• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Taking away Pantani's 1998 TdF win?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

In this scenario, should Pantani keep being recognised as the winner?

  • Don't know/other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
There is damn good reason to take away Jan, Riis and Pantani's. Pretty good evidence to take away a few others - everyone post LeMond in the 1990's
 
Aug 28, 2010
398
0
0
Visit site
Here's what I think this topic has become:

TIdW2Mm.jpg


How about this as an idea - seeing as though there seems to be no limits as to whose wins can be voided, why don't we go all the way back to 1892 and re-write history so all races have no winners. I mean, removing any trace of the winners will SURELY remove any incentive for new riders to dope, because there won't be any evidence of riders who doped to learn from.

Of course, we learn the best lessons when we simply revise history, don't we?

ZWjCAE4.jpg
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
For The World said:
Here's what I think this topic has become:

TIdW2Mm.jpg


How about this as an idea - seeing as though there seems to be no limits as to whose wins can be voided, why don't we go all the way back to 1892 and re-write history so all races have no winners. I mean, removing any trace of the winners will SURELY remove any incentive for new riders to dope, because there won't be any evidence of riders who doped to learn from.

Well, the difference is that while very small pebbles don't float, positive tests actually DO prove doping.
 
You guys are being way too emotional. They're not going after Pantani - it's just that Pantani happened to win one of the Tours for which they have positive samples. Armstrong won the others, and he's been stripped.

Absolute fairness would require absolutely everybody to be busted. But that's impossible. So, you do what you can with the people you actually catch. Otherwise you can't suspend anyone. Absolutely no one. No, not even that guy.

In the case of Pantani, they can't strip him of his Tour title because those 1998 samples, by themselves, without a B sample or other concrete evidence, are not enough to do anything. And they're not enough to waive the SOL. It's really that simple.

Getting hysterical about Pantani "having already paid", or about "making his family suffer even more", is pointless. Even worse, it does reek of what the Armstrong fanboys have often accused the Clinicians of - inconsistency, hypocrisy and playing favourites.

You strip Armstrong and not Pantani because of the SOL and the waiving thereof, legally justified, not because Pantani "already paid the price".
 
Aug 28, 2010
398
0
0
Visit site
eleven said:
Well, the difference is that while very small pebbles don't float, positive tests actually DO prove doping.

While that is true, until the data is released, you don't KNOW that Pantani tested positive. High hematocrit gives an indication of EPO usage (as was, and has been, stated ad nauseum), so we can only speculate until July 18th.

Until then, let the righteousness flow!
 
Aug 25, 2012
65
0
0
Visit site
It's distasteful to strip Pantani of the title. On the other hand, it doesn't make sense to strip Armstrong if they don't strip Pantani. The UCI needs to formulate a notion something like that was a different time, a different sport, with different thought proceses and attitudes ...but it will always be linked to the mess they presided over. To save face and build back confidence in cycling, he UCI should be disbanded and a new regulatory body be formed.
 
Jul 10, 2012
200
0
0
Visit site
I agree with the notion that someone should face their accusers if accused of a crime. But this is not a crime, per se. If doping is a "cycling crime" and the penalty is stripping someone of what they have achieved, then Armstrong should have had a trial in "cycling court," where he could face his accusers. But that is not the way it works.

The door was opened on this when Armstrong's titles were voided. It has to go further than Lance if the objective of rewriting history books is to eventually eliminate doping from the sport. The statute of limitations argument doesn't apply. The samples were more or less tested 8 years ago, and they were tested within 8 years of when they were taken. The 8 year thing is arbitrary and made up, anyway. Because someone decided 8 years was the right amount, this must be the rule for all time? How about we all band together and say that 50 years is the right amount?

This mission has to be about more than one man, or otherwise it would seem petty, and a vendetta against that one guy we don't like. It has to be a mission against doping. If Pantani, Ullrich, Riis, Indurain, Merckx, and anyone else cheated to win then they should be out of the record books. The door is open. Here comes the flood. Investigate them all.

The thing we shouldn't do is focus on current riders. Why bother? They know how to cheat the tests anyway. The time to go after them is years after they have retired, or better yet, when they are dead and won't put up a fight.

For those who think Pantani is off limits because he is gone, then I guess what you really mean to say is this: the only reason why Lance Armstrong is guilty is because he didn't die.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Great to see all the LA fans now want to highlight the doping in the sport.

SOL is not the issue with the 1998 samples, it is that there will be analysis of only one sample. Will that show which people took EPO, sure - can a sanction be applied, no.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Visit site
martinvickers said:
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.
....
Excellent post.

Attacking Pantani in isolation is weak and without purpose.

Many posters here have alluded to 'burning the whole sport down' and reseting ground zero.

If MP is + then remove his name. But the UCI better bloody well retest all the serum from 1998 forward. Catch the cheats that they can and remove them from the record books and all aspects of cycling going forward.

That would resemble a Lord of the Rings battle scene: a much necessary cleansing.
 
Neworld said:
Excellent post.

Attacking Pantani in isolation is weak and without purpose.

Many posters here have alluded to 'burning the whole sport down' and reseting ground zero.

If MP is + then remove his name. But the UCI better bloody well retest all the serum from 1998 forward. Catch the cheats that they can and remove them from the record books and all aspects of cycling going forward.

That would resemble a Lord of the Rings battle scene: a much necessary cleansing.

They are attacking Pantani because they are hoping to continue deflecting from their disgraced hero...who shall remain unnamed here.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Visit site
mewmewmew13 said:
They are attacking Pantani because they are hoping to continue deflecting from their disgraced hero...who shall remain unnamed here.

Good point.

The optics on Phat Pat and the UCI, which are always more important than a clean and credible sport. As with MartinV's opinion...this is all so tiresome.
 
hrotha said:
You guys are being way too emotional. They're not going after Pantani - it's just that Pantani happened to win one of the Tours for which they have positive samples. Armstrong won the others, and he's been stripped.

Absolute fairness would require absolutely everybody to be busted. But that's impossible. So, you do what you can with the people you actually catch. Otherwise you can't suspend anyone. Absolutely no one. No, not even that guy.

In the case of Pantani, they can't strip him of his Tour title because those 1998 samples, by themselves, without a B sample or other concrete evidence, are not enough to do anything. And they're not enough to waive the SOL. It's really that simple.

Getting hysterical about Pantani "having already paid", or about "making his family suffer even more", is pointless. Even worse, it does reek of what the Armstrong fanboys have often accused the Clinicians of - inconsistency, hypocrisy and playing favourites.

You strip Armstrong and not Pantani because of the SOL and the waiving thereof, legally justified, not because Pantani "already paid the price".
From memory Voigt wore the polka dot jersey and O' Grady won a stage and wore white. So both of them had to give at least one sample each. Want to bet they were clean? Yet the UCI tries to paint them as poster boys of clean cycling.

I'll take a Pat McQuaid avatar for a year if anything comes of it for them.
 
Mar 31, 2010
82
0
0
Visit site
Mcquaid really is the biggest pos for trying this. Logic dictates that if you wanna clean house then you should void all tdf winners who ever tested positive at some point in time. Take Merkx titles away too. He tested positive three times during his career. Im sure he like all the others doped many more times and was not caught. I say this in jest. Armstrong got what he deserved because he destroyed peoples lives with his money. Leave the rest in peace.
 
It's not McQuaid behind this but I bet he's salivating at the prospect of Pantani getting stripped.

This is something that cannot be done in half measures - either remove absolutely everyone as Bennotti suggests, or let it lie and focus on people who are polluting the sport here and now.

No cherry picking.
 
Dec 21, 2010
513
0
0
Visit site
42x16ss said:
It's not McQuaid behind this but I bet he's salivating at the prospect of Pantani getting stripped.

No cherry picking.

McQuaid is not behind the re-testing, but HE was the one who publicly stated that they would consider revocation - McQuaid is the scum in this, no more, no less.

Time for the fool to apply his own Management Committee's decision...

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.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Visit site
Samson777 said:
:confused: 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..

Less sense? It makes no sense at all. You cannot apply rules retrospectively to any walk of life, be it criminal or sporting. If the speed limit is lowered on a stretch of road now, how is it right to revoke the licence of anyone who drove in excess of that limit 6 days, weeks, months or years earlier?
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Visit site
ultimobici said:
Less sense? It makes no sense at all. You cannot apply rules retrospectively to any walk of life, be it criminal or sporting. If the speed limit is lowered on a stretch of road now, how is it right to revoke the licence of anyone who drove in excess of that limit 6 days, weeks, months or years earlier?

You can indeed apply rules retroactively (especially criminal) in so far as the statue of limitations allow, which in this case it does not. Armstrong is proof that it is indeed possible to face charges years after the fact.
 
42x16ss said:
From memory Voigt wore the polka dot jersey and O' Grady won a stage and wore white. So both of them had to give at least one sample each. Want to bet they were clean? Yet the UCI tries to paint them as poster boys of clean cycling.

I'll take a Pat McQuaid avatar for a year if anything comes of it for them.
The samples are outside of McQuaid's control. Let's wait and see if they're positive first, shall we? Even if they doped, they might come out negative.
 
Jan 20, 2010
713
0
0
Visit site
spalco said:
As mentioned here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tou...-day-for-quickstep-a-new-winner-for-1998-tour

If some of the 1998 retroactive positivs are found to be Pantani's, should his victory be stricken from the record?

Maybe I'm biased because I still like Pantani, but removing a dead man's palmares seems awfully revisionist to me. What do you think?

It's interesting to read opinions here but I'm more interested whether it's even possible under the WADA code to commence an anti-doping rule violation against a dead Athlete? I don't think it is. Has there ever been a precedent for this?

I think the only logical answer is he retains it? The Athlete has a right to a fair trial and he can't that when he is dead.

I think this just is more fat Pat hot air.
 
del1962 said:
If a positive sample is found, then strip him of the result, confirms the message out to potential dopers that even if you have legendary status you are not immune from sanction at a future date.
the only message it would confirm is that you'll be immune as long as you can put up some legal/economic resistance.
 

TRENDING THREADS