Taking away Pantani's 1998 TdF win?

Page 7 - 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
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
42x16ss said:
Ok, would you want to be the one to tell Bernhard Hinault his wins are stripped if he is proven to have doped? I'd imagine that anyone who tried would end up missing some teeth :D
Really... So it seems that his second family name is Corleone... :rolleyes: :D
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
ElChingon said:
How are rules to be applied to the dead? :confused:

He could of done pretty much any or all illegal activities but once he died nothing can be done to him and bringing up his name again is only making his name all that memorable or allowing future generations to know who he was. Remember there is no "bad news" only increased marketing.

RIP Pantani.
It has nothing to do with bad news or with Pantani specifically. It has to do with the prestige that Cycling has as a sport. If the dead dopers are excluded, the rich and powerful dopers are excluded, ( call me Lance), the Corleone family macho dopers are excluded, then why having rules?

TheBean said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

An interesting and informative read. If we strip all known dopers of their titles, then we must consider striking Eddy Merckx, Sean Kelly, Laurent Fignon, etc. etc. etc. from the record books.
If they were doped no problem at all.
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
darwin553 said:
Nah you can. The pursuit of justice for a cause or reason that you believe in shouldn't just end because the alleged perpetrator is dead, especially if the end result (i.e. taking away Pantani's title) enhances the sport's image for a zero tolerance towards dopers.
I understand your point. But I don’t see how a headline that reads that a dead man has been stripped of a title will enhance the sport in the eyes of the world!! Might it have an opposite effect? This is someone who has died.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
darwin553 said:
Nah you can. The pursuit of justice for a cause or reason that you believe in shouldn't just end because the alleged perpetrator is dead, especially if the end result (i.e. taking away Pantani's title) enhances the sport's image for a zero tolerance towards dopers.
Sounds great.
What do you do with his titles, give it to second place Ullrich, or 3rd place Bobby Julich? Who do you give them to?

And cycling has never had a zero tolerance to doping - the whole reason it escalated in to a farce by 98 was because those who had responsibility looked the other way - to protect the sports image.
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
42x16ss said:
No, his methods were more direct. You're thinking of Hein Verbruggen :D





These pics are so funny!!! I love them! :smileyface: (reached the limit of images….haha)
 
I just don't see this as worth the effort. If they are going to retrospectively strip some, then there will end up being a legal minefield where all past dopers will end up having to be stripped. This will lead to fingerpointing, blame games and a massive amount of time, money and attention that needs to be spent on a sport that still has issues.

Sort out the current problems, with the current and future riders then go back and revise history as necessary. Pantani, Riis, Indurain and co are all out of the SOL anyway, so surely a few more years won't hurt while antidoping authorities sort out HERE and NOW.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Microchip said:
I understand your point. But I don’t see how a headline that reads that a dead man has been stripped of a title will enhance the sport in the eyes of the world!! Might it have an opposite effect? This is someone who has died.
But the fact remains that he doped to secure that title. Therefore, to leave his name engraved as the winner of the tour would give credence upon the illegal means which he used to win it.
 
darwin553 said:
But the fact remains that he doped to secure that title. Therefore, to leave his name engraved as the winner of the tour would give credence upon the illegal means which he used to win it.
Ok, now tell us who didn't dope for the 98 TdF.

Take as long as you need.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
darwin553 said:
But the fact remains that he doped to secure that title. Therefore, to leave his name engraved as the winner of the tour would give credence upon the illegal means which he used to win it.
The FACT remains they will not have an A & B sample.
 
Jan 23, 2013
239
0
0
Fatclimber said:
They aren't talking about stripping Pantani of his 'titles,' just the one he acquired whilst giving the sample(s) that had EPO in them.
A good point, Fatty. And, I agree with you. Still, though, it seems silly to reach back and admonish someone, especially if they are dead. Others still have squeaky-clean images but were also quilty of cheating at some point.

My opinions:

I guess I am a person who both despises doping AND thinks that reaching back into the past to hand out a punishment is pointless.

I think the statute of limitations should be less than a year. If the next addition of a race is underway, then keep the record book from the prior year's event the way it is. A year is plenty of time to test both the A and B sample, hear an appeal, and make a judgement.

Instances such as Valeverde racing and winning while under investigation detract from the races at hand.

Reaching back to punish Lance does, as well, though he certainly seems a man who deserves other legal actions against him.

Reaching into the grave to punish Pantani is just sad. Especially when the only possible outcome seems to be striking his name from the record books since his contemporaries were also doped. And, I was no fan of Pantani's at all. I didn't care for him for some reason.

All of this time and energy and money could be spent on continuing or improving current anti-doping measures. Current media airtime and page-space could be used to promote our sport and it's current athletes.

The world is realizing how ugly the underbelly of cycling can be, and often is. Lance and Oprah did a lot to expose that here in the US to the mainstream public.

When I mentioned the Pantani case to my co-workers, they all asked "Who cares about a dead guy who might have cheated in 1998?". The sport loses general appeal - and money - when fans are turned away by such stories.
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
42x16ss said:
Ok, now tell us who didn't dope for the 98 TdF.

Take as long as you need.
They can cancel the whole race and not just the results you know... If they had the @@ to do it once, then I'm sure that both teams and athletes would think twice before they allow or get doped.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
42x16ss said:
Ok, now tell us who didn't dope for the 98 TdF.

Take as long as you need.
Does it matter? He won and took all the spoils, so he faces the consequences for that deception (as much as he can since he is dead - lose his title only).

It only matters if the 2nd and 3rd (and so on if you contend that the whole of the top 10 doped) get handed the victory but just like for the Armstrong victories that for those years the winner's name just remains blank and that will be what will probably happen for 98.
 
This is typical McQuaid idiocy. The man does not think before opening his mouth. The UCI should have an official spokesperson and McQuaid should be forbidden from talking to the press. He is too stupid to give answers on his own.

There are no A sample results. The UCI spent money on the Vrijman report, essentially to explain why it could not sanction Armstrong for positive B samples for the exact same retrospective testing. The report could literally have a search and replace done on it to substitute Pantani's name for Armstrong's. On top of the UCI's reasoning for not sanctioning Armstrong, there is the statute of limitation argument, which was not available for the Vrijman report.

If McQuaid were to sanction Pantani then it would open up questions about why he did not sanction Armstrong for the results of the same testing even though there were no SOL issues.
 
TheBean said:
A good point, Fatty. And, I agree with you. Still, though, it seems silly to reach back and admonish someone, especially if they are dead. Others still have squeaky-clean images but were also quilty of cheating at some point.

My opinions:

I guess I am a person who both despises doping AND thinks that reaching back into the past to hand out a punishment is pointless.

I think the statute of limitations should be less than a year. If the next addition of a race is underway, then keep the record book from the prior year's event the way it is. A year is plenty of time to test both the A and B sample, hear an appeal, and make a judgement.

Instances such as Valeverde racing and winning while under investigation detract from the races at hand.

Reaching back to punish Lance does, as well, though he certainly seems a man who deserves other legal actions against him.

Reaching into the grave to punish Pantani is just sad. Especially when the only possible outcome seems to be striking his name from the record books since his contemporaries were also doped. And, I was no fan of Pantani's at all. I didn't care for him for some reason.

All of this time and energy and money could be spent on continuing or improving current anti-doping measures. Current media airtime and page-space could be used to promote our sport and it's current athletes.

The world is realizing how ugly the underbelly of cycling can be, and often is. Lance and Oprah did a lot to expose that here in the US to the mainstream public.

When I mentioned the Pantani case to my co-workers, they all asked "Who cares about a dead guy who might have cheated in 1998?". The sport loses general appeal - and money - when fans are turned away by such stories.
Don't be disrespectful, you may refer to me as Fatts.;) Don't worry, nothing will come of this for many reasons (pursuing parties, SOL), but for crying out loud, it's ill reflection of the sport should not even come into consideration. It never should.

Fatts
 
1. Pro cycling has a dirty past. No amount of stripping of titles or revisionism can change that fact. One hundred plus years of corruption and cheating.


2. No one benefits if they strip Pantani. No one.

ASO can't recoup its prize money. Even if they did, they wouldn't have a clue who merits receiving it. No one will inherit the title.

They can issue a lifetime ban from further racing against Pantani but, as his lifetime already has ended, he immediately would be eligible to race again if he so chooses.

It would not change the fact that Ullrich's fans were robbed of the thrill of cheering for their man in the moment.

Regardless how much you might wish for it, it would not contribute to any collapse of the UCI, nor to the dethronement of Fat Pat. The matter of the departure of Hein Verbruggen and associated regime change forever will serve as an impenetrable firewall to that fantasy.

The typical cycling fan's head still is reeling from the Pharmstrong affair. He will not understand that stripping Pantani is necessary to ensure the sport is fully cleansed. He will not understand that this took place under the previous management. He only will understand this sport cannot manage its internal affairs, and has fallen into disrepute. And since cyclists still regularly get popped for doping, he sees little evidence the sport yet is clean.


3. The problem with regicide is that, once you have commenced the killing, it is difficult to know when to stop. The French of all people should be aware of this. In the world of pro cycling, stripping a TdF winner of his title is tantamount to killing one of the kings of the sport.

It is possible that every winner of the TdF prior to 1967 took prohibited substances. Certainly by 1904, the prospective riders all understood what a diabolical route that sadist HDG had in store for them. And since there then were no enforcement efforts, they all of them certainly at least would have considered it. Granted, their "PEDs" were not so much performance enhancers as they were fatigue ameliorators, but they were prohibited substances, just the same.

There were at least as many riders who claimed they saw Charly Gaul take amphetamines as those who testified they saw Lance Amrstrong self-administering prohibited substances. Anquetil and Coppi both freely admitted (after the fact) to taking prohibited substances. You cannot rationally support the stripping of Pantani without also favouring the stripping of these three. And of every other pre-enforcement rider who made the offhand confession.

A great sport needs heroes. If it has no heroes, that only can mean there was no heroism in its past. Therefore it cannot be a great sport. If you kill all of cycling's heroes, it ceases to be a great sport, and that is an injury it could not recover from for a further 110 years. Pro cycling already has killed its greatest king, perhaps the greatest it ever will know. That should be killing enough for one scandal. Why? See #4, below.


4. Cycling fans deserve better. What is the point of taking the effort to watch a race, particularly in person, if the man you see winning, five years hence, proves not to have been the winner after all? It took more than two years to find out who won in 2006. And nearly as long again in 2010. That is absurd. And disrespectful of the fans.

I hardly would pass for a fan of NASCAR motor racing but they have one rule that makes perfect sense. The man who won the race, won the race. Forever. There is ZERO chance that fans will awake on the morning after the race, switch on the telly and learn the man they saw winning just the day before no longer is the winner. ZERO chance.

The winner might be fined, he might be suspended, he might be out-and-out banned, but regardless, he still will be the winner. Ultimately, the fans pay everyone in the sport's salaries, and they deserve at least that much consideration.


5. Sometimes it seems cycling is intent on committing the suicide of a thousand cuts. Its image only can endure so much battering and remain viable. And it will be another 10-15 years, when today's children enter the sport, before we can take full measure of the damage done by the Pharmstrong era.

So enough with the killing already. Let the healing begin. By all means, deal with future violations as need arises, but let the past be the past, while pro cycling and Le Tour still have a past worthy of celebration.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
StyrbjornSterki said:
1. Pro cycling has a dirty past. No amount of stripping of titles or revisionism can change that fact. One hundred plus years of corruption and cheating.
Goes with all sports, so what?

StyrbjornSterki said:
2. No one benefits if they strip Pantani. No one.
Of course someone. At least me (and i guess many others)... There should be no SOL or whatever if the cheaters can get caught. That is the only way to have confidence in the present, b/c cheaters can never feel safe. Amen.

StyrbjornSterki said:
ASO can't recoup its prize money. Even if they did, they wouldn't have a clue who merits receiving it. No one will inherit the title.
So what? It still works well with LA being stripped. I guess many are finally satisfied (including me, and the "clinic 12"). So sure go on, strip them all...

StyrbjornSterki said:
Why not strip all cheaters? They don´t deserve being mentioned.

StyrbjornSterki said:
4. Cycling fans deserve better. What is the point of taking the effort to watch a race, particularly in person, if the man you see winning, five years hence, proves not to have been the winner after all? It took more than two years to find out who won in 2006. And nearly as long again in 2010. That is absurd. And disrespectful of the fans.

I hardly would pass for a fan of NASCAR motor racing but they have one rule that makes perfect sense. The man who won the race, won the race. Forever. There is ZERO chance that fans will awake on the morning after the race, switch on the telly and learn the man they saw winning just the day before no longer is the winner. ZERO chance.

The winner might be fined, he might be suspended, he might be out-and-out banned, but regardless, he still will be the winner. Ultimately, the fans pay everyone in the sport's salaries, and they deserve at least that much consideration.
Well, cycling fans get the best. Cheaters are stripped. I guess Seahawks fans would like to hear the 2005-Steelers are stripped. Same goes with the BlackSox scandal, ans so on. Cycling is well ahead, while Nascar is far behind (the old american rule: winning is all, no matter how). Why should a cheater still be called a winner? :confused: That´s beyond me...

StyrbjornSterki said:
5. Sometimes it seems cycling is intent on committing the suicide of a thousand cuts. Its image only can endure so much battering and remain viable. And it will be another 10-15 years, when today's children enter the sport, before we can take full measure of the damage done by the Pharmstrong era.

So enough with the killing already. Let the healing begin. By all means, deal with future violations as need arises, but let the past be the past, while pro cycling and Le Tour still have a past worthy of celebration.

The healing can only begin with cleaning the past. At least cycling tries (or is forced to, b/c of too much scandals). Anyway, wayyy ahead of "under the carpet" organisations like NFL/MLB/NHL/FIFA/NBA/IOC/FIA/NASCAR, you name it.

Long live cycing. Be ahead...

P.S.: Your argument 4.) is so far off, it makes me angry. Let me sleep, and then write a book why this ****ing Nascar "rule" is so wrong, wrong, wrong... :mad:
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
TheBean said:
A good point, Fatty. And, I agree with you.
It was a good point by Fatts.

Reaching into the grave to punish Pantani is just sad.
How is it punishing Pantani? I don't really think he's going to care much.

The impact of such a decision (I don't believe it will happen, under current SOL) is as a deterrent.

"Cheat now - pay for it tomorrow" is better than "Cheat now - never have to worry".

Current riders should be aware that if they cheat, then at some point in the future they may lose titles as technology improves to catch cheats who can't currently be detected. If that makes them think twice, then that is a positive step, though I think extending SOL would also be a useful compliment.

If it is shown that Pantani had synthetic EPO in his system in 1998, then he shouldn't be regarded as the winner of the race. Still first across the line, but not the winner. Another year with a line through the name.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
peterst6906 said:
How is it punishing Pantani? I don't really think he's going to care much.
The point is concerning the penalty envisaged being the stripping of Pantani's title is that it isn't about punishing Pantani (obviously since he's dead), it is about deterrence and showing what can occur to riders if they get caught.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
darwin553 said:
The point is concerning the penalty envisaged being the stripping of Pantani's title is that it isn't about punishing Pantani (obviously since he's dead), it is about deterrence and showing what can occur to riders if they get caught.
Exactly.

10chars
 
peterst6906 said:
If it is shown that Pantani had synthetic EPO in his system in 1998, then he shouldn't be regarded as the winner of the race. Still first across the line, but not the winner. Another year with a line through the name.
Unless you have A samples and B samples then you won't be able to do that under the rules.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
BroDeal said:
Unless you have A samples and B samples then you won't be able to do that under the rules.
A positive A and B sample is one way of leading to a sanction. There are others, but in any case, the rules don't seem to mean much these days (especially to the UCI), but I don't think this will happen anyway because of SOL.

I suspect the most that may happen will be an asterix next to his name, but I'm really just guessing.
 
Amaury could strip his title if they wanted to (which they don't obviously), the UCI not so much. Does the WADA Code even apply retrospectively? Otherwise the 1998 samples would fall under whatever archaic rules governed the anti-doping system at the time.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
the delgados The Clinic 19

ASK THE COMMUNITY