Taking away Pantani's 1998 TdF win?

Page 9 - 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
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Eshnar said:
I can ensure there is one. We are generally much more difficult to spot than yours though :p We talk less and act in the shadows
Now you are just talking about your job as moderator! :D
 
hrotha said:
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.
I agree with this, though unfortunately that same cycling world killed him.

It thus becomes a question of sentimentalism versus hypocrisy. Either way there is no victor.
 
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
They did get Pantani though. He didn't escape punishment, contrary to most of his contemporaries.
 
Jan 18, 2011
82
0
0
It may not be fair to actually remove any results after a person has died, because they cannot participate in the proceedings. However, if a person is shown to have been doping after they have died, the historical record should be amended in some way to show that there is strong evidence that the person was cheating.
 
datalore said:
It may not be fair to actually remove any results after a person has died, because they cannot participate in the proceedings. However, if a person is shown to have been doping after they have died, the historical record should be amended in some way to show that there is strong evidence that the person was cheating.
Just allow a fan club to represent the dead athlete. Or better, the national sports federation to take on the role of defendant on the athlete's behalf if they feel he deserves this postume service.
If I rape your wife anonimously, proceed to die of an overdose, and then later proof leads to me as the perpetrator, can I still do into history books are a good clean guy with good manners towards women? What does dying have to do with it? Find someone to defend me and let history books reflect justice, not let a dead rapist (cheater) get away with it!
The crimes are of different magnitudes obviously, but the logic is the same for me.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
rhubroma said:
I agree with this, though unfortunately that same cycling world killed him.
Let's not get carried away. He was put through the gears but no one made him start using cocaine.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
If he is proved as doper yes, otherwise what's the point of doing controls and stuff.

But only if he is proved on samples from that year, kept in good storage and not contamined, otherwise no.
 
andy1234 said:
You're back, and still lacking in basic comprehension....
LeMond needs people like you defending him, as much as he needs Armstrong adjusting his brake pads.
Never left, and have no intention to.

Have you found the info on LeMond doping that you made up, you said you'd post months ago? Talk about lacking comprehension.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
So after the release of the French Senate Report, we're all happy to disagree with the UCI's position that it won't be stripping Pantani's title? :rolleyes:
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Netserk said:
He will always be the winner.
Sadly Pantani was a loser and he died alone in a hotel room from an overdose of drugs. That in my book is not winning. He did some spectacular things on a bike but all with the help of drugs which negated it.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
0
0
darwin553 said:
So after the release of the French Senate Report, we're all happy to disagree with the UCI's position that it won't be stripping Pantani's title? :rolleyes:
Did that report tell us anything we didn't already know?

Glad the UCI aren't going to take away his title, would be pointless.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
I was around pro cycling during Pantani's rise to fame. He was a megalomaniacal nut case, who referred to himself in the third person, and never won a single race as a pro without the benefit of a "program". He was a doping pioneer, and victim at the same time. There should be an asterisk next to every result he ever had... and next to just about every other result, of every other pro, from the mid 90's on.
 
VeloFidelis said:
I was around pro cycling during Pantani's rise to fame. He was a megalomaniacal nut case, who referred to himself in the third person, and never won a single race as a pro without the benefit of a "program". He was a doping pioneer, and victim at the same time. There should be an asterisk next to every result he ever had... and next to just about every other result, of every other pro, from the mid 90's on.
maybe you meant 80's ? :confused:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
the delgados The Clinic 19

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS