Categories: EtiquetteFFS FridayNostalgia

Hello Operator

Hello, could you connect me to Dr. Ferrari please? Or just give me a Ferrari in my bottom bracket.

Marco Pantani had Armstrong on the ropes. It was the Col de Joux Plane in the 2000 Tour de France and the only time Pharmy was in real, genuine difficulty during any of his “seven” Tours. So he did what any reasonable rider would do: he got on the radio with his team boss and demanded he call his coach and renowned doping genius Michele Ferrari to find out precisely how long Pantani could sustain his effort. Ferrari crunched some numbers on his custom Effort Finder-Outer Machine and got back with the good news that Pantani couldn’t hold the pace to the finish.

The problem Batman had with The Joker was that Batman was rational and The Joker was insane. And insane people don’t always do what rational people expect them to do. Like having a plan, for instance. Or wanting to make it to the finish at all. Lance wasn’t Batman – not by a stretch – and Pantani wasn’t insane. But the point is, they weren’t thinking about the race the same way. Armstrong wanted to win the Tour de France but was a stubborn ass who was too proud to let the world’s best climber drop him. Pantani, on the other hand, had already lost everything and been to Hell and back; he had nothing to lose and was more than willing to sacrifice his own Tour if it meant he could fuck with Pharmstrong, even for a bit.

So he rode until the lights went out and climbed into the team car. Ciao. Armstrong was left holding the bag. Or, rather, not holding a mussette with any food in it. Bon jour, Monsieur avec le Hammer. Comment allez vous?

Cyclists have always used whatever dubious means they can find in order to gain an advantage, this is not news. It is only natural in a sport as demanding as this, which is not to say it is by any means excusable. But cheating has been woven into the fabric of our sport since the earliest days; in the first Tours de France several riders were disqualified for getting tows from teammates via cable and jumping on trains to rest the legs and gain a few extra kilometers over their rivals in the process.

When Greg LeMond helped pioneer the use of radios between riders and the team car, I hardly think he imagined his nemesis using the technology to contact the most notorious doping mastermind in the sport in order to gain a mid-race performance update from Italy. I don’t know why that feels so much worse than regular doping. It almost feels like putting a motor in your bottom bracket or something.

Motors? Now we’re getting far-fetched.

frank

The founder of Velominati and curator of The Rules, Frank was born in the Dutch colonies of Minnesota. His boundless physical talents are carefully canceled out by his equally boundless enthusiasm for drinking. Coffee, beer, wine, if it’s in a container, he will enjoy it, a lot of it. He currently lives in Seattle. He loves riding in the rain and scheduling visits with the Man with the Hammer just to be reminded of the privilege it is to feel completely depleted. He holds down a technology job the description of which no-one really understands and his interests outside of Cycling and drinking are Cycling and drinking. As devoted aesthete, the only thing more important to him than riding a bike well is looking good doing it. Frank is co-author along with the other Keepers of the Cog of the popular book, The Rules, The Way of the Cycling Disciple and also writes a monthly column for the magazine, Cyclist. He is also currently working on the first follow-up to The Rules, tentatively entitled The Hardmen. Email him directly at rouleur@velominati.com.

Next Matching the drapes to the rug »

Previous « Velominati Super Prestige: Clásica San Sebastián 2016

View Comments

litvi says:

Aug 1 2016 at 11:58 am

@Steve Trice

That said i still see him as a seven time tour winner and think the “no winner” stance in the record books is stupid.

What if, by contrast, there were a series of Tours marked "No Winner" because we found out later the guy had a motor in his BB those years? Would the "No Winner" comment still be stupid?

Different kinds of rules, but agree or disagree, they are still the rules. We can argue their merits and validity until the cows come home, but until they're amended or revoked, we are within reason to expect people follow the rules as written.
Steve Trice says:

Aug 1 2016 at 1:44 pm

@litvi

@Steve Trice

That said i still see him as a seven time tour winner and think the “no winner” stance in the record books is stupid.

What if, by contrast, there were a series of Tours marked “No Winner” because we found out later the guy had a motor in his BB those years? Would the “No Winner” comment still be stupid

No, that would be perfectly fine as long as those Tours that were also won by people who were found to have had motors in their bottom brackets, in 1996, 97, 98 etc for instance, were marked the same way.
litvi says:

Aug 1 2016 at 2:24 pm

@Steve Trice

@litvi

@Steve Trice

That said i still see him as a seven time tour winner and think the “no winner” stance in the record books is stupid.

What if, by contrast, there were a series of Tours marked “No Winner” because we found out later the guy had a motor in his BB those years? Would the “No Winner” comment still be stupid

No, that would be perfectly fine as long as those Tours that were also won by people who were found to have had motors in their bottom brackets, in 1996, 97, 98 etc for instance, were marked the same way.

I think we're on the same page. I guess you're saying more Tours should be marked "No Winner" now that the cat's out of the bag. Trouble is... how do we do that? We've already been down the road of Le Sénat de France releasing old blood tests. It's gets murky from there.
Barracuda says:

Aug 1 2016 at 7:46 pm

@litvi

@Steve Trice

@litvi

@Steve Trice

That said i still see him as a seven time tour winner and think the “no winner” stance in the record books is stupid.

What if, by contrast, there were a series of Tours marked “No Winner” because we found out later the guy had a motor in his BB those years? Would the “No Winner” comment still be stupid

No, that would be perfectly fine as long as those Tours that were also won by people who were found to have had motors in their bottom brackets, in 1996, 97, 98 etc for instance, were marked the same way.

I think we’re on the same page. I guess you’re saying more Tours should be marked “No Winner” now that the cat’s out of the bag. Trouble is… how do we do that? We’ve already been down the road of Le Sénat de France releasing old blood tests. It’s gets murky from there.

I reckon it got murky long before that. Its quite easy really, just like the recent case of the olympic walkers. Gold medal given to Australia retrospectively. Same could quite easily apply. The only drama is how far down the list would you need to go ?
Steve Trice says:

Aug 1 2016 at 10:13 pm

@litvi @barracuda It's the uneven handed application of a rule that is stupid. Most of us know the back stories to the Tours, we also know why they didn't promote the second placed riders to winners as they did in 2006 and 2010. When I hear a mention of the 2002 Tour, I don't think "ooo, nobody won that", I think "ah yes, one of the Tours won by the cheating bully". It's also stupid that the same organisation didn't strip him off his Dauphine wins. To me it's plain daft, in time this will be seen in the same light as the Roger Maris asterisk, and should have just been left.
brett says:

Aug 2 2016 at 1:45 pm

@Teocalli

@Paul Owen

Armstrong – God.

Trouble telling a God from a Dog?

Dyslexia?
Teocalli says:

Aug 2 2016 at 1:49 pm

@brett

@Teocalli

@Paul Owen

Armstrong – God.

Trouble telling a God from a Dog?

Dyslexia?

Why is that so hard to spell?
brett says:

Aug 2 2016 at 1:49 pm

And now we have Lizzie.
litvi says:

Aug 2 2016 at 4:16 pm

@Steve Trice

@litvi @barracuda It’s the uneven handed application of a rule that is stupid. Most of us know the back stories to the Tours, we also know why they didn’t promote the second placed riders to winners as they did in 2006 and 2010. When I hear a mention of the 2002 Tour, I don’t think “ooo, nobody won that”, I think “ah yes, one of the Tours won by the cheating bully”. It’s also stupid that the same organisation didn’t strip him off his Dauphine wins. To me it’s plain daft, in time this will be seen in the same light as the Roger Maris asterisk, and should have just been left.

I think you're right. The stigma of an asterisk next to the name that must not be spoken stays on as a reminder, and stains COTHO's legacy. With no pronoun to pin it on, the mystery behind "No Winner" puts a stain on the Tour's name.

[BTW it's the Barry Bonds asterisk you're after... Maris just had more games in a season than Ruth, so the commissioner(s) thought 61 was not a "real" new record. Bonds (among others) got his asterisk because he used.]
litvi says:

Aug 2 2016 at 4:18 pm

@Barracuda

@litvi

@Steve Trice

@litvi

@Steve Trice

That said i still see him as a seven time tour winner and think the “no winner” stance in the record books is stupid.

What if, by contrast, there were a series of Tours marked “No Winner” because we found out later the guy had a motor in his BB those years? Would the “No Winner” comment still be stupid

No, that would be perfectly fine as long as those Tours that were also won by people who were found to have had motors in their bottom brackets, in 1996, 97, 98 etc for instance, were marked the same way.

I think we’re on the same page. I guess you’re saying more Tours should be marked “No Winner” now that the cat’s out of the bag. Trouble is… how do we do that? We’ve already been down the road of Le Sénat de France releasing old blood tests. It’s gets murky from there.

I reckon it got murky long before that. Its quite easy really, just like the recent case of the olympic walkers. Gold medal given to Australia retrospectively. Same could quite easily apply. The only drama is how far down the list would you need to go ?

Yeah... is the Lanterne Rouge too far? Not far enough? Depressing. Plus, how wide do you have to go? Docs? Soigneurs? Mechs? DS? Owners? Sponsors? Race Directors and Commissioners who turned a blind eye?