Hall of Shame in Doping | Inaugural Edition

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

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?

 

[scapewalker]

I would like to add Danilo di Luca. A name synonymous with doping.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

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

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Cookster15]

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.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

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?

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[roundabout]

Re:

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.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Re:

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?

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Cookster15]

Calm down. This is opinion not life or death. Fine, then quote the evidence. Play the ball not than man. Thanks.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[roundabout]

Re:

Calm down. This is opinion not life or death. Fine, then quote the evidence. Play the ball not than man. Thanks.

Wow, you have the nerve to ask me to quote the evidence?

http://www.repubblica.it/online/sport/pantapro/capo/capo.html

http://www.repubblica.it/online/sport/lista/pantani/pantani.html

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

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.

What we already saw in 1994 was Pantani with hematocrit of over 50% (54,5% -during and then 58% the day after the Giro)

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Re:

Calm down. This is opinion not life or death. Fine, then quote the evidence. Play the ball not than man. Thanks.

Wow, you have the nerve to ask me to quote the evidence?

http://www.repubblica.it/online/sport/pantapro/capo/capo.html

http://www.repubblica.it/online/sport/lista/pantani/pantani.html

Do you have English versions? But why couldn't you do that at the beginning? Why do you need to be prodded several times? This is an opinion forum not university. Better to figuratively speaking throw your arms around in the air as it quite typical here particularly with high post count posters.

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Re:

Calm down. This is opinion not life or death. Fine, then quote the evidence. Play the ball not than man. Thanks.

Wow, you have the nerve to ask me to quote the evidence?

http://www.repubblica.it/online/sport/pantapro/capo/capo.html

http://www.repubblica.it/online/sport/lista/pantani/pantani.html

Do you have English versions? But why couldn't you do that at the beginning? Why do you need to be prodded several times? This is an opinion forum not university. Better to figuratively speaking throw your arms around in the air as it quite typical here particularly with high post count posters.

Edit: I did a Google translation. Okay, this is good and I see your point of view. But all you had to do was respectfully post that first time. Not difficult. "Nerve" :Question: Why is it a nerve to ask a question? It was an honest request.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Calm down. This is opinion not life or death. Fine, then quote the evidence. Play the ball not than man. Thanks.

Wow, you have the nerve to ask me to quote the evidence?

http://www.repubblica.it/online/sport/pantapro/capo/capo.html

http://www.repubblica.it/online/sport/lista/pantani/pantani.html

Do you have English versions? But why couldn't you do that at the beginning? Why do you need to be prodded several times? This is an opinion forum not university. Better to figuratively speaking throw your arms around in the air as it quite typical here particularly with high post count posters.

Hi Cookster,

I would recommend reading The Death of Marco Pantani by Matt Rendell. It goes into forensic detail about his doping.

 

[Cookster15]

Thanks Parker, I'll check that out I need a good book and I trust Rendell. Cheers.

 

[fmk_RoI]

WRT Pantani, the big difference presented here seems to be between those who believe doping had no major impact on his performance, and those who believe all his performance was down to doping. Anyone who seeks to occupy the middle ground gets shot by both sides.