I agree with this, though unfortunately that same cycling world killed him.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.
They did get Pantani though. He didn't escape punishment, contrary to most of his contemporaries.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
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.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.
Those same demons eventually would have manifested themselves, and probably to the same effect, even if he'd pursued a career as a dog groomer.rhubroma said:I agree with this, though unfortunately that same cycling world killed him....
Never left, and have no intention to.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.
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.Netserk said:He will always be the winner.
Did that report tell us anything we didn't already know?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?
maybe you meant 80's ?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.