RIP Panta

Paulie W

Richmond Racer wrote:

I'm pretty certain Rendell's never insinuated anything of the kind

I'm pretty sure he does suggest that Pantani was a good responder to EPO.

above_the_cows

Yes and if you read Rendell's argument (claiming ignorance of who someone is does not invalidate their argument it just shows you didn't know who they were) you would see that it is suggested that Pantani's drug use may have gone back much further than his stellar pro years.

ugo.santalucia

Above The Cows wrote:

Yes and if you read Rendell's argument (claiming ignorance of who someone is does not invalidate their argument it just shows you didn't know who they were) you would see that it is suggested that Pantani's drug use may have gone back much further than his stellar pro years.

Drugs use or EPO use?

I lived in Italy and I am well aware that every single young rider was on drugs... blood doping? Not sure about that, there wasn't enough money in the system to pay for Pantani's EPO when he was a young rider... besides it had barely arrived in the PRO peloton, so it takes some time before a new product is for all...

'nough said about drugs

Anonymous

ugo.santalucia wrote:

'nough said about drugs

Why? That's what I was alluding to earlier. Why when it comes to certain riders do we not mention the drugs, yet for most we do? genuine question.

rayjay

Pantani was brilliant.

If you have an issue with riders taking drugs then you have an issue with cycling and just about every other professional sport ...

Get over It or go and do something about it if your that bothered.

Pantani was a great rider and obviously he was a good responder to PED's, but unless you know how all the other riders who doped responded then you have suck it up for what it is.

ugo.santalucia

sjmclean wrote:

Why? That's what I was alluding to earlier. Why when it comes to certain riders do we not mention the drugs, yet for most we do? genuine question.

Because he's dead and one has to draw a line over the accusations... it's not that he can defend himself

DeVlaeminck

Paulie W wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

basicallly if you accept Rendell's argument, he was a good but not special rider who was transformed by EPO into a world beater -

Why would I accept this person's argument? I have no idea who he is. It's the first time that I hear someone saying Pantani was an average talent and clearly it's bolxxcks

Maybe start by finding out who he is then eh? He wrote The Death of Marco Pantani which is a forensic analysis of Marco's career and his use of PEDs. Maybe read the book and then make the judgement.

I've got that book, it's a poor read and full of speculation ending up with Rendell turning amateur psychologist with some cringeworthy pages on Pantani's mental state. I don't remember the author claiming Pantani was an average talent in it but I'm not minded to reread it to check.

Paulie W

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

basicallly if you accept Rendell's argument, he was a good but not special rider who was transformed by EPO into a world beater -

Why would I accept this person's argument? I have no idea who he is. It's the first time that I hear someone saying Pantani was an average talent and clearly it's bolxxcks

Maybe start by finding out who he is then eh? He wrote The Death of Marco Pantani which is a forensic analysis of Marco's career and his use of PEDs. Maybe read the book and then make the judgement.

I've got that book, it's a poor read and full of speculation ending up with Rendell turning amateur psychologist with some cringeworthy pages on Pantani's mental state. I don't remember the author claiming Pantani was an average talent in it but I'm not minded to reread it to check.

Just so we're clear I didnt use the word average.

The stuff on Pantani's mental health is speculative but the material on his hmct is not.

Poor read is harsh - it is written in quite elaborate prose for the average cycling biography but I dont think many would ever call Rendell's writing poor.

knedlicky

I had a look at an Italian cycling forum on 14 February just to see what contributors there were saying about Pantani on his anniversary. Overall what they write I agree with. What they write is also contrary to, and what I find faulty in, the article FF linked above, and possibly contrary to what is in the Rendell book (I haven’t read it, only the Guardian article blazzingsaddles linked early on in this thread) – the assertion that Pantani was only a great climber because of the doping.

The Italians write that … the quality which Pantani had, and which attracted, was his willingness to attack and the courageous manner in which he did, and they don’t ascribe to the theory that it was doping which made him probably the best climber of recent years, because it was in his nature anyway. In this respect it’s irrelevant that he doped because so did his competitors at the time and they rarely if ever showed the same attacking flair, while instances of the same spirit have since been few and far between, and often just isolated days in a rider’s career.
They do lay some of the blame for his demise on Manuela Rocchi but at the same time they say that Pantani was not a victim of doping, or of poor or unjust treatment from the authorities or the press, rather in the end he was a victim of his own character and pride.
I think overall that's similar to what several of us here think.

I once read an article on Pantani not long after he’d died, where the author wrote that Pantani should have followed Gotti's example. Gotti was one of the relatively-few others in Italy to then be under investigation for doping, and at the time Gotti said, to cope one has to stay above things, so not react like Pantani was doing (becoming bitter, feeling humilated, and turning to recreational drugs).

One result of their different behaviours to similar doping accusations was that the Gazzetta chief editor and occasional RAI studio expert, Candido Cannavò, treated them differently.
With Pantani he would one day say/write how he loved him and his panache, his cycling talent and charisma, would try to persuade him to ride this or that race, and perhaps be photographed joyfully hugging Pantani at the end of a stage or race. And then a day or so later, Cannavo would say/write how Pantani is a big cheat, how disappointed he is in him, how we’ll never know how much a champion he is because of his doping, and what damage he has done to the sport.

Cannavo never attempted the same blowing hot and cold with Gotti, because he realised that it would be useless with Gotti because he wasn’t the same type of frail character who would react.

I wonder if Cannavo ever later felt any guilt - he was fairly socially-minded when it came to the deprived, but maybe as a journalist, his sense of fairness and consistency rarely extended to celebrities.

Le Commentateur

Rendell's main thesis is that Pantani was the victim of undiagnosed mental illness, a personality disorder that was both hidden and fueled by the world of bike racing, including PEDs.

mike6

I read Rendels book and it was pretty good, I thought. It was never going to change my perception of Pantani though.

Lets face it, we make our own minds up who we like and who we empathise with. I was always taken by Marco's obvious fragility and sensitivity, and the brutality of the sport he was in made it even more obvious.
The fact he could be supreme in the hardest element of that brutal sport, the high mountains, made what he did almost surreal.
That shy smile on his face when he first pulled on the pink jersey in the Giro will always be a defining image for me.

It was the personality I admired first, the cyclist came second. Thats life for me, Its about people.

frenchfighter

MartinGT

Le Commentateur wrote:

Rendell's main thesis is that Pantani was the victim of undiagnosed mental illness, a personality disorder that was both hidden and fueled by the world of bike racing, including PEDs.

Aye because Rendell is an authority on mental illness's.

I have read the book also and wasnt impressed with the way Rendell went on about mental illness and he went into a great amount of detail in the medical side of things.

No_Ta_Doctor

ugo.santalucia wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

Why? That's what I was alluding to earlier. Why when it comes to certain riders do we not mention the drugs, yet for most we do? genuine question.

Because he's dead and one has to draw a line over the accusations... it's not that he can defend himself

Though if I may be so blunt, it's not likely he's that bothered about defending himself now, is it?

It's precisely because he's dead that we shouldn't draw a line under this. What happened to him was tragic, but his role in the history of a pretty dark period for the sport, and his story, shouldn't be airbrushed.

That they were all at it is the rationale Pantani, and others, used to convince themselves they were doing no wrong - and is surely part of the reason Pantani felt himself unfairly treated, victimised even, when popped for high haematocrit. What ultimately killed Pantani was his mind, and I think it was his attitude to doping that played some part in that.

I honestly don't know if he took more PEDs than others, or started taking them as a kid. I do know that they were responsible for his success (given the state of cycling at the time), a success he wrongly believed he'd earned himself. If we "forgive" him his PED use we just validate the attitude that helped bring his downfall.

He was my favourite rider of the time, a direct extension of Lucho and Millar, but even more so. But I can't watch his rides with any appreciation anymore.

Le Commentateur

MartinGT wrote:

Le Commentateur wrote:

Rendell's main thesis is that Pantani was the victim of undiagnosed mental illness, a personality disorder that was both hidden and fueled by the world of bike racing, including PEDs.

Aye because Rendell is an authority on mental illness's.

He doesn't have to be. He's a journalist and the job is to interview those people who are experts or were witnesses to events and craft that into a book, which he did.

ugo.santalucia

No tA Doctor wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

Why? That's what I was alluding to earlier. Why when it comes to certain riders do we not mention the drugs, yet for most we do? genuine question.

Because he's dead and one has to draw a line over the accusations... it's not that he can defend himself

Though if I may be so blunt, it's not likely he's that bothered about defending himself now, is it?

It's precisely because he's dead that we shouldn't draw a line under this. What happened to him was tragic, but his role in the history of a pretty dark period for the sport, and his story, shouldn't be airbrushed.

That they were all at it is the rationale Pantani, and others, used to convince themselves they were doing no wrong - and is surely part of the reason Pantani felt himself unfairly treated, victimised even, when popped for high haematocrit. What ultimately killed Pantani was his mind, and I think it was his attitude to doping that played some part in that.

I honestly don't know if he took more PEDs than others, or started taking them as a kid. I do know that they were responsible for his success (given the state of cycling at the time), a success he wrongly believed he'd earned himself. If we "forgive" him his PED use we just validate the attitude that helped bring his downfall.

He was my favourite rider of the time, a direct extension of Lucho and Millar, but even more so. But I can't watch his rides with any appreciation anymore.

There is nothing to dig... we all know he was doped, we all know everyone was doped... what's the point in digging to find out how doped he was? Was he more or less doped than the other dopers? Who cares?

The USADA have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds prosecuting Armstrong as a pure act of retaliation, with no practical purpose other than a nice fat "I told you... " when their athlete Justin Gatlin, busted twice for doping is now running faster than before being caught... that doesn't seem an issue for USADA, better to chase ghosts and retired athletes instead... just in case they fancy riding a granfondo
The italian justice prosecuted Pantani or better persecuted Pantani as an act of ego pleasing, they could have persecuted Savoldelli, or Simoni or Bartoli, but no, Pantani was a bigger fish so he had to be squashed to give an example... is this the justice we want in sport?

FJS

Justice that goes after the big fish rather than the small ones? Actually, yes

ugo.santalucia

FJS wrote:

Justice that goes after the big fish rather than the small ones? Actually, yes

Absolutely not... the idea is to give up on the problem altogether, punish a big fish so it looks like you've done something about it, but in fact you've done nothing...
Did Pantani's persecution do anything to eradicate EPO from the peloton? NO... EPO started to disappear when they learned how to check for it and when they introduced the biological passport... it's never been the stick that solved the problem in the same way as punitive prison sentences don't lower crime rate... it just makes you feel good that the bad guy is in jail, but the world is just as bad as before

FJS

Sure, it's the combination. The biological passport has punitive measures attached to it.
And, as we know, the alternative to punishing a big fish without actually doing something structurally can also be punishing a small fish without doing something structurally

ugo.santalucia

FJS wrote:

Sure, it's the combination. The biological passport has punitive measures attached to it.
And, as we know, the alternative to punishing a big fish without actually doing something structurally can also be punishing a small fish without doing something structurally

Punishments and disqualifications have been in force since the 1970s and have done nothing to help. You can argue for life bans and you will still have offenders.
In the states where death penalty is applied, there is more violent crime than in those where it isn't. Punishment is NEVER a preventative measure, it just doesn't work.
The way out o the mess is via EDUCATION... riders need to be aware of the risks associated with drugs theraphy. There needs to be a stricter control over team doctors and consulting doctors and team managers and staff need to have immaculate credentials... unfortunately Riis and the likes have to go(even if I do respect Riis as a team manager). More education and less repression

iainf72

Is that the same Savoldelli they're going after now?

ugo.santalucia

iainf72 wrote:

Is that the same Savoldelli they're going after now?

Yes... pointlessly... a bit of a crusade like the "old TV glories one"... except in the case of former cyclist there is actually nobody who got damaged...
Unless you believe that buying Mapei cement or Saeco coffee machines or shopping at Mercatone Uno was a mistake, given the amount of drugs the lads were on...

Richmond Racer

certainly shopping at Mercatone Uno and leaving your car parked in a street when Panta was behind the wheel, was a mistake...

mike6

ugo.santalucia wrote:

FJS wrote:

Sure, it's the combination. The biological passport has punitive measures attached to it.
And, as we know, the alternative to punishing a big fish without actually doing something structurally can also be punishing a small fish without doing something structurally

Punishments and disqualifications have been in force since the 1970s and have done nothing to help. You can argue for life bans and you will still have offenders.
In the states where death penalty is applied, there is more violent crime than in those where it isn't. Punishment is NEVER a preventative measure, it just doesn't work.
The way out o the mess is via EDUCATION... riders need to be aware of the risks associated with drugs theraphy. There needs to be a stricter control over team doctors and consulting doctors and team managers and staff need to have immaculate credentials... unfortunately Riis and the likes have to go(even if I do respect Riis as a team manager). More education and less repression

Well. you cant just state that. How do we know how many cyclists, pro or neo, would have doped if the punishments and disqualifications had not been in place?

Also, you have to go after the big fish. Hopefully the little fish then realise that no one is untouchable. The scale and sophistication of the Armstrong/Postal team doping system, and there avoidence methods, need to be known and studied to find better testing systems.

rayjay

Can some one tell me what good as come out of Tygart's Armstrong witch- hunt?

Who really thought riders were clean from that era?

What benefit has it had on cycling, all it has done is confirm what most people think and with good reason , that cyclist's dope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_do ... in_cycling

Riders are still doping.

If your going to go for Armstrong then why not T Mobile ,CSC or any of the other teams who had a better doping system in operation in the same detailed way Tygart went for Armstrong. Lets hear some of their dirt if we going to play the game fair.

You are not going to stop doping, It's still going on.

If you do want to try and stop it then stop wasting time and money digging up stuff we already know about,,, riders we already know about.

IMO if you do want to clean up the sport then all riders convicted of doping , all managers convicted of doping all staff members convicted of doping should be thrown out of the sport. Im talking about Riss, Vaughters,,etc


Lets introduce a new mind set.

Lets start a fresh and with fresh minds not ex dopers running or being in teams.

If we are riding clean then we don't need ex dopers around. Nothing they say would be relevant. Kick them out to touch.

Lets leave the past behind and I think we should enjoy it for what it was and Pantani IMO was great but we can't move on until all links with the past are gone. IMO

Anonymous

ugo.santalucia wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Is that the same Savoldelli they're going after now?

Yes... pointlessly... a bit of a crusade like the "old TV glories one"... :

Is that the one where young boys and girls were raped and sexually assaulted? Yeah pointless... :roll: :roll: :roll:

No_Ta_Doctor

ugo.santalucia wrote:

FJS wrote:

Sure, it's the combination. The biological passport has punitive measures attached to it.
And, as we know, the alternative to punishing a big fish without actually doing something structurally can also be punishing a small fish without doing something structurally

Punishments and disqualifications have been in force since the 1970s and have done nothing to help. You can argue for life bans and you will still have offenders.
In the states where death penalty is applied, there is more violent crime than in those where it isn't. Punishment is NEVER a preventative measure, it just doesn't work.
The way out o the mess is via EDUCATION... riders need to be aware of the risks associated with drugs theraphy. There needs to be a stricter control over team doctors and consulting doctors and team managers and staff need to have immaculate credentials... unfortunately Riis and the likes have to go(even if I do respect Riis as a team manager). More education and less repression

Ive argument plenty of times against life bans , increasing punishment doesn't increase the deterrent.
But increasing the perception that you could get caught does help. So yes, go after the big fish first.

rayjay

No tA Doctor wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

FJS wrote:

Sure, it's the combination. The biological passport has punitive measures attached to it.
And, as we know, the alternative to punishing a big fish without actually doing something structurally can also be punishing a small fish without doing something structurally

Punishments and disqualifications have been in force since the 1970s and have done nothing to help. You can argue for life bans and you will still have offenders.
In the states where death penalty is applied, there is more violent crime than in those where it isn't. Punishment is NEVER a preventative measure, it just doesn't work.
The way out o the mess is via EDUCATION... riders need to be aware of the risks associated with drugs theraphy. There needs to be a stricter control over team doctors and consulting doctors and team managers and staff need to have immaculate credentials... unfortunately Riis and the likes have to go(even if I do respect Riis as a team manager). More education and less repression

Ive argument plenty of times against life bans , increasing punishment doesn't increase the deterrent.
But increasing the perception that you could get caught does help. So yes, go after the big fish first.

Like Riis and Vaughter's still running teams. Like all those riders that get a 2 year ban or off season bans and are still racing and are welcomed back into the peloton with open arms.

Go after all those riders who no longer ride or manage teams, what you going to do ,ban them

Whats the point of increasing the perception of being caught when riders know full well they will be back racing within a year or 2 :roll:

Richmond Racer

No tA Doctor wrote:

Ive argument plenty of times against life bans , increasing punishment doesn't increase the deterrent.
But increasing the perception that you could get caught does help. So yes, go after the big fish first.

Yep

No_Ta_Doctor

rayjay wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

FJS wrote:

Sure, it's the combination. The biological passport has punitive measures attached to it.
And, as we know, the alternative to punishing a big fish without actually doing something structurally can also be punishing a small fish without doing something structurally

Punishments and disqualifications have been in force since the 1970s and have done nothing to help. You can argue for life bans and you will still have offenders.
In the states where death penalty is applied, there is more violent crime than in those where it isn't. Punishment is NEVER a preventative measure, it just doesn't work.
The way out o the mess is via EDUCATION... riders need to be aware of the risks associated with drugs theraphy. There needs to be a stricter control over team doctors and consulting doctors and team managers and staff need to have immaculate credentials... unfortunately Riis and the likes have to go(even if I do respect Riis as a team manager). More education and less repression

Ive argument plenty of times against life bans , increasing punishment doesn't increase the deterrent.
But increasing the perception that you could get caught does help. So yes, go after the big fish first.

Like Riis and Vaughter's still running teams. Like all those riders that get a 2 year ban or off season bans and are still racing and are welcomed back into the peloton with open arms.

Go after all those riders who no longer ride or manage teams, what you going to do ,ban them

Whats the point of increasing the perception of being caught when riders know full well they will be back racing within a year or 2 :roll:

rayjay, you didn't listen to a word of my argument (or anyone else's) last time we went through this, so you'll forgive me if I don't bother rehashing it again for you.

Instead you can have a :roll: smiley. You seem to like them.