Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Marco Pantani (RIP) - 10th anniversary on Friday

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Slo_Rida
    Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Slo_Rida


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Well as a newcomer you obviously didn't spend years following, watching and admiring cyclists only for it to turn out they were all cheats. Nothing to do with being on a high horse for gods sake.

    No I just mean it seems that some cheats are ok and some aren't. Sure I regularly get berated for being a fan of Armstrongs cycling, I think that is wrong. He was a scumbag in other ways but he was a beast on the bike. Wait for the avalance (get it?)!!


  • Options
    #33
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Slo_Rida wrote: »
    but he was a beast on the bike. Wait for the avalance (get it?)!!

    Ah c'mon, you have to be taking the piss :confused:


  • Options
    #34
    laraghrider
    Closed Accounts Posts: 663 ✭✭✭laraghrider


    I think people need to put a little perspective on the comparisons. It's not as simple as saying so if you hate lance you hate pantani because they both cheated. It's not the same as saying if you hate lance and reminisce pantani then your a hypocrite. That's a very George Bush mentality, if you're not with us you're a terrorist!

    Did Pantani cheat? Yes he did. Watching his videos back now I feel hallow, not because of the fact that I know they were EPO fueled but because I know the man. Pantani even at a young age was a genius, a tortured genius. A person who struggled with depression and because trapped in a prison of his own world. He lived off the adulation, the only thing that kept him going, he got caught in a spiral of the time unable to survive on his own in the world and ultimately his despression and mental health got the better of him when all that adulation went away. He paid the ultimate price. When I look at those videos I feel so much sympathy for him, what he was going through and about to go through.

    Compare that with Lance who built a lie, perpetuated that lie and tore apart anyone who didn't support and fully go along with his lie. He ruined careers and ruined lives to keep his money coming in and to keep his lie going. Ultimately you may say it amounted to the same thing, the adulation, the fame the attention, it's what they both craved. Patani on one hand was a tortured spirit who eventually crumbled. Lance made others crumble and still to this day portrays a sociopath mentality and his only sorry is that of being caught.

    RIP Marco, I hope you've found the calm you so needed.


  • Options
    #35
    Slo_Rida
    Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Slo_Rida


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Ah c'mon, you have to be taking the piss :confused:

    I don't want to make this thread about Lance or they'll move these posts to that Lance thread (bin).
    I recently looked at Riis's win on the Hautocom (spelling?). Pure entertainment - he falls back through the small group of favourites 10~20 riders. He eyes them all up and then attacks to get rid of some. Riis and repeat another couple of times before he decides, I've had enough, I need to get home to feed the dog and proceeds to ride away from them. Entertainment, yes. That's all that era is good for now if you ask me. And as far as Lance (and Marco) goes, his videos are equally as entertaining. If I was a cycling fan then I would fell very hard done by with the revelations, very hurt.

    I also think that there are some feats being achieved in male sprinting and pro-cycling today that will be caught out eventually too. And I will no doubt be feeling hurt then.


  • Options
    #36
    Slo_Rida
    Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Slo_Rida


    laraghrider wrote: »
    I think people need to put a little perspective on the comparisons. It's not as simple as saying so if you hate lance you hate pantani because they both cheated. It's not the same as saying if you hate lance and reminisce pantani then your a hypocrite. That's a very George Bush mentality, if you're not with us you're a terrorist!

    Did Pantani cheat? Yes he did. Watching his videos back now I feel hallow, not because of the fact that I know they were EPO fueled but because I know the man. Pantani even at a young age was a genius, a tortured genius. A person who struggled with depression and because trapped in a prison of his own world. He lived off the adulation, the only thing that kept him going, he got caught in a spiral of the time unable to survive on his own in the world and ultimately his despression and mental health got the better of him when all that adulation went away. He paid the ultimate price. When I look at those videos I feel so much sympathy for him, what he was going through and about to go through.

    Compare that with Lance who built a lie, perpetuated that lie and tore apart anyone who didn't support and fully go along with his lie. He ruined careers and ruined lives to keep his money coming in and to keep his lie going. Ultimately you may say it amounted to the same thing, the adulation, the fame the attention, it's what they both craved. Patani on one hand was a tortured spirit who eventually crumbled. Lance made others crumble and still to this day portrays a sociopath mentality and his only sorry is that of being caught.

    RIP Marco, I know you've found the calm you so needed.


    Yep it's a good question, do we separate the sportsman from the man? Should we adore what "he" or "she" does on the field and leave it at that or should we take personal factors into account. This is why I love sport.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Harrybelafonte
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,450 ✭✭✭Harrybelafonte


    Slo_Rida wrote: »
    Yep it's a good question, do we separate the sportsman from the man? Should we adore what "he" or "she" does on the field and leave it at that or should we take personal factors into account. This is why I love sport.

    It's down to whether you view sport as pure entertainment.


  • Options
    #38
    Slo_Rida
    Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Slo_Rida


    Harrybelafonte wrote: »
    It's down to whether you view sport as pure entertainment.

    I think I view pro sport as pure entertainment. Possibly because the 2 words I think are contradictory: sport is man vs man in a physical/tactical/mental etc battle and money should not give one man the advantage over the other. Only the very very best can over come this eg Michael Schumacher in F1 but so many "better" sports people are passed over because of the lack of money.


  • Options
    #39
    TheBlaaMan
    Registered Users Posts: 3,442 ✭✭✭TheBlaaMan


    I simply loved to watch Pantani. Flair, flamboyance, do or die....it was hugely entertaining to watch. Now, I don't really know what to feel. I want to retain the good bits about his career and ignore the bad ones, but the flaws were huge and I don't think its really possible to separate out the 'early' and 'later' stages of his career. As best as I can recell, The-Death-Marco-Pantani casts enough doubt on his earliest performances as a junior to seriously question whether any of his results can be above suspicion, and this from an author who was a fan of his.

    For me the best that I can believe is that Pantani was as much a victim of the public's expectations and the resulting impact that this had on him, as he was a drug-cheat. Armstong, on the other hand, set out to be the best doper and try to crush anyone who stood in the way of his success. Quite a different beast, even if he would like us to view him more benevolently at this point.


  • Options
    #40
    Slo_Rida
    Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Slo_Rida


    I must flick through some other threads and see does Lance get in there inexplicably as well!!!!!!!


  • Options
    #41
    AstraMonti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,718 ✭✭✭AstraMonti


    The only common thing between Pantani and Armstrong is the use of EPO. Does this make them equal in your eyes to deserve the same response?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Slo_Rida wrote: »
    .....Pure entertainment.....

    I agree, it's entertainment, in the same way WWF/WWE is. But you can't say such and such a rider is a beast or was great because it was all a fake.

    And I don't get this idea that Pantani wasn't as bad as Armstrong because he was a tortured genius. Personality wise Armtrong was worse in this methods of trying to destroy anyone that questioned him, but their ultimate aim was the same, to cheat.


  • Options
    #43
    Harrybelafonte
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,450 ✭✭✭Harrybelafonte


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    I agree, it's entertainment, in the same way WWF/WWE is. But you can't say such and such a rider is a beast or was great because it was all a fake.

    I hate to break it to you but WWF/WEE is fake and not a sport, but a soap opera for testosterone filled teens or men of questionable mental maturity... a bit life MMA really (the soap opera part, definitely not the fake part).

    Of course you cans ay someone is a beast. Pantani wasn't some couch potato who decided to score a load of EPO and get into cycling a bike, nor was he a triathlete who figured he could make it big. It was his life and his family's life and as far as I'm concerned he died for it.

    Cheating is/was/will be a part of cycling forever, whatever way it happens. It happens because we're human, but what cycling encompasses above all sports is the attitude that winning is not the be all and end all, that some class and sportsmanship still has its place and that the first thing you do after a race is shake the hand of the man who beat you.

    Tennis does that too... I know...

    I'm sure people will give me examples of bad behaviour amongst cyclists... but they're in the minority and I can give a lot more proving the above than negating it.

    Actually, lets bring Lance in here again. Did Pantani gob on someone who had come out about doping in cycling? Was he that kind of person.


  • Options
    #44
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    Pantani's story is such a tragedy.

    Much more to be learned from asking questions of his life, illness, addiction and death than making judgements.


  • Options
    #45
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Harrybelafonte wrote: »
    I hate to break it to you but WWF/WEE is fake and not a sport, but a soap opera for testosterone filled teens or men of questionable mental maturity... a bit life MMA really (the soap opera part, definitely not the fake part).

    And pro cycling wasn't for the most part during that era ? But it wasn't the teens or men with questionable mental maturity that were testosterone filled but the cyclists.

    You can't have threads that on the one hand say that results from a certain era should be written from the history books, but then say how great a cyclist was who has many questionable results associated with him.


  • Options
    #46
    Harrybelafonte
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,450 ✭✭✭Harrybelafonte


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    And pro cycling wasn't for the most part during that era ? But it wasn't the teens or men with questionable mental maturity that were testosterone filled but the cyclists.

    You can't have threads that on the one hand say that results from a certain era should be written from the history books, but then say how great a cyclist was who has many questionable results associated with him.

    Nobody is saying that. We're saying he was more that some very bad decisions and a load of drugs.

    You go ahead and grumble and gripe about the era. Dismiss it completely if you like, but right now, I'm still trying to find little slivers of greatness in it, beyond performances, but more of the opportunities we missed to see some greats perform without assistance, to see what we missed really.


  • Options
    #47
    12 sprocket
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭12 sprocket


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Pantani's story is such a tragedy.

    Much more to be learned from asking questions of his life, illness, addiction and death than making judgements.

    This is probably the most worthwile contribution to this thread


  • Options
    #48
    shutup
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭shutup


    I didn't know anything about pro cycling before this thread.
    I have learned that :
    Armstrong and Pantani were the only two who doped.
    Doping is the only thing you need to do to win. No training, talent, determination, heart or tactics are needed.
    Taking a cough bottle to treat a genuine illness makes you a cheat. And that should be brought up 30 years later to compare you to an evil bully.
    Doping only happens in cycling.
    Doping in cycling is finished.

    I hate cheating so with all the above in mind I think I will turn my attention away from cycling and watch Spanish football, rugby, the Olympics, mma and tennis.


  • Options
    #49
    Slo_Rida
    Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Slo_Rida


    shutup wrote: »

    I hate cheating so with all the above in mind I think I will turn my attention away from cycling and watch Spanish football, rugby, the Olympics, mma and tennis.

    Turn it away from these threads while you're at it!!!!


  • Options
    #50
    shutup
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭shutup


    Slo_Rida wrote: »
    Turn it away from these threads while you're at it!!!!

    Why?


  • Options
    #51
    Slo_Rida
    Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Slo_Rida


    shutup wrote: »
    Why?

    Shutup.
    You said you learned from this this thread that cheating is over in cycling despite the fact that one poster specifically said there will always be cheating. That's just one reason, there are more but that's a more polite one. I'm done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    happytramp
    Registered Users Posts: 2,596 ✭✭✭happytramp


    shutup wrote: »
    Why?

    I'd say he's referring to the general level of unhelpful sarcasm and confusion in your previous post.


  • Options
    #53
    shutup
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭shutup


    happytramp wrote: »
    I'd say he's referring to the general level of unhelpful sarcasm and confusion in your previous post.

    I'm sorry you found it unhelpful but my hands are tied with regards to expressing myself. I would prefer not to be sarcastic and just have an open discussion.
    I just don't understand how anyone in their right mind could be so aggressive in their dismissal of the 96,98-2005 tours yet be enthralled by the 2013.


  • Options
    #54
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    shutup wrote: »
    I'm sorry you found it unhelpful but my hands are tied with regards to expressing myself. I would prefer not to be sarcastic and just have an open discussion.
    I just don't understand how anyone in their right mind could be so aggressive in their dismissal of the 96,98-2005 tours yet be enthralled by the 2013.

    If you followed the 2013 tour threads you'd see there's a fair bit of scepticism from many quarters.


  • Options
    #55
    shutup
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭shutup


    ThisRegard wrote: »

    During that era, that's pretty much how it was.

    Are you telling me they just doped and that's it. Was there nothing else that factored in their success?
    Nothing else at all that they did that we could admire?
    I'm impressed by the work ethic, tactics and ability to endure so much pain despite what help they may have had.
    Did doping help their incredible descending and bike handling ability?


  • Options
    #56
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    shutup wrote: »
    I'm sorry you found it unhelpful but my hands are tied with regards to expressing myself. I would prefer not to be sarcastic and just have an open discussion.
    I just don't understand how anyone in their right mind could be so aggressive in their dismissal of the 96,98-2005 tours yet be enthralled by the 2013.

    There is scepticism from many posters here and indeed many journalists and teams about performances in all 3 GT's in 2013.

    The aggression re the 96.98-2005 tours comes largely from the fact that htey were won by proven or admitted dopers who would almost certainly not have won without using.


  • Options
    #57
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    shutup wrote: »
    Are you telling me they just doped and that's it. Was there nothing else that factored in their success?
    Nothing else at all that they did that we could admire?
    I'm impressed by the work ethic, tactics and ability to endure so much pain despite what help they may have had.
    Did doping help their incredible descending and bike handling ability?

    Cyclist A trains like a nut, Cyclist B trains like a nut, but also does a bit of doping on the side and trashed cyclist B over a long tour. There's no diputing this when you look at the historical results.


  • Options
    #58
    shutup
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭shutup


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    If you followed the 2013 tour threads you'd see there's a fair bit of scepticism from many quarters.

    I saw that but if you just look at this thread, which is what I commented about you can see a general dismissal of a gone by era but not of the sport in general or of current cycling.
    That's the point I'm making. Either love it or hate it, but don't celibate it in the present but get high and mighty every time news from 5-10 years ago breaks.
    Or dismiss a talented guy who doped when he was up against 200 other guys that doped.
    Why do we hate a doped up winner but not a doped up loser?


  • Options
    #59
    letape
    Registered Users Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭letape


    RobFowl wrote: »
    There is scepticism from many posters here and indeed many journalists and teams about performances in all 3 GT's in 2013.

    The aggression re the 96.98-2005 tours comes largely from the fact that htey were won by proven or admitted dopers who would almost certainly not have won without using.

    Why limit it to those tours. How about 83 and 84 (Fignon - admitted doper), 87 (Roche - Conconi / EPO use in 93), 88 (Delgado - lucky to have kept his win), 91-95 (Indurain - not sure on this one?), 06 (Periero - ask Landis on this one), 07/09 (Contador - proven doper). 10 (Contador disqualified)...


  • Options
    #60
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    letape wrote: »
    Why limit it to those tours. How about 83 and 84 (Fignon - admitted doper), 87 (Roche - Conconi / EPO use in 93), 88 (Delgado - lucky to have kept his win), 91-95 (Indurain - not sure on this one?), 06 (Periero - ask Landis on this one), 07/09 (Contador - proven doper). 10 (Contador disqualified)...

    Was responding directly to shutup hence the ones quoted.
    Fignon didn't admit doping in those tours fwiw and Roche denies it vociferously and it was time expired when it got to court so was thrown out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    shutup
    Registered Users Posts: 507 ✭✭✭shutup


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Cyclist A trains like a nut, Cyclist B trains like a nut, but also does a bit of doping on the side and trashed cyclist B over a long tour. There's no diputing this when you look at the historical results.

    We are on the same side. I wish it was all clean. For anyone who had a career stolen it's an incredible disgrace.
    I'm just taking the view that picking one dead guy who was brilliant and dismissing him is unjust as there were other great guys, average guys and weak professionals who were as guilty of wrong doing.
    Hopefully one day it will be different.
    I think we will be back here in 10 years, some of us with with broken hearts, talking about this era of racing, in the same way we are talking now.


Advertisement