Jan's explanation?

I'm a BIG Jan Ullrich fan and that won't change a bit.

But I hope he doesn't come back. He cheated and should pay the price.
Cycling needs to be tough on itself.

If only the UCI started to do some real structural cleaning instead of
doing a rough repaint job. Not only the riders, but the teams should be
held responsible. A young pro who wants to do pro-tour competition has
a big chance of landing in a dirty team with questionable ethics.

Bill C said:

T-Mobile has given Jan every chance to even begin to clear himself. He
was suspended because he was connected to the scandal through Pevenage
after stating he wasn't. They have given him yet another chance and
nothing.
Hate to say it but it looks like he's going down. Will he be the one
who turns, along with Pevenage, and names everyone?

Hard to say. Surely Jan's hired a lawyer by this time (if not, he's
even dumber than I thought), and all his actions (or non-actions) are
based on the advice of his attorney. And T-Mobile has to be
lawyered-up. I don't know enough to hazard an opinion. For instance, I
don't even know the relevant jurisdiction: Germany (T-Mobile) or
European Community (Pro Tour)? It's for the legal eagles to hammer out.

On 15 Jul 2006 14:50:33 -0700, "Dwayne" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

T-Mobile has given Jan every chance to even begin to clear himself. He
was suspended because he was connected to the scandal through Pevenage
after stating he wasn't. They have given him yet another chance and
nothing.
Hate to say it but it looks like he's going down. Will he be the one
who turns, along with Pevenage, and names everyone?

Hard to say. Surely Jan's hired a lawyer by this time (if not, he's
even dumber than I thought), and all his actions (or non-actions) are
based on the advice of his attorney. And T-Mobile has to be
lawyered-up. I don't know enough to hazard an opinion. For instance, I
don't even know the relevant jurisdiction: Germany (T-Mobile) or
European Community (Pro Tour)? It's for the legal eagles to hammer out.

Yep, from the horse's mouth http://janullrich.de
There used to be a note saying "still no news from Spain", it appears
to have been pulled, mayby some advice from his lawyers...actually it
hasn't, here it is http://janullrich.de/index.php?id=17&dat_id=11786

"No news".."doesn't know why he was suspended"...

hum...he's going to have to do better than that to survive, but I
think he's already history, serves him right for cheating and duping
his fans.

On 15 Jul 2006 14:28:58 -0700, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hate to say it but it looks like he's going down. Will he be the one
who turns, along with Pevenage, and names everyone?

I don't share your confidence that Jan took notes when all the dopers
were in the same room.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

On 15 Jul 2006 14:28:58 -0700, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hate to say it but it looks like he's going down. Will he be the one
who turns, along with Pevenage, and names everyone?

I don't share your confidence that Jan took notes when all the dopers
were in the same room.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

I'd bet good money that Pevenage could name a bunch of names. Doubt
Jan has any clue.
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://eurosport.com/cycling/tour-de-france/2006/sport_sto926548.shtml
Quoted:
T-Mobile's Jan Ullrich and Oscar Sevilla face being kicked out of the
T-Mobile team, after it was revealed that both riders have missed the
July 13 deadline, to explain to the team their involvement in the
'Operacion Puerto' doping scandal.

The pair were suspended just a day before the Tour de France began,
after T-Mobile were sent documents relating to the investigation into
the Spanish drugs affair. Both protested their innocence, and were said
to be keen to clear their names, though neither has so far explained
their involvement.

T-Mobile has given Jan every chance to even begin to clear himself. He
was suspended because he was connected to the scandal through Pevenage
after stating he wasn't. They have given him yet another chance and
nothing.
Hate to say it but it looks like he's going down. Will he be the one
who turns, along with Pevenage, and names everyone?
Bill C

This has all be terribly misconstrued by the press. Jan was getting ready
for the post-Tour party season, nothing more.

in message <[email hidden]>,

Tuschinski (') said:

I'm a BIG Jan Ullrich fan and that won't change a bit.

But I hope he doesn't come back. He cheated and should pay the price.

H'mmmm...

No, I'm sorry, I cannot see this situation in anything like black and
white.

Firstly as far as I know there is as yet neither DNA nor a financial
audit trail evidence linking Basso or Ullrich to Dr Fuentes' clinic. If
we had a financial trail, it still would not demonstrate in itself that
the cyclists had been cheating, as there are many perfectly legal sports
medicine services which Fuentes could have been supplying. And, as I've
said before, this whole episode could equally be a betting scam - the
betting scam hypothesis fits the available evidence at least as well as
the guilty hypothesis.

But, assuming Basso and Ullrich and others were using either EPO or blood
doping to raise their hematocrit, should they be treated as pariahs?

If Basso and Ullrich and the thirty three others so far named
were 'cheating' in the Giro, do you think they were the only ones? If
you took the maglia rosa off Basso and gave it to someone else, what is
the probability that that someone else would be clean? While sports
medicine 'cheating' is as widespread as it seems to be in cycling, is it
appropriate to pillory the few who are unlucky enough to be caught? In
any case, are we pillorying the right people?

You can raise hematocrit by training at altitude, and that
isn't 'cheating'; or you can raise hematocrit by training in a
depressurised chamber (such as we know Jan Ullrich has at home[1]) and
that isn't 'cheating'; or you can raise hematocrit by taking EPO or
blood doping, and that /is/ 'cheating'. But, except for synthetic EPO,
there's no actual way of telling /how/ hematocrit was elevated. There
isn't even any way of telling /whether/ hematocrit has been artificially
elevated, since natural levels vary, and indeed an individual's
hematocrit level naturally varies quite considerably over even a short
time.

But, if it's legal for people to enhance their hematocrit by training at
altitude - if it's legal for riders from Switzerland and Colombia to
train at home - why should riders from Holland not use EPO? Or should
the Swiss and Colombians be required to move their place of residence to
sea level, or train in artificially pressurised chambers?

This whole thing about hematocrit is just madness. If you want to
say 'people above 50% should not race for their own safety', fine, test
em and turn the people over 50% away. Or 42% or 45% or whatever other
limit you want to set arbitrarily. But while some people will naturally
exceed whatever limit you set, and while there are legal methods of
raising hematocrit, it's hypocritical to ban some methods without
banning all, and it's impossible to ban all. So while the claim that
people over x% shouldn't race for their own health is defensible, the
claim that people who use one method of raising it are guilty of some
heinous crime while those who use another are innocent is just daft.
Particularly when you can't tell the difference.

Furthermore, I found the arguments Fuentes has made in the press about
protecting cyclists health fairly persuasive. Professional cycling does
put enormous strain on the body. In order to cope with that strain,
medical intervention to help the body recover does seem reasonable, and
an appropriate use of medicine. If all Fuentes was doing was to provide
appropriate therapies to aid cyclists to recover - /if/ - then I don't
think he's guilty. But the line between aiding recovery and enhancing
performance is a very fine one, and ultimately I'm not sure it can be
drawn.

Quoted message said:

Cycling needs to be tough on itself.

I'm not sure this works. I'm not sure it can. But...

Quoted message said:

If only the UCI started to do some real structural cleaning instead of
doing a rough repaint job. Not only the riders, but the teams should be
held responsible. A young pro who wants to do pro-tour competition has
a big chance of landing in a dirty team with questionable ethics.

This I absolutely agree with. To pillory the cyclists while letting
everyone else in the sport off scot-free looks very much like
victim-blaming.

[1] indeed, Ullrich's home depressurisation chamber is an interesting
factor in this whole sorry saga. He's spent a lot of money on it. It's
legal, and it does the job. It seems to me very strange that, having
gone to the trouble and expense of having a legal means of raising
hematocrit in his own home, he should then use illegal methods.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I can't work yanks out......
;; Why do they frown upon sex yet relish violence?
;; Deep Fried Lettuce

Bill C said:

http://eurosport.com/cycling/tour-de-france/2006/sport_sto926548.shtml
Quoted:
T-Mobile's Jan Ullrich and Oscar Sevilla face being kicked out of the
T-Mobile team, after it was revealed that both riders have missed the
July 13 deadline, to explain to the team their involvement in the
'Operacion Puerto' doping scandal.

The pair were suspended just a day before the Tour de France began,
after T-Mobile were sent documents relating to the investigation into
the Spanish drugs affair. Both protested their innocence, and were said
to be keen to clear their names, though neither has so far explained
their involvement.

T-Mobile has given Jan every chance to even begin to clear himself. He
was suspended because he was connected to the scandal through Pevenage
after stating he wasn't. They have given him yet another chance and
nothing.

Has he been given the relevant evidence that he can attempt to refute ?

Simon Brooke said:

No, I'm sorry, I cannot see this situation in anything like black and
white.

Firstly as far as I know there is as yet neither DNA nor a financial
audit trail evidence linking Basso or Ullrich to Dr Fuentes' clinic. If
we had a financial trail, it still would not demonstrate in itself that
the cyclists had been cheating, as there are many perfectly legal sports
medicine services which Fuentes could have been supplying.

Perhaps they should have been a bit more careful when it cumes to
contraception.

Quoted message said:

But, assuming Basso and Ullrich and others were using either EPO or
blood doping to raise their hematocrit, should they be treated as
pariahs?

This whole thing about hematocrit is just madness. If you want to say
'people above 50% should not race for their own safety', fine, test em
and turn the people over 50% away. Or 42% or 45% or whatever other limit
you want to set arbitrarily. But while some people will naturally exceed
whatever limit you set, and while there are legal methods of raising
hematocrit, it's hypocritical to ban some methods without banning all,
and it's impossible to ban all. So while the claim that people over x%
shouldn't race for their own health is defensible, the claim that people
who use one method of raising it are guilty of some heinous crime while
those who use another are innocent is just daft. Particularly when you
can't tell the difference.

Agreed. I remember from the days of pantani and virenque all the
'moralists' seemed to assume that everyone who hadn't been caught were
clean while pantani and virenque were suppose to be the dr. evils of
cycling at the time. In reality back in '98 '99 everybody and their dog
was doing epo.

Quoted message said:

[1] indeed, Ullrich's home depressurisation chamber is an interesting
factor in this whole sorry saga. He's spent a lot of money on it. It's
legal, and it does the job. It seems to me very strange that, having
gone to the trouble and expense of having a legal means of raising
hematocrit in his own home, he should then use illegal methods.

I wonder if its available on ebay.de.

Donald Munro said:

Bill C said:

http://eurosport.com/cycling/tour-de-france/2006/sport_sto926548.shtml
Quoted:
T-Mobile's Jan Ullrich and Oscar Sevilla face being kicked out of the
T-Mobile team, after it was revealed that both riders have missed the
July 13 deadline, to explain to the team their involvement in the
'Operacion Puerto' doping scandal.

The pair were suspended just a day before the Tour de France began,
after T-Mobile were sent documents relating to the investigation into
the Spanish drugs affair. Both protested their innocence, and were said
to be keen to clear their names, though neither has so far explained
their involvement.

T-Mobile has given Jan every chance to even begin to clear himself. He
was suspended because he was connected to the scandal through Pevenage
after stating he wasn't. They have given him yet another chance and
nothing.

Has he been given the relevant evidence that he can attempt to refute ?

If, as he says, T-Mobile and Jan are lawyered up, the obvious and best
advice would be to say nothing unless under oath in court.

in message <[email hidden]>, Donald

Munro (') said:

In reality back in '98 '99 everybody and their dog
was doing epo.

Ah! So that's why Birrilo is on Dr Fuentes' list!

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.

Simon Brooke wrote:
[SNIP]

Quoted message said:

[1] indeed, Ullrich's home depressurisation chamber is an interesting
factor in this whole sorry saga. He's spent a lot of money on it. It's
legal, and it does the job. It seems to me very strange that, having
gone to the trouble and expense of having a legal means of raising
hematocrit in his own home, he should then use illegal methods.

Because by the illegal means he could do it during the races very fast?

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| in message <[email hidden]>,
|
| [1] indeed, Ullrich's home depressurisation chamber is an interesting
| factor in this whole sorry saga. He's spent a lot of money on it. It's
| legal, and it does the job. It seems to me very strange that, having
| gone to the trouble and expense of having a legal means of raising
| hematocrit in his own home, he should then use illegal methods.
|

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except this part. A home
chamber doesn't help much when you're on the road, especially in a 3 week
Tour. And even if you had a portable tent, a GC contender probably wouldn't
want to use it on a 3 week tour since you sleep less well in one.

Simon Brooke said:

[1] indeed, Ullrich's home depressurisation chamber is an interesting
factor in this whole sorry saga. He's spent a lot of money on it. It's
legal, and it does the job. It seems to me very strange that, having
gone to the trouble and expense of having a legal means of raising
hematocrit in his own home, he should then use illegal methods.

Trouble, no trouble, just write a check. Then take the EPO which is so much
simpler than spending all those hours on the trainer watching German soap operas
on the tele.

Ron

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except this part. A home
chamber doesn't help much when you're on the road, especially in a 3 week
Tour. And even if you had a portable tent, a GC contender probably
wouldn't
want to use it on a 3 week tour since you sleep less well in one.

A hypobaric tent would also have a negative effect on overnight recovery. If
anything, a hyperbaric tent would be ideal during the race.

Simon Brooke said:

But, assuming Basso and Ullrich and others were using either EPO or blood
doping to raise their hematocrit, should they be treated as pariahs?

If Basso and Ullrich and the thirty three others so far named
were 'cheating' in the Giro, do you think they were the only ones? If
you took the maglia rosa off Basso and gave it to someone else, what is
the probability that that someone else would be clean? While sports
medicine 'cheating' is as widespread as it seems to be in cycling, is it
appropriate to pillory the few who are unlucky enough to be caught? In
any case, are we pillorying the right people?

You can raise hematocrit by training at altitude, and that
isn't 'cheating'; or you can raise hematocrit by training in a
depressurised chamber (such as we know Jan Ullrich has at home[1]) and
that isn't 'cheating'; or you can raise hematocrit by taking EPO or
blood doping, and that /is/ 'cheating'. But, except for synthetic EPO,
there's no actual way of telling /how/ hematocrit was elevated. There
isn't even any way of telling /whether/ hematocrit has been artificially
elevated, since natural levels vary, and indeed an individual's
hematocrit level naturally varies quite considerably over even a short
time.

But, if it's legal for people to enhance their hematocrit by training at
altitude - if it's legal for riders from Switzerland and Colombia to
train at home - why should riders from Holland not use EPO? Or should
the Swiss and Colombians be required to move their place of residence to
sea level, or train in artificially pressurised chambers?

This whole thing about hematocrit is just madness. If you want to
say 'people above 50% should not race for their own safety', fine, test
em and turn the people over 50% away. Or 42% or 45% or whatever other
limit you want to set arbitrarily. But while some people will naturally
exceed whatever limit you set, and while there are legal methods of
raising hematocrit, it's hypocritical to ban some methods without
banning all, and it's impossible to ban all. So while the claim that
people over x% shouldn't race for their own health is defensible, the
claim that people who use one method of raising it are guilty of some
heinous crime while those who use another are innocent is just daft.
Particularly when you can't tell the difference.

Dumbass,

You can argue that the evidence against these guys is
only circumstantial, and you can certainly argue that
they weren't the only ones doing it. Almost certainly
others were or are, although it's unknown who.

But arguing that we shouldn' t punish or criticize them
because blood packing is illegal but altitude tents are
legal is misguided. This is sport, i.e. a game. The
game has rules. One of the rules is that EPO and blood
packing are illegal, but altitude tents, living in
Switzerland, and having a naturally high hematocrit
are not. The riders know this. When breaking the rules,
they accept the risk of being punished if caught.

You can argue that the rule is stupid and should be changed
to prevent future occurrences of rider-punishment, but
this is a separate debate about the ethics of what rules
should exist, not the fair application of the rules that do
exist. In this debate, one argument for the existing rules
is that altitude training camps and sleeping in altitude
tents are annoying and require a lot of effort and discipline
from the athlete, just as training does. By contrast EPO
and blood doping give a large performance boost with little
effort other than helping Dr. Fuentes meet the payments
on his boat.

Also, altitude tents make a quantatively smaller
difference than blood manipulation. Andy Coggan
and Shaun Wallace have posted on this in rbr, for ex,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/1b66d93e523a8d6f

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, I found the arguments Fuentes has made in the press about
protecting cyclists health fairly persuasive. Professional cycling does
put enormous strain on the body. In order to cope with that strain,
medical intervention to help the body recover does seem reasonable, and
an appropriate use of medicine. If all Fuentes was doing was to provide
appropriate therapies to aid cyclists to recover - /if/ - then I don't
think he's guilty. But the line between aiding recovery and enhancing
performance is a very fine one, and ultimately I'm not sure it can be
drawn.

Fuentes is blowing smoke to make himself look like
an altruist rather than a profiteer. Cycling is hard on
the body. But riders don' t run an elevated risk of
dropping dead at the end of races or careers. Their
biggest risk is that their bodies can't handle the pace
(esp if driven by somebody at 60%) and they have to
drop out. Blood packing doesn't help riders recover
more healthfully; it helps them ride faster with less
recovery needed.

Quoted message said:

[1] indeed, Ullrich's home depressurisation chamber is an interesting
factor in this whole sorry saga. He's spent a lot of money on it. It's
legal, and it does the job. It seems to me very strange that, having
gone to the trouble and expense of having a legal means of raising
hematocrit in his own home, he should then use illegal methods.

Blood doping is more effective. And Jan is not known
for his discipline. If it does turn out that he used doping,
it's probably because he hadn't worked hard enough
to get the results he needed by legal methods.

I would imagine, whether or not he is guilty, his attorney has advised to
offer nothing up until there are real charges.

So T-Mobile's recent pushback to Jan that they've heard nothing, is about
enlisting public opinion to support T-Mobile's actions and put Jan on the
defensive.

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://eurosport.com/cycling/tour-de-france/2006/sport_sto926548.shtml
Quoted:
T-Mobile's Jan Ullrich and Oscar Sevilla face being kicked out of the
T-Mobile team, after it was revealed that both riders have missed the
July 13 deadline, to explain to the team their involvement in the
'Operacion Puerto' doping scandal.

The pair were suspended just a day before the Tour de France began,
after T-Mobile were sent documents relating to the investigation into
the Spanish drugs affair. Both protested their innocence, and were said
to be keen to clear their names, though neither has so far explained
their involvement.

T-Mobile has given Jan every chance to even begin to clear himself. He
was suspended because he was connected to the scandal through Pevenage
after stating he wasn't. They have given him yet another chance and
nothing.
Hate to say it but it looks like he's going down. Will he be the one
who turns, along with Pevenage, and names everyone?
Bill C

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

Tuschinski (') said:

I'm a BIG Jan Ullrich fan and that won't change a bit.

But I hope he doesn't come back. He cheated and should pay the price.

H'mmmm...

No, I'm sorry, I cannot see this situation in anything like black and
white.

Firstly as far as I know there is as yet neither DNA nor a financial
audit trail evidence linking Basso or Ullrich to Dr Fuentes' clinic. If
we had a financial trail, it still would not demonstrate in itself that
the cyclists had been cheating, as there are many perfectly legal sports
medicine services which Fuentes could have been supplying. And, as I've
said before, this whole episode could equally be a betting scam - the
betting scam hypothesis fits the available evidence at least as well as
the guilty hypothesis.

But, assuming Basso and Ullrich and others were using either EPO or blood
doping to raise their hematocrit, should they be treated as pariahs?

If Basso and Ullrich and the thirty three others so far named
were 'cheating' in the Giro, do you think they were the only ones? If
you took the maglia rosa off Basso and gave it to someone else, what is
the probability that that someone else would be clean? While sports
medicine 'cheating' is as widespread as it seems to be in cycling, is it
appropriate to pillory the few who are unlucky enough to be caught? In
any case, are we pillorying the right people?

You can raise hematocrit by training at altitude, and that
isn't 'cheating'; or you can raise hematocrit by training in a
depressurised chamber (such as we know Jan Ullrich has at home[1]) and
that isn't 'cheating'; or you can raise hematocrit by taking EPO or
blood doping, and that /is/ 'cheating'. But, except for synthetic EPO,
there's no actual way of telling /how/ hematocrit was elevated. There
isn't even any way of telling /whether/ hematocrit has been artificially
elevated, since natural levels vary, and indeed an individual's
hematocrit level naturally varies quite considerably over even a short
time.

But, if it's legal for people to enhance their hematocrit by training at
altitude - if it's legal for riders from Switzerland and Colombia to
train at home - why should riders from Holland not use EPO? Or should
the Swiss and Colombians be required to move their place of residence to
sea level, or train in artificially pressurised chambers?

This whole thing about hematocrit is just madness. If you want to
say 'people above 50% should not race for their own safety', fine, test
em and turn the people over 50% away. Or 42% or 45% or whatever other
limit you want to set arbitrarily. But while some people will naturally
exceed whatever limit you set, and while there are legal methods of
raising hematocrit, it's hypocritical to ban some methods without
banning all, and it's impossible to ban all. So while the claim that
people over x% shouldn't race for their own health is defensible, the
claim that people who use one method of raising it are guilty of some
heinous crime while those who use another are innocent is just daft.
Particularly when you can't tell the difference.

Furthermore, I found the arguments Fuentes has made in the press about
protecting cyclists health fairly persuasive. Professional cycling does
put enormous strain on the body. In order to cope with that strain,
medical intervention to help the body recover does seem reasonable, and
an appropriate use of medicine. If all Fuentes was doing was to provide
appropriate therapies to aid cyclists to recover - /if/ - then I don't
think he's guilty. But the line between aiding recovery and enhancing
performance is a very fine one, and ultimately I'm not sure it can be
drawn.

Quoted message said:

Cycling needs to be tough on itself.

I'm not sure this works. I'm not sure it can. But...

Quoted message said:

If only the UCI started to do some real structural cleaning instead of
doing a rough repaint job. Not only the riders, but the teams should be
held responsible. A young pro who wants to do pro-tour competition has
a big chance of landing in a dirty team with questionable ethics.

This I absolutely agree with. To pillory the cyclists while letting
everyone else in the sport off scot-free looks very much like
victim-blaming.

[1] indeed, Ullrich's home depressurisation chamber is an interesting
factor in this whole sorry saga. He's spent a lot of money on it. It's
legal, and it does the job. It seems to me very strange that, having
gone to the trouble and expense of having a legal means of raising
hematocrit in his own home, he should then use illegal methods.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I can't work yanks out......
;; Why do they frown upon sex yet relish violence?
;; Deep Fried Lettuce

Exactly to the point, and well reasoned. Difficult to know whether to
react with amusement, or horror, to the clamor for virtual hanging of
the "guilty" -- particularly without respect for evidence or proof.
Regardless, I think far less of Telekom as a business now than I did a
few days ago; I don't think much of their treatment of some contracted
employees.

Wayne

Wayne said:

Exactly to the point, and well reasoned. Difficult to know whether to
react with amusement, or horror, to the clamor for virtual hanging of
the "guilty" -- particularly without respect for evidence or proof.
Regardless, I think far less of Telekom as a business now than I did a
few days ago; I don't think much of their treatment of some contracted
employees.

Wayne

Why because they have a policy that if their riders lie to them they
are fired? I'm about the biddest Jan fan here, and I have ZERO problem
with his firing. He lied, they gave him a second chance to explain his
actions so there was no mistake and he ignored it.
I don't do business with people who lie to me about business matters
once I find out they lied, and I don't see why T-Mobile should either.
That exponentially increases your risk of a negative event.
Simple and clean.
Bill C