Added: 3 years ago
From: Fussl1
Views: 17,058
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (12)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Im Jahr 2003 wurde noch nicht gedopt. Das hört man doch, denn schließlich ist Doping im Kommentar dieses Bergzeitfahrens kein Thema!!!

  • One of the best for all time...

  • soso, er arbeitet also sehr aus den Beinen, interessant....

  • they both doped close to the allowed hematocrit/hemoglobin limits, so doping didnt make a difference between them.

  • um himmels willen, dieses dumme kommentatorengequatsche von ARD/ZDF.

    unerträglich. die stümper schlechthin im deutschen fernsehen.

  • ullrich was better, but armstrong had the better doctor

  • @themischmasch they both had good doctors, but cause of Armstrongs cancerhis Doping is legal...

  • @MMMaster1994 his doping was legal due to cancer? Please explain.

  • @pdp110 he has testicular cancer, and even though its minimal he did not let remove it, whoch made it legal to take many difernent drugs to "help against the cancer", and of course quite some of them also on the list of frobidden doping drugs. thats also why every! single professional cyclist is an asthmatic

  • @MMMaster1994 I agree with your point about all of the riders claiming to have asthma in order to legally take bronchiodilators. However, nothing Armstrong took increased him hct once he began cycling again. He also did have his testicle removed, and tumors removed. So that is a myth about his cancer treatment.

  • indeed. not like this pussy Contador

  • Doped or not, Ullrich and Armstrong are legends !!!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more