Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[Extinction]

you said "since then it has become a training ride, Italians aside". since then many riders won and fought for the pink jersey.
Vingegaard is a different one, he does not even know which color is the lead jersey in many races. if you ask him to name the 5 monuments he probably can't. he's a Froome on tramadol, oblivious of everything sauf riding as hard as he can.

I meant to then go on to give a go at the Tour. Doumolin and Froome indeed tried, Contador too. Ok, so was exaggerating somewhat before, but the Giro has been given a different dimension post-95. It's no wonder, since then, only Pantani has won the double.

 

[Extinction]

I disagree with the bold - my impression was Pantani was a hero to many ever since he arrived on the scene in 1994. At that time the sport was dominated by big powerful riders like Indurain and Ullrich. The introverted Marco Pantani was the classic David and Goliath. Everyone knew about EPO then but we also accepted that almost all pros used it.

I was following cycling closely during Pantani's era. He was super popular long before the 1999 Giro. Many of us felt he was a victom of the times and no villain. His demise is one of, if not, the saddest things I have watched since following the sport.

In Italy, just as you say, since 94 Pantani made people turn on the TV to see what exploit he might do, who didn't even follow cycling. That's how popular Pantani was. He was, for Italy, a throwback to the glory years of Coppi and Bartali. He was hailed il campionissimo when he won the Giro-Tour in 98. The problem was that after Pantani was brought down, he was convinced in a conspiracy, he didn't receive what his inflated ego thought he deserved from the cycling establishment. He was the classic underdog, who, while showing suffering, rode his rivals off his wheels, one after the other until triumphing solo. This naturally resonated well with a great many Italians, because his struggle on the bike was there's in life. As you Say, David against Goliath. He was the average Joe, the loser, like the comic anti-hero of Italian cinema in the 70s, Fantozzi, who nonetheless vindicated himself and metaphorically all struggling Italians by being a sacred monster in the mountains, for Italy the essence of cycling. And Pantani did so with exceptional aesthetic bravura, with eminent stilo, with coraggio, which is another reason why he was so captivating in Italy. It was as if he accepted his fate of being nailed to the cross for the whole nation. His sacrifice was well acknowledged and paid back with adulation. For this reason his fall was too great. It was his very meekness, introverted personality and deeply rooted fragility, however, after all of the stardom got to his head, that prevented him from bouncing back after Madonna di Campiglio. He felt a victom of a corrupt system, unjustly persecuted by a mafioso strike to take him down, while others got a free pass. He of course was not entirely right (nor wrong) about this, but he could not be convinced otherwise and so slipped down the slopes of self-destruction and ultimately self-extinction.

Pantani personified for Italians the colossal undertaking against improbable odds: il Mortirolo, Galibier, Alpe d'Huez, Oropa etc. He captivated imaginations and inspired the downtrodden. This is why I find it rather annoying and pathetic CN's moralistic and uppity reports criticizing Pantani's continued positive legacy in Italy. Italians know things aren't done on pane e acqua, never have been, never will; so it's useless to denounce this or that rider when the whole peloton, or nearly so, is on something. They thus aren't hypocritically caught up in condecsending virtue-signaling, the way a certain Anglo-Saxon journalism is on this website, and frankly only care about the way Pantani, with great panche, demonstrated how the little guy could triumph over giants and nature itself. His story was a heroic Greek myth until it ended in tragedy. So it's meaningless and stupid to chidingly ask how could Italians still venerate il Pirata. They simply do and will continue to do so I image for as long as the sport exists.

Now, getting back to Pogacar, he's currently a super-star in Italy honoring their beloved Giro. However, some find it baffling that he doesn't even show labor when crushing his rivals. For this reason, he'll never be admired like Pantani, because he makes it all look too easy. At the hight of his popularity Pantani was like a triumphant Julius Caesar, at the time of his downfall many believed a new Ides of March had arrived. Make of the analogy what you want.

 

[Extinction]

Yes...his quick demise and ultimate passing was one of the saddest things I've ever seen. The Pirate was an exceptional talent & one of best climbers in the history of the sport. The battle against LA in 2000 on Ventoux was epic & something I'll never forget.

View: https://youtu.be/pPlW4k2sXJI?si=G7CZSJHwiyUknBGI

And here's the question for the doping experts: Everyone that mattered for GC was using gear back then, and everyone was using the same gear (EPO/ transfusions, testosterone, HGH, corticosteroids, etc). There was no special magic potion that was exclusively kept secret to one or a few riders. Everyone knew what the other guy was using & they made sure to obtain the same gear so they were not left behind.

What made the Pirate so much better than everyone else? Was he a better responder to O2-vector doping? Did he have a better PED program? Accomplishing a Giro-Tour double back then was a very tough thing to do. He definitely was a generational talent.

To the first bolded, and that was post Madonna di Campiglio. Had the 99 Giro incident not taken place, Lance wouldn't have gotten outright dropped on several occasions, imho. Pantani, at 57 kg, simply would have been too strong uphill.

To the second bolded, it's difficult to know in the EPO era. He was clearly very talented though. I remember Indurain being told to watch out, because some little Italian guy with big ears was joining the pro ranks and he climbs like nobody has ever seen. So he was a known big quantity as a dilettante. You don't achieve that if not immensely talented.

I recall Pantani's break out exploit on il Motirolo in 94, the Italian commentator on the TV coverage said it was like watching a raging bull charge up the mountain.

 

[Cookster15]

I remember Indurain being told to watch out, because some little Italian guy with big ears was joining the pro ranks and he climbs like nobody has ever seen.

This reminded me of the 1995 TdF. Big Mig was lucky they had long TTs back then as that was the year little Marco set the Alpe D’Huez record.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

This reminded me of the 1995 TdF. Big Mig was lucky they had long TTs back then as that was the year little Marco set the Alpe D’Huez record.

In 1995 Big Mig did 500+ watts for 45 minutes on La Plagne crushing Pantani and co in the process. Alpe was the next day and didn't matter for the GC that much.

 

[46&twoWheels]

In Italy, just as you say, since 94 Pantani made people turn on the TV to see what exploit he might do, who didn't even follow cycling. That's how popular Pantani was. He was, for Italy, a throwback to the glory years of Coppi and Bartali. He was hailed il campionissimo when he won the Giro-Tour in 98. The problem was after Pantani was brought down, he was convinced in a conspiracy, he didn't receive what his blown-up ego thought he deserved from the cycling establishment. He was the classic underdog, who, while showing suffering, rode his rivals off his wheels, one after the other until triumphing solo. This naturally resonated well with a great many Italians, because his struggle on the bike was there's in life. As you Say, David against Goliath. He was the average Joe, the loser, like the comic anti-hero of Italian cinema in the 70s, Fantozzi, who nonetheless vindicated himself and metaphorically all struggling Italians by being a sacred monster in the mountains, for Italy the essence of cycling. And Pantani did so with exceptional aesthetic bravura, with eminent stilo, which is another reason why he was so captivating in Italy. It was his very meekness and introverted personality, however, after all of the stardom got to his head, that prevented him from bouncing back after Madonna di Campiglio. He felt a victom of a corrupt system, unjustly persecuted by a mafioso strike to take him down, while others got a free pass. He of course was not entirely right (nor wrong) about this, but he could not be convinced otherwise and so slipped down the slopes of self-destruction and ultimately self-extinction.

Pantani personified for Italians the colossal undertaking against improbable odds: il Mortirilo, Galibier, Alpe d'Huez, Oropa etc. He captivated imaginations and inspired the downtrodden. This is why I find it rather annoying and pathetic CN's moralistic and uppidy reports criticizing Pantani's continued positive legacy in Italy. Italians know things aren't done on pane e acqua, never have been, never will; so it's useless to denounce this or that rider when the whole peloton, or nearly so, is on something. They thus aren't hypocritically caught up in condecsending virtue-signaling, the way a certain Anglo-Saxon journalism is on this website, and frankly only care about the way Pantani, with great panche, demonstrated how the little guy could triumph over giants and nature itself. His story was a heroic Greek myth until it ended in tragedy. So it's meaningless and stupid to chidingly ask how could Italians still venerate il Pirata. They simply do and will continue to do so I image for as long as the sport exists.

one of the best summaries on Marco and a great tribute to him!
Along with Valentino Rossi, Marco has absolutely been the most beloved italian athlete in the last, let's say. I would go as far as 40 years. That's why the attempts by the current journalism to erase an entire era of cycling have been unsuccesfull. You cannot erase memories and associated feelings. He was a "bigger than sport" figure.


The only cyclist in the last 20 years that came close to him as a sort of mythological centaur figure with flair on bike was Contador (partially you can argue a timid attempt by Schleck but no Giro and he was just too un-mediterranean lol). Armstrong (too systematic), Froome (......welp) etc....

To go back to the topic: Pogacar seems way more exciting and unpredictable than Armstrong, Froome and Vingegaard, but sometimes you need to show weaknesses in order to connect with people's unconscious. Since the dawn of humanity, people have been fascinated by epic stories full of ups and downs.

 

[Extinction]

one of the best summaries on Marco and a great tribute to him!
Along with Valentino Rossi, Marco has absolutely been the most beloved italian athlete in the last, let's say. I would go as far as 40 years. That's why the attempts by the current journalism to erase an entire era of cycling have been unsuccesfull. You cannot erase memories and associated feelings. He was a "bigger than sport" figure.


The only cyclist in the last 20 years that came close to him as a sort of mythological centaur figure with flair on bike was Contador (partially you can argue a timid attempt by Schleck but no Giro and he was just too un-mediterranean lol). Armstrong (too systematic), Froome (......welp) etc....

To go back to the topic: Pogacar seems way more exciting and unpredictable than Armstrong, Froome and Vingegaard, but sometimes you need to show weaknesses in order to connect with people's unconscious. Since the dawn of humanity, people have been fascinated by epic stories full of ups and downs.

Thanks and I absolutely agree with your analysis, 100%.

 

[pastronef]

To the first bolded, and that was post Madonna di Campiglio. Had the 99 Giro incident not taken place, Lance wouldn't have gotten outright dropped on several occasions, imho. Pantani, at 57 kg, simply would have been too strong uphill.

To the second bolded, it's difficult to know in the EPO era. He was clearly very talented though. I remember Indurain being told to watch out, because some little Italian guy with big ears was joining the pro ranks and he climbs like nobody has ever seen. So he was a known big quantity as a dilettante. You don't achieve that if not immensely talented.

I recall Pantani's break out exploit on il Motirolo in 94, the Italian commentator on the TV coverage said it was like watching a raging bull charge up the mountain.

I remember his 1st Giro win, Lienz-Merano stage. I was at my grandparents'. I probably watched all his wins, and in 1999 I was getting the same feeling I have with Pog. don't overdo it. the Madonna di Campiglio morning news came as a shock.
I also remember coming home after a beer with friends in town and seeing the breaking news in tv when he died.
there's a short RAI tv doc on him and his legacy and death. the last minute with Candido Cannavò (Gazzetta's director at the time) welling up always gets me.
Pantani for a few years has ridden along with our lives. we remember athletes not for w/kg or number of wins, we remember because we know where we were when they were winning. our jobs, our loves, our daily life, entangled with the tv images of that athlete.

 

[snipeheem]

To the first bolded, and that was post Madonna di Campiglio. Had the 99 Giro incident not taken place, Lance wouldn't have gotten outright dropped on several occasions, imho. Pantani, at 57 kg, simply would have been too strong uphill.

To the second bolded, it's difficult to know in the EPO era. He was clearly very talented though. I remember Indurain being told to watch out, because some little Italian guy with big ears was joining the pro ranks and he climbs like nobody has ever seen. So he was a known big quantity as a dilettante. You don't achieve that if not immensely talented.

I recall Pantani's break out exploit on il Motirolo in 94, the Italian commentator on the TV coverage said it was like watching a raging bull charge up the mountain.

Would Lance won all this Tours if Marco was never caught?

 

[Cookster15]

In 1995 Big Mig did 500+ watts for 45 minutes on La Plagne crushing Pantani and co in the process. Alpe was the next day and didn't matter for the GC that much.

Thanks I didn’t recall that. But maybe Pantani was saving himself knowing his quite unbelievable ascent of the Alpe the following day? Achieved on ancient technology by today’s standards too. His bike was light but alloy, not carbon and non aero. And as we discussed upthread doubtful his uphill superiority could all be attributable to EPO.

 

[Extinction]

Would Lance won all this Tours if Marco was never caught?

Impossible to say. I do think Pantani would have pushed Armstrong to the limit, breaking him on occasion. But any Tour with long, flat TTs was going to put him at a disadvantage. He was simply to light to compete with heavier Bigs in the discipline. Let's put it this way, Marco perhaps would have won two more Tours I think.

 

[Extinction]

I remember his 1st Giro win, Lienz-Merano stage. I was at my grandparents'. I probably watched all his wins, and in 1999 I was getting the same feeling I have with Pog. don't overdo it. the Madonna di Campiglio morning news came as a shock.
I also remember coming home after a beer with friends in town and seeing the breaking news in tv when he died.
there's a short RAI tv doc on him and his legacy and death. the last minute with Candido Cannavò (Gazzetta's director at the time) welling up always gets me.
Pantani for a few years has ridden along with our lives. we remember athletes not for w/kg or number of wins, we remember because we know where we were when they were winning. our jobs, our loves, our daily life, entangled with the tv images of that athlete.

I can relate to this, a poetic testimony to how all those who loved Marco felt inside watching his incomprable climbing style and panche. It's corny, but when Pantani attacked you felt a flutter in your stomach, as if you were about to witness a spectacle graced with the hand of God. Because he wore the mask of suffering on his face, yet emitted an angelic glow (or at least that's what you thought you saw) as his inexorable progression dropped all rivals. It was almost mystical and something you never got from any other cyclist, before or since.

 

[Ripper]

Some really amazing write-ups about Pantani in this thread, pretty much all of which I agree with. Inspiring and tragic, he moved a lot of people emotionally. And he was an extreme talent.

And here's the question for the doping experts: Everyone that mattered for GC was using gear back then, and everyone was using the same gear (EPO/ transfusions, testosterone, HGH, corticosteroids, etc). There was no special magic potion that was exclusively kept secret to one or a few riders. Everyone knew what the other guy was using & they made sure to obtain the same gear so they were not left behind.

What made the Pirate so much better than everyone else? Was he a better responder to O2-vector doping? Did he have a better PED program? Accomplishing a Giro-Tour double back then was a very tough thing to do.

There's absolutely no doubt he was a massive talent. And I'm no doping expert, but I've raced against and spoken with a number of dopers. I would say back then, it was considered part of the training system so to speak. It wasn't the great equalizer so much as it was something a great many people were doing to be better and be competitive. It wasn't solely responsible for making somebody a world beater. You still needed to know what to take, how much to take, when to take it, how the train while taking it, etc. And you still had to do all the other work. That's what made people like Ferrari so sought after and infamous. Doping was simply a part of the equation.

Pantani would always have been an exceptional athlete and a ridiculously talented. But a clear indication of how a doping probably helped him would have been in the final time trial of the 1998 Tour.

 

[pastronef]

Pantani would always have been an exceptional athlete and a ridiculously talented. But a clear indication of how a doping probably helped him would have been in the final time trial of the 1998 Tour.

or of the 1998 Giro. 3rd there too

 

[Extinction]

Some really amazing write-ups about Pantani in this thread, pretty much all of which I agree with. Inspiring and tragic, he moved a lot of people emotionally. And he was an extreme talent.


There's absolutely no doubt he was a massive talent. And I'm no doping expert, but I've raced against and spoken with a number of dopers. I would say back then, it was considered part of the training system so to speak. It wasn't the great equalizer so much as it was something a great many people were doing to be better and be competitive. It wasn't solely responsible for making somebody a world beater. You still needed to know what to take, how much to take, when to take it, how the train while taking it, etc. And you still had to do all the other work. That's what made people like Ferrari so sought after and infamous. Doping was simply a part of the equation.

Pantani would always have been an exceptional athlete and a ridiculously talented. But a clear indication of how a doping probably helped him would have been in the final time trial of the 1998 Tour.

Perfectly stated. Bravo

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Impossible to say. I do think Pantani would have pushed Armstrong to the limit, breaking him on occasion. But any Tour with long, flat TTs was going to put him at a disadvantage. He was simply to light to compete with heavier Bigs in the discipline. Let's put it this way, Marco perhaps would have won two more Tours I think.

Yup. Armstrong himself was an excellent climber and coupled with his ITT level he was arguably one of two best riders in TdF history (alongside Indurain). Long ITTs would be too much for Pantani vs Armstrong. One long ITT per Tour then he would have a better chance but even in this case incredible consistency of Armstrong and his team would be hard to topple.

 

[Extinction]

Thanks I didn’t recall that. But maybe Pantani was saving himself knowing his quite unbelievable ascent of the Alpe the following day? Achieved on ancient technology by today’s standards too. His bike was light but alloy, not carbon and non aero. And as we discussed upthread doubtful his uphill superiority could all be attributable to EPO.

Even Pantani could have an off-climbing day. The real difference between him climbing and Indurain, was at the Motirolo-Aprica stage of the 94 Giro. This was when the Italian TV comentator said Pantani on the Mortirolo was like watching a raging bull charge up a mountain. Indurain blew up and lost that Giro to Berzin, who was also dropped by Marco, as a result. Big Mig though had some fine climbing days, another was Hautacam in the 94 Tour, but mostly he had to ride with prudence against the pure goats.

 

[Froome]

In 1995 Big Mig did 500+ watts for 45 minutes on La Plagne crushing Pantani and co in the process. Alpe was the next day and didn't matter for the GC that much.

Indurain is probably one of the most underrated climbers ever.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Indurain is probably one of the most underrated climbers ever.

ITTs won him a lot of GTs so he usually rode conservatively in the mountains. He won Giro-Tour double twice for a reason: he usually didn't have to go too deep in the mountains and had enough in the tank for the Tour. But sometimes he showed incredible level in the mountains, when he had to (i.e. La Plagne).

 

[pastronef]

Even Pantani could have an off-climbing day. The real difference between him climbing and Indurain, was at the Motirolo-Aprica stage of the 94 Giro. This was when the Italian TV comentator said Pantani on the Mortirolo was like watching a raging bull charge up a mountain. Indurain blew up and lost that Giro to Berzin, who was also dropped by Marco, as a result. Big Mig though had some fine climbing days, another was Hautecam in the 95 Tour, but mostly he had to ride with prudence against the pure goats.

Hautacam 94 in the fog (noone saw the climb) and La Plagne 95

 

[Extinction]

Hautacam 94 in the fog (noone saw the climb) and La Plagne 95

Right Hautacam was in 94, when on GC I think Indurain won of course, Ugrjumovs was 2nd and Pantani 3rd. On Hautacam Pantani I think attacked from the bottom, but he wasn't going in full flight just yet. So Indurain, in one of his best climbing days ever, bridged up with Luc Leblanc in tow, dropped Pantani, with the Frenchman winning the stage with a late attack inside 1 km to go. It was very foggy on the mountain.

 

[Extinction]

Yup. Armstrong himself was an excellent climber and coupled with his ITT level he was arguably one of two best riders in TdF history (alongside Indurain). Long ITTs would be too much for Pantani vs Armstrong. One long ITT per Tour then he would have a better chance but even in this case incredible consistency of Armstrong and his team would be hard to topple.

True Armstrong had the most solid team and would build up a big lead with a TT and the first mountain stage. However, he could be vulnerable deep in the race in the mountains and that's where Pantani could have made him seriously crack and ship big time. I think the Pantani of 99, had Madonna di Campiglio not happened, would have been flying in the Tour uphill. And he would have had peak powers in 2000, 2001, 2002 and possibly 2003. I'm not saying he would have consistently won more Tours, but 1 or 2 plausibly, again had Madonna di Campiglio never gone down. Doubtless, however, he would have done more climbing feats and probably set more climbing record times.

 

[Cookster15]

ITTs won him a lot of GTs so he usually rode conservatively in the mountains. He won Giro-Tour double twice for a reason: he usually didn't have to go too deep in the mountains and had enough in the tank for the Tour. But sometimes he showed incredible level in the mountains, when he had to (i.e. La Plagne).

During Indurain's reign people kept saying it was impossible a rider his size beat little climbers in the mountains - but he kept rubbing mud in their faces. Hautacam 1994 was a great example, he let Leblanc take the stage after riding off the front in pursuit of Pantani near the bottom. Pantani was eventually 16 seconds down on stage. Another example of Indurain's underrated climbing was 1993 - to stage 10 to Serre Chevalier. He finished with Rominger but check the time gaps to climbers like Virenque, Zulle, Bugno and Chiappucci

Tour de France 1993 Stage 10 results

Tony Rominger is the winner of Tour de France 1993 Stage 10, before Alvaro Mejia and Miguel Induráin. Miguel Induráin was leader in GC.

www.procyclingstats.com

 

[Extinction]

Right Hautacam was in 94, when on GC I think Indurain won of course, Ugrjumovs was 2nd and Pantani 3rd. On Hautacam Pantani I think attacked from the bottom, but he wasn't going in full flight just yet. So Indurain, in one of his best climbing days ever, bridged up with Luc le Blanc in tow, dropped Pantani, with the Frenchman winning the stage with a late attack inside 1 km to go. It was very foggy on the mountain.

PS: The thing is Armstrong could not have lived with Pantani, had Madonna di Campiglio never happened. Marco would have made Lance extremely nervous, with his nous for the right moment to attack, unpredictability (the Texan liked to have everything under control, but with Pantani that's not possible) and his indomitable will. Pantani was one tough son-of-a...in cycling terms, who would not have been intimidated, nor bullied into submission and Lance knows it. Pantani, without Madonna di Campiglio, would have been US Postal's worst nightmare, other than Ullrich.

 

[GuntherL1]

I'm not sure if you actually watch cycling or understand what's going on there. In the stages Pog won, he was always a massive favourite. The Giro route is very easy and the quality of the startlist is extremely low. The question has always been how many stages he wants to win. Literally everything at the Giro is what everyone expected.

So I don't know why the trolls are surprised now.

Well, I've never seen GT before where the 'massive favourite' wins 5 stages, gets on the podium 8 times and finishes in the top 20 twelve times and never has a difficult moment. It's almost as bad as in Catalunya where he made a fool out Landa, Vlasov, Mas and Kuss. Let me guess: 3rd tier riders, right?