CN interviews Chris Horner

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 12, 2010
545
0
0
Horner's name was not mentioned in USADA's 1000-page report. He remains almost an exception: a veteran US rider relatively untouched by doping scandal. Guilt by association these days seems flimsy.
So Christopher isn't redacted rider number 15 on the USADA report then? So who was Levi talking about when he talked about his friend who was injured prior to the 2005 Tour of Switzerland and used EPO in the buildup, if not Saunier Duval's Chris Horner?
 
TheGame said:
So Christopher isn't redacted rider number 15 on the USADA report then? So who was Levi talking about when he talked about his friend who was injured prior to the 2005 Tour of Switzerland and used EPO in the buildup, if not Saunier Duval's Chris Horner?
Good spot. I did pick that up.

If you graphed his career there's some decent spikes in his performances.

At best I'd say he could win a crit in the US.

His self proclaimed second best climber in the world was his most laughable moment.
 
Oct 21, 2012
340
0
0
TheGame said:
So Christopher isn't redacted rider number 15 on the USADA report then? So who was Levi talking about when he talked about his friend who was injured prior to the 2005 Tour of Switzerland and used EPO in the buildup, if not Saunier Duval's Chris Horner?
Yeah i thought that too. This either makes him a bigger doofus for saying this as that name will have to be filled in eventually (maybe the pending Bruyneel case)and he's gonna look pretty friggin stoopid if it's him or perhaps he's not as big a doofus as some of us (me bigdoofus included ) have made out. Because he only has to defend himself against one man's testimony (i think - just Levi:confused:) This is a lot easier than LA who has at least 15 testimonies against him, LA has proved that himself over the years with the way he has dealt with prevoius whistleblowers.
doofus first time i've used that adjective since about the age of 11 forgotten about it until saw it in someone else's post What a Doofus!
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
ElBeeJay said:
Was that interview some sort of subversive journalism trying to out a true fool or was it trying to take the guy serious? Any which way ít was basically a waste of time albeit it has caused a stir at the clinic. Still Horner should be kicked out first thing for being a brainfart
thehog said:
Good spot. I did pick that up.

If you graphed his career there's some decent spikes in his performances.

At best I'd say he could win a crit in the US.

His self proclaimed second best climber in the world was his most laughable moment.
Exactly true. Maybe he is still playing kissy kissy with Lance because he needs the redacted names never to see the light of day, hoping Lance's legal dream team can still shut 'er down.
 
Oct 14, 2012
63
0
0
Neworld said:
This is a cycling doping forum and without being too much of a 'splitter' here, I don't give a rats a$$ about other pro sports. I care about cycling and all the potential new riders with 'real' talent that don't need to hope that they are malevolent responders like Lancey to enjoy a future in cycling.

Oh, and most people here are not idiots trying to believe that honest fair sports without cheating, doping and bullying is something worth fighting for. If you want to be apathetic and accept doping because 'ah shucks everybody dopes and they all want to win' great but your attitude, or acceptance of that attitude, is the problem bud. Open a new thread talking about better ways to dope, how to avoid getting caught and/or the general malaise and poor attitude of pros.
I never stated where I stand, I just pointed out that the attitude towards cheating is very different i professional sports, cycling included, than it is on an internet forum, and that Horner may not be a stupid as he is being made out here, I take your low reading comprehension to be an indication of where you stand on the comparative intelligence list that many believe to be bounded by Horner.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
howsteepisit said:
I never stated where I stand, I just pointed out that the attitude towards cheating is very different i professional sports, cycling included, than it is on an internet forum, and that Horner may not be a stupid as he is being made out here, I take your low reading comprehension to be an indication of where you stand on the comparative intelligence list that many believe to be bounded by Horner.
That wold be the equivalent of a a kick in the Neworld BAAS-sack.....
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
howsteepisit said:
I never stated where I stand, I just pointed out that the attitude towards cheating is very different i professional sports, cycling included, than it is on an internet forum, and that Horner may not be a stupid as he is being made out here, I take your low reading comprehension to be an indication of where you stand on the comparative intelligence list that many believe to be bounded by Horner.
You did state where you stand several times, go back and read (comprehension skills?) what you wrote


It seems pretty clear to me that Horner has his line in the sand, that in the absence of a positive test there is no doping. I understand that simplicity, even though I do not agree with it. If I recall, Conconni and Ferrari had something of the same opinion.

However, Horner's opinion does not make him stupid. I am surely in awe of the powerful intelligence of the forum posters, all of whom are at the genius level (or above) of intelligence and who can sit in such powerful and reasoned judgment of all opinions. What a bunch of tools

Not at all, I was pointing out that in many professional sports the general belief is that if your are not caught/penalized then you were not cheating. Pro sports are pragmatic if nothing else. Its great fun to sit here on a forum and moralize of how awful cheating is blah blah blah, but it does not reflect the realities of the guys who are out there making a living year in and out. Since the entry fee into the pro peloton is to win or dominate amateur events, that what the aspiring pro does. the price of remaining in the peloton is to either win or be able to help create a winning teammate. And those that are there are often prepared to do what is necessary to remain there. So they draw a line of not caught/didn't cheat. Its really no different than investment banking and hedge funds. If you are not caught then obviously you did not use insider information. This is the fundamental reality of the competitive world, like it or not. The predominant posters here, do not accept that reality, but I note that they are forum posters, not world class cyclists.

By the way, in spite of the Lance accusation, I have dislike Lance since the early 90's based on his arrogant attitude. His drugging did nothing to change my opinion of his as i never liked him at all.

Edit: A Stupis opinion does not make a person stupid. Nor does a opinion that you do not agree with.
Actually, you post insults and make sweeping proclamations of what is reality, who here are World class cyclist(you have no idea how many), and do state your opinions. BTW posting in here about (i) pros get paid to win (ii) imply that forum posters are moralizing how awful cheating is (Hello, have you been watching cycling during LAs wins? Some morality was clearly in short supply), and (iii) pros are willing to do what is necessary to remain in the pro-ranks… is so trite it reflects on you mate.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
howsteepisit said:
I never stated where I stand, I just pointed out that the attitude towards cheating is very different i professional sports, cycling included, than it is on an internet forum, and that Horner may not be a stupid as he is being made out here, I take your low reading comprehension to be an indication of where you stand on the comparative intelligence list that many believe to be bounded by Horner.
Lets look at intelligence and statements since you brought it up. Your statements from what I can see are based on an opinion that the overall attitude of sportsmen and women towards cheating is a positive attitude, only becoming negative once caught. You also use business as an example earlier.

Now either I am naive or you are trying to push a point while insulting others which in reality is just spin in one direction. Politics is the game for you my friend.
In business there are not only cheats in fact they are in the minority, they are just the ones that make the headlines. In fact if they were a majority then have a good think of what the consequences would be.
The same goes for sport,the trouble is in sport because of its nature they are the ones making the headlines and also at the top of the tree. Not all sports people have the attitude that doping is only a problem once caught,and most would be outraged to be labelled that way.
no 1...When voicing an opinion at least try to make it a balanced one.
Yes in cycling the opinion is biased towards Horner syndrome,however cycling is not all sports.
no 2...dont generalise ,it only dilutes your point.
no 3...dont insult people....you get the drift I hope.
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
Exactly true. Maybe he is still playing kissy kissy with Lance because he needs the redacted names never to see the light of day, hoping Lance's legal dream team can still shut 'er down.
I think he has to. Certainly after Lance mentored him from 2009 hooked him up.

Lance has a big mouth as well. He said some stuff on Wiggins to others. I often wonder if that will see the light of day at some point.

Even today Wiggins as back to his Horner-esq best!

“It just goes to show that if I can do it anyone can do it with a bit of application and hard work. You don’t have to be Lance Armstrong, you don’t have to be this incredible machine of an athlete. Anyone can do it. Anyone in this set-up can no do it now. If I can do it, with where I came from, then anyone could do it."
 
Oct 14, 2012
63
0
0
OK apologies for insulting people intelligence, you are correct. If you go back to my original post, it was prompted by not one but several people stating how stupid Chris Honer is because of the opinions stated in his interview in Cyclingnews. I object to that opinion not because I have any idea how smart or not so Horner is, but because it comes across to me as horribly self righteous and arrogant to for anyone to say that I don't like his opinions so he must be stupid. Even if his opinions are stupid, that does not a person stupid.

By nature, an opinion is not balanced. It is an opinion, not a reasoned decision.

And in finality, my pointing out that Horner's opinion on what constitutes a doping violation (a positive test) is common in many areas where pragmatic evaluations of human behavior exist, such as athletics and business.

While my personal morality does not allow that, my point was not being made to further my opinion on doping rather it was to point out that there are a great many people who are perfectly comfortable with relativistic moral positions. Holding such positions this does not make them stupid, as Horner has been accused of. Consider as an additional example, how many times you have heard a business executive claim, I checked with the lawyers and its OK. Note that this total bypasses any need for moralistic evaluation.

I erred i using the same logic of calling those I disagreed with stupid, as an exercise in absurdity, sorry it was mistaken.

Besides, somebody had to stand up for Horner and those in a similar position of having gone with the flow and not realizing the tide had turned. I felt pity.
 
howsteepisit said:
Besides, somebody had to stand up for Horner and those in a similar position of having gone with the flow and not realizing the tide had turned. I felt pity.
But does that not reflect poorly on Horner, that he's heavily involved in a sport and cannot see that the tide had turned? It's been suggested up the thread that his stance is some kind of realpolitik in order to have a continued existence in the sport. I think that's also being overly kind to him.

There was a UK comedy series, on a number of years ago and based on recurring catchphrases, where a character in one sketch would make a social faux-pas during conversation with friends, be greeted by silence and horror, then utter the phrase "I'll get me coat" before exiting the scene quickly.

Any vocal Lance-lovers and doping deniers should also get their coats. The sport needs to move on and relics from the 00s don't help.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
TheGame said:
So Christopher isn't redacted rider number 15 on the USADA report then? So who was Levi talking about when he talked about his friend who was injured prior to the 2005 Tour of Switzerland and used EPO in the buildup, if not Saunier Duval's Chris Horner?
Even more to it I am sure. No way Chris Horner was able to avoid it and be a close friend with Lance.

Horner says he does not read CNews or vnews in the interview. He better not check the forums because that interview placed him into the realm asshat here in the clinic.

I won't say he is stupid but I will say that dude needs to stfu.
 
Apr 7, 2009
176
0
0
Wow, you guys are quick to make your own conclusions. It's easy to sit here, read the article and arm chair quarterback your own conclusions. I think you are missing some important points he makes:

1. The rules are you fail a drug test, you are guilty. Those are the rules the cyclists agreed to and the rules they played by. ie the 50% hemocrit rule (hint, hint). How many of you would be willing to lose your job if you played by the rules everyone else did, but you were the only one to lose your job - or have your reputation destroyed - without never been proven to break the rules?

2. CH never said he took a certain amount of tests like 500-1000. He just said he's been tested a lot over his career and states he doesn't know how many he has taken.

3. He actually has the balls to state on record that the testing doesn't work. He attacks the UCI, USADA and USCycling directly. What journalists are going down this path? How many other cyclists are willing to make such a simple direct statement about the testing? To make this statement puts a bulls-eye on his back. You don't think he knows that?

Heck, a womens race was just cancelled because they can't afford the drug testing the UCI requires. And the LA case is proof the testing doesn't work. I guess the UCI is really concerned with growing the sport....I think this puts Horner's comments into perspective.

I guess my opinion is really to read the article with an open mind from and think about it from all sides of the coin. Not just your own.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
mwbyrd said:
Wow, you guys are quick to make your own conclusions. It's easy to sit here, read the article and arm chair quarterback your own conclusions. I think you are missing some important points he makes:

1. The rules are you fail a drug test, you are guilty. Those are the rules the cyclists agreed to and the rules they played by. ie the 50% hemocrit rule (hint, hint). How many of you would be willing to lose your job if you played by the rules everyone else did, but you were the only one to lose your job - or have your reputation destroyed - without never been proven to break the rules?

2. CH never said he took a certain amount of tests like 500-1000. He just said he's been tested a lot over his career and states he doesn't know how many he has taken.

3. He actually has the balls to state on record that the testing doesn't work. He attacks the UCI, USADA and USCycling directly. What journalists are going down this path? How many other cyclists are willing to make such a simple direct statement about the testing? To make this statement puts a bulls-eye on his back. You don't think he knows that?

Heck, a womens race was just cancelled because they can't afford the drug testing the UCI requires. And the LA case is proof the testing doesn't work. I guess the UCI is really concerned with growing the sport....I think this puts Horner's comments into perspective.

I guess my opinion is really to read the article with an open mind from and think about it from all sides of the coin. Not just your own.
I have and its a dopers mentality that he answers with. No self respecting non doping person having looked at the evidence would say any of the things he does,,,,just because the tests dont work ,which is a fair point, doesnt mean that people should get away with cheating,which is what is implied by Chris.
The amount of evidence is massive,yet here we have a pro cyclist backing someone who everyone knows cheated and uses the non failure of a test as why its not fair...then goes on to say the tests dont work,cmon credit prople with some intelligence. A person not doping would be happy to have people caught by any means. The other side of the coin as you put it is the dopers side and they have a vested interest to shout loud.
 
Feb 17, 2012
2,762
0
0
There's nothing better than reading "I haven't read the USADA report" followed by stating how Lance isn't guilty as he did not test postive in his career...
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
DominicDecoco said:
There's nothing better than reading "I haven't read the USADA report" followed by stating how Lance isn't guilty as he did not test postive in his career...
What's better is to keep quiet. He knows all too well what's in the report as Lance did not allow clean riders to rise to any prominence on his squads. Horner knew what he'd be expected to do before he signed and was very deeply into a pro program before that. Feigning ignorance is a lie; not a defense.
 
Dec 16, 2012
3
0
0
Fair play to Horner. There is something noble about standing by your friends and giving a voice to those in the sport, rather than telling the media what they want to hear.

However much Armstrong is hated, he is still recognise by the majority of pros as one of the all time greats. That their judgment based on everything they know on the inside. That's an opinion we have to respect.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
mwbyrd said:
Wow, you guys are quick to make your own conclusions. It's easy to sit here, read the article and arm chair quarterback your own conclusions. I think you are missing some important points he makes:
.
You and Steep are at ground zero. Of course some of his comments are true (never testing +), but they are so fetid of lies, deception and guilt that when you 2 philosophically evaluate it the whole CH topic is...well stupid. CH should be erased from cycling plain and simple.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
On one hand, it would seem that the village of Bend, Oregon is without its idiot during the cycling season, but on the other hand it is more likely that Jethro realizes that he is over 40, has only a couple of years left to make a damn good living, and may well need the support of Lance et al to secure him another job in this sport. It is one of those two options; why else would he even give that interview?
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
I would like to know what guys like Ted Huang, Dario Falquier, John Kelly, James Mattis, Marc Hangenlocher, Ben Haldeman have to say in regards to explaining their one year of new found fitness.:rolleyes:
 
pedaling squares said:
On one hand, it would seem that the village of Bend, Oregon is without its idiot during the cycling season, but on the other hand it is more likely that Jethro realizes that he is over 40, has only a couple of years left to make a damn good living, and may well need the support of Lance et al to secure him another job in this sport. It is one of those two options; why else would he even give that interview?
Horner is far from an idiot.
Seems to me he refused to go down the road the reporter was trying to lead him. Nothing wrong with that at all.
I prefer Horner's candour to those who pretend that doping ended in 2006.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
the delgados said:
Horner is far from an idiot.
Seems to me he refused to go down the road the reporter was trying to lead him. Nothing wrong with that at all.
I prefer Horner's candour to those who pretend that doping ended in 2006.
Refusing to go down the road means declining to answer or deflecting the question, not resorting to nonsense like "Lance won... he passed all the tests." Especially since neither point is true. The man either:
a) expects a post-retirement gig,
b) is a simpleton, or
c) thinks that we are all simpletons, in which case see b).
 
May 9, 2012
14
0
0
CH was not called to testify for the Grand Jury, not USADA, correct? Why not? Horner has never been fingered by any of the implicated riders,and lord knows they talk a lot. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain why Horner has escaped being fingered. Is he really a better doper thanLA Himself? Also how come USADA Let this filthy rider into the Olympics? TIA
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY