Who would win?

Euro Fred · 13-08-2014 9:24am #1

A clean Lance vs a clean Jan?

I think Jan Ullrich would have won

ZiabR · 13-08-2014 9:30am

Pointless thread?

Euro Fred · 13-08-2014 9:33am

matches your pointless post

Inquitus · 13-08-2014 9:35am

Didn't even Lance say Ulrich was the more talented natural athlete, or was it lemond, either way when this question has been asked most people seem to say Jan, I guess there is a belief that Lance was a hyper-responder to EPO, and gained more off it than most.

nak · 13-08-2014 9:46am

Inquitus wrote: »

Didn't even Lance say Ulrich was the more talented natural athlete, or was it lemond, either way when this question has been asked most people seem to say Jan, I guess there is a belief that Lance was a hyper-responder to EPO, and gained more off it than most.

Jan's problem (doping excluded) seemed to be putting on too much weight in the off-season and not doing enough training.

Inquitus · 13-08-2014 10:01am

nak wrote: »

Jan's problem (doping excluded) seemed to be putting on too much weight in the off-season and not doing enough training.

Aye he's massive looking in some of his tours compared to todays GC Contenders.

Beasty · 13-08-2014 10:02am

I can only see one winner if they had both been clean - that's Cycling

bazermc · 13-08-2014 10:13am

For me it's a draw, with Lance to win on Penalties

ROK ON · 13-08-2014 10:14am

Beasty wrote: »

I can only see one winner if they had both been clean - that's Cycling

Beasty - you should ban yourself for coming out with the pathos.
That's the most sentimental nonsense that I have seen here in a while. Are you actually Miriam O'Callaghan

Macy0161 · 13-08-2014 10:15am

nak wrote: »

Jan's problem (doping excluded) seemed to be putting on too much weight in the off-season and not doing enough training.

Not sure that isn't doping related too. I've read suggestions that he was never that happy doing what was necessary to win in that era.

It is a pointless argument. Ulrich was more talented than Armstrong, but there could've been some or even many more, that would be better than the pair of them in a clean(er) era.

nak · 13-08-2014 10:24am

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not sure that isn't doping related too. I've read suggestions that he was never that happy doing what was necessary to win in that era.

It is a pointless argument. Ulrich was more talented than Armstrong, but there could've been some or even many more, that would be better than the pair of them in a clean(er) era.

ZiabR · 13-08-2014 10:25am

Euro Fred wrote: »

matches your pointless post

Just pointing out that it really is pointless trying to compare something that never happened. It is impossible to know just how good Armstrong would have been seeing as he doped his entire pro career.

Macy0161 · 13-08-2014 10:30am

I'm not saying Jan was focussed enough - my point was that maybe he was focussed because he didn't want to dope. It's quite possibly spin, and doesn't really match what he's said more recently about him not having cheated, but I've read that he was disillusioned after 98/ festina when things didn't change and just carried on as before.

fat bloke · 13-08-2014 10:45am

Would've been good craic if the EPO lads had just abandoned the training altogether. Pie 'n chips all the way. Hefting themselves up on the saddle and waddling up the climbs puffing on a Players Navy Cut. Let the drugs do the work. -What's the point havin' a dog and barking yourself ?

petethedrummer · 13-08-2014 11:09am

Macy0161 wrote: »

there could've been some or even many more, that would be better than the pair of them in a clean(er) era.

Yes the question here is. In a clean peloton which of them would make top 10 in the TDF.

NeedMoreGears · 13-08-2014 11:24am

The question is a bit like "Would Spider Man beat Bat Man in an arm wrestling contest?" . Mildly diverting but not that important (sorry OP) as neither being exists - just like a clean LA/JU.

BTW - nothing in this post is intended to indicate in any way that Spider Man or Bat Man are on the sauce.:D

Junior · 13-08-2014 12:23pm

Spider man is obviously on the sauce - how else did he become spider man - sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !

07Lapierre · 13-08-2014 12:42pm

The real question is would LA or JU have beaten Bernard Hinault! Eh?

CramCycle · 13-08-2014 12:55pm

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

BTW - nothing in this post is intended to indicate in any way that Spider Man or Bat Man are on the sauce.:D

Spider man used gene therapy and bats was on painkillers quite alot. Spidey would win a fair arm wrestle but Bats would destroy him in a proper fight.

bazermc · 13-08-2014 1:24pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

The real question is would LA or JU have beaten Bernard Hinault Beasty! Eh?

FYP

07Lapierre · 13-08-2014 1:48pm

Junior wrote: »

Spider man is obviously on the sauce - how else did he become spider man - sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !

Ah but he's never tested positive has he?

Junior · 13-08-2014 3:15pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Ah but he's never tested positive has he?

Not sure being Radioactive is on the WADA list, but I'll have a look.

Brian? · 13-08-2014 5:57pm

Inquitus wrote: »

Didn't even Lance say Ulrich was the more talented natural athlete, or was it lemond, either way when this question has been asked most people seem to say Jan, I guess there is a belief that Lance was a hyper-responder to EPO, and gained more off it than most.

Lance was a hyper responder to EPO because he had a naturally low hemocrit level. He also had a lowish VO2Max, much lower than Ullrich's. I don't think there is any shadow of a doubt who the better natural athlete would be.

Jan should have beaten lance when they were both dirty as well. He was far too fond of the sausages and beer though.

Who would win?

Comments