The Chris Squared Thread

[sniper]

You really should do more reseach b4 putting arguments together, Pedro Celaya was at Radioshack after Leinders left Sky

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12277/UCI-has-no-plans-to-suspend-Bruyneel-or-RadioShack-Nissan-doctor-Petro-Celaya.aspx

ok, didn't know. so both had contact with dodgy doc until recently.
what about the other 4 points i mentioned?

in the end arguments in favor of chris old and chris young will probably equal each other out.
both appear to be rather freaky forces of nature.
and since horner is already getting flack from walsh, race radio, jv, and usada, it's only fair that we give the other chris some attention in here.

 

[BroDeal]

David Walsh reported that the only reason Dr. Celaya was hired by Radio Shack is because Bruyneel could not find a qualified American doctor to treat saddle sores and deal with dehydration. I trust Walsh.

 

[del1962]

Walsh was embedded with Radioshack?

What did he say about their employment of Brunyeel?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

If "we don't know young mutans exist" how comes your so sure bolt is a doper?

Hitch you are a robot.
Your point. Ok we know there are young mutants on no testing island...

 

[sniper]

Walsh was embedded with Radioshack?

what does being embedded or not has to do with anything? (honest question)

 

[sniper]

Walsh was embedded with Radioshack?

What did he say about their employment of Brunyeel?

what does being embedded or not have to do with anything?
didn't you hear walsh's latest podcast?
update: you don't have to be embedded to know a team is clean.
he says he already felt brailsford was running a clean track cycling program.
in fact, he uses that as an argument why Team Sky are now clean.

 

[the sceptic]

I heard Bruyneel is a tactical mastermind, just like Dawg.

 

[del1962]

what does being embedded or not have to do with anything?
didn't you hear walsh's latest podcast?
update: you don't have to be embedded to know a team is clean.
he says he already felt brailsford was running a clean track cycling program.
in fact, he uses that as an argument why Team Sky are now clean.

Must have misread, I thought someone wrote something about Walsh saying something about Pedro lately of Radioshack, on that I thought he must have been embedded with RS, I mean I guess because of my misread I assumed Walsh must get on relly well with the guys who started RS.

Update : Yeah I did hear the podcast, thanks for the link, Walsh had a few good thing to say, he never said anything about Pedro though

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

OK, lets see, point for point...

1. horner has provided more data transparency than froome.

... and that backfired in epic proportions. He was suspect to (some) clinic members and cycling experts before. After he provided data, he was literally tattered (BTW, rightfully). So what is your point with that unsuccessful PR stunt? That riders just need to provide data, thus being better off?
BTW, I havn´t heard that much critic over Froomes data from the experts.

2. usada did extra testing on horner and found nothing.

... and that is proof of what? Don´t come up with LA stunts. Negative tests say nothing (also see Miss Jones). BTW, the old Chris made it happen to miss a OOC test and let the testers look like fools. LA couldn´t have done it better. The more I see and read of Mr Horner, the more I think he´s LA in a Horner costume.

who did extra testing on froome?

I don´t know. But what is your point? Maybe there was no need for extra tests. Just a thought...

3. we know froome beat armstrong times at MTFs. We don't know whether horner did.

Maybe, just maybe b/c Horner didn´t participate at the TdF? But what we do know is that grandpa beat old time dopers times en masse at the Vuelta mountains. BTW, Froome beat some of those TdF times at an age where max performance is expected. Horner did it at an age where athlets are retired since long, just b/c they couldn´t keep up anymore (doped or not, there was a time when performance shrunk with age).

4. Froome's contact with a very dodgy doc (leinders) is more recent than Horner's contact with any dodgy doc.

Aha, one fired doc is worse than a Bruyneel team full of shady characters and docs. Didn´t knew that.

5. most agree that Horner's transformation has been more gradual than Froome's.

That is comical. Grandpa didn´t win anything at the age of Froome, couldn´t even hold on a roster spot with an average at best team in his best age, transformed into mutant well after age 30. Omg, there is so much points, please go trou the CH threads, the stats, see my signature, and so on...

basically, only age speaks against Horner, well, and the unconfirmed appearance of his name in one affidavit, but that's from 2004, and we all know everybody (including horner's garmin accusers) stopped doping in 2008-ish.

Your bias is beyond help. You argue against Sky/Froome with unconfirmed accusations, without a tiny piece of evidence, yet you defend Horner by saying the accusations against him are unconfirmed...
Anyway, we have an unemployed rider b/c of a toxic passport, we have a rider who at least is listed in doping docus, a rider who enforced omerta tactics on Hincy, a rider who rode in the most doping filled peloton ever, yet he broke all those doping records from that past at age 42.
Basically everything speaks against grandpa... As i said, the difference between the two Chris is night and day.
Finally, no, we do not know everybody stopped doping after 2008. Only around 15 pipo said this in affidavits. OTOH we have circa 1.000 pro riders, positives en masse after 2008 and ... we have Horner.

(and without any confirmed evidence that is).
so it's only fair if the clinic pays a bit more attention to the other chris.

Wrong. Please check my previous points made....

No, the clinic hammers away at will. First it was Europecar, then Sky came along. That accusing of all and everybody leads to nothing less than hiding the true hardcore dopers like Horner away from attention.
BTW, the "little attention" for Sky comprises roughly 1.000 threads and a million posts. The Überdoper Horner only has 2 and a half (the other half "belongs" to Sky. What a surprise...)

so no, we shouldn't use one mutant to deflect away from the other.
both get their deserved share of attention and mockery.

Again wrong. We know one is a mutant, the young one we don´t know. We should give all the attention to the Überdoper until he is gone to the dustbin. If there comes up anything with Sky/Froome, there is still enough time left. But for now we shouldn´t confuse a true doper with a maybe one.

in the end arguments in favor of chris old and chris young will probably equal each other out.

Wrong again. Please check the facts.

and since horner is already getting flack from walsh, race radio, jv, and usada, it's only fair that we give the other chris some attention in here.

Maybe b/c there is reason for this? Maybe the old one has just too much skeletons in the closet, while the other hasn´t?

 

[the sceptic]

Race Radio ‏@TheRaceRadio

Pinot says what most already knew. Horner was stronger then Froome http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/thibaut-pinot-horner-was-stronger-than-froome … Why does Horner not have a team yet?

Sounds like a strawman to me. The 2012 tour is not the same as the 2013 tour.

 

[Bronstein]

Sounds like a strawman to me. The 2012 tour is not the same as the 2013 tour.

Even the comparison with the 2012 TdF Froome is an unfair one. He was a super domestique working for Wiggins. I'm fairly sure Horner was the undisputed leader of Radioshack for the 2013 Vuelta, with Kiserlovski as the back up plan. The Froome dog was only unleashed in 2013.

 

[BroDeal]

Sounds like a strawman to me. The 2012 tour is not the same as the 2013 tour.

Horner was not much stronger than Nibali, so I Nibali must have been stronger than Froome also. Does anyone believe that?

Interesting that it is not kosher to compare Froome with Armstrong on the same climbs but it is to compare Horner with Froome racing in different countries. This sounds suspiciously like the kind of argument that Hogwalsh would make.

 

[red_flanders]

Sounds like a strawman to me. The 2012 tour is not the same as the 2013 tour.

Why bring that stuff here if the guy won't bother to comment to this effect in this forum? He's not going to post here because he regards the community here as completely polluted with people for whom he has contempt. Why give him the press?

If he wants to act like the comments back up his arguments in here, he should post the comments here. He won't because obviously everyone would point out the obvious–that Thibaut is pointedly not comparing Froome 2013 to Horner 2013.

The entire discussion is pointless anyway. Say Horner was faster than Froome in the mountains in 2013 (not what Thibaut said, and certainly not a fact)? So what? The point of all that was never made. That Horner is a doper? Duh. So maybe Froome was a hair slower in different races versus different competition and clearly a TT'er on another level? What would that prove if true? That Froome's performances were somehow palatable?

More tailwinds. Total nonsense.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Maybe RR doesn´t post here anymore b/c the clinic went south after LA was finished?
AFIR, RR was one of the best posters here w/great inside infos & optimism while the rest of us were depressed when Birotte closed the investigation.
We all were united against LA. It was the best time of the clinic... Then the accuse everybody and all started with europecar a little and full-blown with Sky. Now everybody that isn´t jumping the trash-Sky-bandwaggon is a traitor. Even the best like Walsh are flushed down the toilet. It´s disgusting.
Now the clinic can´t even see the difference between a old man Überdoper and a maybe young one...

 

[red_flanders]

Maybe RR doesn´t post here anymore b/c the clinic went south after LA was finished?

Did the clinic go south or just the relevance of the contributions of those whose main or sole focus was Armstrong?

AFIR, RR was one of the best posters here w/great inside infos & optimism while the rest of us were depressed when Birotte closed the investigation.

I agree wholeheartedly. He was.

We all were united against LA. It was the best time of the clinic... Then the accuse everybody and all started with europecar a little and full-blown with Sky. Now everybody that isn´t jumping the trash-Sky-bandwaggon is a traitor. Even the best like Walsh are flushed down the toilet. It´s disgusting.
Now the clinic can´t even see the difference between a old man Überdoper and a maybe young one...

I think that paragraph is largely delusional and reeks of victimhood.

 

[thehog]

More tailwinds. Total nonsense.

It became emotive.

But when presented with the facts there was little evidence to suggest Horner was faster.

But as you state it wouldn't have mattered. It didn't make Froome clean if Horner was faster. Or vice versa.

In essence it's how Walsh conducts himself. He makes the conclusion then finds the details and half-facts to fit the conclusion.

He did the same with Armstrong.

 

[BroDeal]

Maybe RR doesn´t post here anymore b/c the clinic went south after LA was finished?

RR effectively stopped posting here long before that. His posting devolved to, "I know something you don't."

Then the accuse everybody and all started with europecar a little and full-blown with Sky. Now everybody that isn´t jumping the trash-Sky-bandwaggon is a traitor. Even the best like Walsh are flushed down the toilet. It´s disgusting.
Now the clinic can´t even see the difference between a old man Überdoper and a maybe young one...

You are too stuck on Horner and Americans to see that Froome and Horner are just two examples of the same thing. They are both ridiculous. Judging by Horner's early career, the uber doper of the two is clearly Froome.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Did the clinic go south or just the relevance of the contributions of those whose main or sole focus was Armstrong?

It went down when the accusations started against all and everybody. We are at a stage now where good pipo like JV, maybe dopers like Voeckler or Froome, and the real bad dopers like Horner, Santa, DiLuca, AC, Mosq are thrown into the same dustbin. No more differences and well thought discussions...

Yeah, cycling is bad, pro sports is bad, the whole western civilisation is bad. But there are many exceptions. And those get lost in the shoot them all approach...

 

[the sceptic]

It went down when the accusations started against all and everybody. We are at a stage now where good pipo like JV, maybe dopers like Voeckler or Froome, and the real bad dopers like Horner, Santa, DiLuca, AC, Mosq are thrown into the same dustbin. No more differences and well thought discussions...

Yeah, cycling is bad, pro sports is bad, the whole western civilisation is bad. But there are many exceptions. And those get lost in the shoot them all approach...

Froome is maybe a doper, because there isnt enough evidence. But Horner is a big bad doper why exactly?

 

[The Hitch]

Pinot says 2013 Horner was stronger than 2012 Froome.

But Froome didn't win the 2012 tour.

Wiggins of Nazareth did. Everyone knows that. Its really famous cos he didnt do it for himself, he did it for everyone else like Obama and Princess Diana, winning the Tour in order to make the world a better place. He even won a sports personality award for it. Does Pinot not remember?

The fact that he mentions Froome 2012 (podium at the Tour and bronze at lympics) not Wiggins (who won the Tour, 10 other races, the olympics, and velo d'or for cyclist of the year as well as got nominated for athlete of the year) shows that Pinot is either

A Really confused and bizzarely choosing someone who was runner up in a race to compare to a winner in another race
OR
B He is suggesting that Froome was stronger than Wiggins in 2012, which may have been true but is anathema for the Sky fans here who spent the entire off season last year claiming Wiggins was stronger since Wiggins will always remain the first love no matter how many frauds he defends or how much disregard he shows to child abuse victims.
OR
C He is implying that while Froome was not stronger than Horner, Wiggins was.

In which case how does a career gruppeto rider (not top 30 rider like Horner but barely top 130 rider who found finishing the TDF the first time the hardest thing he ever did) end up riding stronger than the guy who posted the 2nd fastest ever Angliru time?


Oh right, Wiggins saw his one chance with the time trial heavy course, worked his *** off for that one chance knowing it was his one chance because with less mtfs and more tts it was the one chance for a tt rider.

And ended up actually going so fast up the mountains he didnt even need a single tt km to win it afterall

 

[red_flanders]

It went down when the accusations started against all and everybody. We are at a stage now where good pipo like JV, maybe dopers like Voeckler or Froome, and the real bad dopers like Horner, Santa, DiLuca, AC, Mosq are thrown into the same dustbin. No more differences and well thought discussions...

Yeah, cycling is bad, pro sports is bad, the whole western civilisation is bad. But there are many exceptions. And those get lost in the shoot them all approach...

I think the approach of saying things like "the clinic went downhill" adds to any general fail which may or may not exist. It's not an argument, it's just a rant and a negative rant at that. It brings the clinic down, IMO.

I don't subscribe to the attacks on JV, in general. I think fair questions need to be asked. I have always sought to counter the attacks with my own thoughts, rather than complain about the attacks. They're pretty readily countered.

Questions about Europecar? I've seen relatively little of that, and I think there should be questions.

Questions about Sky, well of course. They are dominating almost every stage race they target, and matching times of full program dopers. They are the #1 team in the world and claim to be clean, loudly. Of course there's going to be discussion, their entire program could be called a massive troll.

Confirmed dopers are another thing, they get some discussion but do not generate controversy like unconfirmed and suspected dopers. Particularly ones who proclaim loudly to be clean and have a lot of fans who do the same.

Calling Horner a "real bad doper" is odd to me. He is exactly the same to me as Froome. A rider who has not been caught for anything who makes unbelievable performances. If there is "no evidence" against Froome there is "no evidence" against Horner. The reality is that there is plenty of "evidence" against both, but no proof for either. They are the same.

There is also no proof that cycling is cleaner. There is some evidence, and clearly some people are trying to make the sport better.

I think the clinic would be better if folks were a bit more objective and less defensive, but that's not going to happen. The fact is that the time when Armstrong came back and through the fall was when this place was the most relevant and the most powerful. It's not going to be that way all the time. There are also more forums and more jumping around then a few years ago.

I also don't need people to be united for this place to be a good discussion group. It's much better IMO when there is disagreement and thoughtful discussion of such.

It ebbs and flows. Now it's the off-season and frankly there's not that much to talk about. Transfers are low, there have been no doping busts, etc. Things will kick in when the season starts again.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

RR effectively stopped posting here long before that. His posting devolved to, "I know something you don't."



You are too stuck on Horner and Americans to see that Froome and Horner are just two examples of the same thing. They are both ridiculous. Judging by Horner's early career, the uber doper of the two is clearly Froome.

Where does that myth come from? First it was the spaniards...
It´s not my fault that some members read my posts like i criticise someone i critisisce the whole country or race (for example, have a look at the NFL thread of how much I must hate americans)...
I took the side of Sky/Froome two years ago when it became evident that the Sky bashing got really starting. Otherwise I don´t care about Froome or whoever. I am suspicious since pro cycling got uncovered over the past 15 years. But I make a difference between those who spit right into my face like Horner, Santa or Mosquera, and those who i can accept as possible.

BTW, i could argue the same way as you. You might got too much stuck on Froome/Sky when you say "judging by Horner's early career, the uber doper of the two is clearly Froome". Horner was nothing in his early career. His performance at 42 is better than at 25. That makes no sense. It just don´t fit...

 

[The Hitch]

Santambrogio is like 8 months older than Froome and hence 6 months older at the May giro than Froome was at the July Tour. How can you seriously suggest a 28 year old who gets gifted a stage at the Giro is spitting in your face, but the 27 year old winning 3 stages + the overall at the Tour + every other race he wants to in the year, is "possible"

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Froome is maybe a doper, because there isnt enough evidence. But Horner is a big bad doper why exactly?

Please go to my answer I gave to sniper...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Santambrogio is like 8 months older than Froome and hence 6 months older at the May giro than Froome was at the July Tour. How can you seriously suggest a 28 year old who gets gifted a stage at the Giro is spitting in your face, but the 27 year old winning 3 stages + the overall at the Tour + every other race he wants to in the year, is "possible"

Last time I checked Froome was 25 when coming out. He maintained his form. How he got there we discussed at length two years ago...