-
• #127
One of my favourite riders from that era was Jose María Jiménez, but no-one goes on about him because he didn't win the Tour.
He attacked, he was a natural climber, he had immense style and panache, he was incredibly entertaining.
He also doped, became hopelessly addicted to drugs and died in a hospital from a heart attack at 32, bloated and suffering from depression.
He was, by all accounts, a really lovely man, kind and generous with his time. Just because he doped doesn't make him a bastard. In the end he paid that clichéd 'ultimate sacrifice' for his actions.
I suppose the question is, could he have done it without dope? I reckon no-one can say when it comes to riders from that era. The wins now mean almost nothing, the footage is all tainted and uncomfortable to watch.
I reckon that as bike fans we can either try and learn from the past and hope modern riders are cleaner, or give up and follow crown green bowls.
I'll still watch the races and love them, but I have to admit to being a pretty cynical when it comes to the results. -
• #128
If anyone interested in Pantani hasn't read Matt Rendell's book, The Death of Marco Pantanithen they should. Immediately.
Velonews have an excellent interview with Rendell up at the moment;
Rendell has more knowledge of what went on than most, and I can't disagree with a word he says. His comments on Pantani's actions towards Andrea Tafi in the 1999 Giro should be read by anyone who eulogises Pantani. Like all of us, he had many flaws.
-
• #130
If anyone interested in Pantani hasn't read Matt Rendell's book, The Death of Marco Pantanithen they should. Immediately.
I thought we had you to read that sort of book for us??!?
Disappantanied.
-
• #131
If anyone interested in Pantani hasn't read Matt Rendell's book....
Seconded, an excellent read.
-
• #132
I read the wrong Pantani book, must give that one a look.
I'd say don't read 'Man On The Run' written by Manuela Ronchi (his 'manager'). It's an awful biased account of his life and death. Complete with absolute denial of doping. Though admitting addiction to cocaine.
-
• #133
Seconded, an excellent read.
Thirded.
-
• #134
Ahaha I remember this. The guys around asking: "but Marco it's not fair on car!" He goes: "It's fair it's fair, it comes with a/c and it's just 17 millions lire, keep pedalling!"
-
• #135
10 year bump. I've still never seen a better juicer.
Dopers >>> -
• #136
What do you know about juicers? I thought you were only into coffee machines?
-
• #137
Milkshake makers and blenders for cross-training..
-
• #138
If anyone interested in Pantani hasn't read Matt Rendell's book, The Death of Marco Pantanithen they should. Immediately.
Velonews have an excellent interview with Rendell up at the moment;
Rendell has more knowledge of what went on than most, and I can't disagree with a word he says. His comments on Pantani's actions towards Andrea Tafi in the 1999 Giro should be read by anyone who eulogises Pantani. Like all of us, he had many flaws.
Thanks for posting this Andy. Funny that all the books I have read touch on him being a troubled person, but every account is tainted by the Coppi-like mania that surrounds him in Italy - his face is everywhere.
Will stick MR's book on my list. -
• #139
Probably coz not many rider won a double win, Giro and Tour.
'dopers' sounds so seedy perfer performance enhancing drugs, lets face facts if you make to the pro peloton its not just about what yah 'on' but raw talent.
-
• #140
Except that wasn't the case at all. Clean riders were basically forced to dope or forced out.
-
• #141
yep, cycling definately has a dark under current.
-
• #142
-
• #143
^ there's man who should have his own thread.
-
• #144
I'd also recommend that book. It's very good.
This is no more credible than people who still insist Armstrong was the best ever Tour rider. Pantani was a screwed up, desperate and unhappy man whose achievements are as tainted as those of the other cheats he rode alongside or ahead of.
His life was sad and his death tragic and sordid but there's no need to keep claiming that we know anything of his 'natural' ability.I agree with everything you say except the last sentence. As has been pointed out in this thread, everyone else was doping at the time, but they weren't flying up the hills, attacking, climbing on the drops, dancing on the pedals, leaving everyone else for dust up the hills like Pantani did, all while being interesting, eccentric, entertaining - a natural foil when cycling was dominated by boring machine-like Indurain. I think it's disingenuous to write off his whole life (and career) as sad. And when I say 'the best climber' I don't mean in numbers or statistics, of course, but that he will always be my favourite because of his particular style.
Yes, he was flawed, but I genuinely believe that he had a huge natural gift for climbing, exactly the right psychological attitude (there's that quote I can't find about how he attacked climbs because he wanted the pain to be over with as soon as possible, and the story about him taking off his ring and throwing it into a hedge on a climb as he sought to shed every extra gram) but also the flamboyance to make it all interesting.
Isn't that something to be celebrated?
-
• #145
EPO + Cocaine = 'interesting' climber?
-
• #146
No. As I said his style was interesting. Everyone else was on EPO. He was on coke, which was an unfortunate personal problem. But people can't see beyond the drugs it seems to the talent which lay beneath. That's a shame.
-
• #147
Except all the people putting him on a massive pedestal whilst simultaneously hating on Lance.
-
• #148
Lance lied for years while being an arrogant cockwhit. He had so many chances to just admit what he did, then he would also just have been seen as flawed. Maybe.
Pantani never had that chance. His mum reckons he was ready to tell all.
We will never know. I don't think you can compare them.
-
• #149
As for the argument that everyone else was doing it, therefore the best riders won, it’s a lot more complicated than that. A lot depends on how your body reacts to drugs. Just as Armstrong had tremendous good fortune to respond well to treatments for his illness, everyone responds differently to doping. Charly Wegelius [now Garmin-Sharp sport director] had a wonderful quote in his book: “I had a naturally high hematocrit, I was the one with the athletic gift, and I was getting penalized for it.”
What doping does is take away our criteria for judgment. You just have to put a thick red line through it; we just don’t know, and we cannot indulge in some sort of “what if.”From the Matt Rendell article
-
• #150
Is cockwhit even a word?
And, so, I suppose Armstrong was the best too? He only cheated other cheaters, right? Because when they are all doing it, it is a level playing field isn't it? Except they weren't all doing it, a few chose not to and they deserve to be remembered when people are eulogising Pantani.
Bjarne Riis was ridiculed for being Mr 60%, the perfect example of a donkey turned in to a race horse by drugs. But Pantani's haematocrit was 60% when he crashed in Milan-Turin. Why was he not a natural donkey? Well, because he had panache, style, charisma and he attacked. I watched Bjarne Riis attack on Hautacum in 1996. He had no charm or style but he attacked. Admittedly he wasn't an Italian on a Bianchi so obviously he can't be compared to the great Pantani.
We don't know what his natural ability was because he never raced without doping and doping can transform some people more than it does others. I liked Pantani but I can't bear to watch racing from that era any more because it's just pathetically sad and ridiculous and nobody embodies that better than Pantani. He convinced himself, as Armstrong did, that he was naturally great and the drugs had nothing to do with it. Continuing to maintain that conceit on his behalf after his death doesn't really do his memory any favours.