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?
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
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?
thehog
BANNED
TheGame 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.
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 LeviTheGame said:
) 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!
ElBeeJay said:
thehog 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.
Neworld 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.
howsteepisit said:
You did state where you stand several times, go back and read (comprehension skills?) what you wrote
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.
howsteepisit said:
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.
thehog
BANNED
Fortyninefourteen said:
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!
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.
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:
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.
TheGame said:
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.
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.
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.
mwbyrd said:
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.
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...
DominicDecoco said:
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.
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.
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.
mwbyrd said:
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.
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?
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.
pedaling squares 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:the delgados said:
a) expects a post-retirement gig,
b) is a simpleton, or
c) thinks that we are all simpletons, in which case see b).
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
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 359
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Latest: QueenStagiaire
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram