Taking away Pantani's 1998 TdF win?

Page 8 - 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
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
I find it amazing that so many would brush aside a basic principle like Statute of Limitations on such a minor transgression in the grand scheme of things. By all means remove it as of now, so cheats in the future cannot try to hide as Armstrong did. But reaching into the grave to strip Pantani and seemingly leaving Indurain, Riis & Ulrich in relative peace is unjust to say the least.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
ultimobici said:
But reaching into the grave to strip Pantani and seemingly leaving Indurain, Riis & Ulrich in relative peace is unjust to say the least.
Exactly, they reach for the low hanging fruit and leave the ones that might bit them in the rear all alone in peace. They're scared of the living.
 
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.
The riders do know what would happen if they get caught: after all they see every day Riis and co. in the cars behind the peloton. All those guys are still between the Tdf winners as well.
Do you really believe it would be a deterrent to strip one title to the only recent winner who cannot defend? What kind of message does it send?

Does anyone doubt Pantani was doping in '98? No.
Will he cease to be an icon after he's stripped of his Tour? No.
Will it change anything? No.
Will any of us forget who won that Tour? No.
Is it legally fair? No.
Is it ethically fair? No.
 
Jun 4, 2013
29
0
0
Benotti69 said:
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.
Hang on. This kid was an incredibly talented cyclist obsessed with his bike. In fact it was the only thing he could do. In this context, you don't have to stretch your empathy that far as to see him as a victim of an environment and age where to not dope would've taken away the viabilty of his very existence.

How doctrinaire and jobsworthy can you be about another man's life as to rob from him in death the achievements his talent actually fully merited?

If it's a morality-play we're looking for, didn't the untenable strain of his situation, particularly his unfair singling-out, already play-out drastically enough?
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Eshnar said:
The riders do know what would happen if they get caught: after all they see every day Riis and co. in the cars behind the peloton. All those guys are still between the Tdf winners as well.
Do you really believe it would be a deterrent to strip one title to the only recent winner who cannot defend? What kind of message does it send?

Does anyone doubt Pantani was doping in '98? No.
Will he cease to be an icon after he's stripped of his Tour? No.
Will it change anything? No.
Will any of us forget who won that Tour? No.
Is it legally fair? No.
Is it ethically fair? No.
Something needs to occur. You can't have Pantani's name alongside Evans' name for example to illustrate that there is nothing suspicious about either of their rides when the former is about to be named in a French report to have tested positive in the 1998 tour. If you want to run the argument to 'leave him alone because he is dead', then at least have the decency to allow an asterisk next to his name and a legend which depicts that his win is under official suspicion for doping
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Eshnar said:
Messing with Pantani is just a waste of effort and public relations.
Nothing is ever a waste of effort or public relations if it is about righting a wrong, about learning a lesson or setting a standard and if it deters one professional cyclist from going down the same path as Pantani then the stripping of his title has worked.
 
darwin553 said:
Nothing is ever a waste of effort or public relations if it is about righting a wrong, about learning a lesson or setting a standard and if it deters one professional cyclist from going down the same path as Pantani then the stripping of his title has worked.
but it isn't, so it is a waste of effort.
You don't right a wrong if you leave behind all the others. You are setting another wrong.
No one will learn any lesson either. Do you really believe anyone will be scared of such a pointless action? What is the threat? We'll strip away your wins, but only after you're dead, after you'll be freely allowed to do whatever the hell you want? Well if I were doping I could live with that, frankly.
 
Eshnar said:
but it isn't, so it is a waste of effort.
You don't right a wrong if you leave behind all the others. You are setting another wrong.
No one will learn any lesson either. Do you really believe anyone will be scared of such a pointless action? What is the threat? We'll strip away your wins, but only after you're dead, after you'll be freely allowed to do whatever the hell you want? Well if I were doping I could live with that, frankly.
I feel like I'm reading an LA thread from last September.

If you can't get everybody, don't get anybody?

For the record, I want the UCI to adhere to the SOL. But, thats the only reason Pantini's titles should stay safe. Hell, I'd be in favor of amending the SOL... but through the right process and not the ad hoc procedure the UCI is too used too implementing.

That being said, the to say that it isn't ethically fair is not true
 
More Strides than Rides said:
I feel like I'm reading an LA thread from last September.

If you can't get everybody, don't get anybody?

For the record, I want the UCI to adhere to the SOL. But, thats the only reason Pantini's titles should stay safe. Hell, I'd be in favor of amending the SOL... but through the right process and not the ad hoc procedure the UCI is too used too implementing.

That being said, the to say that it isn't ethically fair is not true
It is not ethically fair to take action against someone who cannot defend himself. Anyway that was my last point, ethics are always questionable. What is not questionable is the fact that stripping Pantani's title doesn't help the current situation of cycling one bit. While there ARE actions which would help it, and UCI systematically try to divert our attention to other pointless facts.
If you can't get everybody, try to get someone. You will never get Pantani. He's gone.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Eshnar said:
but it isn't, so it is a waste of effort.
You don't right a wrong if you leave behind all the others. You are setting another wrong.
No one will learn any lesson either. Do you really believe anyone will be scared of such a pointless action? What is the threat? We'll strip away your wins, but only after you're dead, after you'll be freely allowed to do whatever the hell you want? Well if I were doping I could live with that, frankly.
No you right a wrong when you can or when the opportunity arises.

Just because you can't 'get' all the riders that you suspect because there is no evidence or have indeed confessed to doping but there is no formal recourse available to strip titles of them doesn't mean when one actually arises, like it will probably for Pantani, to take the necessary action to obliterate their name as being a TDF winner.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
As for your point about it not being ethically fair to impose a penalty on someone who does not have the opportunity to be heard which is a fair point but I suppose I would be inclined to say that anyone who tests positive based on a sample (whether or not it is A or B in these circumstances) that it is treated as 'strict liability'. In other words, he gets penalized regardless of his excuse or defence that he would have generated from his testimony with the minimum punishment imposed which is to be stripped off his title.
 
darwin553 said:
No you right a wrong when you can or when the opportunity arises.

Just because you can't 'get' all the riders that you suspect because there is no evidence or have indeed confessed to doping but there is no formal recourse available to strip titles of them doesn't mean when one actually arises, like it will probably for Pantani, to take the necessary action to obliterate their name as being a TDF winner.
yeah yeah so they'll do it because they can. Look, I didn't say they cannot do it. I'm saying is totally pointless and therefore a waste of effort, or most probably only a convenient diversion.
 
Eshnar said:
It is not ethically fair to take action against someone who cannot defend himself. Anyway that was my last point, ethics are always questionable. What is not questionable is the fact that stripping Pantani's title doesn't help the current situation of cycling one bit. While there ARE actions which would help it, and UCI systematically try to divert our attention to other pointless facts.
If you can't get everybody, try to get someone. You will never get Pantani. He's gone.

Now I'm starting to agree with you. Grabbing the low hanging fruit may or may not be an attempt at a distraction from actually pursuing more imminent cheating, but I believe that to avoid it purposefully would be worse. The SOL is designed to protect individuals from injustice, and that will be the case here. However, I think the UCI needs to do more than acknowledge Pantini et al as the "Dark age" and move on. What those steps should be, I'm not sure.

I don't however, think that pursuing Pantini is purposeless, because of the value it adds to the strength of the system/procedure
 
darwin553 said:
As for your point about it not being ethically fair to impose a penalty on someone who does not have the opportunity to be heard which is a fair point but I suppose I would be inclined to say that anyone who tests positive based on a sample (whether or not it is A or B in these circumstances) that it is treated as 'strict liability'. In other words, he gets penalized regardless of his excuse or defence that he would have generated from his testimony with the minimum punishment imposed which is to be stripped off his title.
We first need to know the reliability of the test itself. Generally these kind of tests cannot have a 100% reliability (I'm talking generally, don't have a clue about the actual test they used). So having only one test can lead to unpleasant situations. Again, this is just generally because I repeat, I have no doubt (like everybody) that Pantani was doping. Just saying.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Eshnar said:
yeah yeah so they'll do it because they can. Look, I didn't say they cannot do it. I'm saying is totally pointless and therefore a waste of effort, or most probably only a convenient diversion.
But it isn't 'totally' pointless, it may be 'pointless' for those who have an interest in Pantani's record remaining in tact or those who have a personal affinity with Pantani but for those that have fought for the cause that Pantani face justice (and we talk here of his legacy) for his doping indiscretions that they should be entitled to pursue what is necessary and necessary here is taking his name of the winner's list.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Eshnar said:
We first need to know the reliability of the test itself. Generally these kind of tests cannot have a 100% reliability (I'm talking generally, don't have a clue about the actual test they used). So having only one test can lead to unpleasant situations. Again, this is just generally because I repeat, I have no doubt (like everybody) that Pantani was doping. Just saying.
If this French report has sufficient standing, it should be accepted without question for those in a position to do what is necessary to Pantani's record.
 
darwin553 said:
But it isn't 'totally' pointless, it may be 'pointless' for those who have an interest in Pantani's record remaining in tact or those who have a personal affinity with Pantani but for those that have fought for the cause that Pantani face justice (and we talk here of his legacy) for his doping indiscretions that they should be entitled to pursue what is necessary and necessary here is taking his name of the winner's list.
and who are they? In other words, who's the "offended" party here? The clean riders Pantani beat? Mmm they'll be difficult to spot. :eek: Furthermore, the plan here is to strip the title and not reassign it.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Eshnar said:
and who are they? In other words, who's the "offended" party here? The clean riders Pantani beat? Mmm they'll be difficult to spot. :eek:
How about the 'model' cycling fan? And by model I mean has a zero tolerance for doping

Eshnar said:
Furthermore, the plan here is to strip the title and not reassign it.
Yes I know that.
 
darwin553 said:
How about the 'model' cycling fan? And by model I mean has a zero tolerance for doping
Wouldn't a 'model' cycling fan be more happy with an action against a living villain? Are you so sure these fans would be that happy with the title stripping? I can tell you a huge part of (evidently not 'model') fans would be very upset with it.
Just as an example, today at the Tour I already spotted a good amount of signs supporting Jalabert. People don't seem to be enraged by the unexpected :eek: revelation that he was doping.

Would these paragons of virtue be so happy to take away the yellow jersey from a lifeless corpse?
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Eshnar said:
Wouldn't a 'model' cycling fan be more happy with an action against a living villain? Are you so sure these fans would be that happy with the title stripping? I can tell you a huge part of (evidently not 'model') fans would be very upset with it.
Just as an example, today at the Tour I already spotted a good amount of signs supporting Jalabert. People don't seem to be enraged by the unexpected :eek: revelation that he was doping.

Would these paragons of virtue be so happy to take away the yellow jersey from a lifeless corpse?
When I say 'model' cycling fan and the qualities they look for in a sport I also should say that this standpoint is what the UCI publicly embodies. So again if this French report comes out and says what we think it will say, the UCI will have no other choice but to act and strip Pantani of the title :)
 
darwin553 said:
When I say 'model' cycling fan and the qualities they look for in a sport I also should say that this standpoint is what the UCI publicly embodies. So again if this French report comes out and says what we think it will say, the UCI will have no other choice but to act and strip Pantani of the title :)
actually UCI should have no other choice but to stay still and respect the SOL and the "we-don't-have-sample-B" stuff like they did in other occasions. The fact that they really are considering taking action is quite shocking.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Eshnar said:
actually UCI should have no other choice but to stay still and respect the SOL and the "we-don't-have-sample-B" stuff like they did in other occasions. The fact that they really are considering taking action is quite shocking.
It doesn't matter what organisation is responsible for taking action - the 'model' cycling fan remains :)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
the delgados The Clinic 19

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS