Hall of Shame in Doping | Inaugural Edition

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 12, 2015
417
0
0
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
86TDFWinner said:
Cookster15 said:
spalco said:
Black Betsy said:
Lovely trip down memory lane (although I still spin my glam/hair metal records). Is there a chance that Pantani was kindergarten stuff compared to nowadays standards?
What do you mean by kindergarten? Pantani's time up Alpe d'Huez is still ridiculous and untouchable today. No doubt he was on the most high octane fuel available and pumped up fully.

What exactly current topn riders are on, I think, is still a bit of a mystery - tramadol, steroids, asthma meds, micro-dosing EPO, mini-transfusions, GHRH/GHRP, HIF-PHIs, AICAR, who the **** knows. The pharmacies aren't getting any smaller, but obviously Pantani was taking everything that was available to him at the time.
Whatever they are taking today is minor compared to 1995 and that includes everything in your list.

But Pantani's incredible Alpe d'Huez times were a combination of doping and talent. The perfect storm. But I still don't think he was taking anything more than any other rider at that time. Maybe he was a good responder.
You really believe that? He was doing as much or more than Wonderboy was? Not trying to start anything here, just honestly do not believe any riders in the history of the sport, ran the most sophisticated, most expensive, most blatant doping program in the history of any sport, like Wonderboy and his US Postal team. My opinion, Wonderboy was a fraud from the very beginning.
Note the bold. No I don't think he was doing any more than Lance. Probably much, much less as Marco wasn't an obsessive psychopath and definitely had more raw climbing talent. But I think raw talent together with full on EPO doping typical of the mid 90s peloton helps explain the fastest three times ever officially recorded on that mountain.
Climbing talent aside, what's your explanation for Pantani's incredulous ITTs in the '99 Giro?
 
May 12, 2015
417
0
0
Re:

Cookster15 said:
Talent and EPO. Just as I wrote.

Pantani had no talent as an ITT on flat/rolling courses. His peak performances at ITT were sheer insanity, far more ludicrous than his climbing.

Nearly dead last in the '98 Tour prologue to a podium place in the final TT. You can't make it up
 
Re: Re:

Amazinmets87 said:
Cookster15 said:
Talent and EPO. Just as I wrote.

Pantani had no talent as an ITT on flat/rolling courses. His peak performances at ITT were sheer insanity, far more ludicrous than his climbing.

Nearly dead last in the '98 Tour prologue to a podium place in the final TT. You can't make it up
Kinda similar to Wonderboys illustrious TDF career/results, eh?

I believe a couple of DNF's, an at best 24th place finish pre doping(???), to "suddenly & amazingly" finishing with 7 straight victories? What's really sad and hilarious is how many people were duped by him into thinking he was "clean" from the very beginning.
 
Re: Re:

Amazinmets87 said:
Nearly dead last in the '98 Tour prologue to a podium place in the final TT. You can't make it up
1) It was a short, technical ITT.

2) It was five weeks after the end of the Giro and it wasn't clear whether or not he was making a GC challenge or was just going for a few stage wins.

3) He was 181st of 189, surrendered only 40-something seconds to rivals (Ullrich. Zulle, Olano) he would easily take more than than from in the mountains.

Make it up all you want.
 
Re:

scapewalker said:
I would like to add Danilo di Luca. A name synonymous with doping.
Just a week to go until the 6th anniversary of his definitive exclusion from the Giro.
He was like Lance - in the end he admitted it and claimed every did it.


In cycling everyone know the truth but the truth is unacceptable
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Amazinmets87 said:
Climbing talent aside, what's your explanation for Pantani's incredulous ITTs in the '99 Giro?
Incredulous, how? Do you have the course profiles to hand, and the times?
Thanks, I couldn't be bothered. Pantani's rise and fall did not strike me as Lance like - or di Luca or Ricco either.

Close inspection of his results show there are explanations when placed in context. Pantani was simple guy who had a god given talent to climb mountains dope or not. When that god given talent was taken away from him at the 99 Giro for not doing anything the rest of the peloton wasn't doing explains the tragic end. Shame at being singled out is what drove him to cocaine and what eventually killed him.

Many disagree with my view but this is what I believe after following this sport closely since 1992 and watching Pantani during that period. David against the Goliaths of Indurain, Ullrich and then briefly Armstrong of that era. Others can believe what they want. Mostly people who didn't follow the sport in those days.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Amazinmets87 said:
Nearly dead last in the '98 Tour prologue to a podium place in the final TT. You can't make it up
1) It was a short, technical ITT.

2) It was five weeks after the end of the Giro and it wasn't clear whether or not he was making a GC challenge or was just going for a few stage wins.

3) He was 181st of 189, surrendered only 40-something seconds to rivals (Ullrich. Zulle, Olano) he would easily take more than than from in the mountains.

Make it up all you want.
1) nobody claimed that a prologue isn't a short and technical TT, so not sure why you needed to highlight it

2) are you implying that Pantani did not give his maximum in the prologue? If you are, what is your source, if not, what is the relevance?

3) so he was nearly dead last, just like OP wrote. and he 'only' lost 6 s/km to his GC rivals. and there were still 110 ITT km left to ride.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Amazinmets87 said:
Climbing talent aside, what's your explanation for Pantani's incredulous ITTs in the '99 Giro?
Incredulous, how? Do you have the course profiles to hand, and the times?
Pantani was 4 s/km slower than Gonchar in the first long ITT in 1998 and 2 s/km slower in 1999 (leaving aside the *** joke that was the Mendrisio TT with all the rumors how it was achieved).

Pretty incredulous.
 
Forget Pantani you are barking up the wrong tree a victim of the times not a villain.

For doping hall of shame surely we need to nominate Bjarne Riis. Showed up as a monster with veins popping out of his head in 1996. Mr 60%. Sent Indurain into retirement. So obvious.
 
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
fmk_RoI said:
Amazinmets87 said:
Climbing talent aside, what's your explanation for Pantani's incredulous ITTs in the '99 Giro?
Incredulous, how? Do you have the course profiles to hand, and the times?
Thanks, I couldn't be bothered. Pantani's rise and fall did not strike me as Lance like - or di Luca or Ricco either.

Close inspection of his results show there are explanations when placed in context. Pantani was simple guy who had a god given talent to climb mountains dope or not. When that god given talent was taken away from him at the 99 Giro for not doing anything the rest of the peloton wasn't doing explains the tragic end. Shame at being singled out is what drove him to cocaine and what eventually killed him.

Many disagree with my view but this is what I believe after following this sport closely since 1992 and watching Pantani during that period. David against the Goliaths of Indurain, Ullrich and then briefly Armstrong of that era. Others can believe what they want. Mostly people who didn't follow the sport in those days.
Couldn't be bothered, because it does not seem that you have any actual arguments in hand instead of the usual 'dur, he wuz different' hagiography stuff.

All I see is guesswork, the talent level you think Pantani had, what the rest were doing and the reasons for his downfall.

And on top of the guesswork is your ludicrous assumption that those who think differently to you did not follow the sport back then.

But maybe since you followed the sport 'closely' unlike most of us detractors, you can have an actual go in placing his results in context, starting with the ITTs?
 
Aug 29, 2016
256
11
3,060
Re: Re:

roundabout said:
2) are you implying that Pantani did not give his maximum in the prologue? If you are, what is your source, if not, what is the relevance?
Matt Rendell claims in his Pantani-biography (p. 118) that he wasn't for one reason or another interested in the prologue:
[H]ow much less significant Willy Voet's arrest must have seemed to Marco, an Italian on an Italian team, competing, for the moment at least, in Ireland, where his results might even be read as an expression of his remoteness, both from the Tour and from the upheaval to come.
Marco hadn't even bothered to preview the 5.6 kilometre route of the Prologue through Dublin...
My recollection is that there was some very speculative mind-reading in the book elsewhere, so Rendell could've come up with the conclusion above mostly because of Pantani's performance.
 
Re: Re:

roundabout said:
fmk_RoI said:
Amazinmets87 said:
Climbing talent aside, what's your explanation for Pantani's incredulous ITTs in the '99 Giro?
Incredulous, how? Do you have the course profiles to hand, and the times?
Pantani was 4 s/km slower than Gonchar in the first long ITT in 1998 and 2 s/km slower in 1999 (leaving aside the **** joke that was the Mendrisio TT with all the rumors how it was achieved).

Pretty incredulous.
So nearly 4 minutes slower than Ullrich in the first long TT in 1998 Tour. Not sure why you find that incredulous. 3rd week TTs are not just about who has the most power but who is recovering best. Like Evans 2011 TdF. Obviously Pantani was in the form of his life in 1998 some evidence he was on a superior program to anyone else might be helpful if you think he is a worthy nominee in the doping hall of shame.
 
Re:

Cookster15 said:
Forget Pantani you are barking up the wrong tree a victim of the times not a villain.

For doping hall of shame surely we need to nominate Bjarne Riis. Showed up as a monster with veins popping out of his head in 1996. Mr 60%. Sent Indurain into retirement. So obvious.
So Riis Mr 60% is a villain and a monster, while Pantani with his mere 58% is a victim.
 
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
roundabout said:
fmk_RoI said:
Amazinmets87 said:
Climbing talent aside, what's your explanation for Pantani's incredulous ITTs in the '99 Giro?
Incredulous, how? Do you have the course profiles to hand, and the times?
Pantani was 4 s/km slower than Gonchar in the first long ITT in 1998 and 2 s/km slower in 1999 (leaving aside the **** joke that was the Mendrisio TT with all the rumors how it was achieved).

Pretty incredulous.
So nearly 4 minutes slower than Ullrich in the first long TT in 1998 Tour. Not sure why you find that incredulous. 3rd week TTs are not just about who has the most power but who is recovering best. Like Evans 2011 TdF. Obviously Pantani was in the form of his life in 1998 some evidence he was on a superior program to anyone else might be helpful if you think he is a worthy nominee in the doping hall of shame.
Scaling the first Tour long ITT time loss in 1998 would have meant a 4 minute loss in the second. Pantani was 1.6 s/km better than the projected loss, because winning the Giro was probably beneficial for his recovery in the Tour or something.
 
Re: Re:

roundabout said:
Cookster15 said:
fmk_RoI said:
Amazinmets87 said:
Climbing talent aside, what's your explanation for Pantani's incredulous ITTs in the '99 Giro?
Incredulous, how? Do you have the course profiles to hand, and the times?
Thanks, I couldn't be bothered. Pantani's rise and fall did not strike me as Lance like - or di Luca or Ricco either.

Close inspection of his results show there are explanations when placed in context. Pantani was simple guy who had a god given talent to climb mountains dope or not. When that god given talent was taken away from him at the 99 Giro for not doing anything the rest of the peloton wasn't doing explains the tragic end. Shame at being singled out is what drove him to cocaine and what eventually killed him.

Many disagree with my view but this is what I believe after following this sport closely since 1992 and watching Pantani during that period. David against the Goliaths of Indurain, Ullrich and then briefly Armstrong of that era. Others can believe what they want. Mostly people who didn't follow the sport in those days.
Couldn't be bothered, because it does not seem that you have any actual arguments in hand instead of the usual 'dur, he wuz different' hagiography stuff.

All I see is guesswork, the talent level you think Pantani had, what the rest were doing and the reasons for his downfall.

And on top of the guesswork is your ludicrous assumption that those who think differently to you did not follow the sport back then.

But maybe since you followed the sport 'closely' unlike most of us detractors, you can have an actual go in placing his results in context, starting with the ITTs?
Calm down. I've stated my arguments and you haven't debunked the logic. Guesswork? Ludicrous? We can only work with what we know. Your counter logic is vague and ill defined. Specifics might be helpful such as TT time losses but that can be countered too - in proper context. If you were closely following the sport at that time you would know the peloton was at ease with Marco then unlike for example Vino after his 2007 TT effort when nobody was surprised when he was caught.

I'm not Italian so I think I am reasonably objective here. Sorry if someone has the temerity to counter your logic. I suggest your read and think about your own post, You are guilty of the same as you accuse me of. I am attempting to bolster my argument with facts, logic and reason. Love to know how Pantani is more worthy of being nominated in this thread than Amstrong, Di Luca, Ricco or Riis. Over to you.
 
Re: Re:

roundabout said:
Cookster15 said:
Forget Pantani you are barking up the wrong tree a victim of the times not a villain.

For doping hall of shame surely we need to nominate Bjarne Riis. Showed up as a monster with veins popping out of his head in 1996. Mr 60%. Sent Indurain into retirement. So obvious.
So Riis Mr 60% is a villain and a monster, while Pantani with his mere 58% is a victim.
Well yes. Riis is still alive isn't he?
 
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
roundabout said:
Cookster15 said:
fmk_RoI said:
Amazinmets87 said:
Climbing talent aside, what's your explanation for Pantani's incredulous ITTs in the '99 Giro?
Incredulous, how? Do you have the course profiles to hand, and the times?
Thanks, I couldn't be bothered. Pantani's rise and fall did not strike me as Lance like - or di Luca or Ricco either.

Close inspection of his results show there are explanations when placed in context. Pantani was simple guy who had a god given talent to climb mountains dope or not. When that god given talent was taken away from him at the 99 Giro for not doing anything the rest of the peloton wasn't doing explains the tragic end. Shame at being singled out is what drove him to cocaine and what eventually killed him.

Many disagree with my view but this is what I believe after following this sport closely since 1992 and watching Pantani during that period. David against the Goliaths of Indurain, Ullrich and then briefly Armstrong of that era. Others can believe what they want. Mostly people who didn't follow the sport in those days.
Couldn't be bothered, because it does not seem that you have any actual arguments in hand instead of the usual 'dur, he wuz different' hagiography stuff.

All I see is guesswork, the talent level you think Pantani had, what the rest were doing and the reasons for his downfall.

And on top of the guesswork is your ludicrous assumption that those who think differently to you did not follow the sport back then.

But maybe since you followed the sport 'closely' unlike most of us detractors, you can have an actual go in placing his results in context, starting with the ITTs?
Calm down. I've stated my arguments and you haven't debunked the logic. Guesswork? Ludicrous? We can only work with what we know. Your counter logic is vague and ill defined. Specifics might be helpful such as TT time losses but that can be countered too - in proper context. If you were closely following the sport at that time you would know the peloton was at ease with Marco then unlike for example Vino after his 2007 TT effort when nobody was surprised when he was caught.

I'm not Italian so I think I am reasonably objective here. Sorry if someone has the temerity to counter your logic. I suggest your read and think about your own post, You are guilty of the same as you accuse me of. I am attempting to bolster my argument with facts, logic and reason. Love to know how Pantani is more worthy of being nominated in this tread than Amstrong, Di Luca, Ricco or Riis. Over to you.
You stated ***. Hell, I am 100% certain that you do no know how many people who disagree with you actually followed the sport.

My 'counter' logic as you put it, is much more defined than anything that you managed to come up with despite you supposedly closely following the sport.

And I don't mind being wrong, but so far you have not come up with anything, but you are free to try again.

All available evidence indicates that Pantani was a Riis-level charger and if rumor of sample switching is ever confirmed to be true, he is absolutely more worthy than any of the 4 you mentioned to be nominated.
 
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
roundabout said:
Cookster15 said:
Forget Pantani you are barking up the wrong tree a victim of the times not a villain.

For doping hall of shame surely we need to nominate Bjarne Riis. Showed up as a monster with veins popping out of his head in 1996. Mr 60%. Sent Indurain into retirement. So obvious.
So Riis Mr 60% is a villain and a monster, while Pantani with his mere 58% is a victim.
Well yes. Riis is still alive isn't he?
Would he be a victim in your eyes if he wasn't? From your pantomime villain description of him, I am guessing probably not.
 
Re: Re:

roundabout said:
Cookster15 said:
roundabout said:
Cookster15 said:
Forget Pantani you are barking up the wrong tree a victim of the times not a villain.

For doping hall of shame surely we need to nominate Bjarne Riis. Showed up as a monster with veins popping out of his head in 1996. Mr 60%. Sent Indurain into retirement. So obvious.
So Riis Mr 60% is a villain and a monster, while Pantani with his mere 58% is a victim.
Well yes. Riis is still alive isn't he?
Would he be a victim in your eyes if he wasn't? From your pantomime villain description of him, I am guessing probably not.
What Pantani showed in 1998 and 1999 we already saw from 1994. The Riis that turned up in 1996 was new. Obvious from the first ITT when he put 30 seconds into Indurain.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY