Pantani 99 vs Armstrong 99

[jens_attacks]

i invite all of you at the tour de france of clones, year 2185, can't wait to see marco smashing lance on sestrieres!...

commentator: clone of phil ligget:
"and here we are at the foot of the final climb of the day, on the road to the ski station, sestriere. we can see at the front, the beautiful mercatone uno train at full speed with pondinzina, velo and enrico zeena. they are looking to launch the little climber from italy, the elefantino, the winner of the last giro edition. oh what a beautiful sight. we all remember the mortirolo day, where marco pantani won with 5 minutes advantage on everyone...and there he goes, oh my goodness that was fast. pantani goes right from the bottom in this horrible, rainy day. can you believe it? it seems that only one rider can follow, and there he is. oh it's stephen ro...excuse me, it's lance armstrong, the maillot jaune, the yellow jersey of the tour. can he survive to this vicious acceleration? we'll find out after a short commercial michelob ultra break, stay with us at the tour de france of clones, the 1999 edition"

 

[9000ft]

Not so much if you think from a clean rider perspective.

Who was that?

 

[slowspoke]

No he wouldn´t. His Hct was between 52 and 61 recorded. You can´t get much higher than this. So what he does after losing minutes to LA in TTs? Bringing his Hct up to 70% or what?
As Alpe said, LA by several minutes.... even in 99, pre-coke, pre-depression.

I point you to the last TT in the 98 Giro - 34 Km Pantani was 3rd. He only didn't do well when he didn't give a ship. Give him a sniff of victory and watch him go.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I point you to the last TT in the 98 Giro - 34 Km Pantani was 3rd. He only didn't do well when he didn't give a ship. Give him a sniff of victory and watch him go.

Full fueld as we know. IOW to the max. EPOed! Every % more Hct would have brought him near death. So even if Pantani goes full strength in Metz and lets say finishes 5th. That loses him 3 1/2 mins. The prologue at least 1/2 minute. Futuroscope, assuming again a high finish (around 4th/5th) loses him another 2 mins.
How in the world does he make up this 6 mins (remember this is the most favourable outcome for him, a better assumption would have been at least 9 mins).
LA didn´t have a "Hunger-Ast" (like Ullrich the year before) in the mountains, actually it was the other way around. He nuked Sestriere so hard, that it led Bassons write his suicidal newspaper articles. So how does Pantani make 6 mins up in the three remaining mountain stages (after Sestriere) against LA, who never broke in the mountains from 1999-2005?
No way Pantani would have won. And also remember he had the Giro in his legs...

 

[kingjr]

Pantani would definitely have been amongst those who got stuck behind the carnage on the Passage du Gois, so we dont even have to discuss this. I see him taking 3 to 4 minutes out of Armstrong in the mountains though.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Pantani would definitely have been amongst those who got stuck behind the carnage on the Passage du Gois, so we dont even have to discuss this. I see him taking 3 to 4 minutes out of Armstrong in the mountains though.

Even though I wouldn´t agree, but lets assume he was able to, that still would have him losing to LA by 2 mins (in the most favourable outcome for him) in the end (given he managed the Passage du Gois unharmed, and didn´t go on a mountain suicidal attack 60-120 km from the finish).

 

[roundabout]

Gotti post Giro lost 90 seconds to Armstrong on Sestriere.

I also doubt that Pantani could have taken any significant time on Armstrong on that stage

 

[Dr. Juice]

Full fueld as we know. IOW to the max. EPOed! Every % more Hct would have brought him near death. So even if Pantani goes full strength in Metz and lets say finishes 5th. That loses him 3 1/2 mins. The prologue at least 1/2 minute. Futuroscope, assuming again a high finish (around 4th/5th) loses him another 2 mins.
How in the world does he make up this 6 mins (remember this is the most favourable outcome for him, a better assumption would have been at least 9 mins).
LA didn´t have a "Hunger-Ast" (like Ullrich the year before) in the mountains, actually it was the other way around. He nuked Sestriere so hard, that it led Bassons write his suicidal newspaper articles. So how does Pantani make 6 mins up in the three remaining mountain stages (after Sestriere) against LA, who never broke in the mountains from 1999-2005?
No way Pantani would have won. And also remember he had the Giro in his legs...

He would have burried him right from Sestriéres. Telegraphe, Galibier, Montgenèvre and Sestrieres all in one stage. Where LA finished 30 seconds ahead of Zulle. He would have attacked before Sestrieres and LA blown up. Zülle was a good rouleur-grimpeur, a lesser version of Ullrich.
Just remember the multi-mountain stage a year before (Giro 98) with Pantani not even at his best and Zülle losing loads of minutes.

He sure wouldn't have waited for the average difficult Sestrieres. Would have arrived at the foot already 1-2 min ahead. And pulled out another minute at least. Knewing that he had to gain back time, he would have gone crazy every f*cking stage as sure as the sun rising in the morning.

Giro in his legs didn't do any harm to him. Done it in 1994, 1998. Imagine the Giro 99 with Pantani somehow being behind before the mountains by 4-5 minutes. Attacking before the last mountain every stage. Would have been the biggest massacre in history. He had not the necessity to attack early. Limited himself to attack at - 4 km every stage. Still pulling out easily 1:00 to 1:30 on the next best rider.
I think you really underestimate how crazy his climbing was at that time. Far better than all versions of LA.

 

[slowspoke]

He would have burried him right from Sestriéres. Telegraphe, Galibier, Montgenèvre and Sestrieres all in one stage. Where LA finished 30 seconds ahead of Zulle. He would have attacked before Sestrieres and LA blown up. Zülle was a good rouleur-grimpeur, a lesser version of Ullrich.
Just remember the multi-mountain stage a year before (Giro 98) with Pantani not even at his best and Zülle losing loads of minutes.

He sure wouldn't have waited for the average difficult Sestrieres. Would have arrived at the foot already 1-2 min ahead. And pulled out another minute at least. Knewing that he had to gain back time, he would have gone crazy every f*cking stage as sure as the sun rising in the morning.

Giro in his legs didn't do any harm to him. Done it in 1994, 1998. Imagine the Giro 99 with Pantani somehow being behind before the mountains by 4-5 minutes. Attacking before the last mountain every stage. Would have been the biggest massacre in history. He had not the necessity to attack early. Limited himself to attack at - 4 km every stage. Still pulling out easily 1:00 to 1:30 on the next best rider.
I think you really underestimate how crazy his climbing was at that time. Far better than all versions of LA.

Pantani at the 98/99 Giro is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Certainly better than Armstrong. I think it would be close however because of the Giro in the legs. Never really stopped Indurain though. Remember Tyler saying how lucky Armstrong was not to have Pantani and Ullrich there...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Imagine the Giro 99 with Pantani somehow being behind before the mountains by 4-5 minutes.
I think you really underestimate how crazy his climbing was at that time. Far better than all versions of LA.

1 minute faster on Alpe when loaded at 60% AFIR than LA.... Ok, prorate this to all four mountain stages in the 99 TdF. Again it´s the 4 minutes he might have gained in total vs LA, if he had beaten him on every single one of them. Again; 2 mins down coz of the ITTs in the end.
I repeat: LA DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE BREAKDOWN in 7 years TdF mountain stages. Not a single one...
Not LA would have paniced, but Pantani when going into the mountains with a 3 min hole. Thus leading to a usual suicide attack from 1.000 miles away from the finish. This was the TdF, not the Giro with a weaker field...

 

[Granville57]

Remember Tyler saying how lucky Armstrong was not to have Pantani and Ullrich there...

No.

What Tyler said was that in the 2000 TdF, "We were lucky that Ullrich hadn't brought his A game, lucky that Pantani had eventually cracked."

The only thing we can state with absolutely certainty is that in 2000, it was Ullrich vs Pantani vs Armstrong.

And Lance won. Lance always won.

Prior to all of that, this is what was said:

Jonathan Vaughters:
"I remember one time during the Setmana Catalana in March 1999. Marco Pantani totally dominated the first climbing stage; he was flying, looked really good, and Lance was in the middle of the pack. At the finish, we get into the team car and right away Lance is on his cell phone having this really intense conversation with someone about what he needs to do to go faster than Pantani three months from now at the Tour." [It was Ferrari]

Now does anyone here seriously think that what Ferrari and Lance came up with wouldn't have delivered the desired results?
Lance would've won. Lance always won.


There's more:

Tyler Hamilton:
"He talked about them constantly. Ullrich and Pantani; Pantani and Ullrich. He tracked their training, trawling the Internet for articles from obscure newspapers in Frankfurt and Milan. For a while Lance had so much information I thought he had someone working for him—I pictured a young intern in a cubicle somewhere, compiling reports. But after a while I realized that it was all Lance."

"Lucky for Lance and us, Pantani had used up all his ammunition and abandoned the race the next day, citing illness. Lance recovered, and we made it to Paris without any problems to win his second Tour."

"Lance's eye was always on the competition. He spent a lot of time talking about Ullrich, Pantani, Zülle, and the rest. Lance knew a lot—who was working with which doctor, who was targeting which race, who was five kilos overweight, who was getting divorced. Lance was like a one-man newspaper: you could go for a two-hour ride and get the scoop on the entire peloton."

Pantani had no idea what he was up against. Never in his life had he faced an adversary quite like Lance.

And don't forget this:
"There are a thousand ways to intimidate someone in a bike race, and Lance knew every one of them."

Lance would've won. Lance always won.


All quotes from The Secret Race
by Tyler Hamilton and Daniel Coyle.

 

[slowspoke]

Jonathan Vaughters:
"I remember one time during the Setmana Catalana in March 1999. Marco Pantani totally dominated the first climbing stage; he was flying, looked really good, and Lance was in the middle of the pack. At the finish, we get into the team car and right away Lance is on his cell phone having this really intense conversation with someone about what he needs to do to go faster than Pantani three months from now at the Tour." [It was Ferrari]

Now does anyone here seriously think that what Ferrari and Lance came up with wouldn't have delivered the desired results?
Lance would've won. Lance always won.


All quotes from The Secret Race
by Tyler Hamilton and Daniel Coyle.[/QUOTE]

But wasn't Pantani was also trained by Ferrari (I remember a quote from Ferrari on Armstrongs 5th win say he'd won 6 Tour de Frances indicating he trained Marco) and the 2000 Marco was a shallow shell of himself. If you watch the 98/99 Giro Marco is off the front all the time, so saying he'd be caught on the bridge is wrong IMOP. He made every break he needed to.

 

[Granville57]

If you watch the 98/99 Giro Marco is off the front all the time, so saying he'd be caught on the bridge is wrong IMOP. He made every break he needed to.

In truth, we'll never know.

This is all just entertainment.

 

[slowspoke]

In truth, we'll never know.

This is all just entertainment.

So true!

 

[staubsauger]

Thought Marco was supportet by Conconi!?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I think it would be close however because of the Giro in the legs. Never really stopped Indurain though.

Once the opposition had wised up to EPO, even Mig couldn't do the double. He got turned over in the '94 Giro before dominating the Tour and then didn't attempt the double in '95. I assume his strategy was to go into the Giro slightly below par and hope that was enough, before hitting the Tour in top form.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Giro in his legs didn't do any harm to him. Done it in 1994, 1998.

Re 1994, Pantani finished 7 minutes down in the Tour, so it's not clear that the Giro that year didn't do him any harm.

Re 1998, the Tour started a week later than normal so as not to clash with the World Cup in France. Thus, Pantani had a week more to recover than he would have done in 1999, so he most likely wouldn't have been at '98 performance levels in the Tour in '99 had he ridden it.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

No he wouldn´t. His Hct was between 52 and 61 recorded. You can´t get much higher than this. So what he does after losing minutes to LA in TTs? Bringing his Hct up to 70% or what?
As Alpe said, LA by several minutes.... even in 99, pre-coke, pre-depression.

pantani's hematcorite was 52-61% when caught in 99? lol what source?

lance couldn't beat zulle in 99 if it wasn't for passage du bois. zulle who btw was scared so ****less after 98 he didn't dare to take epo.

 

[retzko]

lance couldn't beat zulle in 99 if it wasn't for passage du bois.

that s pure speculation...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

pantani's hematcorite was 52-61% when caught in 99? lol what source?

lance couldn't beat zulle in 99 if it wasn't for passage du bois. zulle who btw was scared so ****less after 98 he didn't dare to take epo.

Conconis papers, hospital papers after his accident, Carrera papers... Now don´t nail me on the correct date. But over all the years his HcT was 52-61 in competition. Who knows if he was reaching Mr 64% levels when not caught. Pantani did the max jacking up, that´s for sure.
As Rendall said "as good as Pantani was, we must assume he was (Epo-)doped trou-out his pro career"...

I didn´t dispute the fact that most riders were scared in 1999, nor did I ever say LA was the best rider. I just said he would have crushed Pantani. No more, no less.

 

[Amazinmets73]

pantani's hematcorite was 52-61% when caught in 99? lol what source?

lance couldn't beat zulle in 99 if it wasn't for passage du bois. zulle who btw was scared so ****less after 98 he didn't dare to take epo.

How did Zulle climb so well in the '99 Tour without EPO? At Sestriere he was able to pull himself up to leading group of 3 by himself, then drop Escartin and Gotti and gain a full minute on them while they were working together. Transfusions?

 

[Almeisan]

that s pure speculation...

And the remainder of the thread isn't?

I don't even remember what happened that year, I'm probably too young for that anyway. But found it kind of ironic.

 

[Dr. Juice]

How did Zulle climb so well in the '99 Tour without EPO? At Sestriere he was able to pull himself up to leading group of 3 by himself, then drop Escartin and Gotti and gain a full minute on them while they were working together. Transfusions?

pantani's hematcorite was 52-61% when caught in 99? lol what source?

lance couldn't beat zulle in 99 if it wasn't for passage du bois. zulle who btw was scared so ****less after 98 he didn't dare to take epo.

Get your facts right. Not you, the one who mentioned 52-61 % in 99. BS. He had 59,x % hematocrite after his accident at Milano-Torino 1995 at the hospital.
99 they were all under 50 %. Probably 50-52 sometimes in the race and after a couple of aspirines back at 48-49. Don't understand why foxxybrown says he was jacked up almost to death. 50 % rule.

I don't get this " 1 minute at every mountain finish". Would have been minutes every stage. Suicidial attack? To compare an ill 80-85% Pantani in 2000 with the one in 99...
Never ever could Lance relie on his teammates to bring him back. If Pantani attacked on the penultimate climb or even before, he would have had to respond himself. 1 vs 1. Far inferior in climbing, he would have blown up while trying to stay on the wheel. Not cracking in 7 years because he never had such an opponent.

They did the Alpe d'Huez in around 41 minutes. Let's assume the leadout was slow. Faster pace initially brings it down by 1 minute. Lance doesn't let Guerini win but instead attacks and wins by 1 minute.
Does 39 minutes ( which is reasonable - his best time in a RR was 38:01 in his best form ever -->2001 ).
Pantani, who went under 37 minutes in 1995 and 1997, would have set a new record. Just attack on the foot of the climb like in 1997 and go crazy. 36:30 BAM!
The other stages, attacks from 60-70 km out. Solo rides 1 vs 1 with Lance. Somewhere LA would have cracked. Even without cracking 3 minutes every stage when alone vs Pantani for 70 km.

 

[Futuroscope]

He would have burried him right from Sestriéres. Telegraphe, Galibier, Montgenèvre and Sestrieres all in one stage. Where LA finished 30 seconds ahead of Zulle. He would have attacked before Sestrieres and LA blown up. Zülle was a good rouleur-grimpeur, a lesser version of Ullrich.
Just remember the multi-mountain stage a year before (Giro 98) with Pantani not even at his best and Zülle losing loads of minutes.

He sure wouldn't have waited for the average difficult Sestrieres. Would have arrived at the foot already 1-2 min ahead. And pulled out another minute at least. Knewing that he had to gain back time, he would have gone crazy every f*cking stage as sure as the sun rising in the morning.

Giro in his legs didn't do any harm to him. Done it in 1994, 1998. Imagine the Giro 99 with Pantani somehow being behind before the mountains by 4-5 minutes. Attacking before the last mountain every stage. Would have been the biggest massacre in history. He had not the necessity to attack early. Limited himself to attack at - 4 km every stage. Still pulling out easily 1:00 to 1:30 on the next best rider.
I think you really underestimate how crazy his climbing was at that time. Far better than all versions of LA.

Yes, exactly. People don't understand, Pantani is a completely different beast to the other riders that Armstrong went up against. He would not have waited until the last mountain at every stage. With Pantani in 99 Giro form Armstrong can't just sit behind his teammates when Pantani attacks. He has to come out and play at some point and go head to head with Marco and he would crack.

Yes, Armstrong was better at TTs but Pantani had improved alot. Also what happens when Armstrong has to expend massive amounts of energy in the mountains? It would close the gap between them even more in the TTs.

Also in my thread in the other forum I was assuming Pantani was completely fresh and rested.

 

[Futuroscope]

1 minute faster on Alpe when loaded at 60% AFIR than LA.... Ok, prorate this to all four mountain stages in the 99 TdF. Again it´s the 4 minutes he might have gained in total vs LA, if he had beaten him on every single one of them. Again; 2 mins down coz of the ITTs in the end.
I repeat: LA DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE BREAKDOWN in 7 years TdF mountain stages. Not a single one...
Not LA would have paniced, but Pantani when going into the mountains with a 3 min hole. Thus leading to a usual suicide attack from 1.000 miles away from the finish. This was the TdF, not the Giro with a weaker field...

Things would change when he was put under pressure by a Pantani in top shape. It's like any other sport, look at football when Barcelona was at their best look at the pressure they put on the other teams, they would take back the ball immediately, they made very good teams look average. Look at boxing, a boxer can look great vs lesser opponents but when he faces a champion and he is not allowed to dictate the fight suddenly he can look very vulnerable.

In other words when Pantani put the pressure on Armstrongs control would have been blown to pieces. And when you blow up, it doesn't just effect one stage you can easily get a snowball effect where you have to take more risks this opens up a race even more. All control is lost at this point. Pantani would have changed the whole dynamic of the race. And if there was chaos, Pantani would come out on top because there is no way Armstrong outclimbs a Pantani in 99 Giro shape.