The Chris Squared Thread

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I think the approach...

That´s a god reasoned post w/o attacks. From that point on discussions are possible even when two parties don´t agree...

 

[The Hitch]

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...

Wiggins was 29, so 2 years older than Santamborgio and 10 times the improvement.

In your eyes was he "spitting in your face" too?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

You bring posts from 2009 off me, so I guess you know the answer very well...

 

[thehog]

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.

I actually really enjoyed the debate.

Looking into all the statistics and data.

Not sure why it became so important for one to have all agree with them.

The was simply no conclusive evidence to suggest Horner was faster.

Although the one example of both of them in the same race in 2013 was dismissed as meaningless.

Sore knees, tailwinds, modifying body weights it all got silly.

When it was stated Valverde was also faster at the Vuelta than Froome at the Tour the shark had well and truly been jumped.

 

[MADRAZO]

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

I think you overthink this a lot. Dont you think it's D: Pinot simply just think its more relevant to compare Horner with Froome instead of Wiggins since Wiggins is pretty much out of the GT-picture now anyways, so if 2012 Wiggins was stronger or not is not really important to focus on now.

Pinot has raced against 2012 Froome and 2013 Horner, so therefore he has his referencess, and its clearly interesting with this direct comparison. Still though I think Pinot underestimated Froome 2012 in his comparison, as he was clearly also a level better than Pinot back there even if he held back. And then for future guesses over a Horner-Froome battle it seems likely 2013 Froome was a lot better than 2012 Froome also.

 

[del1962]

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.

Have to disagree in the weight of evidence, other than the very subjective performance, there is real evidence in terms of direct allegations againt Horner from Matt Di Canio and seemingly Levi (rider 15), also if JV is to be beleived there is rather an unsavoury incident on the Champs-Elysees.

 

[sniper]

BTW, I havn´t heard that much critic over Froomes data from the experts.

what data?
you mean the post-transformation data? ah. ok. never mind the pre-2011 data. Freeman told us there's nothing to see there, so them don't matter.
And never mind that Sky didn't take up the offer to have Ashenden go over Froome's data.

time to join dots, foxxybrown.
This is not a case of "maybe, maybe not".
this is a nobrainer.

 

[The Hitch]

You bring posts from 2009 off me, so I guess you know the answer very well...

No I don't. I saw your 2009 Bolt post when the thread reemerged years later.

I have no idea what you were posting elsewhere in 2009.

I do know that you went hard after Mosquera in 2010 starting threads about him, and are absolutely obsessed with Horner these days, but last year and 2011 you never breathed a word about Wiggins. So it seems to me you have totally different standards for SKy riders than for anybody else.

Even today you identify Mosquera and Santamborgio as "spitting in your face", but not a word about Wiggins

 

[The Hitch]

Have to disagree in the weight of evidence, other than the very subjective performance, there is real evidence in terms of direct allegations againt Horner from Matt Di Canio and seemingly Levi (rider 15), also if JV is to be beleived there is rather an unsavoury incident on the Champs-Elysees.

There were also a lot of "unsavoury incidents" from Wiggins (eg when he bullied Lance for breaking Omerta). And you don't need to believe JV that it happened. ITs right out there for you to see.

Somehow they don't count right. Only when none Sky riders do that does it count

 

[Rollthedice]

In 2012 Froome was pulling Wiggo up the mountains and still had enough power left to attack. If he would have been the leader last year he could have destroyed the field in the same spectacular way as he did this year. Pinot is a bit confused.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

what data?
you mean the post-transformation data? ah. ok. never mind the pre-2011 data. Freeman told us there's nothing to see there, so them don't matter.
And never mind that Sky didn't take up the offer to have Ashenden go over Froome's data.

time to join dots, foxxybrown.
This is not a case of "maybe, maybe not".
this is a nobrainer.

You see the difference? Red Flanders gave a reasoned post explaining his POV. You can´t argue w/o attacks (I know what your link is meant to be)... You think those are arguments? You think that way you can change someones opinion? That way the rifts only get bigger, and the clinic takes more steps downwards to irrelevance...

BTW, did Horner gave any data from his subpar performances at FDJ? So to speak, Horners data is also from post-transformation. Only the difference is, it´s seen as highly suspect, and it comes from well post-performance-peak-years...

 

[sniper]

Have to disagree in the weight of evidence, other than the very subjective performance, there is real evidence in terms of direct allegations againt Horner from Matt Di Canio and seemingly Levi (rider 15), also if JV is to be beleived there is rather an unsavoury incident on the Champs-Elysees.

That horner evidence could all relate to the pre-2010 dark era.

By the way, didn't you hear Stokes talk the other day?
He said teams aren't trusting sky.

 

[red_flanders]

Have to disagree in the weight of evidence, other than the very subjective performance, there is real evidence in terms of direct allegations againt Horner from Matt Di Canio and seemingly Levi (rider 15), also if JV is to be beleived there is rather an unsavoury incident on the Champs-Elysees.

I don't think I mentioned a weight of evidence, but happy to discuss.

RE: Subjectivity, there is a subjective component to evaluating performance, but there is also an objective measurement, that of times. The times are evidence and they are objective. There is also the objective measure of performance and time before either became a GT winner. These are not subjective in any way. You simply have two cases of riders who were not ever close to winning a GT who became GT winners. The only question is how did this happen.

I'm glad to be discussing the weight of evidence, and would agree there is more evidence against Horner. But for me it's a little like saying someone is more dead or more pregnant than someone else. They're both so obviously beyond what's possible that to me it's moot.

 

[the sceptic]

Have to disagree in the weight of evidence, other than the very subjective performance, there is real evidence in terms of direct allegations againt Horner from Matt Di Canio and seemingly Levi (rider 15), also if JV is to be beleived there is rather an unsavoury incident on the Champs-Elysees.

Thats not evidence, thats just hearsay. Its not proven that Horner is rider 15, and Matt Di Canio might just be a jealous hater.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

No I don't. I saw your 2009 Bolt post when the thread reemerged years later.

I have no idea what you were posting elsewhere in 2009.

I do know that you went hard after Mosquera in 2010 starting threads about him, and are absolutely obsessed with Horner these days, but last year and 2011 you never breathed a word about Wiggins. So it seems to me you have totally different standards for SKy riders than for anybody else.

Even today you identify Mosquera and Santamborgio as "spitting in your face", but not a word about Wiggins

Common you know better. Many times I said i don´t trust Wiggins. I don´t believe his transformation he got at GAR. You was in the discussion many times when this issue came up in the various Sky threads one and two years ago...

Yes I am hard on Horner. His arrogance, his omerta tactics, his doubious interviews, his roller-coaster come-and-go performances, his riding the world into the ground on one leg.... This guy is way over the top. I can accept reality, that in high performance sports not everything is bright and sunny. But a 2nd LA, only at an 10 year older age isn´t only a spit in my face, it´s full blown vomiting on me. And I am angry that nobody stopped him before it was too late. I just hope he gets a conti contract so that the testers have more chances to get him.

 

[sniper]

You see the difference? Red Flanders gave a reasoned post explaining his POV. You can´t argue w/o attacks (I know what your link is meant to be)... You think those are arguments? You think that way you can change someones opinion? That way the rifts only get bigger, and the clinic takes more steps downwards to irrelevance...

you speak of froome's data. I ask you what data? we haven't seen the ones that could potentially exonerate him. Nor has Ashenden, in spite of Sky's promise to do whatever necessary to prove cleanliness.
Impressive if you can't draw conclusions from that.

BTW, did Horner gave any data from his subpar performances at FDJ? So to speak, Horners data is also from post-transformation. Only the difference is, it´s seen as highly suspect, and it comes from well post-performance-peak-years...

nobody's saying horner aint a nobrainer.

 

[Rollthedice]

As far as Horner is concerned don't know if you remember what Nibali said after Pena Cabarga, " I can't climb at 500w, I was going at 430W and that guy accelerated. What could I do?"

 

[The Hitch]

Common you know better. Many times I said i don´t trust Wiggins. I don´t believe his transformation he got at GAR. You was in the discussion many times when this issue came up in the various Sky threads one and two years ago...

You don't trust Wiggins?

A second ago you were saying that Santambrogio was "spitting in your face".

Becuase a decent hill rider became a good mountain rider at 27 yo.

But Wiggins - one of the worst mountain riders in the world, becoming 2nd best mountain rider in the world, you merely "don't trust".

He's not spitting in your face though? For that he would have to do something really special, like be gifted the win in 1 giro stage.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I know you are obssesed with Wiggins as I am with Horner. So I give you what you want if "don´t trust" isn´t enough for you. Yep, he spat on my face...
But why you bring Wiggins in here? Wrong thread...

 

[sniper]

...

ball, not man, foxxy.

again: we haven't seen froome's data (at least not the ones that matter), so i can only facepalm at an argument like this one

FoxxyBrown: I havn´t heard that much critic over Froomes data from the experts.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

What data you want from Froome that Horner has provided?

 

[DirtyWorks]

...I just hope he gets a conti contract so that the testers have more chances to get him.

They'd find him "never test positive" as was the case for the Vuelta. Chris knows he's got a *great* program that he wouldn't even need on a lower level team.

Given DiCanio's claims, maybe Chris would do his teammates another favor and teach them all the modern protocols transforming the entire Conti team? Another Mapei super-team, this time coming from absolutely nowhere with very little testing. You know, marginal gains....

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Geez, his passport must be worse than any available data for the public. So toxic that no one dares to sign him off an GT-Win.

That must be a first: Non-retired GT winner unemployed.

 

[sniper]

Geez, his passport must be worse than any available data for the public. So toxic that no one dares to sign him off an GT-Win.

That must be a first: Non-retired GT winner unemployed.

things clearly have turned difficult for Horner.
if USADA and JV, and by extension Cookson, don't like you, teams will not be eager to hire you.

 

[red_flanders]

I don't think the comments or insinuations about obvious doping are wrong, but let's not forget we're talking about a 42-year-old asking for a ton of money in a climate of team contraction. Major factors.