Jan Ullrich says Lance Armstrong Tour victories should be reinstated: "That’s how things were"

700c wrote:

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.

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.

graham wrote:

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.

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 NOT "a level playing field" (How many times?). Different people react differently to drugs, and Armstrong had the UCI in his corner.

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 are not being delivered in the same manner.

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 wrote:

It was NOT "a level playing field" (How many times?). Different people react differently to drugs, and Armstrong had the UCI in his corner.

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.

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.

bikeboy76 wrote:

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.

Why do you think the sport is clean now? This year's Giro seems to indicate otherwise.

bikeboy76 wrote:

Hinault? Okay IS there anyone, ANYONE who crossed the line first before 2011-Cadel Evans known to be clean?

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:

@Rumpo - are you saying Nibali is a doper? You're in a very small minority.

Who mentioned Nibali? I was thinking of Danilo Di Luca, Mauro Santambrogio, and Sylvain Georges actually.

Simon E wrote:

bikeboy76 wrote:

Hinault? Okay IS there anyone, ANYONE who crossed the line first before 2011-Cadel Evans known to be clean?

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.

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:

bikeboy76 wrote:

Hinault? Okay IS there anyone, ANYONE who crossed the line first before 2011-Cadel Evans known to be clean?

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.

@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

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.

crazy-legs wrote:

Quote:

How about as new award Highest Documented Clean Rider.

Might want to revise that to:
"Highest rider who, at time of writing, had not yet been caught"

Quote:

I agree with Ullrich - his tour victory should be removed as well.

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.