Ulrich spews...but can you argue with his reason
Last Post 08/08/2013 07:48 AM by entheo genic. 38 Replies.
Author Messages
Pin0Q0

Posts:229

--
08/01/2013 10:16 AM

I find it hard to disagree with his statement as much as I want to. My dislike towards LA is not because he cheated and won but because of his arrogance and the way he bullied. So as far as I'm concerned yes let him have his wins but don't let him compete EVER, that will be the bigger slap in the face than his name in the books, on the other hand I wish they would all go away and let us forget about the past and focus on the future of the sport.  

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/ull...--spt.html

Yo Mike

Posts:257

--
08/01/2013 10:32 AM
Well, here we have a (comparatively) nice guy cheater stating that an arrogant, more successful, bully of a self-admitted cheater should get his stripped wins reinstated.

Jan is entitled to his opinion, but I am glad he has no power to set policy in pro cycling.

I also don't buy the 'all or none' demand regarding punishing the doped peloton any more than I accept the 'doping to level the playing field' rationalle. Cheating is cheating.

You get the major violators first, because they matter more on all levels. It sends a message. Yes, it opens a box of asterisks, and yes, there is a 'fatigue' that sets in regarding how far down the list to test and punish, but even if all past cheats are not caught, I think fewer will go to the drugs for an advantage in the future.

And lastly, gross violations, e.g.  a Ricco as opposed to a Contador and the miniscule amounts of clenbuterol - should be met with lifetime bans.  I mean, is DiLuca finally done?
ChinookPass

Posts:425

--
08/01/2013 11:14 AM
I don't think it matters what the record books say, just keep these guys out of the sport.

Daily Show -7
Orange Crush

Posts:1161

--
08/01/2013 11:41 AM
Unless someone can clearly tell me why only LA's name should be removed, Ullrich is correct.

Not only that his name should be reinstated not with a common asterisk but with a Big Star, cause not only did he cross the line first 7 times he also was the Best Cheater. And he had the best chicks, good gawd how easy is it to hate this guy.
CERV

Posts:151

--
08/01/2013 01:28 PM
I don't think testing old samples in any way gets the "major violators" first.
This was an era when the entire system was corrupt. Owners, race organizers, ASO, UCI, managers, sponsors, all the way down made it known what was expected of the riders to keep their jobs on the teams.

In that environment we now retroactively expect the riders to have been the beacons of morality to the detriment of their own careers?

The problem I see i that you don't have the equivalent of 'old samples' from owners, race organizers, managers, sponsors to re-test and apply our new standards to. No damning physical evidence. The things they did to encourage doping are unlikely to ever be uncovered or proven. All those people are still involved in cycling and most will never be punished for the influence they had in fostering a doping culture. But we can re-test old blood samples, so the old riders become the fall guys.

I don't have an answer on what we should be doing instead, but I do think targeting the old riders to be punished for the sins of the past reeks of unfairness.
Entheo

Posts:317

--
08/01/2013 01:45 PM
as i said on the FB page, i think the answer is pretty simple, and the wiki TdF winners page is on the right track... footnote the transgressions, whether thru admission or testing (retroactive included), with a scarlet letter (or number, since the footnotes could be quite numerous), for all posterity, to serve as a warning to others that if you won by cheating you will be remembered for it forever.

teammates, director sportifs etc. wouldn't get off with this approach either. for example, lance's wins all would have the scarlet footnote "see USADA Reasoned Decision"
jmdirt

Posts:681

--
08/01/2013 01:47 PM
I've said it all along, just because LA was the best doper and the biggest ahole doesn't mean that he should be the only one removed from the lists. All or none.

Yomike, you say cheating is cheating but then you say get the major violators. The less major violators cheated too. What makes a major violator? Wins? Amount of dope? Cost of program? Number of positives? I agree with your cheating is cheating statement so that support all or none.
Yo Mike

Posts:257

--
08/01/2013 02:14 PM
@jmdirt

The cheaters that win are the major violators / primary targets because an organization shouldn't (in an ideal situation) condone / reward cheating. It encourages the behavior. That's why some - maybe many - of the cheaters that don't win may never get popped due to time limitations, resource constraints, etc. They cheated and they still lost, so they are actually double losers, IMO.

And a big +++ to CERV

/The problem I see i that you don't have the equivalent of 'old samples' from owners, race organizers, managers, sponsors to re-test and apply our new standards to. No damning physical evidence. The things they did to encourage doping are unlikely to ever be uncovered or proven. All those people are still involved in cycling and most will never be punished for the influence they had in fostering a doping culture./

If -7 really wanted to do something positive to be remembered for, he'd open up about 'contributions' he made to 'fight doping' and other possibly collusive actions when he was a Pro, like allegedly ratting out other doped competitors. If he did this soon enough, it might mean the end of Pat McQuaid, too.
jmdirt

Posts:681

--
08/01/2013 03:07 PM
We aren't talking about dopers who never won, we're talking about dopers who won having their names removed or not removed from the winner's lists. Why should one cheater's name be removed while many others stay.

If all dopers are removed from the winners lists, I am not for moving others up (they are the double losers you refer to).

I would like LA to be the ride leader for a fund raiser ride that includes all living dopers. They would be required to ride all three GTs and RAAM with 60 grit sand paper for a chamois.
jacques_anquetil

Posts:202

--
08/01/2013 08:19 PM
Yo Mike - point of clarification. Contador had trace amounts of clenbuterol true, but there is the suggestion that it arrived in his body via a blood transfusion and the drug was residue from a weight-loss regime 4 to 6 weeks prior. and the presence of plasticizers typical of blood bags. so, that said it's more than simply trace amounts of clenbuterol, of which there should be zero amount in the body, it's just that they just don't have any proof of anything else.
jookey

Posts:134

--
08/01/2013 09:57 PM
-7 won. He stood on podium. Collected money as did Jan, Stuart and all others. I've thrown up my hands I disgust. I can accept them all doing it just like ALL other major sports. IMO, the clean sports are the ones who do not test well. While your at it give Tyler back his medal and accept Floyd as a tDf champ. Cyclists have been cheating with the same drugs as their contemporaries for 100 years. Nuff said.
Yo Mike

Posts:257

--
08/02/2013 09:02 AM
@Jacques

Points well made!
Pin0Q0

Posts:229

--
08/02/2013 09:59 AM
You guys are missing the point JU is trying to make I think. 95% of the peloton cheated, and we knew that back then and now it’s confirmed and all of a sudden all the critics come out of the wood work. If you thought they raced cleaned until recently then you were not following the sport closely. UCI knew and turned its back instead of trying to prevent and fix it. The riders did what was expected (only a handful refused) in order maintain their place on the team and show result for the sponsors as TH writes in his book, as well as being documented in the Reasoned Decision.
The majority of the blame should fall on UCI and the organizers not the riders. It was the UCI that had no morals and let them cheat. They would occasionally throw a lamb to the wolves just to silence the media, UCI almost promoted cheating; why? To make the sport more exciting so they can market it and make money. What is different about that than Corporate America (or corporate anywhere), It’s all about a product making money. You think the company you work for has morals when it comes to doing the right thing for its employees!!
Let’s be realistic, if you or I were in their shoes we may have followed suite, being twenty, and naïve and green, I can’t say for sure I wouldn’t have. Sure now that we are a little older and wiser (I hope) you look back and say that was wrong, but in that error, at that age…hard to say. Like I said before I knew they cheated back then and it’s not how they won that I am ranting about, but how they treated others.
Entheo

Posts:317

--
08/02/2013 10:21 AM
the UCI should shoulder much of the blame due to its complicity AND YET pat mcquaid is still as entrenched as a dingleberry in a bear's arse.

i would go so far as to say that if mcquaid is reelected then there is very little hope that this sport can be truly rehabilitated.
jmdirt

Posts:681

--
08/02/2013 10:58 AM
Pin, that's not what JU said. Its not even what you said in your original post. Your second post is true but not how the thread started and rolled.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ullrich-calls-for-restoration-of-armstrongs-tour-de-france-titles
Orange Crush

Posts:1161

--
08/02/2013 11:05 AM
The point is in the "we knew it back then". The majority of the blame then is not necessarily on the UCI but on the media and the court of public opinion.

The court of public opinion? Witness the Tour, I'd argue 99.9% of public does not care about doping, they want spectacle. The 10odd posters arguing here or elsewhere the opposite way would seem like a tiny minority.

The media? Look, there's a lot of interesting stuff in that senate report (about the 98 WC soccer for one; tennis (again) and rugby) but the media seems unable to dig any deeper than a bunch of names spoon fed so conveniently in an appendix.  The media is lazy and just feeds the public what it wants (spectacle - and providing those names is just that) cause it sells.

Nothing's gonna change without those outside pressures. Changing "W" for Obama did not make Guantanamo go away, changing McQ for someone else will not make doping go away. The media and the public hold the keys to change.
longslowdistance

Posts:629

--
08/02/2013 12:13 PM
Yo Mike wrote:
"I also don't buy the 'all or none' demand regarding punishing the doped peloton any more than I accept the 'doping to level the playing field' rationalle. Cheating is cheating. "
Seems like an inconsistent position, taking the absolute position on one hand and acknowledging that not doping sins were identical on the other. I don't mean to call out Yo Mike in particular because many posters seem to do the same thing. My point is you can't have it both ways.
Yo Mike

Posts:257

--
08/02/2013 12:41 PM
I'll try again, with a not-too-fat-fetched example.

Two cars are speeding down a country road, racing. Speeding in a car is a crime. A cop car then pulls out of the bushes to pursue the speeders. Farther down the road, one car fails to avoid a pedestrian in the road, and hits the pedestrian. Then the road splits, and each car takes a different fork.

They were both speeding and breaking the law, but which car do you think the cops should pursue?
Orange Crush

Posts:1161

--
08/02/2013 12:52 PM
IMO what Yo Mike says makes sense if I read it correctly: rather that trying to cast a dragnet to catch all cheaters, which does not work (ample parallel examples in society show that its foolish), focus your efforts on the big fish, the ones that stand out. In fact, Lemond pretty much said same somewhere during the LA saga and when they were putting him forward as UCI presidente (remember that, LOL), something along the lines of you can't expect sport to be totally clean but you gotta weed out the extremes. Its pretty much in line with my thinking.
longslowdistance

Posts:629

--
08/02/2013 01:32 PM
OK, I get that. Not "Cheating is cheating". Rather, it's "Cheating and winning is worse than cheating and not winning and thus deserves more attention and harsher punishment."
Pin0Q0

Posts:229

--
08/02/2013 01:41 PM
jmdirt, In my first post I stated:
"My dislike towards LA is not because he cheated and won but because of his arrogance and the way he bullied'
and finished with:
"Like I said before I knew they cheated back then and it’s not how they won that I am ranting about, but how they treated others."

My understanding of JU statement was that's how they raced back then, and I simply agreed with what he said, so not sure what you see that I don't.
Yo Mike

Posts:257

--
08/02/2013 01:51 PM
@lsd

Exactly. Most things exist in a context, so comparison is natural and sometimes essential.
jmdirt

Posts:681

--
08/02/2013 03:32 PM
We aren't talking about cheating and not winning though. We are comparing the treatment of winning cheaters. Why is LA the only dope champ who got removed from the records?*

To use Yo Mike's analogy, there were a lot of cars speeding, many cars hit pedestrians, but the record books only show one losing his license. I know the argument is that he hit seven pedestrians, while others only hit one or two. The ones who didn't hit a pedestrian never got noticed.

*Obviously FL got removed but while his ink was still wet.
jmdirt

Posts:681

--
08/02/2013 03:40 PM
Pin, not doubt LA was an asshat. But what I took from what JU said was that all the other dopers are still on the books so LA should be too. Your first post indicated that you agreed: /"So as far as I'm concerned yes let him have his wins but don't let him compete EVER, that will be the bigger slap in the face than his name in the books..."/

Your second post told us that we didn't get it because JU was talking about the UCI.
BikeCzar

Posts:53

--
08/02/2013 04:25 PM
I'm just so glad we have good clean role models like Richard Virenque to replace the images of the dirty champ from that era.
BikeCzar

Posts:53

--
08/02/2013 04:53 PM
Trying to sweep the era under the rug only perpetuates the problem. It keeps the past at the forefront. Recognize, acknowledge, fix, move on.
Berzin

Posts:34

--
08/04/2013 10:27 AM
Armstrong wasn't merely a cheater. He was a bully, a two-bit thug who acted as a mafia Don with impunity and with the protection of the highest offices of the governing body, the UCI.

He shamelessly pimped the cancer community for the sake of self-aggrandizement.

He used his immense power and wealth to undermine any attempt at an investigation and in the end did nothing to cooperate with the proper authorities.

Ullrich is of the opinion that the doping playing field was level. If it was, a slug like Armstrong wouldn't have made a mockery of the Tour's time trials and climbs the way he did.

So he got exactly what he deserved in the end. The theory that Armstrong was on the same footing as the other dopers is absurd, and has been proven to be an incorrect assumption by the USADA's reasoned decision.

Time to move on. Until Armstrong comes clean and tells all, I don't care what anyone says to try to justify his status. He is nothing more than an unfortunate footnote in the sordid history of sports doping.
79pmooney

Posts:1082

--
08/04/2013 12:52 PM
O.C., a comment on your "W" - Obama switch. I agree. but it doesn't have to be that way. THe US was in a similar situation in 1952, deeply embroiled in an ugly war, Korea. Dwight Eisenhower was elwcted president. He came into office late January. By that April, the treaty with North Korea was signed.

I had high hopes Obama would do the same thing. I have found him a big disappointment on virtually all things military. I think his big failing is listening to and allowing himself to think like the military brass who have his ear.

Edit: I am still a bit of a dreamer.  I have high hopes that somebody will find his way to the top of UCI and pull a Dwight Eisenhower.

Ben
CERV

Posts:151

--
08/04/2013 10:35 PM
"Ullrich is of the opinion that the doping playing field was level. If it was, a slug like Armstrong wouldn't have made a mockery of the Tour's time trials and climbs the way he did."

Yeah, what would Ullrich know.
jmdirt

Posts:681

--
08/05/2013 03:09 PM
Its interesting how people on the outside seem to know more than the people on the inside about what was going on. If Dr. Ferrari himself said that LA's program was similar to his other clients there would be people claiming that Ferrari didn't know what he was talking about. Plus, how do we know that other programs/methods weren't just as good. TH did well with his program until EF spread himself too thin and almost killed his clients. JU knows that his program (as well as others) was good too.

Remove all of the winners or don't remove any.
Entheo

Posts:317

--
08/05/2013 03:34 PM
i still like der kaiser, but let's face it -- there was honor among thieves.
jookey

Posts:134

--
08/05/2013 05:02 PM
US postal had the most sophisticated doping regimen. Translation: They got caught.
CERV

Posts:151

--
08/05/2013 09:37 PM
"TH did well with his program until EF spread himself too thin and almost killed his clients"

According to tyler, by 2004, mayo, himself and ullrich all looked to be going better than armstrong. That was when tyler got a bad blood bag, and says he heard rumours ulrich did as well.
All that also happened right after tyler beat lance by 1:22 in the ventoux TT at the dauphine.
79pmooney

Posts:1082

--
08/06/2013 01:10 AM
US postal had the most sophisticated doping regimen. Translation: They got caught.


No, US Postal/Discover had the most sophisticated program. Translation: They had the inside line with the officials Well documanted by TT. And, TH seems to be hinting, they may have even been willing to mess with competitor's blood bags. (I am sure Fuentes' security was as tight as the rest of his operation; ie not very, so someone slipping in and swapping a few bags seems pretty believable to me.)

I hope that never happened. I hope LA and his crew had enough of a moral code to not even think of that scenario.

Ben
CERV

Posts:151

--
08/06/2013 01:36 AM
Tyler did seem like he's hinting at that in his book.
That would cross a whole new line. Bad blood could kill someone.
longslowdistance

Posts:629

--
08/06/2013 09:22 AM
What does "got a bad blood bag" mean? Does it mean Wrong blood? That often ends in an ICU admission and would be very, very hard (although not impossible) to hide. I assume based on the whole "chimera" nonsense that TH found a compatible and willing donor. Does it mean damaged by improper handling and refrigeration? It's not like a watered down scotch, it's dangerous. This whole line of reasoning of tampering with competitor's blood is pretty far-fetched, but then again, this IS the internet, so why not? I think LA's yellow bracelet was impregnated with special endurance enhancing secret sauce developed by the CIA, delivered in black helicopters.
CERV

Posts:151

--
08/06/2013 10:41 PM
Have you read Secret Race, LSD? It's all in there.

Tyler says he got a bad blood bag (of his own stored blood) right after he injured his back in the 2004 tour. He figures it wasn't stored properly and all cells were dead. Says he pissed dark red all night, and struggled through the stage the next day. He also tells a story about how lance came up to him the day after the transfusion happened and asked him if he thought the stage was hard. When Tyler says he was dying out there Lance supposedly gives him a smile and a look like he already knew. This ALL supposedly happened after the dauphine where Lance (according to Tyler) went to the UCI and accused Tyler of doping after tyler beat him in the ventoux TT. Tyler got called into some sort of meeting with Hein, and then got a letter right before the tour saying the UCI had their eye on him. You should read the book. The soap opera factor alone is worth the money.
longslowdistance

Posts:629

--
08/07/2013 05:06 PM
dayum, if true that really is evil.
Entheo

Posts:317

--
08/08/2013 07:48 AM
it is a helluva book, but as i seem to recall (and i could be wrong) TH's bad blood bag came after he started working with fuentes, who was considerably less meticulous than ferrari in keeping track of things (like whose blood bag was whose)


---
Active Forums 4.1