Taking away Pantani's 1998 TdF win?

[hrotha]

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.

You need two positive samples, A and B, or enough testimony to make up for the lack of a positive test. Armstrong wasn't stripped because of his 1999 positives, or at least not just because of them.

 

[Night Rider]

You need two positive samples, A and B.

I just read that further up the thread. There is only one sample? What are we even arguing about. No Athlete to defend himself and only one sample. Case closed.

 

[hrotha]

I just read that further up the thread. There is only one sample? What are we even arguing about. No Athlete to defend himself and only one sample. Case closed.

These samples were tested back in 2004 as part of a trial for the EPO test, so normal antidoping procedures weren't followed. Thus they can't be used by themselves.

 

[Benotti69]

Pantani didn't truly get away with it anyway, he came as close to testing positive as possible for the time at the '99 giro and apart from a dashing cameo in the 2000 Tour he never recovered. His legacy is already tarnished, officially stripping the win just formalises what we already know and the effort required to do this legally is better spent on current riders.

If Pantani was using techniques we didn't know about then sure, go hell for leather, find out what he did and strip the win but we all know he jacked his haematocrit to stupid levels with EPO. It's common knowledge. Nothing is gained from it and all it does is deflect from current problems and raise painful memories for Pantani's parents. Unless just about every rider to win a race other than pelissier, bahamontes and lemonde are stripped then this reeks of nothing but deflection.

To strip Pantani of his win because he took EPO is a good thing. We all know he doped but to rubber stamp it in this way sends out a message to all who wish to dope in sport that it matters not a jot whether you have attained martyrdom status..

His family have known what Pantini did during his career, this changes nothing, it does bring some hurt no doubt, but they have Pantani to thank for that. They should be calling for sanctions to enablers, those who provided, encouraged and administered the dope.

By the way this thread is about Pantani but the 40+ samples are about more than 1 rider.

I am to be honest more interested in seeing O'Grady and Voight popped finally. I am only sad Kloden didn't ride the 98 TdF.

 

[darwin553]

I don't profess to know French law but the 8 year limitation for going after dopers seems to exonerate any chance that Pantani would lose his title.

Despite this, I would like to see this rule sidestepped by the principle that where there is new, substantial evidence that comes to light (especially if new methods of detecting breaches has only been discovered) that Pantani can still be sanctioned and lose his title despite him being dead.

 

[eleven]

Mr. Vrijman does not agree.

How'd that work out in the end?

 

[eleven]

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!

Well right....but the express purpose of this thread is based on the premise. Shall we close this thread until July 18th?

 

[hrotha]

I don't profess to know French law but the 8 year limitation for going after dopers seems to exonerate any chance that Pantani would lose his title.

Despite this, I would like to see this rule sidestepped by the principle that where there is new, substantial evidence that comes to light (especially if new methods of detecting breaches has only been discovered) that Pantani can still be sanctioned and lose his title despite him being dead.

But the method isn't new, and these tests were done in 2004, which itself falls outside of the SOL. There's really no legal case as far as I can see.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

But the method isn't new, and these tests were done in 2004, which itself falls outside of the SOL. There's really no legal case as far as I can see.

When the tests were run in 2004, that would mean within the SOL.

Free publicity for Pat, thats what this is about.

 

[neineinei]

When the tests were run in 2004, that would mean within the SOL.

Free publicity for Pat, thats what this is about.

He only answered a question put to him by L'Equipe. His answer was dumb, he should have said: "No, we can't take away Pantanis win, it is outside the statue of limitation according to the WAD code, the testing in 2004 also was not done according to code, we couldn't have taken away any results on the basis of them even in 2004, and the UCI Management Committee has declared 1998-2005 a dark era of cycling for which we will not declare any new winners, ever. I am sorry that the UCI didn't see to proper retesting for EPO after the test came in 2000, and I am sorry that we didn't see to proper retesting for EPO CERA when that test became available in 2008."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How'd that work out in the end?

The Vrijman report?
About $100,000.

 

[hrotha]

He only answered a question put to him by L'Equipe. His answer was dumb, he should have said: "No, we can't take away Pantanis win, it is outside the statue of limitation according to the WAD code, the testing in 2004 also was not done according to code, we couldn't have taken away any results on the basis of them even in 2004, and the UCI Management Committee has declared 1998-2005 a dark era of cycling for which we will not declare any new winners, ever. I am sorry that the UCI didn't see to proper retesting for EPO after the test came in 2000, and I am sorry that we didn't see to proper retesting for EPO CERA when that test became available in 2008."

He can't say the last bit. They're still in time to retest those Giro samples

 

[Catwhoorg]

I found this tweet a little odd from Bikepure

https://twitter.com/BikePure/status/351826204736757760

Didn't Pantani suffer enough? If reports are true then it's a disgrace blood samples have been tested after his death. Rest in peace.


================

 

[Escarabajo]

I don't profess to know French law but the 8 year limitation for going after dopers seems to exonerate any chance that Pantani would lose his title.

Despite this, I would like to see this rule sidestepped by the principle that where there is new, substantial evidence that comes to light (especially if new methods of detecting breaches has only been discovered) that Pantani can still be sanctioned and lose his title despite him being dead.

You have to put legal limits to testing, otherwise we would have to go after Hinault, Zootemelk, Merckx, etc.

Remember that some of the riders of the 60's and 70's have confessed to doping. We can not just go and take away their wins. If just too crazy.

8 years. Simple.

Besides these tests were not done according to code. So you have a Double whammy.

 

[Mich78BEL]

If they go through with this and strip his 98 title then i'm done with cycling for good. Doping has been around forever might as well take all the titles away.

****ing double standard, why would Riis get to keep his title but Pantani or Armstrong have their titles stripped away. I never liked Armstrong but its not doping that is destroying the sport but the double standard and the rape of cycling history.

If you can't catch someone within a reasonable amount of time (even 8 years is already way too long) then the winner should stand (put an asterisk next to his name for all i care but not that No Winner crap). Cycling is getting more and more pathetic and dumb each year.

 

[Benotti69]

What about guys like Bassons? They were forced out of the sport by the Pantani's in cycling.

Those who chose not to follow the dope need this too happen. It is small recompense for having chose a clean path but by choosing to have integrity they were forced out of a sport they chose to pursue by guys like Pantani.

While Pantani didn't make the doping he was quick enough to sit on the road and protest about the treatment of police raids for doping.

 

[Benotti69]

If they go through with this and strip his 98 title then i'm done with cycling for good. Doping has been around forever might as well take all the titles away.

****ing double standard, why would Riis get to keep his title but Pantani or Armstrong have their titles stripped away. I never liked Armstrong but its not doping that is destroying the sport but the double standard and the rape of cycling history.

If you can't catch someone within a reasonable amount of time (even 8 years is already way too long) then the winner should stand (put an asterisk next to his name for all i care but not that No Winner crap). Cycling is getting more and more pathetic and dumb each year.

See ya.

...................................

 

[ultimobici]

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.

You seem to be confusing applying the law that applied at the time with applying current law to a past time. The first is entirely normal and acceptable, the latter is against common sense.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What about guys like Bassons? They were forced out of the sport by the Pantani's in cycling.

Those who chose not to follow the dope need this too happen. It is small recompense for having chose a clean path but by choosing to have integrity they were forced out of a sport they chose to pursue by guys like Pantani.

While Pantani didn't make the doping he was quick enough to sit on the road and protest about the treatment of police raids for doping.

It amusing to see you invoke a guy like Bassons in your obsession when he said this last month, he isn't too concerned about the past:

The Senate Commission is set to release its full report on July 18, but Bassons cautioned against concentrating exclusively on past transgressions and expressed doubts about certain elements of the contemporary peloton. He warned that the spectre of organised doping is still present in the sport.

“In the end, I always knew the truth,” Bassons said. “But the past remains the past. I don’t want people to focus on the past on and close their eyes to the present, which worries me.

“Unfortunately, when you see the physiology of certain riders who are going to start this year’s Tour de France, you have to ask yourself questions. There are still doping problems in cycling. There’s organised doping in some teams, in my opinion. There are a lot of individuals also who are doping. I would like that someone finally came up with a report on the real health of French cycling.”

 

[Benotti69]

It amusing to see you invoke a guy like Bassons in your obsession when he, he isn't too concerned about the past:

Should I invoke others?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Should I invoke others?

No ...........

 

[Cloxxki]

Pantani being less obnoxious than some doesn't make him less of a doper. He's like a Lemond who DID sell his soul to the docs and tried his luck and health on EPO.
And dying shouldn't exclude you from result adjustments. How long dead after a race would be the threshold? Say a tour winner crashes his new bought Ferrari (car) out of a Monaco corner weeks after winning in Paris. Tests are checked, a month of presidential hold up, and the results could come out after the funeral while the Vuelta has yet to start. Keep the win? I say no. You get to die "in the yellow" rather than get 60 years in shame to live through. That's enough luck, but the living won't need to see you as a winner after your passing.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I don't think Pantini can be labled as the winner, but the obvious looser is the UCI. The statute of limitations exists to squeeze some impetus out of those making decisions.

It does no good to say 15 years after the fact: "We finally did our job."

 

[42x16ss]

The hilarious thing is that Fat Pat thinks it does

So hoping this backfires on him with Voigt and O'Grady

 

[darwin553]

You have to put legal limits to testing, otherwise we would have to go after Hinault, Zootemelk, Merckx, etc.

Remember that some of the riders of the 60's and 70's have confessed to doping. We can not just go and take away their wins. If just too crazy.

8 years. Simple.

Besides these tests were not done according to code. So you have a Double whammy.

I would concede a mere confession wouldn't be sufficient to strip someone of their title.

It would need witness testimony from other riders corroborating the confession (and credible at that) and/or more significantly, but doubtful to the tour years you speak of, lab evidence of riders' testing positive.