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

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 other were no more than simple cheating cyclists"

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, 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 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 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 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. He's a sort of teutonic village idiot; a buffoon on and off the bicycle.

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 Virenque may have knowingly doped at some time

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 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 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 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.

Good point.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Treat it like the hour record. Doped and not doped

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?!?

@ 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.

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.

@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

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.

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.