RIP Panta

smithy21

Doped for his entire career. His entire career.

I don't get the love.

rick_chasey

nic_77 wrote:

Matt Rendell, as usual, adds sense and calm objectivity to the hyperbole.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/02/ ... ath_317220

Objective apart from selling his book on the subject, right?

rick_chasey

smithy21 wrote:

Doped for his entire career. His entire career.

I don't get the love.

What were your thoughts when you were watching him in the '90s?

smithy21

Rick, I always thought he looked a bit of a dick with that pirate schtick.

Always like Chiappucci for some reason so go figure I suppose.

Richmond Racer

Rick Chasey wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

Matt Rendell, as usual, adds sense and calm objectivity to the hyperbole.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/02/ ... ath_317220

Objective apart from selling his book on the subject, right?

So the guy who is unarguably one of the most knowledgeable people on Pantani and all the conundrums about him and his life, isn't entitled to a valid opinion on the swooning from many parts of the media? Anyone who thinks Rendell is a publicity whore is living in la-la land. Rendell has always spoken and written eloquently about Pantani.

Not everyone shares your unequivocal love for Pantani, Rick. Personally I feel his personal life was a tragic one, and I remain pretty disgusted at how he was thrown to the wolves - and that most of his entourage have got away scot free. However, my feelings are also tempered by actions of his such as being one of the ring leaders of the riders protest over 'inhumane' treatment - which was as cynical an act as you can get.

mike6

RichN95 wrote:

Sir Tom Finney died today.

Talent, class, dignity, integrity, flair. He had it all.

I bet half of you have never heard of him. But he was everything sport should be. Pantani was everything it shouldn't be.

I appreciate Its your opinion Rich, but If you have no interest in Pantani why bother reading the thread? Then, why bother posting a negative response when the drift is peoples personal take on who, you have to admit, we all agree was deeply flawed, but touched us on a human level that not many cyclists do?

Were you simply determined to take an opposite stance?

blazing_saddles

I think everybody is aware that Pantani was just as bad as all
the rest.
I just got the impression this thread was more about
remembering his beautiful climbing style and attacking bravado.
The rest, being taken as read, given the significance of the date.

I think of a world without Pantani, still populated by Armstrong, Ullrich
and Indurain.
I think of Aprica, 1994, Les Deux Alpes and Alberville, 1998, Ventoux and Morzine 2000.
I give thanks.

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

Matt Rendell, as usual, adds sense and calm objectivity to the hyperbole.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/02/ ... ath_317220

Objective apart from selling his book on the subject, right?

So the guy who is unarguably one of the most knowledgeable people on Pantani and all the conundrums about him and his life, isn't entitled to a valid opinion on the swooning from many parts of the media? Anyone who thinks Rendell is a publicity whore is living in la-la land. Rendell has always spoken and written eloquently about Pantani.

Not everyone shares your unequivocal love for Pantani, Rick. Personally I feel his personal life was a tragic one, and I remain pretty disgusted at how he was thrown to the wolves - and that most of his entourage have got away scot free. However, my feelings are also tempered by actions of his such as being one of the ring leaders of the riders protest over 'inhumane' treatment - which was as cynical an act as you can get.

Calm down. Sheesh. Just a cheeky comment.

I read the book but I'm not enormously bought into the idea that doping in sport leads to drug use outside of it.

But then, fundamentally, what their personal life is is their business. I'm principally interested in what they do on the road and my opinions on riders are largely based on that.

There's a lot of retrospective sanctimony about him and his era but he was good and exciting to watch.

rick_chasey

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I think everybody is aware that Pantani was just as bad as all
the rest.
I just got the impression this thread was more about
remembering his beautiful climbing style and attacking bravado.
The rest, being taken as read, given the significance of the date.

I think of a world without Pantani, still populated by Armstrong, Ullrich
and Indurain.
I think of Aprica, 1994, Les Deux Alpes and Alberville, 1998, Ventoux and Morzine 2000.
I give thanks.

Quite.

smokey_bacon

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I think everybody is aware that Pantani was just as bad as all
the rest.
I just got the impression this thread was more about
remembering his beautiful climbing style and attacking bravado.
The rest, being taken as read, given the significance of the date.

I think of a world without Pantani, still populated by Armstrong, Ullrich
and Indurain.
I think of Aprica, 1994, Les Deux Alpes and Alberville, 1998, Ventoux and Morzine 2000.
I give thanks.

+1 my man.

joelsim

Just watching the videos...Pantani, Ullrich, Armstrong, Riis, Virenque, Leblanc, Jalabert, Olano...all fighting one another...you get the drift. I don't personally believe you can call any of them cheats as if one had chosen not to take it they would have just been left behind.

rayjay

I think the more Tour, Vuelta , Giro, wins that riders had from that era then more anger seems to be shown.

If Pantani had won Armstrongs 7 tours I bet a lot of you would be a lot more angry about him and less angry about Armstrong. That's why Ulrich is well liked

IMO , those were the days accept it ,enjoy it for what it was.

I find something a bit odd about people getting so angry and worked up.

Are you upset that he beat one of your other favourite dopers from that time.

It does not effect your real life.

These are all just a bunch of talented athletes who all did what seemed the normal thing to do at that time.

I missed all the Pantani years but have watched tons of footage and he really was a brilliant and exciting rider.

As for the doping,,,,,,get over it

mike6

rayjay wrote:

I think the more Tour, Vuelta , Giro, wins that riders had from that era then more anger seems to be shown.

If Pantani had won Armstrongs 7 tours I bet a lot of you would be a lot more angry about him and less angry about Armstrong. That's why Ulrich is well liked

IMO , those were the days accept it ,enjoy it for what it was.

I find something a bit odd about people getting so angry and worked up.

Are you upset that he beat one of your other favourite dopers from that time.

It does not effect your real life.

These are all just a bunch of talented athletes who all did what seemed the normal thing to do at that time.

I missed all the Pantani years but have watched tons of footage and he really was a brilliant and exciting rider.

As for the doping,,,,,,get over it

Nothing to "Get over". Most who like Marco are talking about the man, not just the cyclist. He came over as a nice guy, as did Jan, that is probably why lots of people dont forgive there cheating, but still like and admire the personality.
Armstrong? Even if he had won nothing, he still projected himself as an arrogant, big headed, childish bully. So even when he was racking up the Tour wins he was not the sort of person I warm to.

iainf72

mike6 wrote:

Nothing to "Get over". Most who like Marco are talking about the man, not just the cyclist. He came over as a nice guy, as did Jan, that is probably why lots of people dont forgive there cheating, but still like and admire the personality.
Armstrong? Even if he had won nothing, he still projected himself as an arrogant, big headed, childish bully. So even when he was racking up the Tour wins he was not the sort of person I warm to.

Surely the Tafi incident shows that Pantani wasn't a million miles away from an Armstrong type character.

ugo.santalucia

Le Commentateur wrote:

the final mountain stage over the Mortirolo to Aprica was something of an anti-climax.

Gotti... the least exciting climber to memory..

Le Commentateur

Yes, he was a pretty ugly slogger on the climbs in comparison, but Gotti never gave up chasing – he almost toppled off his bike after crossing the line at Alpe di Pampeago – and in the end that left him in contention to take the jersey off Savoldelli.

knedlicky

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Le Commentateur wrote:

the final mountain stage over the Mortirolo to Aprica was something of an anti-climax.

Gotti... the least exciting climber to memory..

Le Commentateur wrote:

Yes, he was a pretty ugly slogger on the climbs in comparison, but Gotti never gave up chasing – he almost toppled off his bike after crossing the line at Alpe di Pampeago – and in the end that left him in contention to take the jersey off Savoldelli.

Overall you (ugo) might be right, I never particularly took to Gotti. But like Commentateur says, he did have his qualities. His win at Cervinia in 1997, when he took the pink jersey off Tonkov, was a masterstroke of sorts.

The previous year, they‘d finished the Aprica stage together, Gotti taking the win, Tonkov taking pink. For Tonkov, Gotti had been an ally against Olano.
In 1997 Tonkov looked pretty invincible and if he saw anybody as a threat, it was Leblanc, not Gotti, whom he perhaps still thought of as a potential ally if Leblanc threatened. So when Gotti rode away, 30 km before the mountain top finish and against a headwind too, Tonkov remained pretty calm, only towards the end, when it was too late, realising he’d been watching the wrong opponent.

Apart from his own light bodyweight (57 kg), in 1997 Gotti had an pretty low weight bike for the era, a Cannondale, 7.5 kg (in particular the one-off custom-made wheelset, made in Basle, being very light), which of course also helped.

ugo.santalucia

rayjay wrote:

If Pantani had won Armstrongs 7 tours I bet a lot of you would be a lot more angry about him and less angry about Armstrong. That's why Ulrich is well liked

That's a good point... yes, big winners were never very popular... Anquetil, Hinault, Merckx... Armstrong. On the other hand those who had many misfortunes and lost more than they won are extremely popular: Pantani, Poulidor, Chiappucci...
Isn't that in order to be a big winner you need to be a certain type of arrogant individual? The exception might be Indurain, but he never had a real contender... Ugrumov, Chiappucci, Zulle... not exactly world beaters

blazing_saddles

I don't think Pantani could ever have won a string of Tours, given that the TTT became so
influential during the early noughties.
However, I do think we were robbed of a possible repeat of 1998, in 1999.
Pantani at his absolute best versus the emerging dark horse, Armstrong.
Given that there is little doubt as to which end of the peloton Il Pirata
would have been found on the passage de gois, a 7 minute head start
would surely have ignited early action in the Alps.
Good though he was, I don't think that Lance could have kept pace with Marco,
once the road went up.
Would have been a very tasty encounter.

mike6

ugo.santalucia wrote:

rayjay wrote:

If Pantani had won Armstrongs 7 tours I bet a lot of you would be a lot more angry about him and less angry about Armstrong. That's why Ulrich is well liked

That's a good point... yes, big winners were never very popular... Anquetil, Hinault, Merckx... Armstrong. On the other hand those who had many misfortunes and lost more than they won are extremely popular: Pantani, Poulidor, Chiappucci...
Isn't that in order to be a big winner you need to be a certain type of arrogant individual? The exception might be Indurain, but he never had a real contender... Ugrumov, Chiappucci, Zulle... not exactly world beaters

You must be joking, Merckx was so popular he transcended cycling, like Ali was known to none boxing fans. Merckx was difficult to dislike as he was modest in victory and generous in defeat.

kleinstroker

And Merckx was another one doped up to his eyeballs on amphetamines!!

knedlicky

mike6 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

rayjay wrote:

If Pantani had won Armstrongs 7 tours I bet a lot of you would be a lot more angry about him and less angry about Armstrong. That's why Ulrich is well liked

That's a good point... yes, big winners were never very popular... Anquetil, Hinault, Merckx... Armstrong. On the other hand those who had many misfortunes and lost more than they won are extremely popular: Pantani, Poulidor, Chiappucci...
Isn't that in order to be a big winner you need to be a certain type of arrogant individual? The exception might be Indurain, but he never had a real contender... Ugrumov, Chiappucci, Zulle... not exactly world beaters

You must be joking, Merckx was so popular he transcended cycling, like Ali was known to none boxing fans. Merckx was difficult to dislike as he was modest in victory and generous in defeat.

I agree with mike6 about Merckx.

I’d say you are also wrong about Hinault – but that’s perhaps because I know he had, as well as many male admirers myself included, a large female (cycling) fan base.

Anyway, popularity obviously also depends on about which land you are talking about, and sometimes there are surprising cross-overs. As examples, it seems to me that Chiappucci is more remembered in GB than in Italy, while Voigt is more liked in the USA than in Germany.

frenchfighter

Pretty cool that some of you were there on that Oropa stage and agreed that the music goes so well.

--

Can someone provide a link to where it says Pantani was the ring leader of the protests as two of you have said? Ive not read it and his nature doesn't lend itself to that either. Ive read Riis was very vocal at the time as was Saiz and there were a ton of riders feeling the same way. Jaja even quit that day as well as his whole team and some other Spanish teams. Maybe Jaja just didn't want to get rolled over again after his Galibier performance.

frenchfighter

knedlicky wrote:

Anyway, popularity obviously also depends on about which land you are talking about, and sometimes there are surprising cross-overs. As examples, it seems to me that Chiappucci is more remembered in GB than in Italy, while Voigt is more liked in the USA than in Germany.

Interesting point.

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

Pretty cool that some of you were there on that Oropa stage and agreed that the music goes so well.

--

Can someone provide a link to where it says Pantani was the ring leader of the protests as two of you have said? Ive not read it and his nature doesn't lend itself to that either. Ive read Riis was very vocal at the time as was Saiz and there were a ton of riders feeling the same way. Jaja even quit that day as well as his whole team and some other Spanish teams. Maybe Jaja just didn't want to get rolled over again after his Galibier performance.

I remember the protests as a joint effort between the "Big Guns" that year. If one team didn't go in for it, the protest would be rendered comically useless. It was my impression that the organisation was a joint effort between Riis, Ullrich, Pantani and Jalabert.

mike6

disgruntledgoat wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Pretty cool that some of you were there on that Oropa stage and agreed that the music goes so well.

--

Can someone provide a link to where it says Pantani was the ring leader of the protests as two of you have said? Ive not read it and his nature doesn't lend itself to that either. Ive read Riis was very vocal at the time as was Saiz and there were a ton of riders feeling the same way. Jaja even quit that day as well as his whole team and some other Spanish teams. Maybe Jaja just didn't want to get rolled over again after his Galibier performance.

I remember the protests as a joint effort between the "Big Guns" that year. If one team didn't go in for it, the protest would be rendered comically useless. It was my impression that the organisation was a joint effort between Riis, Ullrich, Pantani and Jalabert.

From what I saw on the coverage at the time it was Riis who was the most vocal and high profile.

disgruntledgoat

The bit at the end of the protest where Pantani gets up nearly last and then drops his dossard, picks it up, drops it again, picks it up and then cycles off with his portent severely diminished is hilarious.

rayjay

mike6 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

rayjay wrote:

If Pantani had won Armstrongs 7 tours I bet a lot of you would be a lot more angry about him and less angry about Armstrong. That's why Ulrich is well liked

That's a good point... yes, big winners were never very popular... Anquetil, Hinault, Merckx... Armstrong. On the other hand those who had many misfortunes and lost more than they won are extremely popular: Pantani, Poulidor, Chiappucci...
Isn't that in order to be a big winner you need to be a certain type of arrogant individual? The exception might be Indurain, but he never had a real contender... Ugrumov, Chiappucci, Zulle... not exactly world beaters

You must be joking, Merckx was so popular he transcended cycling, like Ali was known to none boxing fans. Merckx was difficult to dislike as he was modest in victory and generous in defeat.

Can I ask you Mike or anyone , how you feel about Merckx , even though he has been busted for PED's on more than one occasion?

Maybe a different era than Armstrong's but look how many races he must have won on PED''s.

Who doped to win the most races Merckx or Armstrong?

Who's worse ?

ugo.santalucia

rayjay wrote:

Who doped to win the most races Merckx or Armstrong?

Who's worse ?

Neither...
Who do we think we are to judge the morality of an individual? When the system does not work by the rules from the very top, only a handful of fools play by the rules... it would be like paying taxes in Zimbabwe... you must be completely mad to give your money to that government. The system was not right, it's never been right, it's only starting now to get right, it's not right yet... but it starts to make sense to ride clean, you can get results... 20 years ago only a hopeless idiot would dare riding clean.

The Armstrong era is particularly bad as the practice of blood doping was extremely dangerous, compared to the risk involved in previous doping regimes

Don't blame Merckx or Armstrong, blame those at the top of the game who avoided to tackle the issue... has anyone put Verbruggen & co. on trial?

mike6

ugo.santalucia wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Who doped to win the most races Merckx or Armstrong?

Who's worse ?

Neither...
Who do we think we are to judge the morality of an individual? When the system does not work by the rules from the very top, only a handful of fools play by the rules... it would be like paying taxes in Zimbabwe... you must be completely mad to give your money to that government. The system was not right, it's never been right, it's only starting now to get right, it's not right yet... but it starts to make sense to ride clean, you can get results... 20 years ago only a hopeless idiot would dare riding clean.

The Armstrong era is particularly bad as the practice of blood doping was extremely dangerous, compared to the risk involved in previous doping regimes

Don't blame Merckx or Armstrong, blame those at the top of the game who avoided to tackle the issue... has anyone put Verbruggen & co. on trial?

Wasting your time Ugo.