Thats all hypothetical ( unfortunately). We know an 85 % Pantani, not having touched his bikes until spring 2000 and only with the giro in his legs, dropped Armstrong in Courchevel (6-7 % climb, more suited to power climbing).
We saw him getting better day by day, completely bonking at Hautacam, then Ventoux after being dropped attacking 5 times, suffering on Lance's wheel. Briancon 1,5 km finish gaining some seconds on Armstrong ( do not think Lance would have conceded even 1 second to Pantani after Ventoux ) then finally Courchevel. Then we all know how it went, with his personal problems and this a**hole of J.M LeBlanc not inviting him in 2001 (100th edition), declaring Pantani as a "finished cyclist" in February 2001 (!). One of those things which were a straight shot at Pantani's heart, after all he gave the French people, never refusing to take part after a hard Giro d' Italia despite those 50 km TT's and not many mountain stages.
Pantani rode Alpe d'Huez twice or 3 times under 37 minutes vs Armstrong 38:01 in 2001 (his best year imo) and 37:35 in a tt. To put it short: He was the better climber. In a Giro, no chance for Lance. If we talk about a Pantani at 95-100%.
In those Tours ...2 x 50 km TT...a lot more difficult for Pantani. But in '99 Armstrong wasn't particularly amazing. He was the best climber and TTist but not that far ahead of the likes of Escartin.
Pantani was in the shape of his life in 99...you saw the best Jalabert, the best Roberto Heras following him for 200 m , then completely blow up. Out of the saddle every 10 sec. Alpe di Pampeago on the 12-15 % ramps he seemed to ride 5 % less gradient than the others. He was even better than in 97 or 95 when he put those incredible Alpe times, or 98 TdF.
When you know how corrupt the system was at the time (one chased by CONI the other protected from UCI) and looking at what we learned about anti-doping ( won't go into detail here), we can come to the conclusion that we were denied of one of the greatest battles of the last 30-40 years. " They could have chosen 99% of the present cyclists. They chose me" ( one of the last letters before his death).
Given that both were 1 year apart in age, I believe he would have beaten a ' 99 Armstrong at the TdF, the 2003 Armstrong. 2001 and 2004 didn't have 2 ITT's but 1 ITT, 1 MTT, and 1 TTT? Then very close call, because Lance was at absolute 100 % and still had 1 long ITT + TTT on his side. 2000 if Marco would have been in '99 form...without 2 ITT advantage Pantani, with those 2 I would say pretty even. But then again, Lance had an off-day on the Joux Plane. 2002 advantage Armstrong, in top shape, no off-days, 2 ITT.
I don't know if this thread belongs here. I would approve it. From time to time I think it's good to speculate and discuss about those things. Don't know if there is a history section in this forum.
That's just my 2 cents. I didn't have the opportunity yet to express myself over this subject, so I'm sorry - next posts will be shorter.
