CN interviews Chris Horner

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Horner, and guys like AC, Valv-Piti and the other spanish cheaters make me vomit. Not b/c they cheat, but b/c they think the fans are complete idiots (ok, maybe in some parts of spain that´s true).
So i think it´s ok to call Horner of what he is: An Idiot. An Idiot to think the masses still take this BS.

OTOH, there is hope like when Kittel or Greipel spoke out. I think those young men know what time it is: Cycling is on the way of dying b/c of as.h..es like the above mentioned. I have no respect for Horner. I said it before, my hope is this guilty guy is the next man flushed down the toilet (meaning caught).
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I call BS as well.

And two wrongs don't make a right.
Really? After his outburst at the TdF with the ****ers and c's? C'mon, he's just nuts in a different way.

Did Horner profess his "love" of LA in the article?
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
hrotha said:
I call BS. Say what you want about Wiggo, he's much more PR-savvy than Horner. This interview is just ridiculous even to the untrained, uncynical eye.
Really? Lance loving, wonker and c&nt invoking Wigans wasn't ridiculous?

At least Horner was polite, if you discount insulting people's intelligence that is...
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
I am really surprised at, with the exception of maybe two people, all of the negativity toward Chris.

First, why are so many people calling him stupid? I couldn't detect anything from his statements indicating what his level intelligence was, one way or another. However, his statements were clearly in line with someone who wants to not make waves in the peloton where he continues to make his living.

While I along with many of you am enjoying the ex-seven time tour winner's schadenfreude, I also agree somewhat with Chris' implication of the unfairness of everybody getting off lightly in order to target Mr. ex-7 and the damage that it is doing to cycling. It is an easy inference to draw that he-who-must-not-be-named was the best at doping because he won seven tours, but another explanation is that he was the best rider among the many dopers who rode the tour.

As the article stated several times, Chris has never been named in any doping scandals. His choice of teams over the years, while suggestive, is less compelling than the fact he has not been named in any of the doping investigations. Also, there is something that Jonathan Vaughters said years ago in his column in CycleSport magazine that may be an implication of Chris' unwillingness to dope at least at the time he wrote the article. The column was about what it takes to be a top European pro. He talked about several riders that I cannot remember, but one stood out. Chris Horner. He said that Chris had the most talent of any US rider, but just didn't have that something extra to be successful in Europe. I thought, perhaps naively, JV meant the intestinal fortitude to endure the challenges that come with life in the top ranks. Looking back on it now, it looks more like he may have been hinting that Chris was not willing to take the extra chemical steps to be successful.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
JV said the same thing about CVV - strongest rider at US Postal or something similar.

You can only say that so many times before it starts to lose its lustre.

And JV is an absolutely honest person who never lied or made stuff up or bluffed his way or told a half-truth in his entire pro career.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
gregod said:
...someone who wants to not make waves in the peloton where he continues to make his living.
So to be a coward is o.k.? Look at Kittel, he´s young and has to survive for a long time in the peloton (not like the old Horner), and has his own issues. That guy manned up.
There is no way to excuse Horner. He is an idiot...
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
gregod said:
I am really surprised at, with the exception of maybe two people, all of the negativity toward Chris.

First, why are so many people calling him stupid? I couldn't detect anything from his statements indicating what his level intelligence was, one way or another. However, his statements were clearly in line with someone who wants to not make waves in the peloton where he continues to make his living.

While I along with many of you am enjoying the ex-seven time tour winner's schadenfreude, I also agree somewhat with Chris' implication of the unfairness of everybody getting off lightly in order to target Mr. ex-7 and the damage that it is doing to cycling. It is an easy inference to draw that he-who-must-not-be-named was the best at doping because he won seven tours, but another explanation is that he was the best rider among the many dopers who rode the tour.

As the article stated several times, Chris has never been named in any doping scandals. His choice of teams over the years, while suggestive, is less compelling than the fact he has not been named in any of the doping investigations. Also, there is something that Jonathan Vaughters said years ago in his column in CycleSport magazine that may be an implication of Chris' unwillingness to dope at least at the time he wrote the article. The column was about what it takes to be a top European pro. He talked about several riders that I cannot remember, but one stood out. Chris Horner. He said that Chris had the most talent of any US rider, but just didn't have that something extra to be successful in Europe. I thought, perhaps naively, JV meant the intestinal fortitude to endure the challenges that come with life in the top ranks. Looking back on it now, it looks more like he may have been hinting that Chris was not willing to take the extra chemical steps to be successful.
So regarding the bolded, one would think he'd be furious with LA for either cheating him out of his rightful place or ensuring he would have to dope to ride in Europe..
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
hrotha said:
I call BS. Say what you want about Wiggo, he's much more PR-savvy than Horner. This interview is just ridiculous even to the untrained, uncynical eye.
Jeremiah said:
Really? Lance loving, wonker and c&nt invoking Wigans wasn't ridiculous?

At least Horner was polite, if you discount insulting people's intelligence that is...
hrotha said:
That's not what I said. At all.
You said Wigans is much more PR savvy than Horner. If PR still means public relations and you think that his performance with the media at the Tour wasn't ridiculous to the "untrained eye," what can I say?:eek:
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Jeremiah said:
So regarding the bolded, one would think he'd be furious with LA for either cheating him out of his rightful place or ensuring he would have to dope to ride in Europe..
It's been my observation that logic rarely rears its beautiful head when it comes to pros, their actions or their responses to revelations of doping or impropriety in the peloton.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
MarkvW said:
Telling the truth would jeopardize Horner's livelihood. Why should we expect him to do that? Truth is a scarce luxury for any fans of this sport. I'm cool with this because I don't respect Horner, or almost any pro cyclist. I'd be a fool to take any of those doped-up geeks seriously.

My passion for cycling is about riding my bike long distances for fun. Pro cycling is about hypocrisy and cheating and drugs (and bikes that are as uncomfortable as f***). Pro cycling is a guilty pleasure, like some reality TV shows.
Your credibility went right out the window with the bolded.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I call BS as well.

And two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm not justifying what he said. All I'm saying its not far off what the yellow jersey winner at the 2012 Tour has been saying.

I think it's ridiculous but until June this year Sky and Wiggins were singing the same tune as Horner. Where's the outrage?

Don't blame Horner. He's just saying what 99% of the sport was saying until July this year.

Now the sport is at 98%.

Not much has changed.

He's a tool for sure. But so is the winner of the 2012 Tour and his team.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
So to be a coward is o.k.? Look at Kittel, he´s young and has to survive for a long time in the peloton (not like the old Horner), and has his own issues. That guy manned up.
There is no way to excuse Horner. He is an idiot...
Just because he doesn't break the omerta does not make him a coward. Not wanting to jeopardize what little remaining time he has in the sport, without any non-cycling alternatives after retirement, in a world-wide recession is quite rational.

Just because Kittel is brave does not make the other 99% of the professionals at that level craven.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Jeremiah said:
So regarding the bolded, one would think he'd be furious with LA for either cheating him out of his rightful place or ensuring he would have to dope to ride in Europe..
One would think. However, as an insider Chris may have a different perspective. The fact that numerous other top riders doped, it doesn't make sense to single out just one.
 
thehog said:
I'm not justifying what he said. All I'm saying its not far off what the yellow jersey winner at the 2012 Tour has been saying.

I think it's ridiculous but until June this year Sky and Wiggins were singing the same tune as Horner. Where's the outrage?

Don't blame Horner. He's just saying what 99% of the sport was saying until July this year.

Now the sport is at 98%.

Not much has changed.

He's a tool for sure. But so is the winner of the 2012 Tour and his team.
Well, there are 2 Sky threads on the first page of the clinic that have a total of almost 11,000 posts.
 
gregod said:
I am really surprised at, with the exception of maybe two people, all of the negativity toward Chris.

First, why are so many people calling him stupid? I couldn't detect anything from his statements indicating what his level intelligence was, one way or another. However, his statements were clearly in line with someone who wants to not make waves in the peloton where he continues to make his living.

While I along with many of you am enjoying the ex-seven time tour winner's schadenfreude, I also agree somewhat with Chris' implication of the unfairness of everybody getting off lightly in order to target Mr. ex-7 and the damage that it is doing to cycling. It is an easy inference to draw that he-who-must-not-be-named was the best at doping because he won seven tours, but another explanation is that he was the best rider among the many dopers who rode the tour.

As the article stated several times, Chris has never been named in any doping scandals. His choice of teams over the years, while suggestive, is less compelling than the fact he has not been named in any of the doping investigations. Also, there is something that Jonathan Vaughters said years ago in his column in CycleSport magazine that may be an implication of Chris' unwillingness to dope at least at the time he wrote the article. The column was about what it takes to be a top European pro. He talked about several riders that I cannot remember, but one stood out. Chris Horner. He said that Chris had the most talent of any US rider, but just didn't have that something extra to be successful in Europe. I thought, perhaps naively, JV meant the intestinal fortitude to endure the challenges that come with life in the top ranks. Looking back on it now, it looks more like he may have been hinting that Chris was not willing to take the extra chemical steps to be successful.
He makes comments that can be labelled as stupid because he is trying the failed method of 'look -squirrel!' to divert attention away from criticism of the sport. It not a million miles away from the 'everyone stopped doping in 2006' line parroted elsewhere, or 'cycling's much cleaner now' (which it may be), or 'the guys that doped have all retired' etc... all of which are disingenuous comments. The zeitgeist of the sport in late 2012 is change and hope for the future, and Horner's denialistic comments are well off that.

Horner is saying that testing is the only valid way of catching a doper. The USADA report (which he boasts to not have read) states time and again there were ways round the tests. Most of the testimony was from riders who had not failed a test. And even guys like Floyd claim to have failed tests for substances they weren't even taking. Horner ignores that Armstrong failed at least one test, a test covered up by his own team. He doesn't explain how Armstrong's '99 samples, when retrospectively tested for EPO, also failed numerous times.

But the biggest error he makes is to adopt Team Armstrong's position of the USADA case being a witch-hunt against him. All riders were offered a potential reduced penalty for co-operation - Armstrong refused that offer. I have no reason to disbelieve Travis Tygart over someone who lied his way through an entire career. Armstrong's grumble about going beyond the 8 year Statute of Limitations could be argued, but then again one other rider also had results quashed back to 1999 (Leipheimer 1999-2007).

It's a popular opinion on mainstream messageboards that Armstrong was the best of a bunch of dopers, but with blood doping especially, that doesn't apply because of the hematocrit percentages. Two riders of equal ability could blood dope, and a rider with natural 38% would feel much more effect of EPO than a rider with 48%. Add in the network that tipped them off about tests and having an entire 'A Team' on an organised doping programme and all of the justifications of 'they were all doing it, nothing to see here' is shown up for what it is.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
argyllflyer said:
He makes comments that can be labelled as stupid because he is trying the failed method of 'look -squirrel!'

... snipped for brevity...

doping programme and all of the justifications of 'they were all doing it, nothing to see here' is shown up for what it is.
You disagree with his position, but that does not mean it is stupid. Yes, Horner points at others' behavior. It was done in order to draw the analogy that artificial enhancement is pervasive in society, so why should cycling be singled out? As for the three other claims you assert are tantamount to his position. Those are straw men. He did not make any of those claims.

I don't agree with his position on testing, but it is understandable. A positive test is an objective standard for the guilt of a doped athlete. Furthermore, it is not up to Horner to have to a position on the 1999 positive or the retroactive positives. The UCI is the one that did not dole out any sanctions. A ridiculous percentage of professional athletes have TUEs, so again why single out one rider?

How is it an error to think there was a witch hunt? Juan Pelota deserves everything he is going to get, but a lot of people who doped just as long and just as much as he did are getting off relatively lightly. They used the testimonies of numerous dopers to get one guy.

All of which is to say that, however much you disagree with Horner's positions, that doesn't make him stupid. His reasoning may be self-serving and shallow, but it is also how most people would act in the same situation, which is proved time and time again by the statements of current and former pro cyclists.
 
gregod said:
You disagree with his position, but that does not mean it is stupid. Yes, Horner points at others' behavior. It was done in order to draw the analogy that artificial enhancement is pervasive in society, so why should cycling be singled out? As for the three other claims you assert are tantamount to his position. Those are straw men. He did not make any of those claims.

I don't agree with his position on testing, but it is understandable. A positive test is an objective standard for the guilt of a doped athlete. Furthermore, it is not up to Horner to have to a position on the 1999 positive or the retroactive positives. The UCI is the one that did not dole out any sanctions. A ridiculous percentage of professional athletes have TUEs, so again why single out one rider?

How is it an error to think there was a witch hunt? Juan Pelota deserves everything he is going to get, but a lot of people who doped just as long and just as much as he did are getting off relatively lightly. They used the testimonies of numerous dopers to get one guy.

All of which is to say that, however much you disagree with Horner's positions, that doesn't make him stupid. His reasoning may be self-serving and shallow, but it is also how most people would act in the same situation, which is proved time and time again by the statements of current and former pro cyclists.
Funny, here's me thinking they are also trying to get Bruyneel, Ferrari, Marti and Del Moral. That's 5 already. I thought you sais it was all done to get one guy. :rolleyes:
 
Some people in society cheat and lie and many don't. There is often an advantage to be had by cheating and lying. Those who cheat and lie (or their apologists) find ways to justify this behaviour (had to feed the family) but it remains wrong.

Why many here are highly critical of Horner is certainly because with all we know about what has been happening in pro cycling and specifically on teams he rode with, he is obvoiusly cheating and lying. He isn't expressing an opinion, he is engaging in despicable behaviour. He is also incredibly transparent about his lying. Clearly he sees some personal advantage to this.

Thankfully there are people like Betsy, Emma, Mike, Paul, Greg and others who have values.
 
gregod said:
You disagree with his position, but that does not mean it is stupid. Yes, Horner points at others' behavior. It was done in order to draw the analogy that artificial enhancement is pervasive in society, so why should cycling be singled out? As for the three other claims you assert are tantamount to his position. Those are straw men. He did not make any of those claims.

I don't agree with his position on testing, but it is understandable. A positive test is an objective standard for the guilt of a doped athlete. Furthermore, it is not up to Horner to have to a position on the 1999 positive or the retroactive positives. The UCI is the one that did not dole out any sanctions. A ridiculous percentage of professional athletes have TUEs, so again why single out one rider?

How is it an error to think there was a witch hunt? Juan Pelota deserves everything he is going to get, but a lot of people who doped just as long and just as much as he did are getting off relatively lightly. They used the testimonies of numerous dopers to get one guy.

All of which is to say that, however much you disagree with Horner's positions, that doesn't make him stupid. His reasoning may be self-serving and shallow, but it is also how most people would act in the same situation, which is proved time and time again by the statements of current and former pro cyclists.
A lot of the people that are making statements any way supportive of Armstrong are those who doped themselves (Merckx for example), or have personal connections to him (Horner).

As for 'straw man' arguments - I made none - what Horner said is not particularly different to those positions, and arguably it's actually worse as it makes no attempt to suggest that things have changed, even emptily.

Horner claims that a doper is someone who fails a test. By stating Armstrong never failed a test (which is incorrect), he implies that he was not a doper. He uses the 'never failed a test' mantra to attack USADA and all those speaking out against Armstrong and the rest of the cabal. That sounds like a 'straw man' argument to me.

What use is testing if certain teams are alleged to have had help in beating the tests - help from Ferrari to get on a programme that would be undetectable and help of a more insidious nature in being aware of when testing was going to occur or of ways around it. The testing regime in the Armstrong era was plainly sub-standard and anyone 'popped' was careless, unable to afford the 'good stuff' or, if you believe the conspiracy theories, certain undesirables were targeted, and there are those who are of the firm belief that the very same thing happened to poor old Frank Schleck in July.

The final word on Horner should come at the USA Pro Cycling Challenge when he said, on camera:

He's done great things for cycling in general. For me, I was there when he won his seventh and he's still a winner. I watched from my couch when he won his first six. He's still a winner for me too. Whatever choices they decide to do with USADA, Lance is still a legend in my mind and always will be."
Blind loyalty is stupidity.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
frenchfry said:
Some people in society cheat and lie and many don't. There is often an advantage to be had by cheating and lying. Those who cheat and lie (or their apologists) find ways to justify this behaviour (had to feed the family) but it remains wrong.

Why many here are highly critical of Horner is certainly because with all we know about what happened in pro cycling and specifically on teams he rode with, he is obvoiusly cheating and lying. He isn't expressing an opinion, he is engaging in despicable behaviour. He is also incredibly transparent about his lying. Clearly he sees some personal advantage to this.

Thankfully there are people like Betsy, Emma, Mike, Paul, Greg and others who have values.
I agree with what you say, except your use of the past tense. In my opinion, nothing has changed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY