armstrong.
Ullrich made it clear he does not want to be considered the winner of the Tours in which he was originally the nominal runner-up.
“I just want the victories that I obtained on the bike. I don’t want to win anything by default.”
Ullrich was one of the riders who came under suspicion in 2006 when Opercion Puerto uncovered the blood doping services provided by Spanish doctor Eufemiano Fuentes.
In June he admitted being a client of Fuentes.
“But I’d said that already a thousand times. There was nothing new in that,” he said.
When asked why he had not come clean about his use of performance-enhancing drugs before, Ullrich simply said: “I decided differently. In hindsight, perhaps I would have done some things differently. But I am no god that can see everything and do everything right.”
67 thoughts on “Jan Ullrich says Lance Armstrong Tour victories should be reinstated: “That’s how things were””
He’s got a good point and
He’s got a good point and I’ve said it before – you can’t treat one person differently when they were all doing exactly the same thing!
I note that Erik Zabel recently confessed to doping throughout most of his career (having originally said it was only once in the late 90’s) but there’s been nothing announced about stripping him of his 6 green jerseys…
crazy-legs wrote:He’s got a
I agree, but I expect we may be in the minority.
Tin hats at the ready….
Can’t say I disagree with
Can’t say I disagree with Ullrich here. That’s how things were then; everyone needs to accept it and move on. The sport needs to focus on the here and now, on avoiding any possibility of another period like that, and on attracting sponsors and viewers to a clean, ethically governed sport that is learning from the mistakes of the past and not making them again.
I concur, He has got a very
I concur, He has got a very good point.
If as it seems the whole peloton were doing it the titles should stand, maybe something in brackets next to the yearr like AD (After Doping) 🙂
Well Armstrong did not only
Well Armstrong did not only cheat to his victory. He bullied those who dared to speak, he ruined the career of many, and sued others to oblivion. Let’s not forget that.
Furthermore, customs change with times. What was acceptable before is not anymore. Otherwise, let’s disband the WADA, the USADA and allow doping altogether. At least things would be clearer and if we do not mind seeing cyclists with cancers and heart attacks at 30, let’s do that!
zeb wrote:Well Armstrong did
Yeah, he was a bit more aggressive in his actions but the whole peloton, the managers and the doctors were all in on this, they did as much damage. Doctors administering “recovery” aids, managers telling riders they wouldn’t have a career unless they doped, that was endemic for years before LA even showed up. The first races he/his team did, they got their arses handed to them on a plate – cos the rest of the field were doping!
So they just joined the party. Yes he was more vocal and aggressive than most thanks to his high profile (admittedly created by him as a miracle comeback story) but don’t think for one minute that doping started or ended with LA or that he did anything the others weren’t. He did it slightly better certainly but no differently.
I’m ambivalent about it – yes we need to move forward but airbrushing one character out of Tour history isn’t really the way to go about it.
Armstrong brutalized Filippo
Armstrong brutalized Filippo Simeoni and he became a pariah in the peloton. I really feel for this guy trying to do the right thing.
“That’s how things were” Does
“That’s how things were” Does not mean that it was right, cheating is still cheating even if most of the peloton was doing it.
Quote: Ullrich pointed out
[quote] Ullrich pointed out that it would not be the first time a Tour winner has had his title removed then restored. Bjarne Riis – now owner of the Riis Cycling team currently sponsored by Katusha – had his 1996 victory stripped after he admitted doping, then restored a year later.
Mmmm Katusha, i dont think so! 😕
Lets try Saxo Tinkoff 😉
I would suggest the
I would suggest the difference between Armstrong and all the others is that Armstrong’s “donations” to the UCI meant the risk of discovery (geddit?) was less for him. To put it bluntly, everyone else was not bribing Hein and Pat. (Unless Jan knows something we don’t…)
Hmmm, so what punishment is
Hmmm, so what punishment is there for doping?
The point of removing the titles is to expurgate the benefits if cheating, otherwise you’re just saying its fine to dope if you get away with it at the time, and IT IS NOT OK! So what, in ten years time, we find out that all the other winners were doping we just forgive them and move on. The problem is that anti-doping is not effective and unless we have retrospective action then the pros won’t think twice about doping…..look at this way, dopers dope to win, not come second, so there’s the highest likelihood that the winners will be cheaters and unless you create the jeopardy of retrospective action then once they’ve won that’s it. If you sow the seed of doubt about being caught it may just make the sport a cleaner place.
I agree with Ullrich – his
I agree with Ullrich – his tour victory should be removed as well.
I think rules/retribution should be applied equally, but I understand why some people may feel different about Lance who had more than just one tour victory, he was the record multiple time winner and was high up on the list of stage victories too.
I interpret this as ‘I was
I interpret this as ‘I was just as dirty as Armstrong but still couldn’t beat him.’ Makes you wonder if a clean Armstrong would have beaten Ullrich or the next best clean rider anyway. Level playing field and all that. The crime is that we can never know. So is there any merit in having a blank space on wikipedia when we all know what happened. How about an asterix.
How about as new award Highest Documented Clean Rider.
Quote:How about as new award
Might want to revise that to:
“Highest rider who, at time of writing, had not yet been caught”
😉
Either you strip every doper ever caught of ALL their victories or you just leave it alone. You can’t try doing both. Can’t strip LA of his but leave Pantani, Ullrich, Riis, Virenque, Zabel free to walk off.
Everyone or no-one. And if you’re going to do the stripping victories thing, there’s going to be one hell of a lot of blank pages in the next Tour history book…
[commentator]”And the stage winner is Cippolini, oh no, Zabel! Oh no, he was at it too. Err, Abdoujaparov! No. Bollocks. Err…”[/commentator]
crazy-legs wrote:Quote:How
Might want to revise that to:
“Highest rider who, at time of writing, had not yet been caught”
😉
Either you strip every doper ever caught of ALL their victories or you just leave it alone. You can’t try doing both. Can’t strip LA of his but leave Pantani, Ullrich, Riis, Virenque, Zabel free to walk off.
Everyone or no-one. And if you’re going to do the stripping victories thing, there’s going to be one hell of a lot of blank pages in the next Tour history book…
[commentator]”And the stage winner is Cippolini, oh no, Zabel! Oh no, he was at it too. Err, Abdoujaparov! No. Bollocks. Err…”[/commentator]
Couldn’t agree more, and if the UCI were to strip every rider who doped of every title there would be no history what-so-ever. If anyone thinks all the greats – Anquetil, Merckx, Coppi, Indurain, Hinault never doped they are sadly deluded. Everyone doped and it was a level playing field so get over it. However I am glad that doping is becoming a thing of the past as the long term harm it can do to riders is very clear.
Ullrich can easily make
Ullrich can easily make statements now, in fact he had no idea of whether there were clean riders racing, and at this time interval all we have is his word that they were all at it, credible it may be but if it ever came to a court, no proof. Just circumstantial evidence and hearsay. No one is going to confess anyway if they don’t have to. Best now let things stay as they are, Armstrong was picked out because of his 7 “wins” no doubt.
The era is gone, a few from then are left around, and perhaps the concentration would be better on those who are known offenders and remain in positions of influence. On the matter of bending the rules, there’s a bloke in Aigle who started that years ago in South Africa!
It wouldn’t be so bad to put
It wouldn’t be so bad to put Lance and other’s names in the books. Have an asterisk next to their name. It looks really bad having so many top spots empty. If someone saw the 7 marked out section and didn’t know about it they would look it up. Put Lance’s name in there and it becomes less of a Streisand effect. Anyways, in a massive doping era, to come out top seven times is still amazing.
This argument fails to
This argument fails to acknowledge that some riders respond better to drugs than others plus Armstrong had access to ‘treatments’ few others can afford, notwithstanding he was paying-off the UCI and others to avoid being tested.
So what if some riders
So what if some riders respond better to drugs or can afford better drugs? Some riders respond better to training than others. Some teams can afford better bicycles and technology than others – Sky and British Cycling being two good examples. Its never going to be a level playing field even if its completely drugs free. If it was I would be a contender for a TdeF victory. Instead I’m resigned to puffing up the hills last in the local leisure rides.
I agree with Ullrich,
I agree with Ullrich, armstrong has been singled out in my opinion. Why does pantani still get to keep his titles, a massive doper. Bernard Hinault was caught doping 4 times I think and he was on the podium with froom!!!!!
Hinault? Four times?
Hinault? Four times?
Hinault? Okay IS there
Hinault? Okay IS there anyone, ANYONE who crossed the line first before 2011-Cadel Evans known to be clean? Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Landis, Contador, Rasmussen*. The post Armstrong era saw a lot of hand me down winners and everybody before is now know to be a doper. I don’t know enough about the 60s-80s era but have heard about Lemond’s doctors ‘Iron booster injections.’
I am tempted to thing the sport has never been clean until now and the only way it has been cleaned up is because of new technological replacements for chemical boosters. At least technological methods are more honest and reward investment even if it is an equipment arms race. Of course the argument could be made that this is unfair to poorer nations; though it has seen benefits for British riders. It isn’t F1 yet but the percentages are there to be had.
*Didn’t get to the finish but was going to win.
bikeboy76 wrote:Hinault? Okay
Why do you think the sport is clean now? This year’s Giro seems to indicate otherwise.
bikeboy76 wrote:Hinault? Okay
Greg LeMond – 1986, 1989, 1990
Carlos Sastre – 2008
Neither has ever been linked to doping, which is as near to ‘knowing’ as you’ll get.
As for the “level playing field”, the answer is no. It has been shown repeatedly that doping does not create a level playing field – partly because each individual reacts differently but also due to dosing and varying levels of knowledge/expertise. Some would only use EPO (and then only some of the time), others may also use HGH, Cortisone etc etc. while Armstrong repeatedly made the whole team do whatever shit he thought they should in order to win. He ensured the playing field in his Tours was anything but ‘level’!
While Jan has a point, and part of me thinks it’s reasonable, but it’s only his opinion. It’s up to the organisers and sport’s administrators to decide what should be done.
@Rumpo – are you saying Nibali is a doper? You’re in a very small minority.
Simon E wrote:bikeboy76
I must say that Lemond’s admission to an ‘iron’ injection gives me great disquiet. I don’t like to think he doped at all, but given:
1. the US team at the 84 Olympics all did blood doping (it wasn’t banned back then).
2. Stephen Roache was working with Conconi, and the beginnings of the 90s science revolution were beginning in the 80s.
I don’t want to set too much stall in him, though I admire the way he stood up to Armstrong, 86′ was a classic and 1989’s victory against Fignon a classic of drama.
…..I certainly wouldn’t put an stall against Sastre.
Simon E wrote:
@Rumpo – are
Who mentioned Nibali? I was thinking of Danilo Di Luca, Mauro Santambrogio, and Sylvain Georges actually.
Simon E wrote:bikeboy76
@bikeboy76 – Sastre, Evans, LeMond but no one’s mentioned Indurain?? I know he did test + for Salbutomol in ’94 but was given exception by the UCI
Striking a line through
Striking a line through Armstrongs victories in the TdF will achieve nothing. Has achieved nothing. In the minds of cyclists, he will always be the rider who finished first in the TdF more times than anyone else in history. “But he doped”, they will say, and that’s true.
SO DID EVERYONE ELSE.
So it was a level playing field. He simply was either a better cyclist, trained harder, was better supported, or responded better to the drugs than others.
I applaud and wholeheartedly agree that the sport should be drug free, and hopefully it is. Or maybe current riders have better technology and are better able to hide doping, or perhaps there are new potions that aren’t (currently) illegal? It doesn’t matter. Any advantage an individual has will be short-lived.
Anti-doping organisations are needed if only to protect the rides from themselves and their doctors, and their work should continue. But a big line should be drawn under the doping era of professional cycling, and people should accept it happened, and move on.
graham wrote:Striking a line
It was NOT “a level playing field” (How many times?). Different people react differently to drugs, and Armstrong had the UCI in his corner.
The Rumpo Kid wrote:It was
As I said – maybe he “responded better to the drugs,” but I sincerely don’t think this is a consideration. If no-one took drugs, you’d find some riders were better than others simply because of their physiology. That’s the nature of athletes. The drugs have tilted the scales in favour of those taking them.
Did the UCI only turn a blind eye to Armstrong, or were samples from other riders ‘processed’ similarly? I think they must have been. Armstrong may have held more sway with the UCI, but that was probably as much a tactical decision as anything that happened during a race. Other riders could have benefited in the same way, had they approached the ‘problem’ of the UCI differently, and may have benefited as a result of Armstrong’s interaction anyway.
I’m not defending Armstrong. He cheated. But (leaving aside his unprecedented success) let’s please try to maintain a little perspective – it is likely (almost to the point of certainty) that everyone was cheating. Armstrong was more successful than most, and as such has been made a scapegoat. If you only follow mainstream media, you could be forgiven for thinking he was on superman drugs and no-one else had ever taken as much as an aspirin. (OK… I exaggerate, but you know what I mean.)
Are others going to have their stored blood samples retested? It has been asked, but there’s no indication it will happen. Will others, who are absolutely, categorically and definitely KNOWN to have doped be stripped of their titles? Were they reacting better to their drugs than their competitors, or were they the better cyclist on the day?
The playing field was as level as it could be. The punishments are not being delivered in the same manner.
graham wrote:
The punishments
And who’s fault is that? If Armstrong had accepted USADA’s authority in the matter of his doping, the worst he could have got was a two year ban. He just withdrew from the process, and continued lying, receiving a life ban for his trouble.
The punchline is that this enables his remaining supporters to claim victimisation.
And if doping is acceptable on the grounds that two wrongs make a right, should Landis and Contador have their TdFs reinstated? I don’t hear anyone calling for that.
graham wrote:The Rumpo Kid
It really wasn’t a remotely level playing field at all. Thanks to the UCI’s 50% hematocrit limit that was used due to no EPO test existing back then, it meant that riders with naturally low hematocrit levels were able to take more EPO than those riders who were naturally close to the limit. This is one of many reasons, the idea that all these dopers were competing equally is a myth that has been debunked countless times.
Ullrich is a dick and his
Ullrich is a dick and his comments should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
Wouldn’t this just reward the
Wouldn’t this just reward the non-doping, even if they were a minority? I think that restoring the titles would dishonour the courage of those who spoke out.
It’s certainly hypocritical
It’s certainly hypocritical of the powers-that-be to apply sanctions unequally -whether it’s stripping results selectively, applying bans to some but not others, idolising French dopers but demonising American ones!
I am pleased to see more people coming round to this way of thinking, but when I dared to make this point last year in the wake of the Armstrong revelations, I was comprehensively shot down and accused of being some Armstrong ‘fanboy’!
We need a whole truth and reconciliation process.
You either accept the capacity for dopers to repent, change and seek forgiveness, or you adopt complete zero tolerance. In light of the Armstrong vilification, it angers me to see Contador, a doper of the modern era, still competing.
700c wrote:It’s certainly
I think you are missing a massive point with Armstrong, and that is the hypocrisy with which he dominated the sport.
But ultimately I think what they have done is right. The biggest winner from doping is punished in the biggest way.
The argument about what to do with the other dopers is a different question. I’m sure they could retest all their blood tests and see if they come up with a negative result…..but that would be expensive. Like I keep saying, dopers dope to win, so it’s likely that that not only is the first placed rider doped, but those he ‘narrowly’ beat also. Occassionally I think a rider might just shade a classic ‘pain e aqua’, but the conditions have to be just right.
If you make an example of an individual, and Armstrong is prime candidate (any winner is, which is why testing of a stage winner is mandatory), it dissuades people from doping. They say ‘is it worth it, even if I get away with it now, later on I may get busted’. True, the likelihood of this increases the more they retrospectively test and bust winners of small events, but it dissuades the sort of orchestrated doping and dominance of Armstrong because once you stick you head over the parapet the more likely it is to be shot off.
I do think that in combination with the blood passport and the revalations of the last year riders are less keen to dope – performances have been more ‘human’ than in other years. But if seven years are left blank as a warning to cyclists then so be it.
The main problem with Armstrong is that he took so much dope we will never know what sort of rider he would have been post-cancer therapy, we know that he sucked before that though. His record as a pro in the peloton was risable – and evidence shows (Kimmage’s report) that he was doping before he was diagnosed…in the year he was world champion no less. The boost of steroids and EPO created a monster – just like it did with Pantani. Perhaps all you can say is that other cyclists were not as ruthless in their doping. Armstrong was certainly not a climber by build, but yet achieved unthinkable performances going uphill.
Give Them back to LA and draw
Give Them back to LA and draw a line under it all, and impose life time bans from now on 😀
If you say if they’re all
If you say if they’re all doping, fine, leave it, then there is no disincentive to doping. Ullrich, loved him as a rider, but his saying things like this is not helpful.
There is even a hint that
There is even a hint that Hinault (Slaying the Badger) may not have been without his own little doses of ‘pick-me up’. Steriods were the ‘de jour’ drug of choice to a point.
@Colin Peyresourde, yes,
@Colin Peyresourde, yes, penalising Armstrong was correct, but simply punishing him more because he was the most successful doper is farcical.
As for making an example of him, well, why not make an example of everyone who dopes? Not sure it’s been that effective anyway, given the revelations post LA, eg at the Giro
700c wrote:@Colin
But that is not what happened! Travis Tygart has said that Armstrong could only have got a two year ban maximum, and kept five TdFs, if he’d been prepared to concede there was a case to answer. It was only Armstrong’s stubborn arrogance that got him a life ban.
Huge difference between the
Huge difference between the ergogenic benefits of steroids and amphetamines in comparison to blood-doping and EPO. It is estimated that Armstrong benefitted by as much as 9% from doping – hardly ‘levelling’ when the difference between winning and losing is often fractions of a percent.
The amount of abuse that many like myself had to endure over the years for daring to accuse Armstrong of such impropriety and his acolytes who would harass and abuse anyone who would dare question their beliefs.
Finally, accusations about Lemond are just fantasy – Armstrong allegedly offered $300,000 to anyone who could come up with evidence and they came up with diddly.
@ 700c, I don’t think it is
@ 700c, I don’t think it is farcical at all. I think it actually shows some sense of political sense. If you think that all the peloton are doing drugs then going after the most successful (and most likely the most abusive person) you are saying ‘this is what could happen to you if you dapple too much with these things’.
If you dope, and you win, you should be afraid….
As I said early, it’d be great if they could get everyone, but they can’t. Picking off the Danilo Di Luca’s, Mauro Santambrogio’s, and Sylvain Georges’ of this world are small fry. You have to send a message to the big boys: We are watching you.
Down the stretch, riders will realise that they need to be wary about their doping – if you do nothing to Armstrong, it is business as usual. It’s not a perfect world, and it is not a perfect solution, but it does send a message.
Just like to say that I’m not surprised that there were no +ve results at the TdF. The sport doesn’t need the scandal right now, and it would only make Froome’s win farcical in extremis (at their 100th anniversary too). But I suspect the TdF organisers are very hot on teams to discourage this sort of thing.
If you don’t think politics has a part to play flush out your head gear.
Gosh! So many words about
Gosh! So many words about doping!
There’s obviously no simple answer, so I won’t try to offer one.
Nevertheless, I do think all the Tour winners’ rostas look weird with blanks where discredited riders’ names used to be, no matter which mag or website publishes them. Would it be such a bad thing if the names were reinstated with something – an asterisk, a different colour – to denote that they came first but were subsequently found to have been breaking the rules?
But maybe that’s too easy?!?
Treat it like the hour
Treat it like the hour record. Doped and not doped 🙂
Heres an Idea: why not give
Heres an Idea: why not give the award of those years to someone who Toured France once for leisure, or an amateur who did a stage following the route the next day. or someone who cycled to the local shop who happened to be in France. I know it sounds funny and ridiculous (because I want it to be). Its no more ridiculous than what Ullrich is suggesting IMO. 😕
Simple put their names back
Simple put their names back in but in a different colour and after the name in brackets the words “doper,cheater. After all how do you know if the person who came second 22nd or 82nd were clean ? Yes some riders will have been but because of people like LA how can you take someones word they were clean.
Let their named go down in history as cheats not just blank results pages.
Titles should still be officially stripped from them, and especially for people like LA who so aggressively attacked those accusing him criminal charges and prison sentences should be standard.
Ulrichs point would be more valid if LA had not been so aggressive in suing people and ruining their lives to cover up what can only be described as his criminal activity ( criminal because he knew it was not allowed and yet still did it and gained financial gain from doing it.
LA is different from cases such as Pantani because he had the choice to retire rather than accuse those telling the truth of being liars and instigating legal action, yes his position with sponsors etc left him little choice other than to retire which is what he should have done.
Before anyone flames me I was a massive LA fan and when hearing reports always had the view in his defence that yeh if he is taking drugs that enhanced his performance, if those drugs were because of the cancer he had suffered from which nearly killed him then so be it let him continue after all what was the alternative oh sorry race and you risk death from the cancer returning!
I now hope he goes to prison and losses everything he has gained. The only ones I feel sorry for are the people who he so vigorously attacked when they accused him and his children.
Whether you think Ullrich is
Whether you think Ullrich is a dick or Armstrong is a bully is irrelevant. The point being made is that the rules are not being applied consistently which makes more of a mockery of the UCI. Take rider 1’s titles away but let riders 2,3,4,…… etc keep theirs although they all doped. That just makes matters worse.
jazzdude wrote:Whether you
Can you give me an example, using names instead of numbers, of this inconsistency?
@ The Rumpo Kid –
They’ve
@ The Rumpo Kid –
They’ve already been mentioned elsewhere in this post. Riis, Ullrich, Zabel, Pantani, Virenque.
jazzdude wrote:@ The Rumpo
In February 2012 Ullrich was found guilty of doping. All results since May 2005 were removed from his palmares. His 1997 TdF win cannot be taken away because of the Statute of Limitations, which also means that whatever other evidence comes to light, Pantani, Zabel, and Riis cannot be removed from record books. (Much to ASO’s displeasure.)
The Statute of Limitations does not apply in Armstrong’s case because of his refusal to deal with USADA. This may have been ego on his part, or the fear that during the arbitration process more serious activities on his part would have come to light. Either way, and Travis Tygart has said this, had he gone into arbitration the Statute of Limitations would have applied, and the worst that could have happened would have been a two year ban and loss of two Jerseys. Exactly the same as Contador, in fact.
You may think Armstrong is a victim of some inconsistency, personally I think he is a victim of his own actions.
All of which brings us, in a rather roundabout way, to marmot-fancier Richard Virenque.
Well to start with, he never tested positive. (Sound familiar?)
Although this sort of statement is good enough for fans of doping cyclists, it certainly isn’t good enough for me, and I have strong suspicions Virenque may have knowingly doped at some time. However the chances of bringing him to account for this are remote at best, given that Virenque lacked Armstrong’s facility for turning everyone he met into potential witnesses for the prosecution. And until Virenque can be charged with something other than being on a doping team, it looks like he’s got away with it. It’s frustrating, but there is no inconsistency in the application of sanctions.
There should be an amenesty
There should be an amenesty or truth and reconciliation commission for cycling. It’s obviuos that most of the top pros who were in cycling up until recently doped and that fact is a massive elephant in the room stopping cycling moving forward. Let them get it off there chest, wipe the slate clean and then enforce a “one strike and you’re out” attitude to doping.
When the ” Cr#pfight ” dies
When the ” Cr#pfight ” dies down , Lance will once again be recognised , too hard for the ASO to overlook the financial benefits !
my comment elsewhere which is at the root of the whole problem :
” jim burn aka phat the rat mc q who is attempting to emulate the ” dear leader ” & robert mugabe is reaping what he sowed last December 2012 !
When he reviews the 1970s and his contempt for IOC Rules & Regs , should he be surprised that he has earned the ire of ALL Stakeholders ?
My comment elsewhere :
” WAS unaware of the 90 day rule until now ! However , i am not paid Salary to uphold the UCI Constitution , jim burn ( who thinks he is a combo of mugabe & “the dear leader “) aka phat the rat , certainly draws Salary , even if he chooses a devious course !
My petition today :
http://t.co/9ZAGyfohiI
deserves support , yet because people have to reveal their name , appears to be a non starter !
When phat is returned as President , it will give me great satisfaction to see people squirming for they are the beneficiary of his unethical behaviour in the future !
You reap what you sow ! Inaction will result in a lot of whining !
HOW MANY OF YOU WANT TO SIT BACK and let events pass you by ?
Good point.
Good point.
Is Lance different? Well yes
Is Lance different? Well yes because he went beyond cycling, built a publicity machine, talked (and then untalked) of running for governor of Texas, like Jesus was resurrected from cancer, and was a household name. And he turned all of that into a lot more money too. So while it is technically correct that he was just one among many dopers (and personally I think the reason for his ultra low positive test rate was because he kept his dosages within common sense bounds unlike Floyd Landis), the reason for his long fall is because he himself built his castle in the sky. He reaped the infamy that he himself he sowed. The others were no more than simple cyclists.
Sorry, that should be “the
Sorry, that should be “the other were no more than simple cheating cyclists”
Apologies to Sastre, I
Apologies to Sastre, I thought Rasmussen was ’08, but in fact he was ’07, he dropped out and gave C*ntador his first win. So Sastre was clean but Colin has his ‘doubts’, just as some doubt Schleck, Sky boys Wiggins and Froome.
So there we have it, the only clean modern Tour winner is Evans, because he looks like he is dying all the time. It is obviously too easy for everyone else.
Can we get Decster back to pass comment on Evans?
Broadly I agree with Jan,
Broadly I agree with Jan, forget it, move on. They were all at it and we (more or less) knew they were. lots and lots of hypocrisy surrounding criticism of Armstrong. Plenty of fans and well respected journalists will call for Armstrongs head and then get all misty eyed about Pantanti.
I know some people like to believe that LA was somehow improved more by dope than the other dopers, but there’s zero evidence for that and it’s just wishful thinking. I’d say the reason Jan lost more often than not to LA was that he turned up overweight almost every year
It’s just the way it was, it was wrong but it’s changed so just move on.
Forget it, move on. Isn’t
Forget it, move on. Isn’t that what we were all asked to do about the Festina affair? The problem is that cycling has only been clean for three years. And always has been.
Just feels different now
Just feels different now though Rumpo ? We went from Festina to LA, Pantani etc. It wouldn’t have been a shock if they all got busted in say, 2001. If Nibali, Wiggins, Froome etc got busted now it’d be totally shocking, to me anyway
What I’m saying is the way
What I’m saying is the way the sport deals with a scandal is to draw a line under it and move on. To the next scandal, and a line is drawn under that one too. Three positives in this years Giro have me as anxious as ever. I hope the sport is getting cleaner, but hope is all any of us can do until the problem of doping is properly addressed.
Jan – you’ve got to love him.
Jan – you’ve got to love him. He’s a sort of teutonic village idiot; a buffoon on and off the bicycle.
Not sure I agree with the
Not sure I agree with the idea that as all were doping it was a level playing field so reinstate the records because the best doper won. It sounds fair but the fact of the matter is doping is not a level playing field. It is done in secret and as such the level of doping varies foprm one rider to another.
He who doped most wins? I don’t think that is an acceptible solution. He who doped least wins? Well who knows what form of doping was or has ever been going on from one individual to another. Was Armstrong only blood doping or was he taking other drugs and to what doseage? We’ll never know as his doping records are unavailable. Even if they were available no one would trust the accuracy of them.
Doping goes back a long long way in professional cycling and I suspect sponsors have known about it or condoned it since their involvement in the sport. Some amateur sports supporters would cite professionalism as the reason for the doping in the first place.
You can’t really blame the pro cyclist completely. The whole structure of pro cycling is to blame. If your living is reliant up on your securing pro team membership because prize money is too small and only limited to a small pot then sponsors will employ people who will get the win or media coverage they seek at any cost and without any concern for the sportsman.
I fully understand peoples view regards the hypocracy of the UCI, stripping some dopers of titles and not others, then reinstating in some cases or only stripping titles from the recent past and not the distant past. It does stink. How far back would they go if they start stripping more titles? None of the so called Cycling Greats; Mercxx, Indurain, Anquetil, etc., the list is endless have spoken about there involvement or, indeed, how they rode clean. Their silence speaks volumes.
I’m not convinced about reinstatement because the world of cycling is so much bigger now than it ever was so nothing can be done without huge media attention and it would seriously undermine what little credibility the UCI still has. What is done is done.
I do believe that the UCI should state that it regards all participants in all their pro events up to 2005 to be likely dopers to some degree and that Armstrong’s extraordinary abuse of an abusive system singles him out for particular punishment as a way of sending a message to sponsors and riders alike. 😕
I have strong suspicions
He admitted it. It’s one reason I find it bizarre that Eurosport in France still use him so much. That said, it was quite funny when they had him riding up Alpe d’Huez saying how much harder it was than when he was a pro… I wonder why 😉
As far as Lance goes, he’s a “victim” of his own behaviour. If he’d copped for it and cooperated he’d have lost two jerseys and probably not have the lifetime ban. However, personally I’m glad he behaved according to type and has been publicly outed as a bully and a cheat. His treatment of riders who spoke out ruined careers and for that, at least, he deserves everything he gets.
Armstrong was the pinnacle of
Armstrong was the pinnacle of doping. Hopefully we are moving down the other side now. Ullrich’s comments were – regardless of his belief, irresponsible. I think the sport needs to clear out the UCI with the next election and move on from this period working hard to look forwards.
My “suspicions” remark was
My “suspicions” remark was irony. Perhaps I should have said “I am suspicious that Virenque willingly and intentionally took drugs,” and that would have been a more accurate criticism of Richard’s stance. Still stinks to high heaven. I’ll agree the UCI should have done more about Virenque when they could, but there is no double standard in their treatment of Virenque as opposed to Armstrong. They did all they could to help Armstrong get away with it as well.
It’s the dirtiest race there
It’s the dirtiest race there is and has been since it’s inception. Huffing ether, rubbing cocaine into the gums, drinking rum all to numb the pain of the demands placed on the riders.
If they were all at it then it was a level playing field and a wins a win in my book.
If racers currently aren’t “doping” they most certainly are taking medical science and pushing it as close to the line as possible.