Heroes need a worthy adversary who highlights their brilliance. Lance Armstrong’s greatest rival was Jan Ullrich, who won the 1997 Tour de France, was runner-up in 2000, ’01 and ’03, came fourth in ’04 and third in ’05.
So why hasn’t the German been named champion of the three Tours in which the only man who beat him has had his victories stripped for doping?
Because after being named in the Puerto scandal and years of denials, in 2013 Ullrich told German magazine Focus, “I am no better than Armstrong…”
As if to underline that he was “no better than Armstrong”, Ullrich elaborated, singing many of Lance’s greatest hits since the American admitted to doping:
“Almost everybody back then took performance-enhancing substances.
“I didn’t take anything which the others were not taking.
“For me, betrayal only begins when I gain an advantage, but that was not the case. I just wanted to ensure equal opportunities.”
Catch up on the rest of World War Cycling:
PART 1: The Prologue
PART 2: The United States of America
PART 3: Italy
PART 4: Doping learnings of America for make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan
PART 5: Spain
Ullrich’s admission came almost 18 months after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled, based on evidence from Operacion Puerto, that “Ullrich engaged at least in blood doping”.
CAS’s ruling – handed down on February 9, 2012 – barred the German from competitive cycling for two years. It was something of a slap on the wrist, considering Ullrich had retired from the sport in 2007.
All his results from May 1, 2005 until his retirement were also voided, however since he had been sacked by his T-Mobile team in the wake of the Puerto scandal, that only equated to his third place at the 2005 Tour and a handful of stages at lesser races being stripped.
Then, barely a month after his admission, Ullrich was named in the French Senate report into doping at the 1998 Tour. Specifically, he was listed as twice having tested positive for using EPO, although so too was third-place Bobby Julich, while winner Marco Pantani was found to have failed the test also.
A proven doper in 1998 and 2005, how likely is it Ullrich stayed off the juice for the middle portion of his career? For example, was he clean at the 2003 Tour, when he came second to Armstrong by just 61 seconds in what was, at the time, the sixth closest first-second finish in Tour history?
Nor were the CAS and French Senate findings Ullrich’s only brushes with the anti-doping authorities, having served a ban in 2002 for amphetamines.
However while amphetamines have been the performance-enhancing drug of choice for many a cyclist over the years, this failed test had occurred out of competition, with Ullrich having ingested an ecstasy tablet.
He was given a six-month ban, the minimum amount for such an offence.
However while Ullrich’s career achievements are now acknowledged as having come on the back of doping, he has been allowed to keep all his titles and victories, bar those few from May ’05 onward.
Obviously the same cannot be said for his rival, Armstrong, who in the wake of Ullrich’s admission posted the following tweet:
Nor can the same be said for Ullrich’s predecessor as champion of the Tour de France, 1996 winner Bjarne Riis.
Well, not quite.
Again after years of denials, in May 2007 Riis admitted to having doped during his ’96 victory.
But don’t mistake the Dane’s eventual honesty with honour. Rather, he made his admission in the same circumstances as Ullrich and Armsrtong – with his back to the wall.
In May 2007 Jef d’Hont, who had been a soigneur for Riis and Ullrich’s Telekom team from 1992-96, said both riders had used EPO.
In the days that followed, five more Telekom riders came forward to admit having doped while riding with Riis and Ullrich.
Thus, on May 27, Riis gave a press conference in which he admitted to his past.
“I have taken doping. I have taken EPO,” he said. “I have made errors and I would like to apologise.
“For a time it was a part of everyday life for me. I have bought it myself and taken it.”
Then, of course, he dropped the go-to refrain: “Doping was part of the scene that I was part of.”
Riis also admitted to having taken cortisone and human growth hormone.
Going even further, in his autobiography he admitted to having used the anti-depressant Prozac, saying, “The pills made me feel much more positive, which allowed me to see possibilities rather than limitations.”
(To be fair, Prozac is not on WADA’s list of banned substances, however few could argue his motivation for using it was to enhance performance, rather than battle a chemical imbalance, particularly given he received the pills from “a colleague” rather than a doctor.)
Having admitted to doping, Riis also said at the press conference that his ’96 yellow jersey was “in a cardboard box at home in my garage, and can be collected if anyone thinks I shouldn’t have it anymore.”
If he was bluffing he did an ordinary job of it, because days later Christian Prudhomme, head of the Amaury Sports Organisation (who run the Tour), declared Riis’ ’96 title was to be stripped.
However, much like Lance’s vacant titles, the issue was to whom the victory now belonged.
Second place in 1996 had been Ullrich, but while the German had not admitted to doping at that stage, it hardly made sense to strip one rider of a title and hand it to his teammate, when it was clear doping had been a systemic part of the Telekom team.
Third and fourth place were Richard Virenque and Laurent Dufaux, who both were busted in 1998 as part of the Festina scandal.
As a result, the 1996 Tour title sat vacant for 12 months, until in July 2008 the ASO decided they could not “rewrite history”.
“We recognise Bjarne Riis as the winner of the 1996 Tour de France. But with an asterisk,” Philippe Sudres, media director for the Tour de France, told Danish magazine Politiken.
“… Now he appears again in his earlier spot, but not exactly the same as the other winners. Immediately under his name we have written that he has admitted to doping during the Tour in 1996, but that the admission came so late, that according to the rules it cannot influence the result.”
Thus, Riis’ penance for doping his way to Tour glory was having his title stripped, only for it to be reinstated.
He did not serve any time suspended, which – as opposed to Ullrich – would have carried serious weight, as Riis went from competing as a cyclist into team ownership and management.
As the owner and manager of Team CSC, Riis recruited Tyler Hamilton in 2001. In his autobiography, Hamilton says he had a very frank discussion with Riis regarding doping, and that it was the Dane who introduced him to Dr Eufemiano Fuentes (the man at the centre of the Operacion Puerto scandal), and encouraged blood doping.
Danish rider Michael Rasmussen, in his book Yellow Fever, also spoke of doping while riding on Riis’ Team CSC:
“Except for a meeting we had shortly after I joined the team, I never had a conversation with him [Riis] about doping. He didn’t encourage me to use doping. Implicitly, I was expected to take care of it myself…
“The team doctors did blood tests from all riders to monitor our haematocrit values during the season. In that way, they observed which riders used EPO and which riders were in danger of getting caught. Of course, Bjarne also had access to those numbers. After all, it was his doctors.”
Riis has denied both these allegations. And that, seemingly, was that.
The Dane continued working in cycling until March this year, when he left team Tinkoff-Saxo (having sold CSC to Russian billionaire Oleg Tinkov in 2013, but staying on as team manager) by mutual consent.
He is free to resume his career in cycling management whenever he wishes.
NickF
Guest
Mickey, I was always advised to never argue with a mug. I get the feeling that Mr Faber, Ph D, quite likes to be a blowhard. That he likes seeing his opinions in forums. I guess he feels that joining the discussion on the Roar can make him feel like a big fish in a small pond. I guess that it gives him some small satisfaction of superiority. My advice is just to let him do his thing and leave him to it.
Klaas Faber
Guest
MickyC, 1, have intimate knowledge Wrong assumption. Are you a conspiracy thinker? of these “doping” practices So-called doping indeed. 2, you do not think they are as bad as they’re made out to be, I think all the time and that's the result. If you arrive at another result, please motivate. As I mentioned before, Zoetemelk had transfusions around 1976. A result of scientific research. Later that was 'recognized' (your wording: 'made out to be') as doping by moralists like Dick Pound. When Rogge was elected IOC president he found a 2 million Dollar billl for Dick Pound's law office. Pound is still pulling the strings. It's really phantastic to see how his propaganda works, here and elsewhere. 3, you do not fully understand the concept of “rules” in sport I like to believe that I understand that concept but my intelligence makes me recognize stupidity in rules and elsewhere. You need to distinguish doping rules from sport rules. ;-) Kind regards, Klaas Faber, Ph.D.
MickyC
Guest
Klaas - you may be a learned fellow with some very valid points but I simply cannot get past the feeling that you're grandstanding. Congrats on your achievements, your membership of esteemed organisations and your acquaintance with colleagues of similar eminence. However, perhaps if you'd chosen to follow Einstein's advice and remember "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible" instead of cloaking your comments in unnecessary syllables and Latin I'd be more inclined to agree with you. Without reading more about you and your background, as I do not care to, I can only assume that you: 1, have intimate knowledge of these "doping" practices, 2, you do not think they are as bad as they're made out to be, 3, you do not fully understand the concept of "rules" in sport and 4, you're a blowhard: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blowhard Regards - MickyC
Klaas Faber
Guest
Hi delbeato, "do you know how many riders have died from using EPO?" Well, do you? http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17460263.2011.555208 "The Invention of a ‘Drug of Mass Destruction’: Deconstructing the EPO Myth" You're not worth a lot as a rider (right?), so what's stopping you from studying the subject? Kind regards, Klaas Faber, Ph.D.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"You’re right.." I have that saying from a former supervisor who was nominated for the Nobel prize in Chemistry. Credit where credit is due.
damo
Guest
Klaas, if you are the guy I've just been reading about online, then you are well & truly slumming it by posting on The Roar & talking to the likes of me ! Not suddenly a fan, but am impressed, just can't understand how you find the conversation on The Roar in any way relevant to what you are normally up to & why you bother with the minnows such as myself ?
damo
Guest
Saying who is right, wrong or otherwise would be a judgement, but it seems to me that this series is more of a simple documentation of what went on & a bit of reminisce/look through the hourglass of time. You do seem to be very knowledgeable fellow though Klaas, & I have probably missed the articles you have written, so I'll search for them & get myself up to speed on the intricacies of it all. In the meantime, we really do still get what you mean & really are just enjoying the time travel aspects of reminiscing. Don't be offended mate, it's not you, it's me....
Joe Frost
Editor
You're right, we can agree to disagree.
Klaas Faber
Guest
Hi Joe, "Whether or not it’s OK to use those products – from a legal or health perspective – is beside the point." We can agree to disagree. In my opinion, it is beside the point what those organisations decide in their backrooms. "basically all the big organisations" Have you heard of FIFA? FIFA abides by those rules. FIFA is bigger than the organizations than you (prefer to?) list. Is that a recommendation of the rules? "Cyclists knew the rules." And what if those rules are stupid? "The point of this series is to highlight those who made the decision to break the rules, not to debate the merits of the rules existing in the first place." So, you're willing to build on quicksand? I'm a fellow of the organization that among others gives names to elements. You know: the stuff you learn in high school. No quicksand, no back rooms. Regulation that governs e.g. world trade. Kind regards, Klaas Faber, Ph.D.
delbeato
Roar Guru
"EPO is an endogenous substance. What could be the problem with that?" do you know how many riders have died from using EPO? even with proper medical supervision, they've had to employ measures such as riding on rollers in the dead of night to stop their blood clotting and stopping their heart. Ferrari claiming EPO use is safe is like asking Wall St bankers if the trading of loan securities was safe for the economy. he's kinda biased.
Joe Frost
Editor
Using EPO, growth hormones, steroids, and blood bags were, and remains, against rules set forth by the UCI, WADA, USADA, ASADA - basically all the big organisations. Whether or not it's OK to use those products - from a legal or health perspective - is beside the point. Cyclists knew the rules. They also knew the risks and potential rewards for breaking the rules. Some decided to stick to them, others did not. The point of this series is to highlight those who made the decision to break the rules, not to debate the merits of the rules existing in the first place.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"there is always a degree of subjectivity to anti-doping, but it is based in logic." Okay, logic. "loads of stuff fits #2." Correct, everything a competitive athlete does, is or should be about performance enhancement. Citius, fortius, altius. So, that criterion is redundant (in a mathematical sense). Forget about it. It can only blur the issue. That's logic. One therefore needs another criterion, independent (in a mathematical sense) of performance enhancement. There's obviously an infinity of candidates (that's logic), but health is a practical choice. Yet another criterion? So-called spirit of sport? As currently 'defined' by WADA? Poorly defined. Moreover, adding another criterion violates the parsimony principle, perhaps best known from quotes attributed to Einstein: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler" "EPO abuse is believed to be harmful to health, or at least not proven to be safe." Ferrari: While denying he ever prescribed EPO, he also said, “EPO is not dangerous, it’s the abuse that is. It’s also dangerous to drink 10 litres of orange juice.” That's logic. EPO is an endogenous substance. What could be the problem with that? "using a hypoxic tent is not dangerous, or at least not in the same way/degree." That aid is totally artificial, contrary to EPO. Generealy speaking, in moral discussions, one should NOT try to rely on quantitative arguments (->"same way/degree"); only qualitative arguments should count (->good/bad). Besides, what do you think of Boogerd tuning altitude to 6000m? Turning blue..
delbeato
Roar Guru
WADA defines doping by 3 criteria - substances/methods 1. harmful to health, 2. performance-enhancing, 3. against the spirit of the sport. loads of stuff fits #2. it's only banned if under #1 or #3. EPO abuse is believed to be harmful to health, or at least not proven to be safe. using a hypoxic tent is not dangerous, or at least not in the same way/degree. there is always a degree of subjectivity to anti-doping, but it is based in logic.
Klaas Faber
Guest
"...this series is about the whole shenanigans, not who or what is right/wrong/otherwise." contradictio in terminis
damo
Guest
We hear you Klaas, & we get you/it, but this series is about the whole shenanigans, not who or what is right/wrong/otherwise. On another note, I am thoroughly enjoying the series & can't wait for the next installation ! Cheers
Klaas Faber
Guest
According to an apocryphal story, Newton saw an apple falling down from a tree. Instead of starting a series to describe how apples fall down from trees (instead of up), he thought about a law. Why? Could it be because of his desire to understand? Here, we see a kind of phenomenological approach that appeals to people who essentially think bottom-up instead of top-down, as Newton did. There's nothing wrong with that bottom-up approach, as long as one arrives at the same level of understanding. All roads lead to Rome. Back on topic: 80-90% used epo, which is really an endogenous substance. Iron suppletion is okay, just to mention one. Why? I have no idea. The current prohibited List is totally arbitrary c.q. irrational. Could I perhaps now have an answer to the simple question that I posed here a while ago? In your language, not mine. Recall: While denying he ever prescribed EPO, he also said, “EPO is not dangerous, it’s the abuse that is. It’s also dangerous to drink 10 litres of orange juice.” So, why is EPO considered doping? An elementary question. Cardiologist and cycling doctor Jan Hoogsteen (my translation): “Every doctor knows: whether you sit in a hypoxic tent, or you do altitude training to boost your Hb, or you take a little bit EPO: physiologically it is all exactly the same. Only in the latter case, everyone shouts: doping!”
Raytah
Guest
Enjoying this series thanks Joe! Eagerly awaiting the Australian chapter!