Marco Pantani?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
I'd like to admit that I was wrong too. I am very sorry for some of the things I said to a couple of the guys.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Ok..... I have had enough of this..... Scribe, Velo & TFF to the Clinic please, you all been selected for random drug control's.
 
Apr 1, 2009
1,488
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok..... I have had enough of this..... Scribe, Velo & TFF to the Clinic please, you all been selected for random drug control's.

Post of the day!:D
Seems a lot of the contributors have grown a lot.

On the subject of Pantani. Loved to watch the guy out of the saddle.
The way he was singled out was unfair to say the least, when you look at what the other GT racers were doing at the time.
Unfortunately, he couldn't conquer his demons.
 
pantani was just fun to watch ride a bike. he went down hills as fast as anyone,
as well as up them. and the side story of his life only helps his legend.

all this make nice stuff is creeping me out. ;) :eek:
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
The answer to the guys question, Marco Pantani was a great racer and an Italian star in lots of ways.I saw him on talk shows(in Italian)I could not understand enough but his body language was that of a gentle guy.He attacked lots and it didn't always work out but the style points put him in the hearts and minds of people all over the world.Like lots of people his hair started to fall out and the facial hair and earrings made him look like a bad ***,or as bad as you can look as a mini man.His death was a terrible for the sport and lets people tell any story they want once he had died.He dealt with drugs and depression,more of both in his last years.Unlike some of these poster boys Lance and many others have nice things to say about the dead champion.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Legends and such

fatandfast said:
The answer to the guys question, Marco Pantani was a great racer and an Italian star in lots of ways.I saw him on talk shows(in Italian)I could not understand enough but his body language was that of a gentle guy.He attacked lots and it didn't always work out but the style points put him in the hearts and minds of people all over the world.Like lots of people his hair started to fall out and the facial hair and earrings made him look like a bad ***,or as bad as you can look as a mini man.His death was a terrible for the sport and lets people tell any story they want once he had died.He dealt with drugs and depression,more of both in his last years.Unlike some of these poster boys Lance and many others have nice things to say about the dead champion.

Everybody loved how he activated a race. Unfortunately that has a Nascar similarity when it requires a rider to mortgage his life for some sparkly moments of fraudulent fame. I had an uneasy feeling when he and Senor 60 (Bjarne) attacked the way they did. You hope for such talent but are afraid of the truth. I think the truth killed Pantani.
 
Aug 2, 2009
8
0
0
Loved his attacking style! Cant get enough of it.

You guys should watch some of the videos on youtube with him, and then ull see what made him a star :)
 
May 13, 2009
692
1
0
Bala Verde said:
I have always wondered, and maybe it's beyond anyone to tell for sure, but 'how talented' were some of these guys (ie also Basso, Ullrich), off the program?

In other words, could the top 10 of each GT in the 90s be a reflection of the top 10 greatest responders, and/or greatest risk takers? (This is not to say that they were mere pumped up amateurs, or 'donkeys', but there is a difference between a decent/good top 50 pro rider and an amazing top 10 pro rider)

I don't have a clue about his junior years, ie was he being dropped by others who were supposedly clean? I mean he has been riding his bike for a while, and some of his peers must have noticed some small transformations, if he wasn't already 'the greatest climber' in his youngster years...

Well... he was dropping Indurains in Giro 1994, when he was only 23 years old. I know I am going to get a hundred idiots telling me that he was using EPO, but before 1997 (when they set the 50% rule, which was garbage sin the average hematocrit is 34-38) pretty much everyone was using it since it was "legal".. I have heard he was a pretty good junior rider..
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
dimspace said:
Its almost unexplainable.. There are some people you come across in life, in person, or through sport, etc, that you are just drawn too.. Pantani had that..

wether it was attitude, or personality, or style on a bike, or what i dont know.. There was just something about the guy that drew you in and you couldnt help yourself. He had an aura..

I cant even explain why he is such a legend, but he is..

good article here> http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/11

few snippets

"His exploits between 1994 and 2000 were sensational. He climbed like a man possessed, throwing races into chaos with his attacking style, and eschewing conservatism to attack on the most difficult of climbs with reckless aggression."

"For fans who love cycling, it is hard not to be inspired, even moved, by Pantani’s climbing exploits: the reckless attacks, the total domination of the toughest climbs. He personified the excitement of the mountains."

"Pantani’s dalliances with performance-enhancing drugs is likely not a unique case, as past and future revelations of doping in cycling in the 1990s will attest. His story, though, his tragedy seems unique: soaring to the highest levels of the sport, before crashing into despair, abandonment, and ultimately suicide. Did he make a Faustian pact, with Mephistopheles played by EPO, crooked doctors, and the pressure of professional competition? (Is Pantani the Dorian Gray of cycling?) Was the reward for his bargain the tremendous climbing power he attained, but at a heavy price?

But Pantani was seemingly conscious of his bargain and one of his reported quotes nicely sums up his own approach, as well as the issues raised earlier about performance enhancement. “In cycling,” he said, “there is not a culture of doping, but rather a culture of champions, meaning: self improvement. That means doing things that are forbidden, but that are only forbidden if they catch you.”"

+1. Nice summary. BTW, not having read this thread for a while, I burst out laughing reading TFF v VeloFidelis, then the Cavendish-Thor moment, and Dr. Maserati's commentary. Thanks for the entertainment!
 
May 20, 2009
27
0
0
Pantani...my favorite cyclist ever!! Let's have a thread on him every week...no, every day! Love watching him attack. The man is the definition of charisma; flair and panache. Until someone comes along to explode a race like he did, we're doomed to boring racing. I never get tired of watching his races.
 
OK! I am going to go off on a tangent here, but Please help me out on this because it seems to be a grave inconsistency in how former Pro's are treated.

We all agree that Pantani was an enormous talent who met a tragic end. He was a product of the times in the Peloton, and in particular Italian professional cycling. (Mapei, Ariostea, etc). He was by no means alone in utilizing a "program" to obtain his successes. He is still revered at the highest levels by Italian cycling fans, and a large numbers of fans around the world.

He was one of the most exciting and animated pros to watch race. He won peoples hearts by attacking in unlikely situations and actually making it work in a few monumental occasions. He was an underdog and an over achiever, and he created a tremendously loyal fan base. His doping trials and tribulations created an eventual decline, depression, and tragic death. Love or hate him, I think we can all agree to these facts about his life and career.

So my question is; if he were alive today, how would you feel about him, and what would his public image look like? And here's the dichotomy that begs the question be asked.

There is an American racer who also was an underdog and over achiever. He inspired us with tremendous efforts in the most unlikely situations. Second in the Giro and Fourth in the TDF, both with broken collar bones. Wins in Liege, and Romandie, the Dauphine' an the Olympics. Stage wins in the Giro, the Vuelta and the TDF.

His name is Tyler Hamilton, and he just retired in disgrace from professional cycling for testing positive for DHEA which is a harmless steroid (yes there are harmless steroids) sold over that counter in any health food store. I take it every day. If you are over 40 and an athlete, you should too. It was contained in a homeopathic medication to treat depression. Now he faces a life time ban for knowingly taking it.

Both he and Pantani were great cyclist with inspiring palmares. They both succumbed to the pressures and cost of success in the peloton. They both had their legal challenges, misguided defenses, lame excuses, and eventual suspensions. I want to be clear that this is not some Tyler Fanboy post. History is pretty clear on both Tyler's and Marco's successes and failures.

So why then, when their stories are so incredibly similar is one rider elevated to the status of cycling god by so many, while the other is excoriated as a doper miscreant, when the only real difference is that one had a very public and tragic demise, and the other is simply trying hard not to?
 

Eva Maria

BANNED
May 24, 2009
387
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
OK! I am going to go off on a tangent here, but Please help me out on this because it seems to be a grave inconsistency in how former Pro's are treated.

We all agree that Pantani was an enormous talent who met a tragic end. He was a product of the times in the Peloton, and in particular Italian professional cycling. (Mapei, Ariostea, etc). He was by no means alone in utilizing a "program" to obtain his successes. He is still revered at the highest levels by Italian cycling fans, and a large numbers of fans around the world.

He was one of the most exciting and animated pros to watch race. He won peoples hearts by attacking in unlikely situations and actually making it work in a few monumental occasions. He was an underdog and an over achiever, and he created a tremendously loyal fan base. His doping trials and tribulations created an eventual decline, depression, and tragic death. Love or hate him, I think we can all agree to these facts about his life and career.

So my question is; if he were alive today, how would you feel about him, and what would his public image look like? And here's the dichotomy that begs the question be asked.

There is an America racer who also was and underdog an over achiever. He inspired us with tremendous efforts in the most unlikely situations. Second in the Giro and Fourth in the TDF, both with broken collar bones. Wins in Liege, and Romandie, the Dauphine' an the Olympics. Stage wins in the Giro, the Vuelta and the TDF.

His name is Tyler Hamilton, and he just retired in disgrace from professional cycling for testing positive for DHEA which is a harmless steroid (yes there are harmless steroids) sold over that counter in any health food store. I take it every day. If you are over 40 and an athlete, you should too. It was contained in a homeopathic medication to treat depression. Now he faces a life time ban for knowingly taking it.

Both he and Pantani were great cyclist with inspiring palmares. They both succumbed to the pressures and cost of success in the peloton. They both had their legal challenges, misguided defenses, lame excuses, and eventual suspensions. I want to be clear that this is not some Tyler Fanboy post. History is pretty clear on both Tyler's and Marco's successes and failures.

So why then, when their stories are so incredibly similar is one rider elevated to the status of cycling god by so many, while the other is excoriated as a doper miscreant, when the only real difference is that one had a very public and tragic demise, and the other is simply trying hard not to?

They are both nuts, but I don't see Tyler pulling the full Belushi like Pantani
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloFidelis said:
OK! I am going to go off on a tangent here, but Please help me out on this because it seems to be a grave inconsistency in how former Pro's are treated.

We all agree that Pantani was an enormous talent who met a tragic end. He was a product of the times in the Peloton, and in particular Italian professional cycling. (Mapei, Ariostea, etc). He was by no means alone in utilizing a "program" to obtain his successes. He is still revered at the highest levels by Italian cycling fans, and a large numbers of fans around the world.

He was one of the most exciting and animated pros to watch race. He won peoples hearts by attacking in unlikely situations and actually making it work in a few monumental occasions. He was an underdog and an over achiever, and he created a tremendously loyal fan base. His doping trials and tribulations created an eventual decline, depression, and tragic death. Love or hate him, I think we can all agree to these facts about his life and career.

So my question is; if he were alive today, how would you feel about him, and what would his public image look like? And here's the dichotomy that begs the question be asked.

There is an America racer who also was and underdog an over achiever. He inspired us with tremendous efforts in the most unlikely situations. Second in the Giro and Fourth in the TDF, both with broken collar bones. Wins in Liege, and Romandie, the Dauphine' an the Olympics. Stage wins in the Giro, the Vuelta and the TDF.

His name is Tyler Hamilton, and he just retired in disgrace from professional cycling for testing positive for DHEA which is a harmless steroid (yes there are harmless some steroids) sold over that counter in any health food store. I take it every day. If you are over 40 and an athlete, you should too. It was contained in a homeopathic medication to treat depression. Now he faces a life time ban for knowingly taking it.

Both he and Pantani were great cyclist with inspiring palmares. They both succumbed to the pressures and cost of success in the peloton. They both had their legal challenges, misguided defenses, lame excuses, and eventual suspensions. I want to be clear that this is not some Tyler Fanboy post. History is pretty clear on both Tyler's and Marco's successes and failures.

So why then, when their stories are so incredibly similar is one rider elevated to the status of cycling god by so many, while the other is excoriated as a doper miscreant, when the only real difference is that one had a very public and tragic demise, and the other is simply trying hard not to?

I honestly feel empathy for Tyler because I believe he and Pantani both have/had substance abuse issues. I have a soft spot for people with substance abuse issues having been clean and sober for 18 years. I view them very similarly. Doesn't mean I believe Tyler shouldn't pay the consequences for his actions, quite the opposite actually, but I do feel empathy for him. He is a confused and troubled man, and from all personal accounts I have heard and read, quite a nice guy. I truly hope he cleans himself up and becomes successful in something else and doesn't follow the same spiral as did Pantani.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
That whole pistol shooting thing these days annoys me to no end. But the Pantani throws down his head-dress as a signal that he is about to stomp some *** is pretty cool
 
Thoughtforfood said:
I honestly feel empathy for Tyler because I believe he and Pantani both have/had substance abuse issues. I have a soft spot for people with substance abuse issues having been clean and sober for 18 years. I view them very similarly. Doesn't mean I believe Tyler shouldn't pay the consequences for his actions, quite the opposite actually, but I do feel empathy for him. He is a confused and troubled man, and from all personal accounts I have heard and read, quite a nice guy. I truly hope he cleans himself up and becomes successful in something else and doesn't follow the same spiral as did Pantani.

Actually, he is a damned nice guy. Like all of us, he now finds that life has taken a few unexpected turns. And don't we all have to live with the consequences of our decisions?

So the other question was; if Pantani were alive and facing the consequences of his decisions on a daily basis, and in this very public forum, would he still be revered as a Campione' or just another cycling doper has been?

It seems time is a lot tougher on those who hang around to face the music.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
OK! I am going to go off on a tangent here, but Please help me out on this because it seems to be a grave inconsistency in how former Pro's are treated.

We all agree that Pantani was an enormous talent who met a tragic end. He was a product of the times in the Peloton, and in particular Italian professional cycling. (Mapei, Ariostea, etc). He was by no means alone in utilizing a "program" to obtain his successes. He is still revered at the highest levels by Italian cycling fans, and a large numbers of fans around the world.

He was one of the most exciting and animated pros to watch race. He won peoples hearts by attacking in unlikely situations and actually making it work in a few monumental occasions. He was an underdog and an over achiever, and he created a tremendously loyal fan base. His doping trials and tribulations created an eventual decline, depression, and tragic death. Love or hate him, I think we can all agree to these facts about his life and career.

So my question is; if he were alive today, how would you feel about him, and what would his public image look like? And here's the dichotomy that begs the question be asked.

There is an America racer who also was and underdog an over achiever. He inspired us with tremendous efforts in the most unlikely situations. Second in the Giro and Fourth in the TDF, both with broken collar bones. Wins in Liege, and Romandie, the Dauphine' an the Olympics. Stage wins in the Giro, the Vuelta and the TDF.

His name is Tyler Hamilton, and he just retired in disgrace from professional cycling for testing positive for DHEA which is a harmless steroid (yes there are harmless steroids) sold over that counter in any health food store. I take it every day. If you are over 40 and an athlete, you should too. It was contained in a homeopathic medication to treat depression. Now he faces a life time ban for knowingly taking it.

Both he and Pantani were great cyclist with inspiring palmares. They both succumbed to the pressures and cost of success in the peloton. They both had their legal challenges, misguided defenses, lame excuses, and eventual suspensions. I want to be clear that this is not some Tyler Fanboy post. History is pretty clear on both Tyler's and Marco's successes and failures.

So why then, when their stories are so incredibly similar is one rider elevated to the status of cycling god by so many, while the other is excoriated as a doper miscreant, when the only real difference is that one had a very public and tragic demise, and the other is simply trying hard not to?

The two are different in their riding styles, but I appreciated watching both. Pantani for his climbing and the way he would light up the race. Hamilton for pure guts. I will also add that I love watching Vino and his crazy irrational attacks, Valverde when he is on fire, and Floyd's stage 17 ride. I know they doped, but it is their panache and willingness to turn themselves inside out. I also feel for the likes of Pantani, Hamilton and Boonen. They have problems which are magnified and worsened by their status. Matt Rendell's book on The Death of Marco Pantani is a sad read.
 
VeloFidelis said:
Actually, he is a damned nice guy. Like all of us, he now finds that life has taken a few unexpected turns. And don't we all have to live with the consequences of our decisions?

So the other question was; if Pantani were alive and facing the consequences of his decisions on a daily basis, and in this very public forum, would he still be revered as a Campione' or just another cycling doper has been?

It seems time is a lot tougher on those who hang around to face the music.

I could not disagree more. When Pantani was attacking everyone like mad and winning the biggest races in the world, he was getting absolutely CRUCIFIED on cycling forums for being a doper, madman, etc, etc. There is absolutely nothing different then than now in that regard. There were and are forums where all kinds of people get very, very exercised about their most disliked rider(s). It was particularly painful to me to have watched it happen back then--when he died, I wondered how much he exposed himself to the opinion that had savaged him online so much.

I myself was quite critical--it was back in the early days of forums when the myth that someone at the top of a GT could actually have been clean, and I'm ashamed I didn't see through the BS 'till later. I felt ashamed to have helped in any small way to single out someone like him amongst the others. He was villainized online.

I'm also amazed to see comments in this thread about "doping in the 90's", "what it was like back then" and "that era", as if all is changed now. I think it's changed somewhat, but fundamentally I don't see a huge difference. The chances your favorite rider is clean are pretty low.
 
Mar 11, 2009
748
0
0
I think Tyler had his moments..
I don't think he was ever really on the same level as Pantani.
He did not win the Tour or the Giro.... both did hit the program hard and both gave us some great entertainment.For that i am grateful.
 
VeloFidelis said:
OK! I am going to go off on a tangent here, but Please help me out on this because it seems to be a grave inconsistency in how former Pro's are treated.

We all agree that Pantani was an enormous talent who met a tragic end. He was a product of the times in the Peloton, and in particular Italian professional cycling. (Mapei, Ariostea, etc). He was by no means alone in utilizing a "program" to obtain his successes. He is still revered at the highest levels by Italian cycling fans, and a large numbers of fans around the world.

He was one of the most exciting and animated pros to watch race. He won peoples hearts by attacking in unlikely situations and actually making it work in a few monumental occasions. He was an underdog and an over achiever, and he created a tremendously loyal fan base. His doping trials and tribulations created an eventual decline, depression, and tragic death. Love or hate him, I think we can all agree to these facts about his life and career.

So my question is; if he were alive today, how would you feel about him, and what would his public image look like? And here's the dichotomy that begs the question be asked.

There is an American racer who also was an underdog and over achiever. He inspired us with tremendous efforts in the most unlikely situations. Second in the Giro and Fourth in the TDF, both with broken collar bones. Wins in Liege, and Romandie, the Dauphine' an the Olympics. Stage wins in the Giro, the Vuelta and the TDF.

His name is Tyler Hamilton, and he just retired in disgrace from professional cycling for testing positive for DHEA which is a harmless steroid (yes there are harmless steroids) sold over that counter in any health food store. I take it every day. If you are over 40 and an athlete, you should too. It was contained in a homeopathic medication to treat depression. Now he faces a life time ban for knowingly taking it.

Both he and Pantani were great cyclist with inspiring palmares. They both succumbed to the pressures and cost of success in the peloton. They both had their legal challenges, misguided defenses, lame excuses, and eventual suspensions. I want to be clear that this is not some Tyler Fanboy post. History is pretty clear on both Tyler's and Marco's successes and failures.

So why then, when their stories are so incredibly similar is one rider elevated to the status of cycling god by so many, while the other is excoriated as a doper miscreant, when the only real difference is that one had a very public and tragic demise, and the other is simply trying hard not to?

i still like tyler. he won LBL baddass.:cool:
 
Jul 13, 2009
144
0
0
Pantani was a breath of fresh air during, what I consider, the humdrum Indurain era of the TdF. When he attacked he made you believe that anything was possible.
 
Jul 29, 2009
85
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
So why then, when their stories are so incredibly similar is one rider elevated to the status of cycling god by so many, while the other is excoriated as a doper miscreant, when the only real difference is that one had a very public and tragic demise, and the other is simply trying hard not to?

Yes, 2 very similar men, with somewhat similar success ( TdF & Giro wins give Marco an edge), and that's where I think the common ground ends.
Marco is Italian, in a hot bed of cycling Tifosi. Passions run very deep for winners... they can elevate you to the pinnacles of praise, but you must be winning or at least offering up a passionate effort. Marco did this with success, and he wasn't in the shadow of other successful Italian cyclists ( for the mostpart...). His untimely tragic death helped cement his status as a great one who likely could' ve accomplished more.
Tyler cycled in the shadows of LA ( I hate to bring up his name, really I do...) in a country that let's agree, hasn't really embraced our sport in as big a way as Europe has.
Ask an Italian to name some of their finest cyclists, and they offer up several names, Marco very likely to be amongst them.
Ask an American to do the same, and if you are lucky enough to find someone who has heard of cycling, they'll say Lance.

Mountains are truly mythical, and their conquerors are often immortalized, so it was with Marco. His untimely departure added to his status.
In the end, people choose how they want to remember someone.
With Marco it was the passion and adrenaline on the inclines, and not his "program" that his many fans choose to embrace.
And seeing him kick Lance's a$$ on Mont Ventoux still gives me great pleasure!!
:D
 
I am surprised that it hasn't been mention, Pantani started to reach his status when he was hit by a car in 1994 Milan-Turin race (I think that was the race). He broke at least one of legs, and looking at probably not being able to even walk, less riding a bike at the highest level. He came back and won the most mythical mountain stages in the Giro and Tour within the next 2 years. The mountains are where legends are made, and Marco Pantani needed mountains to do his thing.

Marco is the perfect example of what a fan wants to see in a pro athlete, a rider who can perform to levels that no other human can attain (HIs attacks and massive mountain top victories), and his personlity flaws that any normal human being can related to (The injuries and demons of alcohol drugs and partying).
 
Jul 13, 2009
425
0
0
Clemson Cycling said:
This guy was around a couple years before I began watching cycling. I was just wondering why there is still such a strong following with him? I have done some research on him and he seemed to be a big doper and really the poster boy of the era that cycling wanted to end. I never saw him race so I don't really understand why he is so likable.
Pantani will always be my favorite rider ever.

In the second half of the nineties, I remember visiting my grandmother at her nursing home when she wasn't doing good at all. By that time, it was already very difficult to talk to her, and I was just sitting there doing nothing. On the TV was the Tour, and Pantani was on the attack; I'm not sure if he was in front or pursuing, but it was a rainy descent. His style of riding just struck me as being extraordinary. It was something positive at a very sad moment.

'Clemson Cycling' - who are you to decide how people should feel about cyclists? What do you really know about doping, are your favorite riders clean?

After Armstrong won the Tour, his fans picked Pantani as their favorite villain. I suspected things weren't as black and white as it seemed, now we know that the truth makes all equally grey. I am glad that the unrealistic image of Armstrong has collapsed. Sadly this still has not inspired some to paint a more humble picture of Pantani.
 
Carl0880 said:
I am surprised that it hasn't been mention, Pantani started to reach his status when he was hit by a car in 1994 Milan-Turin race (I think that was the race). He broke at least one of legs, and looking at probably not being able to even walk, less riding a bike at the highest level. He came back and won the most mythical mountain stages in the Giro and Tour within the next 2 years. The mountains are where legends are made, and Marco Pantani needed mountains to do his thing.

Marco is the perfect example of what a fan wants to see in a pro athlete, a rider who can perform to levels that no other human can attain (HIs attacks and massive mountain top victories), and his personlity flaws that any normal human being can related to (The injuries and demons of alcohol drugs and partying).

I agree that Pantani was a purpose built rider for mountain stages and there were few who could match his power. But his true ability was never really shown to us because he was so much a product of enhancement. Of course most of his competition was also working within a program, but certain talents and physiology's respond better to specific treatments. A Pantani or Rassmusen's climbing ability will be more greatly affected than a rider with more mass who may find the benefits of a similar program help his TT times.

Pantani broke his femur from colliding with a car while training. His come back was surprisingly fast, and strong. However being hospitalized and having had blood drawn became part of his undoing, as that blood taken was later found to have had a hematocrit above 60. We're talking levels of enhancement that only the Incredible Hulk could appreciate.

Pantani was a great antagonist, protagonist, animator and instigator. He was mesmerizing to watch ride away from the field on the steepest climbs. The question remains: is what we were watching even possible without significant medical intervention. If it is not, then what we were really watching is more cartoon than reality. While it is really entertaining to watch, it is hard to assign it the distinction of superior athletic achievement.

There are those who would say that the entire peloton is juiced and so the playing field is level. While I do feel that is more accurate in today's competitive field, I attribute that to better testing methods that while coming far from catching every doper, do make it harder to reach for those most extreme doping excesses of the Pantani era.

Marco Pantani, the man was an enigma. Marco Pantani the cyclist was the stuff that legends are made of. Ultimately whether he was good for cycling or not rests in your opinion of the man. My only hope is that if we choose not to judge him too harshly for his excesses, and glorify his accomplishments, that we extend those same metrics to current members of the peloton who become seduced in the same way as Pantani. Success is a very cruel mistress.