Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Why is Pantani revered and Armstrong hated ?

stebensteben Posts: 24
edited May 2017 in Pro race
Is it because he was a better cheat? A little like rugby , you don't get sent off for a punch , you get sent off for a good punch !!
Orange 5 Pro
Orange P7
Scott S40
«134

Posts

  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 9,607
    Because he died.
    and then the next thing you know
  • Richmond Racer 2Richmond Racer 2 Posts: 4,698
    He died young

    When he climbed, it was a symphony, it was musical. When Lance climbed, it was brutal

    He was vulnerable, fragile. We could connect. Lance... not so much. No. Not at all.

    And Lance turned the Tour into an utter shoot fest of a boor year after year. With Pantani...well. every time he raced, you never knew what you were going to get, as a fan
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,269
    Pantani was an unlikely hero, small and balding, with an unassuming demeanour who did things that seemed amazing. Flawed and fragile, yet charismatic.

    Armstrong was/is brash, arrogant, bullying and generally unpleasant. He displayed none of the humility or humanness of Pantani. And he's still alive. Dying is generally a pretty good career move...
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • amrushtonamrushton Posts: 662
    Ullrich was the same. Flawed but talented but he had none of the traits of Armstrong
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,269
    Yes. Ullrich was very human, again with a down-to-earth charisma and almost a boyish innocence (especially with his off-season beer and disco biscuits).
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • Vino'sGhostVino'sGhost Posts: 4,320
    and neither ullrich or pantani ruined lives and bullied with the support of large corporates.

    Armstrong was a bully and a piece of censored pantani was a just a cyclist and a dreamer.
  • SecretSqirrelSecretSqirrel Posts: 1,251
    He died young

    When he climbed, it was a symphony, it was musical. When Lance climbed, it was brutal

    He was vulnerable, fragile. We could connect. Lance... not so much. No. Not at all.

    And Lance turned the Tour into an utter shoot fest of a boor year after year. With Pantani...well. every time he raced, you never knew what you were going to get, as a fan

    +1

    Beautifully put RR2. You said it better than I could.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 5,676
    All the above. Plus of course there are plenty of people that don't hate Armstrong.

    But it's a fair question, especially if you broaden it out to why people hate some dopers and not others.
    AFC Mercia women - sign for us
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,416
    He used cancer as a shield and should never have returned for a glory run. Arrogance personified.

    As RR2 said, empathy could be felt with the pirate.
  • takethehighroadtakethehighroad Posts: 5,442
    Pantani is the reason I fell in love with cycling. The 98 Tour was the first one I properly followed day after day, and that stage to Les Deux Alpes will live long in my memory as one of the most jaw dropping pieces of sporting theatre I've ever seen.

    The fact that I know how it was achieved now means nothing to me, as I know what it made me feel at the time. Similarly, I don't hate Lance because he took drugs, I hate Lance because he was always a bit of a pr*ck and didn't make me feel the same way that Marco did
    My Men 2020 - Mark Cavendish, Ben Swift, Fernando Gaviria, Alejandro Valverde, Edvald Boassen Hagen, Zdenek Stybar, Vincenzo Nibali, Geraint Thomas.
  • ProssPross Posts: 22,352
    Completely different class as others have explained above.
  • meanredspidermeanredspider Posts: 12,550
    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.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • ProssPross Posts: 22,352
    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.

    Disagree. Yes, they all cheated but Armstrong was the only one who sought to destroy the lives of anyone who challenged him both other cyclists, ex-cyclists, back room staff and media.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,416
    I'm sure Armstrong helped a lot of people too and gave people hope. I still think he was a brilliant bike rider handler.
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 3,645
    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...
  • type:epyttype:epyt Posts: 783
    Pantani was a cyclist, Armstrong became 'cycling' to 95% of the general public ... However, it was a bit uncomfortable listening to Hatch eulogising about Pantani during today's stage ... It was reminiscent of Harmon's selective politicking before his (thankful) downfall ...
    Life is unfair, kill yourself or get over it.
  • meanredspidermeanredspider Posts: 12,550
    Pross 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.

    Disagree. Yes, they all cheated but Armstrong was the only one who sought to destroy the lives of anyone who challenged him both other cyclists, ex-cyclists, back room staff and media.

    He was just a better and more single-minded cheat and was, as a result, protected by the establishment. Like Simpson, Pantani died from drug abuse - somehow that puts them into folk law. But if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Disliking Armstrong because he cheated more thoroughly and never got directly caught I think is strange. I don't like Armstrong and I don't like Pantani or any other cheat. Nobody trusts this sport (or many other sports) as a direct consequence of what these guys did. It seems really odd to me that people are cooing over a video of Pantani cheating. Next we'll be saying that Maradonna's hand of God goal was a classic.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,987
    Pantani fandom I don't have too much problem with. It's mostly Italian and I think and he fits into the flawed hero narrative that sport tends to like.

    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.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • stebensteben Posts: 24
    Great answers, we're all bike people and the different views make interesting reading ! I asked the question because of the footage and comments this week about Pantani. Read his book and loved it , felt for him. I was gutted when Armstrong was outed because I dared to believe in him. I read a piece once about appreciating what you see in the moment , don't think "what's he on !" Or you'll fall out of love with our sport!
    Orange 5 Pro
    Orange P7
    Scott S40
  • liquor boxliquor box Posts: 184
    I have no issue with either of them and consider them both to be heroes, I do however favour Pantani over Armstrong.

    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.

    I am sure the purists wont agree but what I saw by doped cyclists inspired me to love cycling.

    I think Armstrong is hated more because he is from the US and his team was unbeatable for the best part of a decade. If he won the tour every second or third year and it he had a competitor that stood a chance then he would have more fans. Armstrong is hated because he was that good that if you liked another cyclist you had no chance. I guess I dont share the hatred because I enjoyed his wins and was not upset that my favorites were beaten by cheats.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,456 Lives Here
    Because deep down, if you like the sport, most people end up watching regardless.

    Armstrong was plenty hated by cycling fans during his career too.

    It's only those who were attracted specifically to cycling through him that hold the doping thing as the main reason.

    Wonderful villain though. Cycling really misses that level of charisma.
  • phreakphreak Posts: 2,031
    Pantani is the reason I fell in love with cycling. The 98 Tour was the first one I properly followed day after day, and that stage to Les Deux Alpes will live long in my memory as one of the most jaw dropping pieces of sporting theatre I've ever seen.

    The fact that I know how it was achieved now means nothing to me, as I know what it made me feel at the time. Similarly, I don't hate Lance because he took drugs, I hate Lance because he was always a bit of a pr*ck and didn't make me feel the same way that Marco did

    Exactly the same for me.
  • yourpaceormineyourpaceormine Posts: 1,231
    This sport's history is littered with cheats, the reason Armstrong stands out is not that he cheated but because he hid behind the "'C-word" (the word cancer is a real life Voldermort for many), used cancer as his defence, bullied anyone who suggested he wasn't whiter than snow. So I guess the real difference is Armstrong's personality.


    Plus of course +1 RR2, very eloquently put. Hat.
  • meanredspidermeanredspider Posts: 12,550
    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.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • LookyhereLookyhere Posts: 987
    i ve read a couple of books on Pantani and also LA, both cheated and both manipulated those around them, Pantani doesnt come across as some sort of hero at all.
    For me though, if i had to chose it would be LA, Pantani was a drug addict and would have put his family through absolute hell as he spiralled down to his doom, found dead in a hotel room.

    Pantani achieved what he did on a bike because he took EPO/steroids, i used to marvel at Steven Rooks (and many others) as he powered his way up steep climbs in the 53 ring, all done on drugs, just as Pantani did too.

    Given what we now know, i dont understand the hero worship of this era of pro cyclist, it was a freak show and of course highly entertaining, but all these cyclists took us for fools and how many others who may not have been good "responders" were denied a lucrative career?
  • takethehighroadtakethehighroad Posts: 5,442
    I'll play Devil's advocate, what level of cheating do you dislike someone for? If a sprinter is relegated in a sprint do you dislike him from that moment on?

    How about Simon Yates, who cheated due to an administrative error. Do you like what the rider achieved when they weren't cheating eg. you can appreciate Maurice Garin's 1903 TDF win, but anything from 1904 onwards is disliked as he was a cheat from that point on...
    My Men 2020 - Mark Cavendish, Ben Swift, Fernando Gaviria, Alejandro Valverde, Edvald Boassen Hagen, Zdenek Stybar, Vincenzo Nibali, Geraint Thomas.
  • meanredspidermeanredspider Posts: 12,550
    Lookyhere wrote:
    and how many others who may not have been good "responders" were denied a lucrative career?

    And I was think about this point too. LA is (probably rightly) accused of ruining people's lives. I think all of the doping cheats potentially ruined the lives of those that put their all into racing clean, only to be beaten by the cheats. Worse still, they often fall under the same umbrella of suspicion. I expect we've all, at some point or another, been cheated from success by another - it's soul-destroying. Cheats might mean clean world record holders lose their records - I think that's in some ways worse than that which LA did to people around him, many of whom have subsequently been vindicated. Let's just remember who the victims of these cheats are: the clean riders, the sport, and the fans.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • tomb2100tomb2100 Posts: 215
    Yep just enjoy it for what it is - entertainment and have your favourites and dislikes. To be at or near the top in any field takes dedication, single mindedness and then probably a decision to cross a line you thought you never would. Hey but we're only human!
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,416
    Try and directly answer the question "Why is Pantani revered and Armstrong hated?" Otherwise this thread will descend into the room 101 of PED use morality. This can be negated from the argument as they were both complicit.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 9,607
    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.

    They should set up WWE cycling.
    and then the next thing you know
Sign In or Register to comment.