Remembering Marco Pantani

dolan_driver

No, flew into Bologna. The holiday was with Hotel Dory in Riccione, a hotel that caters almost solely to the cyclist on holiday. When we were there in March 2010, the weather was crap. It was the worst weather they had had at that time of year for a long, long time. Rain, sleet and near-freezing temperatures at times. Some of the rides were not much fun but the routes chosen were amazing. It was still the best holiday I've ever been on! It is a beautiful country with a real love of cycling that is really noticeable compared to a country like Ireland. Cycling is part of the culture. The food was also amazing.

Cesanatico looks like a beautiful little town. We only made it to the graveyard and museum on our visit as it was raining and freezing cold but on a sunny day, I'll bet it would be amazing. I hope to go back there again in the next few years.

DD.

Le Commentateur

That stage of the Tour de France, 27 July 1998

Valloire to Col du Galibier
http://bit.ly/Vihbvd

Galibier to Les Deux Alpes
http://bit.ly/XbfBsy

Italian commentary.

chieflordy

Turfle wrote:

There were very few things in cycling more exciting than a Pantani attack, or waiting for a Pantani attack.

I always post this in Pantani threads. Guido Belaconto serenading him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz_c_0ZhaoA

This is well worth a view as well

http://vimeo.com/45165720

rodgers73

He may have been a lovely bloke. Or a complete a*se. We'll never know. Certainly the Matt Rendall book left me with a negative impression of him, despite simultaneously recognising that his death was unnecessary and should have been avoided.

I'm not sure why he deserves sympathy for being "used up and spat out" by the sport though. He was a massive cheat and got caught and banned. Has LA been similarly treated? Seems like his death has taken away a lot people's perspective on his behaviour.

dave_1

pantani was so much faster than the others my guess is in a clean sport he would have been as good as or better tha zHerrera. But his doping and cheating are what made it impossible to win clean as well..though he shares responsibility with other big name riders for it. LA's crime is no different but bullying and misuse of charity are .

meggiedude

rodgers73 wrote:

He may have been a lovely bloke. Or a complete a*se. We'll never know. Certainly the Matt Rendall book left me with a negative impression of him, despite simultaneously recognising that his death was unnecessary and should have been avoided.

I'm not sure why he deserves sympathy for being "used up and spat out" by the sport though. He was a massive cheat and got caught and banned. Has LA been similarly treated? Seems like his death has taken away a lot people's perspective on his behaviour.

He may have been a complete *rse off the saddle or not. I have no idea.
He was clearly doped to the eyeballs, but then during that time a lot (most??) of his peers were as well.
With that in mind he still would have top drawer climber/descender clean, given a level playing field IMHO

Like others I struggle to bad mouth Pantani.
Realize that this may look like hypocrisy to others because of the vitriol that is currently dished out to that Texan chap at the moment, but as others have also said, its the bullying/intimidation and the wrecking of others lives that you also get with LA.

While watching a sprint finish may be exciting, to me watching il Pirata stamp on the pedals on a almost vertical climb is the reason I got into cycling.

durhamwasp

Dolan Driver wrote:

No, flew into Bologna. The holiday was with Hotel Dory in Riccione, a hotel that caters almost solely to the cyclist on holiday. When we were there in March 2010, the weather was crap. It was the worst weather they had had at that time of year for a long, long time. Rain, sleet and near-freezing temperatures at times. Some of the rides were not much fun but the routes chosen were amazing. It was still the best holiday I've ever been on! It is a beautiful country with a real love of cycling that is really noticeable compared to a country like Ireland. Cycling is part of the culture. The food was also amazing.

Cesanatico looks like a beautiful little town. We only made it to the graveyard and museum on our visit as it was raining and freezing cold but on a sunny day, I'll bet it would be amazing. I hope to go back there again in the next few years.

DD.

Ah yes, Bologna can be reached with Easyjet from Gatwick. Will have to consider it, tho we wont really be doing any cycling... (family trip) Did you take the bus from Bologna to the coast or hire a car?

dolan_driver

Got a bus from the airport to Riccione but there is also a train service, from what I can remember.

DD.

skylla

French chanson/rock ode to le pirate:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3qlc_ ... R4Mah1Ufs8

frenchfighter

Good photos above.

From Cnews forum:

I've never seen such large bunch of *****, ******* and ****** together than in that article of the 9th anniversary of Pantani's death

I think Claudio Chiapucci is the only one who put it clearly when, in the day of Marco Pantani's death said: "This is the greatest hypocresy ever; all these cyclist who are now saying how sad they are, left Marco completely aside after he tested positive".

Paulie W

Dave_1 wrote:

pantani was so much faster than the others my guess is in a clean sport he would have been as good as or better tha zHerrera. But his doping and cheating are what made it impossible to win clean as well..though he shares responsibility with other big name riders for it. LA's crime is no different but bullying and misuse of charity are .

My understanding - and this very much comes from Rendell's book - is that there was nothing to suggest from his time as a junior that he was better than the rest.

LutherB

Paulie W wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

pantani was so much faster than the others my guess is in a clean sport he would have been as good as or better tha zHerrera. But his doping and cheating are what made it impossible to win clean as well..though he shares responsibility with other big name riders for it. LA's crime is no different but bullying and misuse of charity are .

My understanding - and this very much comes from Rendell's book - is that there was nothing to suggest from his time as a junior that he was better than the rest.

That's what i got from Rendell's book too, he'd been doping from '91, before he turned pro. I never saw him ride as i started watching pro-racing in 2004, but his story is a fascinating one and Rendells book is one of my favourite cycling books. There seems to be something in the mindset of the traditional climber that's different, something akin to the loneliness of the long distance runner; Charly Gaul the hermit, stories of others commiting suicide.

heavymental

LutherB wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

pantani was so much faster than the others my guess is in a clean sport he would have been as good as or better tha zHerrera. But his doping and cheating are what made it impossible to win clean as well..though he shares responsibility with other big name riders for it. LA's crime is no different but bullying and misuse of charity are .

My understanding - and this very much comes from Rendell's book - is that there was nothing to suggest from his time as a junior that he was better than the rest.

That's what i got from Rendell's book too, he'd been doping from '91, before he turned pro. I never saw him ride as i started watching pro-racing in 2004, but his story is a fascinating one and Rendells book is one of my favourite cycling books. There seems to be something in the mindset of the traditional climber that's different, something akin to the loneliness of the long distance runner; Charly Gaul the hermit, stories of others commiting suicide.

Yep, Marco was an artist on and off the bike. He had a self destructive personality that was helped along by the way his peers and 'friends' treated him. I also read the Maunela Ronchi book on him, which is a pretty bad book in comparison to Rendell's account, but does reinforce the feeling that few people had his best interests at heart. As with many drug addicts, you just feel like you wish someone was there to take him under their wing and with tough love help him through. But even if there are those people there, it's far from an easy task to help out someone with those issues. Thats why it's a tragic story and that's why it's completely different to Lance who was completely opposite in his personality.

Le Commentateur

He was a climber before turning pro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6WETnJcopY

The problem is when you climb mountains to prove both to others and to yourself how good you are it's fraught with risk. The glory and self-esteem only last so long and the public and the ego demand you repeat it again and again to maintain this image. I think in the end he was consumed by his 'pirata' public persona because he had no personal or professional options that let him fail gracefully. Whatever insecurity he had fed the narcissistic side of him that both powered his attacking style of riding and the self-pitying reclusive retreat into drug addicition, preyed on by parasites and ignored by those who didn't want to be associated with failure.

durhamwasp

Still never really understood why Lance apparently let him win on the Ventoux, maybes it kept Lance away from a doping control?

dmclite-3.0

Hypocrisy of the highest order in pro-race on here. I like rider A because he had panache and was EPO'd to the gills. But I don't like rider B because he was a prolific doper and was EPO'd to the gills.

Le Commentateur

I think when people look back fondly it's because they are really remembering the excitement and enthusiasm in their own lives at that time that was triggered by Pantani and not rationally trying to measure his exploits with the general state of cycling as it was and probably still is now. Maybe it's easier because of the distancing effect of his death in 2004.

Right, I'm off to watch Marianne win a bike race (hopefully with panache).

blazing_saddles

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

Hypocrisy of the highest order in pro-race on here. I like rider A because he had panache and was EPO'd to the gills. But I don't like rider B because he was a prolific doper and was EPO'd to the gills.

Rider A likely to attack solo, often, from anywhere, at any time, rider B riding behind 8 other guys EPO'd to the gills and being "launched" with a couple of kms left, of the final climb.
Panache certainly a factor on how a rider is remembered by the viewer.
Not quite as one dimensional an arguement as you make it out to be.

mike6

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

Hypocrisy of the highest order in pro-race on here. I like rider A because he had panache and was EPO'd to the gills. But I don't like rider B because he was a prolific doper and was EPO'd to the gills.

Not at all. It is easy to prefer one over the other due to there real or imagined personalities. You like or admire the personality of one, and dislike the personality of another. Simple basic human nature.

I liked Marco because of his frailties. His shy almost childlike smile when he first pulled on the leaders jersey in the Giro in 98, and not the sneer of self satisfaction that a certain other rider used to produce.

No_Ta_Doctor

mike6 wrote:

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

Hypocrisy of the highest order in pro-race on here. I like rider A because he had panache and was EPO'd to the gills. But I don't like rider B because he was a prolific doper and was EPO'd to the gills.

Not at all. It is easy to prefer one over the other due to there real or imagined personalities. You like or admire the personality of one, and dislike the personality of another. Simple basic human nature.

I liked Marco because of his frailties. His shy almost childlike smile when he first pulled on the leaders jersey in the Giro in 98, and not the sneer of self satisfaction that a certain other rider used to produce.

That sounds like it's almost irrelevant that either Pantani or "a certain other rider" doped. I'll give you that Pantani was far more likeable than Armstrong, but we haven't been calling for Armstrong's head just because he had a sneer.

For me, Pantani's doping was unforgiveable, precisely because he seemed a likeable bloke and was an exciting rider. It's because the panache we all loved was fuelled by drugs. Panache is at the heart of cycling's romance, it needs to be authentic or the romance is dead. Pantani's doping was a bigger betrayal of cycling than LA's was.

And it's worth noting that "shy smile when he pulled the yellow jersey on" or not, he was le patron on one of the darkest days of the 98 tour, the day we finally drew back the curtain on the collective mind of the peloton wrt doping. Not only did he participate in the riders' sit-down and stage annulling go-slow, he was the first rider to remove his race number. At the end of the "stage" he parroted the same lines as all the others, the ones that showed us the riders' sense of entitlement, their arrogance.

rick_chasey

He got me into cycling with his 98 Les Deux Alp ride when I was 10.

In return, I wear a replica Mercatone Uno jersey.

dmclite-3.0

mike6 wrote:

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

Hypocrisy of the highest order in pro-race on here. I like rider A because he had panache and was EPO'd to the gills. But I don't like rider B because he was a prolific doper and was EPO'd to the gills.

Not at all. It is easy to prefer one over the other due to there real or imagined personalities. You like or admire the personality of one, and dislike the personality of another. Simple basic human nature.

I liked Marco because of his frailties. His shy almost childlike smile when he first pulled on the leaders jersey in the Giro in 98, and not the sneer of self satisfaction that a certain other rider used to produce.

But rider B's personality didn't get him stripped of his tour titles, his doping did. I read and enjoyed Matt Rendells book about Pantani, but he doped from the start and toward the end of the book when all the doping info was plain to see I really lost interest, poor bugger that he was at the end.
Like I say, hypocrisy on here is palpable and ugly and people get flamed for bucking against the trend. There is no difference between riders who dope.

Will say this though, looking at all the highlighted links to vids,

mike6

As I said, Its not hypocrisy, its human nature. Also, Pantani is dead, in awful circumstances, so I for one, refuse to bad mouth him in his absence. Get over it.

dmclite-3.0

mike6 wrote:

As I said, Its not hypocrisy, its human nature. Also, Pantani is dead, in awful circumstances, so I for one, refuse to bad mouth him in his absence. Get over it.

You being serious ? Bad mouth him in his absence.... just stating facts matey, he doped, got caught doping and was kicked out of racing for doping, facts that I cannot do anything about.

Take a chill-pill and lighten up if not get out of this forum before you get all bitter and twisted

tailwindhome

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

Hypocrisy of the highest order in pro-race on here. I like rider A because he had panache and was EPO'd to the gills. But I don't like rider B because he was a prolific doper and was EPO'd to the gills.

You're assuming that the reason for disliking rider B is solely due to the doping.

If every rider for the past 30 years was a doper then from a pure 'which rider do you like' point of view then there is a 'level playing field'.

So if rider A has panache and rider B is a c*nt, then the fact they both doped is irrelevant.

a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.

durhamwasp

No tA Doctor wrote:

For me, Pantani's doping was unforgiveable, precisely because he seemed a likeable bloke and was an exciting rider. It's because the panache we all loved was fuelled by drugs. Panache is at the heart of cycling's romance, it needs to be authentic or the romance is dead. Pantani's doping was a bigger betrayal of cycling than LA's was.

Serious?

(have u read his book then?)

blazing_saddles

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

mike6 wrote:

As I said, Its not hypocrisy, its human nature. Also, Pantani is dead, in awful circumstances, so I for one, refuse to bad mouth him in his absence. Get over it.

You being serious ? Bad mouth him in his absence.... just stating facts matey, he doped, got caught doping and was kicked out of racing for doping, facts that I cannot do anything about.

Take a chill-pill and lighten up if not get out of this forum before you get all bitter and twisted

Well, you would be, if your facts were actually...................facts.

dmclite-3.0

Blazing Saddles wrote:

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

mike6 wrote:

As I said, Its not hypocrisy, its human nature. Also, Pantani is dead, in awful circumstances, so I for one, refuse to bad mouth him in his absence. Get over it.

You being serious ? Bad mouth him in his absence.... just stating facts matey, he doped, got caught doping and was kicked out of racing for doping, facts that I cannot do anything about.

Take a chill-pill and lighten up if not get out of this forum before you get all bitter and twisted

Well, you would be, if your facts were actually...................facts.

He was expelled from the 1999 Giro for high Heamocrit levels which along with other results showed long term EPO use. I can't change that, that is what happened in 1999. Am I wrong ?

blazing_saddles

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

mike6 wrote:

As I said, Its not hypocrisy, its human nature. Also, Pantani is dead, in awful circumstances, so I for one, refuse to bad mouth him in his absence. Get over it.

You being serious ? Bad mouth him in his absence.... just stating facts matey, he doped, got caught doping and was kicked out of racing for doping, facts that I cannot do anything about.

Take a chill-pill and lighten up if not get out of this forum before you get all bitter and twisted

Well, you would be, if your facts were actually...................facts.

He was expelled from the 1999 Giro for high Heamocrit levels which along with other results showed long term EPO use. I can't change that, that is what happened in 1999. Am I wrong ?

Now, don't get me wrong, there is no doubt that Pantani was a heavy user.
However, it was standard protocol to pull riders out of races, if their haematocrit level went above 50%.
Two weeks on the sidelines. "Health reasons" being the official term given by the UCI.
The same thing that Rob Hayles fell foul to before the 2008 Olympics.

http://www.cyclingscience.org/hematocrit.htm

So, no. He wasn't caught for doping, or kicked out of racing for doping.

As for other results showing long term epo use. His haemo instability after his accident in the Milan -Turin race eventually came to light and MR dug up some high numbers for his "late" book.

greasedscotsman

I can't help but think of Ricco when it comes to Pantani. I wonder if anyone is looking out for him or he'll turn up in a hotel room somewhere.