Is Chris Horner a GC contender

[kurtinsc]

One thing to consider regarding Chris, is that he was dx'd with asthma last Aug. when tests showed he had lost 26% of his lung capacity. His lung capacity could have been "degraded" for years prior to getting bad enough to force him to seek medical help. His age is working against him, but with his asthma controlled you're seeing a "new" rider. Just my 2 cents.... Let's see how it goes this spring. So far he's looked very good.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/horner/2009/08/tour_of_spain_diary_ready_to_c.html

Athsma is always questionable for me.

I didn't compete in cycling growing up. I was a swimmer. And amazingly about 40% of the swimmers in the upper eschelons were diagnosed with Athsma. Can you guess what effect the inhalers have on performance?

Just sayin'.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I hear you on the TUE.

Always...peculiar when riders are much superior in their 30's than 20's. Especially late 30's.

 

[Boeing]

I can think of a number of riders who are considered "GT" contenders of whom Chris can stay with or take to the shed for a beat down

 

[Mellow Velo]

Horner = Super-Domestique,
end.

Well, apparently, a third of this forum disagree with you.
Would a third of this forum think Cancellara a possible winner of a GT, I wonder?
After all, Fabian has won The Tour of Switzerland.......

Anyhow we have discovered one thing.
The secret of eternal youth is to drop a couple of pounds and pedal faster!

I can think of a number of riders who are considered "GT" contenders of whom Chris can stay with or take to the shed for a beat down

Might be nice if you could name them.
Could even start another debate.

 

[Oldman]

I hear you on the TUE.

Always...peculiar when riders are much superior in their 30's than 20's. Especially late 30's.

Not really peculiar if the rider hasn't exhausted himself in their teens and twenties. GT riders, in particular; could build their systems into later dates. Horner didn't ride a diet of three week races until he was in his thirties and may explain some of his stamina. Most racers have been on a program from their first pro days and are used up shells by 40. That, and they took too much juice where now the programs are probably pretty well tuned.

As for asthma I'd agree with the prevalence. I know riders that experience it due to allergies and require seasonal help. It's been explained as yet another opportunity to mask steroid use by older school riders.

 

[MTrider]

Oldman, I appreciate your concern, but inhaled steroids are not the same as anabolic steroids that some athletes take to build muscle.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Even if we went back to the Tours if the early 90's with 200km of TT distance (which I'd like to actually see for a year), I don't see Cancellara winning a GT. He can climb okay, but he's not Indurain.

 

[Oldman]

Oldman, I appreciate your concern, but inhaled steroids are not the same as anabolic steroids that some athletes take to build muscle.

But the TUE exemption has a rider "registered" for that type of drug use, legally. Now they monitor the levels much more than in the past. That's when I think the abuse was in tandem with actual, similarly formulated steriods. I'm not a chemist so it could be speculation.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Not really peculiar if the rider hasn't exhausted himself in their teens and twenties. GT riders, in particular....

Problem with this is that until Bjarne Riis came along, never before in history had there been a rider who was average his entire career, then pretty quickly became a GT contender in their 30's. Nearly every GT winner and top rider was identified from an early age as being exceptional. From 1903 to 1996 this was pretty much the case. Even Joop Zoetemelk who won the Tour at 33 and World's at 38, had been a top rider his entire career, finishing the Tour in 8th, 5th, 4th (three times) and 2nd a whopping six times. Never burning out.

Horner was pretty much a domestic pro racing against Cat 1 racers and some international racing on the Continental circuit from the age of 20-34. Then, he got so much better he was a GT contender?

Yeah, it is speculation. But as I said, it's definitely peculiar. Especially in this day and age.

 

[Polish]

Horner is an American rider who is friends with Lance Armstrong.

To a few American fans - that is PLENTY enough reason to dislike him.
Anyone who has anything to do with Lance....Poo Poo 'em

Its like an somebody who is friends with Bin Laden. Don't like 'em.

Hincapie, Levi, Horner....

Ayman Zawahiri, Al-Zarqawi, Al-Awlaki....

amateur terroist video from youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8jBwHmIh2Q
.
.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

You are one strange individual.

 

[jaylew]

Well, apparently, a third of this forum disagree with you.
Would a third of this forum think Cancellara a possible winner of a GT, I wonder?
After all, Fabian has won The Tour of Switzerland.......

I bet there would have been an even greater consensus if "contender" had been clarified. I'm guessing you wouldn't have a third of the forum voting him as a possible podium guy.

On the other hand if contender is a top-10 guy, objectively you'd probably have to say yes seeing as how he finished 15th at the Tour while working for someone else a couple of years ago and was climbing with the top guys at the Giro(ok, it was early) last year before his crash. No reason he couldn't get a top 10 at the Vuelta.

He certainly wouldn't be the first "super-domestique" to score a top-10 at the Vuelta or Giro.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

I hear you on the TUE.

Always...peculiar when riders are much superior in their 30's than 20's. Especially late 30's.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always read that endurance athletes peak in their 30s. Granted maybe not late 30s as Horner is, but peak neverthless. This is because endurance training is cumulative and carries over, unlike other types of training. Also, I've noticed that in my mountain bike races (sport 20-29) the 30-39 age group typically has faster times, so I don't think it's all that odd for a 30+ athlete to be superior than they were in their 20s. A major jump, however, would be peculiar.

 

[Kungfu Supercomputer]

Problem with this is that until Bjarne Riis came along, never before in history had there been a rider who was average his entire career, then pretty quickly became a GT contender in their 30's. Nearly every GT winner and top rider was identified from an early age as being exceptional. From 1903 to 1996 this was pretty much the case. Even Joop Zoetemelk who won the Tour at 33 and World's at 38, had been a top rider his entire career, finishing the Tour in 8th, 5th, 4th (three times) and 2nd a whopping six times. Never burning out.

Horner was pretty much a domestic pro racing against Cat 1 racers and some international racing on the Continental circuit from the age of 20-34. Then, he got so much better he was a GT contender?

Yeah, it is speculation. But as I said, it's definitely peculiar. Especially in this day and age.

Chris Horner has never, ever, been remotely close to anything resembling "average" as a cyclist. Given his pedigree, his "palmares" are actually on the light side. "Then he got so much better", your premise simply becomes false there. If I had a dime for everytime I see 'Garbage In Garbage Out' conclusions on these forums (.....supercomputer calculating...beepbeep boopboop beep....carry the 3.....) I could buy a Six Dollar Burger and a twelver of beer.

Fwiw, I'm not naive, I KNOW what went on in the past. The sport has changed for the better, it will never be perfect, but a fundamental shift is good..."better" is good.

 

[pmcg76]

Chris Horner has never, ever, been remotely close to anything resembling "average" as a cyclist. Given his pedigree, his "palmares" are actually on the light side. "Then he got so much better", your premise simply becomes false there. If I had a dime for everytime I see 'Garbage In Garbage Out' conclusions on these forums (.....supercomputer calculating...beepbeep boopboop beep....carry the 3.....) I could buy a Six Dollar Burger and a twelver of beer.

Fwiw, I'm not naive, I KNOW what went on in the past. The sport has changed for the better, it will never be perfect, but a fundamental shift is good..."better" is good.

So you would say his time with Fdjeux was more than average, I dont but I agree Horner was not just an average rider but to be performing better than ever at his age is kinda out of sync with most career trajectories. Compare him with another oldie, Jens Voigt who has been competing at a consistenly high level for most of his career even if he did improve a little when he went to CSC

Why did Horner not return to Europe in 2001 after his stint with Mercury when he was cleary capable of competing at a decent level?

 

[karlboss]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always read that endurance athletes peak in their 30s. Granted maybe not late 30s as Horner is, but peak neverthless. This is because endurance training is cumulative and carries over, unlike other types of training. Also, I've noticed that in my mountain bike races (sport 20-29) the 30-39 age group typically has faster times, so I don't think it's all that odd for a 30+ athlete to be superior than they were in their 20s. A major jump, however, would be peculiar.

For the age question ask yourself what you'd be thinking if Horner was 25 and had his results. Crazy I know, but he has improved steadily since coming back to europe, and yes I'm prepared for, "but he's not"
Physically little has been proven. Through a number of seminars I've attended mental burn out seems the reason guys retire and stop performing. It also accounts for those days when the body won't do what it is asked...basically athletes think it won't so it won't and haven't pushed in training so it has the form. Curiously how far the body will go is a tough question as not many people have the ability to keep pushing themselves at this level. The time you have at the top once you hit the top...for most athletes around 8 years. So Horner may an interesting case. Once at the top coming back to the Euro peloton he was 34, so maybe that's when his 8 years starts?
Pure speculation and based on some theories I've heard.

GT Contender definition: Someone that people talk about as a possible winner. I figure that if he rode top 5 at a GT the next year he'd be talked about as a possible winner. So lets I'll say a contender is top 5 at a GT.

 

[luckyboy]

GT Contender definition: Someone that people talk about as a possible winner. I figure that if he rode top 5 at a GT the next year he'd be talked about as a possible winner. So lets I'll say a contender is top 5 at a GT.

Kinda depends which GT you want to talk about really. It's hard to talk about the Vuelta as who will be riding there isn't certain. Maybe 5 realistic contenders for the Giro and 3 (4 at most) for the Tour. Horner would do very well indeed to finish top 15 at this Tour, and that is probably a pipe dream if they're all going to be killing themselves for Lance.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Chris Horner has never, ever, been remotely close to anything resembling "average" as a cyclist. Given his pedigree, his "palmares" are actually on the light side. "Then he got so much better", your premise simply becomes false there. If I had a dime for everytime I see 'Garbage In Garbage Out' conclusions on these forums (.....supercomputer calculating...beepbeep boopboop beep....carry the 3.....) I could buy a Six Dollar Burger and a twelver of beer.

Fwiw, I'm not naive, I KNOW what went on in the past. The sport has changed for the better, it will never be perfect, but a fundamental shift is good..."better" is good.

Agree on the Horner part, he has always seemed to me to be a guy with great potential who never seemed to quite realize it. I think he had a hard time with Europe when he was younger and so settled for racing in the US. That being said I think this discussion is largely moot as I don't think winning a one week stage race makes you a GT "contender" anyway. Horner is a strong helper in the mountains who may be capable of top 15-20 in a GT if everything goes well, top 10 maybe Vuelta or Giro with an entire team at his disposal.
As to your other point I don't see really where we have got much of a change for the better in pro cycling. The "Passport to Dope-but not over do it" seems to be being used as a PR campaign by the UCI, I don't think it was intended to be, I think it started with the best of intentions, but Patty and the boys have taken it over. I don't believe anyone wins a major race without some degree of extra-legal medical program, it is as necessary as proper training and conditioning.

 

[karlboss]

Kinda depends which GT you want to talk about really. It's hard to talk about the Vuelta as who will be riding there isn't certain. Maybe 5 realistic contenders for the Giro and 3 (4 at most) for the Tour. Horner would do very well indeed to finish top 15 at this Tour, and that is probably a pipe dream if they're all going to be killing themselves for Lance.

realistic contenders for the tour...one, but how many names are still thrown about? The big three from radioshack, Evans, Sastre, Menchov, Schleck(s), someone from liquigas, Wiggins, Vandevelde, FFS even Rogers and danielson from an english speaking media.

I think in most cases if you improved to top 5 in any GT if you went back the next year some may talk about the win. Of course there are exceptions Vandevelde I don't think is seriously considered. 2008 was considered soft (clean) so when the big hitters came out in 2009, and for 2010...

 

[luckyboy]

realistic contenders for the tour...one, but how many names are still thrown about? The big three from radioshack, Evans, Sastre, Menchov, Schleck(s), someone from liquigas, Wiggins, Vandevelde, FFS even Rogers and danielson from an english speaking media.

I think in most cases if you improved to top 5 in any GT if you went back the next year some may talk about the win. Of course there are exceptions Vandevelde I don't think is seriously considered. 2008 was considered soft (clean) so when the big hitters came out in 2009, and for 2010...

Rogers and Danielson

I still maintain that Menchov is the only guy who can possibly beat AC at this year's Tour. Unless Andy is going to improve his TT a lot by then. Would be better for Menchov if there was another TT in there.

 

[Kungfu Supercomputer]

So you would say his time with Fdjeux was more than average

I would say reaching the pinnacle of professional cycling entails alot more than physical ability (although this is far and away the most important piece).
I would say if he grew up in continental Europe instead of San Diego his career would have maybe been different. If you follow the trajectory of his results in the mid nineties to now, and what he did domestically 2002-2004(....redacted/water under the bridge..classified....) his exploits of the last few years are no surprise. But viewed through 'European racing is the be all end all tinted glasses' - this is harder to see.

 

[Berzin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always read that endurance athletes peak in their 30s. Granted maybe not late 30s as Horner is, but peak neverthless. This is because endurance training is cumulative and carries over, unlike other types of training. Also, I've noticed that in my mountain bike races (sport 20-29) the 30-39 age group typically has faster times, so I don't think it's all that odd for a 30+ athlete to be superior than they were in their 20s. A major jump, however, would be peculiar.

This is a phenomenon that only has occurred recently in pro cycling. Yes, one or two manage to last in their sports longer than average, but this thing about reaching a peak in cycling in your late 30's is nonsense.

Cycling isn't just about endurance-it's about doing regular sprint intervals where your fast-twitch muscles are working to attack and chase down breaks. As you age that is the first thing that goes. That is true in any sport. It's called losing a step.

When you see a race averaging 40kph that doesn't mean it was raced steadily at that speed. Anyone who has ever raced on the road will tell you this.

 

[Kungfu Supercomputer]

As to your other point I don't see really where we have got much of a change for the better in pro cycling. I don't believe anyone wins a major race without some degree of extra-legal medical program, it is as necessary as proper training and conditioning.

I'm no longer a pro, but the best I can tell, based on my past experiences and what information I receive and can gather, it has changed for the better. Like I said, not perfect.

Im curious, do you think Dave Millar is doping? Do you think Marco Pinotti is doping? Does Garmin have some secret doping program? Im genuinely curious what people that share your point of view think......

 

[Hugh Januss]

I'm no longer a pro, but the best I can tell, based on my past experiences and what information I receive and can gather, it has changed for the better. Like I said, not perfect.

Im curious, do you think Dave Millar is doping? Do you think Marco Pinotti is doping? Does Garmin have some secret doping program? Im genuinely curious what people that share your point of view think......

I think that anyone today who is competitive in Pro Tour level racing has to at least have something special in their medicine cabinet. On the team level it can extend from teamwide programs at one extreme to simply internal team testing to make sure that every rider is within the Passport parameters, with the unspoken guideline of we don't really want to know what you are doing as long as you acknowledge that you know the only thing worse that not getting results is failing a test.
The advantage gained by doping is just too great and the sheer numbers of riders caught and providers uncovered is too high to come to any other conclusion in my mind.Also the majority of positive tests come from also rans using last years drugs. If they were the only ones using CERA (for example) why were they not winning everything?

 

[kurtinsc]

I think that anyone today who is competitive in Pro Tour level racing has to at least have something special in their medicine cabinet. On the team level it can extend from teamwide programs at one extreme to simply internal team testing to make sure that every rider is within the Passport parameters, with the unspoken guideline of we don't really want to know what you are doing as long as you acknowledge that you know the only thing worse that not getting results is failing a test.
The advantage gained by doping is just too great and the sheer numbers of riders caught and providers uncovered is too high to come to any other conclusion in my mind.Also the majority of positive tests come from also rans using last years drugs. If they were the only ones using CERA (for example) why were they not winning everything?

This pretty much sums up my view.

In general, the doping talk doesn't annoy me because I believe they aren't doping. Rather it annoys me because I believe they are all doping. I don't see it as a determining factor. The only way we see a guy get a huge improvement from doping would mean he was clean before (hard as that is to believe).

If Horner's improvement really is due to dope... then he's only now at the end of his career getting on a program that most of the GC guys have been on since their mid to late 20's. Sucks for him he got such a late start or he might have had a better career.