Pantani 99 vs Armstrong 99

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So no explanation for how Zulle performed so well without EPO?

How good was he? 41 minutes on Alpe d'Huez versus 38 in 1995?

Cortico tue? Like a lot of riders?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

And by the way, since you admit that you don't remember the details, maybe the discussion would be better served by leaving out the guesswork about things that you obviously know little about.

The guesswork is around what would have happened had Pantani raced Lance in the 1999 Tour and had Pantani not had a massive crash at the back end of 1995. Even you would have to guess about these, since the former didn't happen and the latter did, so we don't actually know.

 

[Gregga]

So no explanation for how Zulle performed so well without EPO?

Remember the 1999 TdF context post Festina... What the teams and riders feared the most was the french police and customs, hence Motoman. OTOH, I can't believe Banesto rode panyagua. Probably most of the riders came at the start with a 48% Hct (but the postal riders were higher than the rest, close to 50, see Tyler's book) and those who performed well had an EPO supply somewhere, probably out of France, Sestrieres or Spain (most of the top 10 are in italian or spanish teams). But probably noone except Postal had a risky system like motoman to have EPO every 2 days.

 

[Alphabet]

Lance had Motoman, who gave him a formidable advantage. I'm not convinced anybody could have beaten him in 1999.

 

[staubsauger]

This discussion is now getting a bit weird.

I agree with Foxxy. Pantani probably didn't want to start the Tour, because he was frightened. He must have had a right instinct at that points. Because all his fears in fact came very true.

They eventually foist doping allegations on Pantani and tricked him. They just already did it at the Giro. Most likely due to the influence of the bet mafia at that time.

And his thoughts about the Tour. Let's assume he was frightened about the upcoming Epo test and didn't want to risk a positive. After his dominance at the Giro there was absolutely no sense to go to France and either risk a ban or get beaten by some random clown who still takes Epo and get away with it. And that's exactly what happened: Armstrong won the Tour!

Of course if Pantani had come to France with a decent program, Armstrong would've beaten him. But only because thanks to Ferrari (and later due to his own political influence) he was the only one being able to play the game like everyone did it 2-5 years ago. And in fact Lance went on do it six more times.

But the question was what would have happened if Pantani would've been on the same level as he was at the Giro in 1999. So no upcoming Epo test, no LA doping advantage, everyone of the top contenders just playing the same dirty game as they did the years before. Doped to the grills and monster high hematocrit values. Would Pantani have beaten Armstrong? Of course. He would've owned him. Why? Because Armstrong was a clown. Where has he been before in the mountains without his political advantage? 4th in the Vuelta and nowhere pre-cancer.

And the right answer for the question about the Tour victory might in reality be: Zülle! On the same dope level he normally should've beaten Armstrong as well in the time trials and in the mountains.

There's no way Armstrong would've beaten any of those names without his political advantage.

Armstrong is one of the most impressive sport economic criminals of the last centuries. All credits for his professionalism, unscrupulousness, strength of purpose and organization. But as a cyclist he's just a teratism for me.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

With that TT-to-MTF ratio the correct answer probably would've been Ullrich - in decent shape on a decent programme

 

[Alphabet]

Has it been confirmed that Lance had exclusive consulting privileges with Ferrari?

 

[Futuroscope]

This discussion is now getting a bit weird.

I agree with Foxxy. Pantani probably didn't want to start the Tour, because he was frightened. He must have had a right instinct at that points. Because all his fears in fact came very true.

They eventually foist doping allegations on Pantani and tricked him. They just already did it at the Giro. Most likely due to the influence of the bet mafia at that time.

And his thoughts about the Tour. Let's assume he was frightened about the upcoming Epo test and didn't want to risk a positive. After his dominance at the Giro there was absolutely no sense to go to France and either risk a ban or get beaten by some random clown who still takes Epo and get away with it. And that's exactly what happened: Armstrong won the Tour!

Of course if Pantani had come to France with a decent program, Armstrong would've beaten him. But only because thanks to Ferrari (and later due to his own political influence) he was the only one being able to play the game like everyone did it 2-5 years ago. And in fact Lance went on do it six more times.

But the question was what would have happened if Pantani would've been on the same level as he was at the Giro in 1999. So no upcoming Epo test, no LA doping advantage, everyone of the top contenders just playing the same dirty game as they did the years before. Doped to the grills and monster high hematocrit values. Would Pantani have beaten Armstrong? Of course. He would've owned him. Why? Because Armstrong was a clown. Where has he been before in the mountains without his political advantage? 4th in the Vuelta and nowhere pre-cancer.

And the right answer for the question about the Tour victory might in reality be: Zülle! On the same dope level he normally should've beaten Armstrong as well in the time trials and in the mountains.

There's no way Armstrong would've beaten any of those names without his political advantage.

Armstrong is one of the most impressive sport economic criminals of the last centuries. All credits for his professionalism, unscrupulousness, strength of purpose and organization. But as a cyclist he's just a teratism for me.

Pre-festina Armstrong gets destroyed. I doubt he could outclimb even his own teammates if they all had the same preparation level. I can see both Heras and Hamilton dropping Armstrong if you take away his advantages.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Pre-festina Armstrong gets destroyed. I doubt he could outclimb even his own teammates if they all had the same preparation level. I can see both Heras and Hamilton dropping Armstrong if you take away his advantages.

There is no doubt about that. But the discussion was what if Pantani rode the TdF 1999. With all its circumstances (LA doped up to the gills, Pantani either not going to the TdF as repeatedly said back then, or being forced by sponsors, thus him most likely riding on panigua in France b/c of fear; See the original links I posted from May 1999, before he got busted at the Giro.)
That way (most realistic assumptions) Pantani would have had no chance. As Alpe said: Losing by several minutes (at least)...

 

[gregrowlerson]

This discussion is now getting a bit weird.

I agree with Foxxy. Pantani probably didn't want to start the Tour, because he was frightened. He must have had a right instinct at that points. Because all his fears in fact came very true.

They eventually foist doping allegations on Pantani and tricked him. They just already did it at the Giro. Most likely due to the influence of the bet mafia at that time.

And his thoughts about the Tour. Let's assume he was frightened about the upcoming Epo test and didn't want to risk a positive. After his dominance at the Giro there was absolutely no sense to go to France and either risk a ban or get beaten by some random clown who still takes Epo and get away with it. And that's exactly what happened: Armstrong won the Tour!

Of course if Pantani had come to France with a decent program, Armstrong would've beaten him. But only because thanks to Ferrari (and later due to his own political influence) he was the only one being able to play the game like everyone did it 2-5 years ago. And in fact Lance went on do it six more times.

But the question was what would have happened if Pantani would've been on the same level as he was at the Giro in 1999. So no upcoming Epo test, no LA doping advantage, everyone of the top contenders just playing the same dirty game as they did the years before. Doped to the grills and monster high hematocrit values. Would Pantani have beaten Armstrong? Of course. He would've owned him. Why? Because Armstrong was a clown. Where has he been before in the mountains without his political advantage? 4th in the Vuelta and nowhere pre-cancer.

And the right answer for the question about the Tour victory might in reality be: Zülle! On the same dope level he normally should've beaten Armstrong as well in the time trials and in the mountains.

There's no way Armstrong would've beaten any of those names without his political advantage.

Armstrong is one of the most impressive sport economic criminals of the last centuries. All credits for his professionalism, unscrupulousness, strength of purpose and organization. But as a cyclist he's just a teratism for me.

Great thread by the way.

Armstrong was a clown. That's for certain. But some of your other points don't make much sense to me.

Even without any political advantages Armstrong probably would have won that tour. Why? Well his best climbing on mountain top finishers is only about two minutes off the best climbing by Pantani, and Marco did that when there were no restrictions (pre Festina scandal). So we already know the likelihood of some of these scenarios. That Pantani be climbing faster than Armstrong.

But not by too much.

Pantani was never really a Tour winner. I mean in the sense that this just wasn't a guy who you expected to win it. He rode great in '98, but Ullrich was the better Tour rider. If you take away one bad stage then he owns Pantani by five minutes.

Slight side topic (reply to Futuroscope): Who of Lance's other teammates climbed Alp duez in 37, 38 minutes? And many were on pretty good programs at different times. I can only think of Landis who came close with his 38 something in '06.

None of us like Lance much, but the suggestions that his teammates could have been outclimbing him or at least with him are pretty ridiculous.

Anyway the '99 Tour was light on for mountains. Even taking 2 minutes per MTF out of Armstrong, Pantani probably loses overall after the time trials, and that's assuming he gets through the first week flat stages unscathed. I doubt that he could have gained 2 minutes on each of those mountain stages (and the second set of mountains, the Pyrenees, were strangely weaker, and it's the third week that usually brings about bigger potential cracks), even skipping the Giro and with both having nothing to fear.

Gung Ho Gun is on the money. The bigger question is would Ullrich have beaten Armstrong in this Tour given a clear run at the race? He had decent shape that year. Well he must have, since even after injuring his knee and having to skip the Tour, he managed to go to the Vuelta and win, a performance which included a solid limiting of losses on the Angliru and a crushing display in the final ITT that just screams '1:36 over Lance in '03'. His fitness was surely worse in 2000, when he still managed to scramble to 2nd place in the Tour, when Armstrong was stronger than he was in '99 (and had a better team). So IMO, Jan would have had a great chance of beating Lance in '99, though comparing the standards of that years Vuelta and Tour are probably difficult I guess. I think it would have been a very even and interesting contest.

 

[Futuroscope]

There is no doubt about that. But the discussion was what if Pantani rode the TdF 1999. With all its circumstances (LA doped up to the gills, Pantani either not going to the TdF as repeatedly said back then, or being forced by sponsors, thus him most likely riding on panigua in France b/c of fear; See the original links I posted from May 1999, before he got busted at the Giro.)
That way (most realistic assumptions) Pantani would have had no chance. As Alpe said: Losing by several minutes (at least)...

No, that was not what the original discussion was about. When I started the thread in the other forum I was simply comparing a Pantani in his best shape (giro 99) to Lance Armstrong in his TDF 99 shape. I was assuming he was 100% fresh and fully prepared. I also never intended to limit the debate to the TDF, you could match them up on any grand tour course you wanted.

So some of you guys have changed the original intent of the thread.

 

[Futuroscope]

G

Slight side topic (reply to Futuroscope): Who of Lance's other teammates climbed Alp duez in 37, 38 minutes? And many were on pretty good programs at different times. I can only think of Landis who came close with his 38 something in '06.

None of us like Lance much, but the suggestions that his teammates could have been outclimbing him or at least with him are pretty ridiculous.

I wasn't necessarily talking about the TDF only. Hamilton showed what he could do but never really got the opportunity to put everything together. When he rode for Lance, he was well prepared but Lance had that extra attention from Ferrari. Lance had one extra doping gear.

Heras dropping Armstrong, assuming equal preparation, is not ridculous at all. Would Armstrong beat Heras on the angliru (2000)?

But anyways, this is a seperate discussion.

 

[gregrowlerson]

I wasn't necessarily talking about the TDF only. Hamilton showed what he could do but never really got the opportunity to put everything together. When he rode for Lance, he was well prepared but Lance had that extra attention from Ferrari. Lance had one extra doping gear.

Heras dropping Armstrong, assuming equal preparation, is not ridculous at all. Would Armstrong beat Heras on the angliru (2000)?

But anyways, this is a seperate discussion.

Yeah, Tyler wasn't that far off Lance. 2nd in a Giro, plus pretty consistently close to the big boys in the Tour of '03 (and with quite an injury of course), though I think Armstrong was a little off his best there. And Heras particularly showed his skills in '02 (Azevedo also a little similar in '04) on a couple of high mountain stages, but still, there is a difference riding as a domestique and being able to relax the next day and lose ten minutes, rather than ride consistently as the leader. Not that Roberto couldn't do that as all those Vuelta victories testify, but it's also hard to rate the Vuelta against the Tour a lot of those years. For example as a hypothetical in '01, '02, '03 if Ullrich had focused on the Giro and Beloki had focused on the Vuelta (rather than Tour) would they have won those races.

IMO, probably.

I think that Armstrong's consistency was a big deal. The fact that AX3-Domaines is sometimes lauded as a low moment for him in '03 says a lot; he lost all of seven seconds. Heras may drop Armstrong on a mountain stage (possibly Angliru), but consistently in the Tour? Even with equal preparation, especially considering the ITT kms, it would be hard to see Heras defeat Armstrong head to head.

But I agree with your suggestion: it is possible that Heras could drop Armstrong on the occasional stage.

 

[Futuroscope]

Yeah, Tyler wasn't that far off Lance. 2nd in a Giro, plus pretty consistently close to the big boys in the Tour of '03 (and with quite an injury of course), though I think Armstrong was a little off his best there. And Heras particularly showed his skills in '02 (Azevedo also a little similar in '04) on a couple of high mountain stages, but still, there is a difference riding as a domestique and being able to relax the next day and lose ten minutes, rather than ride consistently as the leader. Not that Roberto couldn't do that as all those Vuelta victories testify, but it's also hard to rate the Vuelta against the Tour a lot of those years. For example as a hypothetical in '01, '02, '03 if Ullrich had focused on the Giro and Beloki had focused on the Vuelta (rather than Tour) would they have won those races.

IMO, probably.

I think that Armstrong's consistency was a big deal. The fact that AX3-Domaines is sometimes lauded as a low moment for him in '03 says a lot; he lost all of seven seconds. Heras may drop Armstrong on a mountain stage (possibly Angliru), but consistently in the Tour? Even with equal preparation, especially considering the ITT kms, it would be hard to see Heras defeat Armstrong head to head.

But I agree with your suggestion: it is possible that Heras could drop Armstrong on the occasional stage.

Yes, but how much of that consistency was due to going that extra mile in terms of doping? According to Hamilton, Lance had a doping advantage. Hamilton never knew everything that Lance did. Extra BB, access to experimental drugs, willingness and being able to take more risks thanks to political advantages...

 

[gregrowlerson]

Yes, but how much of that consistency was due to going that extra mile in terms of doping? According to Hamilton, Lance had a doping advantage. Hamilton never knew everything that Lance did. Extra BB, access to experimental drugs, willingness and being able to take more risks thanks to political advantages...

Fair points. He was also extremely lucky on the road. Especially in the aftermath of the latest Tour, it's a wonder that not once in seven Tours did he had a bad enough accident to prevent him from winning. Then again, Big Mig won five in a row. But lots of GC riders have some sort of incident that is unlucky; just never really happened to Lance. Even when that kid knocked him off up Luz Ardiden he got back on his bike largely unscathed. Or what happened to Beloki could have easily happened to Armstrong.

 

[Amazinmets73]

Is it true that Pantani didn't train properly for GTs, and rode himself into shape as the tours progressed? If so, that could be an explanation for his poor early TT performances

 

[rhubroma]

Great thread by the way.

Armstrong was a clown. That's for certain. But some of your other points don't make much sense to me.

Even without any political advantages Armstrong probably would have won that tour. Why? Well his best climbing on mountain top finishers is only about two minutes off the best climbing by Pantani, and Marco did that when there were no restrictions (pre Festina scandal). So we already know the likelihood of some of these scenarios. That Pantani be climbing faster than Armstrong.

But not by too much.

Pantani was never really a Tour winner. I mean in the sense that this just wasn't a guy who you expected to win it. He rode great in '98, but Ullrich was the better Tour rider. If you take away one bad stage then he owns Pantani by five minutes.

Slight side topic (reply to Futuroscope): Who of Lance's other teammates climbed Alp duez in 37, 38 minutes? And many were on pretty good programs at different times. I can only think of Landis who came close with his 38 something in '06.

None of us like Lance much, but the suggestions that his teammates could have been outclimbing him or at least with him are pretty ridiculous.

Anyway the '99 Tour was light on for mountains. Even taking 2 minutes per MTF out of Armstrong, Pantani probably loses overall after the time trials, and that's assuming he gets through the first week flat stages unscathed. I doubt that he could have gained 2 minutes on each of those mountain stages (and the second set of mountains, the Pyrenees, were strangely weaker, and it's the third week that usually brings about bigger potential cracks), even skipping the Giro and with both having nothing to fear.

Gung Ho Gun is on the money. The bigger question is would Ullrich have beaten Armstrong in this Tour given a clear run at the race? He had decent shape that year. Well he must have, since even after injuring his knee and having to skip the Tour, he managed to go to the Vuelta and win, a performance which included a solid limiting of losses on the Angliru and a crushing display in the final ITT that just screams '1:36 over Lance in '03'. His fitness was surely worse in 2000, when he still managed to scramble to 2nd place in the Tour, when Armstrong was stronger than he was in '99 (and had a better team). So IMO, Jan would have had a great chance of beating Lance in '99, though comparing the standards of that years Vuelta and Tour are probably difficult I guess. I think it would have been a very even and interesting contest.

Pantani won that Tour because he dropped the German by over 9 minutes (!) on one stage, while he lost only about 2.5 minutes to him on the final tt. I'd say that made the hapless Italian a deserving winner.

It must also be remembered that a Pantani at just 80% was able to drop Armstrong at Courchevel in the 2000 Tour, while he at least matched the American up Ventoux winning the stage.

If Pantani hadn't lost his protection at the 99 Giro and wasn't popped, he'd have gone on to the Tour and would have potentially won all the mountain top finishes. What he did at Oropa alone let's us know that that isn't an unreasonable conjecture, while Armstrong would have really had his work cut out for him to win that Tour that's for sure.

I bet Armstrong feared a 100% Pantani like no other contender, even Ullrich.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Is it true that Pantani didn't train properly for GTs, and rode himself into shape as the tours progressed? If so, that could be an explanation for his poor early TT performances

Read Matt Rendall's book. From memory it's probably fair to say he had a laissez faire attitude to training and often trained on his own, but probably no different to a lot of riders in the past.

 

[Futuroscope]

I bet Armstrong feared a 100% Pantani like no other contender, even Ullrich.

Indeed, Hamilton says in his book that Armstrong was obsessed with Pantani. I bet he and Ferrari talked a lot about Pantani. I think he knew that he wouldn't be able to match a Pantani in top shape. Armstrong got lucky in 99, the most dangerous competitiors either didn't show up or couldn't prepare fully. Lance went in well prepared and already had some protection although that increased after winning the first time in 99.

Lance really benefited from the festina scandal and Pantani getting popped. As for Ullrich he wasn't as serious as he should have been.

 

[Dr.Guess]

Re- watched the Accidental death of a cyclist. Rip Marco Pantani and lol at Wiggins.
Any way, they show the files of his blood values when he was thrown out of the Giro 99 and I thought it was funny that his HTC wasn't above 50%, if I'm reading it correct. Am I reading it correct or are the files not from the negative test.
I took pictures of them and thought I'd post them in this thread as I don't find a Pantani thread. Good bit of discussion leading up to the alpes eh?

 

[Dr.Guess]

Nice to see the hemoglobin value of just 16,5. Not even close to the dirty norwegian skiers in the 90s

 

[Gregga]

Re- watched the Accidental death of a cyclist. Rip Marco Pantani and lol at Wiggins.
Any way, they show the files of his blood values when he was thrown out of the Giro 99 and I thought it was funny that his HTC wasn't above 50%, if I'm reading it correct. Am I reading it correct or are the files not from the negative test.
I took pictures of them and thought I'd post them in this thread as I don't find a Pantani thread. Good bit of discussion leading up to the alpes eh?

"Accidental death of a cyclist" is a joke, the reference re Pantani is Rendell's book.
The values on your pictures (HCT47.5, HGB 16.5) are from the "control" done by Marco's team in Imola the evening after he was ejected from the Giro at MdC... probably after an hemodilution. As Rendell noticed, theres no identicable doctor signature on the certificate nor official stamp.

Still from Rendell's book here are the values of Marco's sample :
HCT : 52.5%
HB : 17.1 g/dL

Rendell talked with blood doping experts who said the RDW (red cells distribution width) of 17.4 coupled with very low EPO blood levels could mean use of transfusions during the Giro. My take is Marco was testing blood bags in the '99 Giro, maybe to avoid bringing EPO in France in July and replace it with a very well timed blood infusion in a safe place, why not.... Sestriere ? There was also this image on twitter of Marco with an giant needle bruise on his arm in Giro 99.

 

[Gregga]

And speaking of crazy blood values, the day of Pantani's accident in Milano-Torino, his values were
HCT : 60.1%
HB : 20.8 g/dL

from Rendell's book

 

[Dr.Guess]

cheers

 

["Jeff"]

You gotta give credit to Pavel Tonkov for what he was doing (read: using) in the Giro of '98. Only rider who was ever able to follow and beat a Pantani in blood form @ Alpe di Pampeago. Only time ever (with exception of '94 Hautacam) that Marco Pantani couldnt get rid of his competitor(s).

And Marco had quite some troubles to get rid of him the next day @ Plan di Montecampione as well.