Pantani

I absolutely see where you're coming from. But I don't buy Matt Rendell's argument that we should idolise the 5% or whatever it was in the mid-90s who weren't doping.

Fuck that. I was 14 in 1994. These are my formative childhood racing memories. He's 47, it's ok for him to come along and say that!

(Also he is just one journalist. The book is great and I'm sure accurate, but he is not the be all and end all to pronounce on Pantani).

. His mum reckons he was ready to tell all.
.

Well, if his mum says so it must be true.
"Yes, he was flawed, but I genuinely believe that he had a huge natural gift for climbing, exactly the right psychological attitude". You can believe all you want, because that is all you have. Have a look at this:
http://inrng.com/2014/02/book-review-ma-liberte-de-rouler-moncoutie/

That is proven natural talent.

If anyone interested in Pantani hasn't read Matt Rendell's book, then they should. Immediately.

Will do, thank for the head-up.

Have a look at this:
http://inrng.com/2014/02/book-review-ma-liberte-de-rouler-moncoutie/

That is proven natural talent.
true.

but it's daft to write off pantani (and lance) and say that they might not have been superstars riding clean. sadly we can't know how much they would have won, but i think it's safe to say they would've been big name GC contenders

Really? Fuck me, it's amazing that people still believe that. Look at Pantani's time trial results - you imagine they would have been anything like that without drugs? He'd have been nowhere near the top 3 overall. Roberto Heras - another 'exciting', 'natural' climber - was only one second off fucking winning a TT in the Vuelta. As for Armstrong - notice anything about his Tour results before and after he started blood doping?
I understand that it's hard for people to admit the truth about their childhood heroes but sadly Father Christmas isn't real and the tooth fairy never existed.

We all like Pantani because he's not Lance I guess.

I love how people get SOOOOO outraged by dopers. Did ALL dopers beat up your mum? Did they ALL follow you home from school and steal your pocket money?

No, they did something that didnt effect YOUR life in the slightest.

BUT, did they not entertane you? Did they not inspire you? Did they not get you out on your bike?

RIP Pantani. Legend.

^^^ Which is why, in my opinion Matt Rendall's point that 'You can't compare', is so valid, because just as there are people who believe that they are hero's regardless, there are also those with a chip on their shoulder for whom no fall is far enough.
Usually life tends to pan out somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, where its often so grey and murky that b/w distinctions become pretty meaningless.

Except all the people putting him on a massive pedestal whilst simultaneously hating on Lance.

That one is easy. Lance was always a total prick.

Pantani was lots of things.

No, they did something that didnt effect YOUR life in the slightest.

BUT, did they not entertane you? Did they not inspire you? Did they not get you out on your bike?

Well, either they did affect you or they didn't, make up your mind.
Nothing anyone does in sport is all that important. Was racing in the 90s really more inspiring and entertaining than in the 80s or than it is now? I'd say it was a lot less of both. People choose to see Pantani attacking and making the race 'exciting' but then turn their eyes away from his ridiculous time trialling which made the overall competition a lot less exciting because the stakes were lowered so far.
Pantani was no better or worse than any other doper. The reasons he died, or Jimenez died, or Vandenbroucke died, while others just like them are still around, are down to their personalities and fragilities. I liked Pantani, as a person, at the time even as his performances were blatantly drug induced. The person and the rider can be separated though.

Really? Fuck me, it's amazing that people still believe that. Look at Pantani's time trial results - you imagine they would have been anything like that without drugs? He'd have been nowhere near the top 3 overall. Roberto Heras - another 'exciting', 'natural' climber - was only one second off fucking winning a TT in the Vuelta. As for Armstrong - notice anything about his Tour results before and after he started blood doping?
I understand that it's hard for people to admit the truth about their childhood heroes but sadly Father Christmas isn't real and the tooth fairy never existed.

What is your point?

The Epogen helped the sprinters climb, the climbers sprint and everyone to TT and do it again the next day. That's not to say it is/was right or doesn't matter but there were interesting, talented people who (like the majority) just used all the help they could get.

Did they not inspire you?

Vinokourov winning Olympic gold really helped me get a Strava KOM along the canal.

Oh, no, hang on..... No.

Is cockwhit even a word?

It wasn't before you used it. You'll need to define what the hell you mean by it, though. :)

Father Christmas isn't real and the tooth fairy never existed.

Now you've gone too far.

I love how people get SOOOOO outraged by dopers. Did ALL dopers beat up your mum? Did they ALL follow you home from school and steal your pocket money?

No, YOUR mum's a doper.

^ This doesn't really work if you've met the mum and she definitely doesn't dope.

What's the point of designing courses with different terrain and disciplines if the riders' natural different abilities are evened out by doping? It produces boring racing, false victors and an unfair advantage for people who respond well to doping and/or are willing to risk higher and higher haematocrits or the use of untested but effective drugs.
I doubt that Marcel Kittel or Taylor Phinney either adore or despise Pantani but I am sure they don't look at him with admiration either.

No, YOUR mum's a doper.

^ This doesn't really work if you've met the mum and she definitely doesn't dope.

Other than the odd bit of pot belge.

Well, there is a stonking great big hill right outside her house.

the beatles inspired me, should I now hate them coz they doped?

Pantani had style on the bike, name a currently rider in today's peloton thats as distinctive.

with tjme we'll all get over what Lance did

Pantani had style on the bike, name a currently rider in today's peloton thats as distinctive.

http://chrisfroomelookingatstems.tumblr.com/

That made me lol'd.

What's the point of designing courses with different terrain and disciplines if the riders' natural different abilities are evened out by doping?

You contradict yourself. Either doping favoured the climbers (like Pantani) or it didn't.

You think doping closed the variation in ability – with them all hovering around 50%?

I don't buy that. I don't accept that Verbruggenesque idea that close racing is not entertaining either.

Pantani had style on the bike, name a currently rider in today's peloton thats as distinctive.

It's a good point. Probably Chris Froome's high cadence seated climbing? It doesn't look pretty, but it was pretty devastating.

Originally Posted by 3rdworldsuitcase "Pantani had style on the bike, name a currently rider in today's peloton thats as distinctive."

Distinction comes in many differnt forms.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/12/interview-with-adam-hansen/

It doesn't matter.
The cycling was exciting to watch at the time.
Doping is bad.
People liked Pantani because he was a nutter.
Rendell's book is good, but not if you don't like haemocrit scores.