But then I noticed a discussion about Pantani. Someone said they still loved Marco even though his legend is tainted with his doping. Like Hamilton and Landis Pantani was a trainwreck. Shit how much more of a trainwreck do you need to be that you kill yourself with coke after a career of killing yourself with dope? But it got me thinking. Why do we still revere some riders even if they are dirty but hate others for doping? Being on a Belgie-centric team the first name that comes to mind is Museeuw. Johan doped. He took epo. He was caught and admitted to it. His explanation as to why he doped was "I wanted to end my career in style."
Again the question I keep asking myself "what is it about Museeuw that he gets a pass while others don't?" Obviously a classics rider is different than a grand tour rider. Rasmussen's doping affected the whole tour. If Cadel didn't have to chase a doped to the gills Rasmussen all over every Col in France would Cadel have had more matches to actually have won the race over Contador? And this also raises an interesting side note. We hate Evans (who appears clean) we mock Lemond as some crazy old drunk uncle who cries wolf at the slightest hint of doping and yet we still accept dopers in our ranks. Why is that? I personally am a huge fan of Johan Museeuw and watch youtube videos of his Paris-Roubaix rides constantly. While the epo helped him at the end of his career you could be doped to the gills and still not win P-R. Look at last year's race. Riders were crashing out in every turn. Boonen knows how to ride Paris Roubaix others not so much. It is skill and panache over sheer fitness and speed.