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?