|
|
Ulrich spews...but can you argue with his reason
Last Post 08/08/2013 07:48 AM by entheo genic. 38 Replies.
|
Sort:
|
|
 Prev Next |
You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
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:338
|
| 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:809
|
| 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:4499
|
| 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:775
|
| 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:338
|
| 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:775
|
| 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:245
|
| 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:200
|
| 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:338
|
| 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:775
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Active Forums 4.1
|
|
Latest Forum Posts
Zwift posted in Road Cycling
No articles match criteria.
|