Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Why is Pantani revered and Armstrong hated ?

24

Posts

  • above_the_cowsabove_the_cows Posts: 10,863
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • above_the_cowsabove_the_cows Posts: 10,863
    RichN95 wrote:
    What I do have a problem with is French TV and other media chucking baseless innuendo around while hero worshiping and employing Laurent Jalabert - to my mind probably the biggest doper in the history of the sport. Jalabert even joins in the innuendo.

    +1
    Correlation is not causation.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,416
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.
    Armstrong has been there for his children and gave up his time to try and help out others. All bad to the core?
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 24,404
    Pantani was Italian, Armstrong American... there is a completely different attitude towards doping in the two countries.
    Pantani never dominated, he always won as an underdog, except in 1999... when in fact he was "not allowed to win". The 99 Giro ended up being very controversial, as the overwhelming feeling was that they framed him... all his competitors also had % of red cells very close to 50... it was the game at the time, dope just enough to stay under 50%. It would have probably been different had Gotti been a real contender.

    The justice system then decided to persecute Pantani, essentially to prove a point about doping and that destroyed his career and ultimately took his life too... that also was seen a great injustice in an age when most got away lightly. Bear in mind Pantani never tested positive as such and was never disqualified... which added to the aura of persecution.

    The case of Armstrong was different... everybody knew, but nobody could prove it, hence it became very frustrating for many that someone who was not a natural climber or a natural TTer could thrash everybody else... the overwhelming perception was that he was one step beyond everybody else in doping... and he probably was.

    In a nutshell, doping has shades of grey in the public opinion
  • meanredspidermeanredspider Posts: 12,550
    FocusZing wrote:
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.
    Armstrong has been there for his children and gave up his time to try and help out others. All bad to the core?

    Yup - unlike most on here, I guess, I've met and spoken to the guy - he signed his book for my son after the Dornoch Twitter ride. FWIW, in the context of this discussion, I do genuinely believe LA cares about cancer.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • norvernrobnorvernrob Posts: 1,448
    Pantani was Italian, Armstrong American... there is a completely different attitude towards doping in the two countries.
    Pantani never dominated, he always won as an underdog, except in 1999... when in fact he was "not allowed to win". The 99 Giro ended up being very controversial, as the overwhelming feeling was that they framed him... all his competitors also had % of red cells very close to 50... it was the game at the time, dope just enough to stay under 50%. It would have probably been different had Gotti been a real contender.

    The justice system then decided to persecute Pantani, essentially to prove a point about doping and that destroyed his career and ultimately took his life too... that also was seen a great injustice in an age when most got away lightly. Bear in mind Pantani never tested positive as such and was never disqualified... which added to the aura of persecution.

    The case of Armstrong was different... everybody knew, but nobody could prove it, hence it became very frustrating for many that someone who was not a natural climber or a natural TTer could thrash everybody else... the overwhelming perception was that he was one step beyond everybody else in doping... and he probably was.

    In a nutshell, doping has shades of grey in the public opinion

    I used to think the same until I read Matt Rendell's book. That pretty much destroyed the romance (I can't think of a better way to put it!) of the Pantani story for me, examining and exposing all the myths surrounding him.

    I kind of wish I hadn't read it to be honest!
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,269
    FocusZing wrote:
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.
    Armstrong has been there for his children and gave up his time to try and help out others. All bad to the core?

    Not being funny, but that's not praiseworthy. That's just normal, expected behaviour.

    As with ATC, it's not the cheating, it's the bullying, the extreme arrogance. Borderline sociopathic tendencies.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • blazing_saddlesblazing_saddles Posts: 14,236
    FocusZing wrote:
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.
    Armstrong has been there for his children and gave up his time to try and help out others. All bad to the core?

    Yup - unlike most on here, I guess, I've met and spoken to the guy - he signed his book for my son after the Dornoch Twitter ride. FWIW, in the context of this discussion, I do genuinely believe LA cares about cancer.

    He certainly should care about cancer.
    However, for me, it has nothing to do with why I choose to remember Pantani and forget Armstrong.
    For me, it's all about the bike and is summed up in RR's pitch perfect post.
    For a less articulate comparison: Apollo Creed v Clubber Lang.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,416
    salsiccia1 wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.
    Armstrong has been there for his children and gave up his time to try and help out others. All bad to the core?

    Not being funny, but that's not praiseworthy. That's just normal, expected behaviour.

    As with ATC, it's not the cheating, it's the bullying, the extreme arrogance. Borderline sociopathic tendencies.

    It shows he isn't a complete ars*hole cubed, that's my clear point. His father wasn't there for him, he broke that pattern.
  • meanredspidermeanredspider Posts: 12,550
    salsiccia1 wrote:
    As with ATC, it's not the cheating, it's the bullying, the extreme arrogance. Borderline sociopathic tendencies.

    I'm not going to make excuses for the guy because much of what he did was reprehensible but there's no doubt that having cancer at a young age, going through the treatment and facing your own mortality, has a profound effect on people. Seeing my own son's almost obsessive determination to get to Cambridge despite having missed 1.5 years of school (98% in an exam? Where the hell did those 2% go?), I think I can begin to get into the head of LA. He also had "daddy" issues (LA - not my son :wink:). Again, not to excuse him but to try to understand him.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 5,688
    Someone mentioned the books on Pantani destroying the myth. I have never been a great Pantani fan, not that I dislike him my cycling favourites have been other riders, but yes having read a couple of biographies Pantani doesn't come across as hero material.
    AFC Mercia women - sign for us
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 19,670
    I think MSR and RR have the truth of it. I also find on these threads that you get a lot of people saying, "Pantani was the reason I got into cycling" so I think age is a big part of it. (also possibly, the ability to actually watch it in some sort of real time..?)

    There is simply no way to argue that Armstrong hasn't been incredibly harshly treated compared to most of his contempories (Ullrich being the notable exception, who has only been treated moderately harshly treated in comparison). Rick has already talked about this though so I won't repeat it.

    Armstrong seemed to relish being the pantomime villain and used it as drive. It seems though that in a hopelessly romantic/badly run, poorly regulated and ridiculously reactionary sport that is cycling though, that means you end up as that for ever
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • onyourrightonyourright Posts: 509
    Armstrong is conducting himself well these days, with WEDŪ and The Texas Hundred and The Forward podcast and all the rest. Read this from last year. I like what he’s doing.

    He was a colossal censored on many occasions, but I could never understand his elevation to comic-book baddie. Hating someone that much for being a ruthlessly ambitious winner and cheat probably says more about the hater than the hatee.
    liquor box wrote:
    I know that doping is cheating and should not be condoned but I watch sport to enjoy a spectacle. The excitement of watching a peloton of doped cyclists is better in my opinion than what we get now.

    In the past you could have three mountain passes in a stage that all feature efforts to break away from the rest, now everything is based about waiting until the last mountain, and still waiting to get within a few KM's of the summit before having a crack.
    Doping has little to do with that evolution. First, the change is not as exaggerated as your portray – you just remember the crazy stages today. And second, people rode like that because they didn’t know any better. Now science and live metrics tell them otherwise. If they were doped they’d still ride like they do today. They’d just ride imperceptibly faster to the viewer.

    It’s only going to get worse. Look at Dumoulin beating Quintana with a summit finish that he rode like a time trial. We’d better get used to it, especially since the sport’s decision-makers have no understanding of the damage that technology can do to sport. Power meters, radios, on-board cameras, soon drones, etc., are all self-evidently good things to these short-sighted old men.
  • ProssPross Posts: 22,404
    ocdupalais wrote:
    They're all cheats - I don't think you can draw a clear distinction - they all contributed to the problem that Armstrong personified. Armstrong is just the lightning rod for that hate.
    Apparently you can draw a clear distinction: read some of the views above. Your determination to pass judgement seems to obscure your ability to appreciate the sensibilities that many associate with Pantani...

    What I reading as the "clear distinction" that people are drawing is that Pantani cheated with more style and panache whereas Armstrong cheated more clinically and effectively: the good crook against the bad crook, if you like. It might be great Hollywood but it isn't sport. It's not my job to pass judgement - the sport's governing bodies have done that. It seems to me that it's others that are passing judgement on these two riders in a different way.

    BTW - I'm being provocative to try to better understand - after all, that's the aim of the thread. These are two deeply flawed characters, both brilliant in their ways but ultimately both cheats. People warm to one cheat more than the other.

    You still seem to be missing the point, it's not about how they cheated (at a time when most others were too) it was about how they behaved as people. Armstrong bullied and threatened people up until the day he was caught and eventually realised the only thing he could do was admit it. He tried to destroy Bassons, the Andreus, LeMond etc. It went beyond cheating on a bike.
  • meanredspidermeanredspider Posts: 12,550
    Pross wrote:
    You still seem to be missing the point, it's not about how they cheated (at a time when most others were too) it was about how they behaved as people. Armstrong bullied and threatened people up until the day he was caught and eventually realised the only thing he could do was admit it. He tried to destroy Bassons, the Andreus, LeMond etc. It went beyond cheating on a bike.

    No - I totally get that. But I think it's a pretty subtle distinction between doing those things overtly and doing them indirectly through doping and cheating others out of a career and a livelihood. And, as I said before, we all know now what was happening behind the scenes. We will never get to clear the cloud of suspicion over all the riders of that period nor will we get to know what the clean riders might have achieved. All cheats destroyed the careers of the clean riders.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • SnowblindSnowblind Posts: 75
    Because it's 'ok' to cheat as long as you're nice about it :wink:
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.

    Everything you know or think you know about Armstrong or Pantani is what the media have told you or sound bites from others with their own pov or axe to grind.
    until you spend time with someone, you ve no idea what they are like.
  • cq20cq20 Posts: 172
    Pantani, Ulrich and many other doped. However the WADA statement on Armstrong outlined a few added extras

    The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are:

    (1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

    (2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

    (3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.

    (4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.

    (5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.
  • above_the_cowsabove_the_cows Posts: 10,863
    salsiccia1 wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.
    Armstrong has been there for his children and gave up his time to try and help out others. All bad to the core?

    Not being funny, but that's not praiseworthy. That's just normal, expected behaviour.

    As with ATC, it's not the cheating, it's the bullying, the extreme arrogance. Borderline sociopathic tendencies.

    ^This. Plus giving up your time for events which glorify your name is not exactly the same as quietly getting on with your philanthropy a la George Michael.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • above_the_cowsabove_the_cows Posts: 10,863
    FocusZing wrote:
    salsiccia1 wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.
    Armstrong has been there for his children and gave up his time to try and help out others. All bad to the core?

    Not being funny, but that's not praiseworthy. That's just normal, expected behaviour.

    As with ATC, it's not the cheating, it's the bullying, the extreme arrogance. Borderline sociopathic tendencies.

    It shows he isn't a complete ars*hole cubed, that's my clear point. His father wasn't there for him, he broke that pattern.

    So being a parent means you can't also be a complete censored ?

    Wow. Who knew it was so easy for men to get a free pass. All they have to do is be a normal parent and then they apparently can't be a total censored .
    Correlation is not causation.
  • above_the_cowsabove_the_cows Posts: 10,863
    mamba80 wrote:
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.

    Everything you know or think you know about Armstrong or Pantani is what the media have told you or sound bites from others with their own pov or axe to grind.
    until you spend time with someone, you ve no idea what they are like.

    Yeah I mean we shouldn't judge Bashar Al-Assad if we haven't spent time with him personally, everything else we hear is just tittle tattle by people with an axe to grind and apparently he's 'there' for Zein, Karim and Hafez, so alles goed.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,416
    FocusZing wrote:
    salsiccia1 wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.
    Armstrong has been there for his children and gave up his time to try and help out others. All bad to the core?

    Not being funny, but that's not praiseworthy. That's just normal, expected behaviour.

    As with ATC, it's not the cheating, it's the bullying, the extreme arrogance. Borderline sociopathic tendencies.

    It shows he isn't a complete ars*hole cubed, that's my clear point. His father wasn't there for him, he broke that pattern.

    So being a parent means you can't also be a complete censored ?

    Wow. Who knew it was so easy for men to get a free pass. All they have to do is be a normal parent and then they apparently can't be a total censored .

    Why have you suddenly bought "men" into the debate? Concentrate on the ball not the player.
  • tonyf34tonyf34 Posts: 422
    salsiccia1 wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    As others have said, I dislike the cheating generally but my dislike of Lance isn't because he cheated per se. I dislike Lance in spite of the cheating. I dislike Lance because he is an ars*hole cubed. He'd have been an ars*hole cubed whatever he did.
    Armstrong has been there for his children and gave up his time to try and help out others. All bad to the core?

    Not being funny, but that's not praiseworthy. That's just normal, expected behaviour.

    As with ATC, it's not the cheating, it's the bullying, the extreme arrogance. Borderline sociopathic tendencies.
    sociopathic tendancies :lol: , you don't have a fooking clue do you, best go actually check yourself on a list of 'tendancies', you'll find you tick quite a few boxes!

    wasn't the 'greatest' cyclist ever exactly the same? Isn't the (considered by many) GOAT to be despised/hated and stripped of his titles because he was cheating and being caught/DQ for doping (4 times if you're interested) despite an era of poor/non existant testing? That rider was a bully, he pointed the fingers at others and was a proven cheat but everyone appears to love him.
    Pantani was a waster, he clearly had talent but couldn't put his mind to it all the time, mentally weak. Armstrong, far more mentally strong, prepared to do what it took, just like the 'GOAT' to win.
    Stripping the titles and banning him for life and the hate is a joke, I called it long before re LA, i knew he was doping, but then i knew pretty much everyone else in the ranks were 'on it' too. Just like the GOAT he just applied himself better than the others for those races he wanted to win and doped better/more often just as his predecessor did.

    I don't hate or love either, do i feel cheated as a speccy, not in the slightest.
  • davidofdavidof Posts: 2,020
    FocusZing wrote:
    should never have returned for a glory run. Arrogance personified.

    His error was not to stop after 5, to show a bit of respect for the old time dopers like Antqueil, Merckx and co.

    If he'd stopped at 5, done other stuff, he'd still be talked about like a hero.
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    Because Dopestrong is a odious excuse for a human being whereas Pantani has charisma, is flawed but overall well cool and dresses like a pirate.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • mfinmfin Posts: 6,678
    Show a little respect people, Lance Armstrong is clearly the greatest cyclist in history.
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,269
    ...
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • andcpandcp Posts: 652
    norvernrob wrote:
    I used to think the same until I read Matt Rendell's book. That pretty much destroyed the romance (I can't think of a better way to put it!) of the Pantani story for me, examining and exposing all the myths surrounding him.

    I kind of wish I hadn't read it to be honest!
    Interesting Rob. I read the book and felt a lot more sympathy for him after - I got the strong impression that the guy had mental health issues, and he was exploited by some very ruthless people at different times of his life.
    Just shows how there are differing perspectives.
    "It must be true, it's on the internet" - Winston Churchill
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    mfin wrote:
    Show a little respect people, Lance Armstrong is clearly the greatest cyclist in history.


    Well, he saw Sheryl Crow's boobs, so I suppose - to a certain extent - he's got that over us.

    Imagine if he had seen TDNFNATN's boobs.....
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
Sign In or Register to comment.