Taking away Pantani's 1998 TdF win?

[Dr. Maserati]

It don't work that way around here. If you like the guy, look the other way. If you don't like the guy, gut him. Justice around here has better sight than GeoEye.

That's an amusing post from a LA fan - didn't your Lance get off on the same issue because of the Vrijman report?

Remember the, we cannot go after Mr Armstrong because the test only done on a B sample. Maybe Pat wants to go after Pantani because they know that they cannot take $100,000 from him.

 

[the sceptic]

Guess it goes to Julich then When was it he stopped doping again? Before or after the 98 tour?

 

[Escarabajo]

We don't need to figure any deadlines out. We already have them: eight years, as a standard. Personally I don't think Pantani being dead should matter one bit - it's not cycling's job to right the wrongs of the world.

+1.

Very simple.

 

[horsinabout]

Lets do them all. Lets get all the dopers. I would take Roche and Dalgado's wins off them. Fignon who admitted to doping would lose his too.



I dont agree that any doper gets to keep his wins never mind the winnings from cheating.

Pantani was not a child. He chose to dope. He chose his path. His is a sad and sorry tale but to let him keep his win is wrong.

Problem with the sport is too many get away with the doping so that others can be persuaded to dope.

Pantani was a character, but in sport doping is not excused by character.

I don't agree with your punitive punishment scape goat mentality. It will not solve the doping problem in cycling as well you know. Try, for once, to do a post that attempts to get to the truth of why cycling is the way it is.

Pantani did make a choice, yes and all the time he was being told the sport needs winners.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Guess it goes to Julich then When was it he stopped doping again? Before or after the 98 tour?

Per his statement his GF laid down the law during the tour, and that was when he stopped.

So he almost certainly prepared for the 98 tour with EPO, and probably took some during.

 

[neineinei]

UCI President Pat McQuaid has hinted that a new winner could be anointed for the 1998 Tour de France if the French Senate report reveals that Marco Pantani tested positive for EPO. Such a decision would be at odds with an eight-year statute of limitations.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tou...-day-for-quickstep-a-new-winner-for-1998-tour

To award the victory to another rider, or upgrade placings in the 1998 Tour, isn't only at odds with the SOL, it also seems at odds with the rulings of the UCI Management Committee from October 26 2012:

With respect to Lance Armstrong and the implications of the USADA sanctions which it endorsed on Monday 22 October, the Management Committee decided not to award victories to any other rider or upgrade other placings in any of the affected events.

The Committee decided to apply this ruling from now on to any competitive sporting results disqualified due to doping for the period from 1998 to 2005, without prejudice to the statute of limitation. The Committee also called on Armstrong and all other affected riders to return the prize money they had received.

The UCI Management Committee acknowledged that a cloud of suspicion would remain hanging over this dark period – but while this might appear harsh for those who rode clean, they would understand there was little honour to be gained in reallocating places.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=ODg0NQ&MenuId=MTI2Mjc

 

[GreasyMonkey]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tou...-day-for-quickstep-a-new-winner-for-1998-tour

To award the victory to another rider, or upgrade placings in the 1998 Tour, isn't only at odds with the SOL, it also seems at odds with the rulings of the UCI Management Committee from October 26 2012:



http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=ODg0NQ&MenuId=MTI2Mjc

Dan Benson, when are you going to confront Pat McQuaid with this clear statement from his own Management Committee and how his own suggestion clearly contradicts the accepted position of the UCI's Management Committee?

Show him up in his true colours, please!

 

[therealtimshady]

Hasn't pantani's family suffered enough?? Agreed with most things said if you strip pantani you must strip pretty much every other winner

 

[melkemugg]

Ill go for an asterix to his win.

 

[Fatclimber]

Lets do them all. Lets get all the dopers. I would take Roche and Dalgado's wins off them. Fignon who admitted to doping would lose his too.



I dont agree that any doper gets to keep his wins never mind the winnings from cheating.

Pantani was not a child. He chose to dope. He chose his path. His is a sad and sorry tale but to let him keep his win is wrong.

Problem with the sport is too many get away with the doping so that others can be persuaded to dope.

Pantani was a character, but in sport doping is not excused by character.

For sure. Do the whole Effin doping village.

I see this as an opportunity for Fatpat to do something profound. Consider it his going away present. Don't pass the title on to the next rider, leave it blank like 99-05. Once it's done, only an idiot would reinstate a doper. Just be sure he failed an A & B test.

As far as his family suffering, Marco brought that on them. If it's horrible for them, maybe certain members could share their trauma with the current peloton in hopes to persuade them to make proper choices.

Maybe the SOL shouldn't be breached. But maybe it should. Starting now, any pihs samples in storage are subject to testing and sanctions. Weren't riders required to do this a few years ago anyway? Most of these dimwits (Alberto, Riis, la,...) don't care anyway, as long as they came across the finish line first they think they won regardless or what they pumped into their bodies. They need more persuasion to not dope, this could be it. Sometimes it just takes more than 8 years to develop a test.

Besides, why keep all that pihs if you're not going to test it.

Let's not let what happened in Puerto happen again. Yank the titles. Clean this b••ch up.

 

[Samson777]

Although Pantani has almost certainly used PEDs, and the retroactive testing probably will confirm that, he shouldn't be erased from record books from very simple reason - he can't defend himself.
It's a very problematic case from legal prospective, as well as from ethical.

Almost...?

If we where to strip every doped tour winner his title, how many would be left? Remember Pélissier.. But of course for the years when doping was not illegal, it makes less sense to strip the titles..

 

[Benotti69]

the most part of them are still happy with their wins. Someone is even still allowed to run a pro team.

Which is a big problem for the sport and faciliatates the ongoing doping.

I don't agree with your punitive punishment scape goat mentality. It will not solve the doping problem in cycling as well you know. Try, for once, to do a post that attempts to get to the truth of why cycling is the way it is.

Pantani did make a choice, yes and all the time he was being told the sport needs winners.

The post is about Pantani keeping his win, not about fixing cycling and it's doping culture. Bit part of fixing the problem is being able to reach back into the past and punish those who doped. I want all dopers punished.

For sure. Do the whole Effin doping village.

I see this as an opportunity for Fatpat to do something profound. Consider it his going away present. Don't pass the title on to the next rider, leave it blank like 99-05. Once it's done, only an idiot would reinstate a doper. Just be sure he failed an A & B test.

As far as his family suffering, Marco brought that on them. If it's horrible for them, maybe certain members could share their trauma with the current peloton in hopes to persuade them to make proper choices.

Maybe the SOL shouldn't be breached. But maybe it should. Starting now, any pihs samples in storage are subject to testing and sanctions. Weren't riders required to do this a few years ago anyway? Most of these dimwits (Alberto, Riis, la,...) don't care anyway, as long as they came across the finish line first they think they won regardless or what they pumped into their bodies. They need more persuasion to not dope, this could be it. Sometimes it just takes more than 8 years to develop a test.

Besides, why keep all that pihs if you're not going to test it.

Let's not let what happened in Puerto happen again. Yank the titles. Clean this b••ch up.

Yes, i would do the whole effin sport and every effin doper in it.

I love the smell of vampires in the early morning.........

 

[Taxus4a]

I was a fan, I think is not good to look at the past... we could change most of the winners, everyone was the best in his times with the rules or the unofficial rules, but, I have vote: I dont Know...

I think a man with 40,5 hematocric cant be considered one of the best climbers in the History, and to win a Tour, a Tour than won been one of the best in the last ITT.

 

[Eshnar]

Which is a big problem for the sport and faciliatates the ongoing doping.

Absolutely. Which is why UCI should start fixing this instead of messing with a guy who is certainly not a problem anymore (and can't even defend himself).

 

[Inquitus]

Lance is and was a **** of the highest order, I always liked the pirate, he gets to keep his tour.

 

[Samson777]

Lance is and was a **** of the highest order, I always liked the pirate, he gets to keep his tour.

Agreed we should start giving prizes based on personality, Voigt is a nice guy isn't he? let's give him a tour win

 

[King Boonen]

If it's within the rules then fine, he new what he was doing. Same for anyone else who retroactively tests positive.

 

[Inquitus]

Agreed we should start giving prizes based on personality, Voigt is a nice guy isn't he? let's give him a tour win

Aye, lets take Froome's win off him and give it to Jens in a few weeks time.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Let him rest. He got away with it anyway: he's dead. But he isn't Jimmy Saville, just a nutter on a self-destructive path from the off. Stick an asterick or just a wink next to it, but leave him to slumber on.

 

[martinvickers]

I just don't care. And i'm really surprised at myself not caring.

Among cycling fans we've long known what Pantani was; one great big pharma experiment. We've known what pro cycling was, a chemical alley. Of course he didn't deserve it, of course, in a just world he'd have been stripped during his lifetime, banned forever and disgraced.

But it does strike me as bizarrely convenient to chase the corpse. Indurain, Riis, Ullrich, Roche, Delgado...we have no lack of living dopers to tackle. Hell, Riis is still a key figure in the bloody sport, he needs evicted, with extreme prejudice.

But no. We chase Pantani.

Why Pantani?

The phrase that comes to mind is bibllical.

"let the dead bury the dead."

He can't be punished now. He's beyond our power. On some limited level, he died still champ. he got away with it. And nothing we do will change that.

That may annoy us, but annoyance is one of those things grown ups need to learn how to handle. And rules do matter, oddly, even SoL rules. LA slipped through the gaps because of known loopholes in the SoL rules. And I'm delighted, don't get me wrong.

But, while I've long argued for T&R, I've recently had some second thoughts. I do want proof, i do want to know the truth about the dark ages. I want dopers gone from a sport i love, permenantly. Frankly, I want them behind bars.

But I'm slowly, with hesitation, coming to the conclusion that I can't wait forever, watching the sport bleeding today, to right wrongs of the past that, in reality, maybe can't be righted. Slowly, I'm losing interest in knowing 'the truth' (well, we know most already, but I suppose we mean admission, confessions, etc) of the past, if it means the sport always bleeding.

And while T&R could still rid us of the Vinos, Johanns and Barney's, and that alone would be a very good thing. But if we could be rid of them, finally, just rid of them, I could accept now them keeping their tarnished medals, because everyone who loves cycling knows the truth about them.

Maybe I'm just tired of the attempt to right the past, while the present day sport limps on. I want to save my energy for the present, and the future. Learn the mistakes, of course. But don't live inside them.

I've said here before, I'm a sport omnivore, more or less. I've debated attempts to strip Marita Koch and Enders till the cows came home. When they went after Caster Semenya, I actually was breifly on national (Irish) radio talking about Stella Walsh and Helen Stephens; the later ironically and wrongly accused of being a man by the former. I remember friends of mind quite close to GB swimming saying that the nomination of Sharron Davies for the Olympic opening ceremony (she was in the collection of medalists) was partially a recognition that she'd been robbed.

But the past can't be rewritten; not really. Valerie Adams never got her ceremony. Neither did Lynsey Sharp or Jenny Meadows. Oh the record books are adjusted, the bast*rds rightly banned, somebody fixes wikipedia.

But it's a war we fight, against doping and corruption in sport; and we won't win every battle - no-one in war ever does. There are always casualties. War is sheer bloody murder, and the bad outweighs the good. And with so many battles to fight right now; i'm not sure I've the energy to chisel the titles of the gravestone of Pantani, when everyone knows his disgrace anyway.

Long winded and pointless, probably. And obviously, some of you will want to havea good mock, in which case, knock yourself out, I'm fair game. But I just wanted to get it off my chest, because much as the clinic gives me a laugh, and much as i care about anti-doping, i'm feeling low on energy for these old battles. Vindication just doesn't give me the kick it used to; i must just be getting old.

My worthless 2c.

 

[42x16ss]

Pantani didn't truly get away with it anyway, he came as close to testing positive as possible for the time at the '99 giro and apart from a dashing cameo in the 2000 Tour he never recovered. His legacy is already tarnished, officially stripping the win just formalises what we already know and the effort required to do this legally is better spent on current riders.

If Pantani was using techniques we didn't know about then sure, go hell for leather, find out what he did and strip the win but we all know he jacked his haematocrit to stupid levels with EPO. It's common knowledge. Nothing is gained from it and all it does is deflect from current problems and raise painful memories for Pantani's parents. Unless just about every rider to win a race other than pelissier, bahamontes and lemonde are stripped then this reeks of nothing but deflection.

 

[The Hitch]

Let him rest. He got away with it anyway: he's dead. But he isn't Jimmy Saville, just a nutter on a self-destructive path from the off. Stick an asterick or just a wink next to it, but leave him to slumber on.

Dont think Pantani got away with it. He lost his 1999 Giro, lost a lot of fans and the fall from grace led directly to his heavy depression and death.

Edit : what 42x16ss said.

 

[vrusimov]

There hasn't been one single clean Tour de France winner since 1903.
So if you take Pantanis you better take the others, too.

By the way you can't take away it cuase of the time limit.
They ised a special loophole in the regulations to take away Armstrongs wins. But that dien't apply for Pantani.

Well EPO is light years away from amphetamines... The "everybody's doing it" argument gets sillier the more we learn about doping and how it affects each individual. Strip him? Probably no. Void the result? Probably yes.

And furthermore. It is not enough just to say the statue of limitations has run out. Fact is, cyclists can amass enough palmares through nefarious means to become financially secure THEN, write a book [or run a cycling team] about doping IF they should happen to be caught with a positive, which we now know can be avoided either by pharmaceutical means or various "other" arrangements with governing bodies. There isn't one person I've encountered yet on this board who does not think that Armstrong got what was coming to him (including me). The difference is subjectivity, or how much perceived damage has been done to cycling by the individual in question. Hinault's rant about Jalabert is more proof that "bringing out the dead" should be done selectively and sensitively.

 

[patrick767]

Strip his title. We know he was doping.We know Riis was doping in '96. We know Ullrich was involved in doping. I don't suppose they have any 1997 TdF blood around do they?

While we're at it, what about Miguel Indurain? Everyone knows damn well that he and the other top riders in the '90s were doped to the gills. He doesn't deserve the acclaim of a 5 time TdF champion. They keep any of that blood?

 

[42x16ss]

Strip his title. We know he was doping.We know Riis was doping in '96. We know Ullrich was involved in doping. I don't suppose they have any 1997 TdF blood around do they?

While we're at it, what about Miguel Indurain? Everyone knows damn well that he and the other top riders in the '90s were doped to the gills. He doesn't deserve the acclaim of a 5 time TdF champion. They keep any of that blood?

It's not just the high profile winners though. Neil Stephens and McEwen are untouched as Orica DS, Riis is still hugely successful, Merckx, Peeters, LeBlanc, Steels, Aldag and others are still DS, Van Petegem, Zabel and Sciandri still working with teams, Voigt and O'Grady are still riding FFS and Livingston is a coach!

But hey, lets pick on the dead guy