What gear is Horner on to make such outrageous statements like this ?

[RigelKent]

Follow the Money

After reading this thread, i'd like to add a couple notes. First, where I come from
1) I'm on the side that says the winner of a bunch of dopers is still the best rider.
2) I both rejoice and bemoan every guy caught. I love catching cheaters, I hate seeing people fall.
3) We are all multidimensional. Lance is a vicious competitor who crushes those who offend him. He has also given many hope and support thru Livestrong. LeMond has a true desire to redeem the sport he loves. He also can't get over being displaced as the face of American cycling. I think some posters who speak righteously about the fight against doping might want to exact revenge on riders who've "let them down". I'm sure I have my own blind spots and contradictions, too.

That said, I believe the missing part of the answer is with the sponsors. Do you buy Trek? Nike? Giro? Armstrong's power in the peloton comes from his pull with the sponsors. Chasing down Simeoni affects a stage. Turning off the sponsorship flow stops a career. Yes, each rider who dopes violates trust, but where there is a demand there is also a supply. The supply here isn't necessarily the drug itself but the sponsors who make the practice so lucrative with nothing but a casual nod toward riding cleanly (Amgen not being the only exception).

 

[elapid]

I'm on the side that says the winner of a bunch of dopers is still the best rider.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but there is plenty of evidence that EPO and blood transfusions are not an equal playing field. Some athletes are better responders than others.

That said, I believe the missing part of the answer is with the sponsors. Do you buy Trek? Nike? Giro? Armstrong's power in the peloton comes from his pull with the sponsors. Chasing down Simeoni affects a stage. Turning off the sponsorship flow stops a career. Yes, each rider who dopes violates trust, but where there is a demand there is also a supply. The supply here isn't necessarily the drug itself but the sponsors who make the practice so lucrative with nothing but a casual nod toward riding cleanly (Amgen not being the only exception).

There is an old thread on which professional cycling sponsors do we support: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=1078

You've probably already noticed that we are quite a cynical bunch and are not overly supportive of too many sponsor products, especially Trek or anything associated with Lance. But, in the larger context, we also tend to be more informed in regards to professional cycling and, at least we think we are, Lance Armstrong (the man and the cyclist versus the myth). If you talk to the general public, Lance is highly regarded and Trek sales are through the roof as a result. Why do you think Trek are willing to drop Lemond bikes when it comes to a pi$$ing contest between the Armstrong and Lemond? But most of the responders to the above thread would not buy a Trek bike. So, while I agree with you in regards to the sponsors, it is rarely those interested in professional cycling that are swayed by the sponsors products or who sponsors certain cyclists.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Actually Elapid, Trek sales are off, at least on their upper end bikes, by something like 20%. Though of course much of this can be attributed to the economic slowdown.

 

[elapid]

Actually Elapid, Trek sales are off, at least on their upper end bikes, by something like 20%. Though of course much of this can be attributed to the economic slowdown.

Thanks Alpe. I stand corrected. But it still doesn't change the fact that most respondents on the sponsorship thread would not buy a Trek bike and Trek dropped the Lemond line most likely because the public stoush between Lemond and Armstrong would hurt their image, with the decision being in Armstrong's favour because he is able to pull in more consumer dollars. Those consumer dollars more than likely comes from people not as interested in professional cycling as we are, and not as aware of the controversy that swirls around Armstrong in forums like this.

 

[tifosa]

I have said many, many times that the behavior of cyclists in denial about their doping is STRIKINGLY similar to people who dope with recreational drugs and refuse to see how their actions are detrimental to those around them. I have seen thousands of people who acted EXACTLY like Mr Armstrong, Mr Landis, and Mr Hamilton. The only difference is in the substances (sometimes).

So true, that. I've known both street junkies using heroin and cycling junkies using amphetamines, steroids, and blood manipulation. I've done my share of working with the former, and riding with the latter. These junkies are two sides of the same coin: they share in common a pathological need to "use", and a pathological need to lie to everyone, including themselves to justify using. They are liars extraordinaire, and thieves who never tire of ripping off even their closest friends and family.

Getting clean is easy - it's staying clean that's the real career and life killer. Landis and Hamilton should know this well - if they could admit it to themselves. It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when Armstrong joins their sad little clique. Junkie trifecta, anyone?

As for me, cheating in sport, in any form, is unfair competition. These guys aren't athletes, they're cheaters. The only people they're fooling are themselves.

 

[Escarabajo]

So true, that. I've known both street junkies using heroin and cycling junkies using amphetamines, steroids, and blood manipulation. I've done my share of working with the former, and riding with the latter. These junkies are two sides of the same coin: they share in common a pathological need to "use", and a pathological need to lie to everyone, including themselves to justify using. They are liars extraordinaire, and thieves who never tire of ripping off even their closest friends and family.

Getting clean is easy - it's staying clean that's the real career and life killer. Landis and Hamilton should know this well - if they could admit it to themselves. It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when Armstrong joins their sad little clique. Junkie trifecta, anyone?

As for me, cheating in sport, in any form, is unfair competition. These guys aren't athletes, they're cheaters. The only people they're fooling are themselves.

You know, this is very interesting point of view, because I never thought of putting the two classes of people together but now that you guys mentioned it, it makes a lot of sense by seeing how all these athletes react when they are catch and continue to lie when they come back to racing.
It is sad.
Thanks.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Interesting comparison that sadly does ring true.

Yes Elapid, I agree with all else you wrote.

 

[BroDeal]

Thanks Alpe. I stand corrected. But it still doesn't change the fact that most respondents on the sponsorship thread would not buy a Trek bike and Trek dropped the Lemond line most likely because the public stoush between Lemond and Armstrong would hurt their image, with the decision being in Armstrong's favour because he is able to pull in more consumer dollars. Those consumer dollars more than likely comes from people not as interested in professional cycling as we are, and not as aware of the controversy that swirls around Armstrong in forums like this.

I think Trek overstaturated its market and lost much of the cachet they used to have. Go to any large ride in the U.S., like a century, and it seems like half the bikes are Treks. Trek has so dominated mainstream retailers, that a very large number of mainstream bike shops are "Trek shops." To make matters worse, Trek blurred the distinction between their high end models. It is as though every upper level bike they make is called a Madone.

Meanwhile other companies, like Cervelo, have gained mindshare. The Armstrong fanboys who buy everything that Armstrong uses, or as close as they can get, have not helped. They have created a bad stereotype of the clueless noob who buys a Trek and a full Disco kit. They are the equivalent of nerds, and no one wants to be associated with nerds.

 

[ElChingon]

As for me, cheating in sport, in any form, is unfair competition. These guys aren't athletes, they're cheaters. The only people they're fooling are themselves.

Yes, but some are also cheating themselves straight to the bank

 

[elapid]

I've known both street junkies using heroin and cycling junkies using amphetamines, steroids, and blood manipulation. I've done my share of working with the former, and riding with the latter. These junkies are two sides of the same coin: they share in common a pathological need to "use", and a pathological need to lie to everyone, including themselves to justify using. They are liars extraordinaire, and thieves who never tire of ripping off even their closest friends and family.

Further to this, at the Play The Game Conference last week, Italian anti-doping expert Sandro Donati stated there was a direct correlation between recreational cocaine use and the abuse of performance enhancing drugs. He went on to say:

"I don't understand when, every time an athlete is positive for cocaine, that the sporting institutions immediately explain that it is not for performance, it is only for personal use."

"This is an incredible explanation. I was a coach and I know very well the mental balance of the athlete. It is impossible for someone who uses cocaine for his personal life to have a good balance...because the role of the athlete is very complex.

"It means that someone involved in the use of cocaine is not a normal athlete. It means that the using is only a compensation for other using [of drugs]...the cocaine is only the tip of the iceberg."

Donati also said the cocaine is used by some in order to avoid withdrawal symptoms. It is utilised "mainly to compensate for the slump in mood and aggressiveness during the suspension of anabolic steroids or testosterone. There is the consequence of becoming addicted to both categories of substances."

 

[hulkgogan]

I think Trek overstaturated its market and lost much of the cachet they used to have. Go to any large ride in the U.S., like a century, and it seems like half the bikes are Treks. Trek has so dominated mainstream retailers, that a very large number of mainstream bike shops are "Trek shops." To make matters worse, Trek blurred the distinction between their high end models. It is as though every upper level bike they make is called a Madone.

Meanwhile other companies, like Cervelo, have gained mindshare. The Armstrong fanboys who buy everything that Armstrong uses, or as close as they can get, have not helped. They have created a bad stereotype of the clueless noob who buys a Trek and a full Disco kit. They are the equivalent of nerds, and no one wants to be associated with nerds.

The biggest issue I have is price. The top of the line Madone is over 9 grand. That is *** for a bicycle.

 

[BroDeal]

The biggest issue I have is price. The top of the line Madone is over 9 grand. That is *** for a bicycle.

I think it is overpriced for a Trek. I have spent a lot of money on my bikes. When I spend the big bucks, I want something relatively unique. Why the hell should I spend $10K to get the same make that everyone and his dog owns? It is like Timex selling a watch for the same price as a Rolex. It may be every bit as good, but it is still a Timex.

 

[slcbiker]

You're right about the catchet. If all you're paying for is image and exclusivity, then it certainly makes more sense to spend your $9K on a Pinarello or a Cervelo.

However, I'm not sure that a top-of-the-line small brand production bike is any better than the equivalent Trek, Specialized or Giant.

Custom bikes are a whole different stroy, especially if you're hard to fit.

 

[BroDeal]

You're right about the catchet. If all you're paying for is image and exclusivity, then it certainly makes more sense to spend your $9K on a Pinarello or a Cervelo.

However, I'm not sure that a top-of-the-line small brand production bike is any better than the equivalent Trek, Specialized or Giant.

Custom bikes are a whole different stroy, especially if you're hard to fit.

Image is pretty much all you are paying for at the high end. Once you get beyond some price point--and I don't know exactly what that is, but it is probably around $2K--they all perform pretty much the same as long as they fit. Heck, my custom Moots is not all that light but I get more compliments about it than any other bike I own.

 

[franciep10]

Thanks Alpe. I stand corrected. But it still doesn't change the fact that most respondents on the sponsorship thread would not buy a Trek bike and Trek dropped the Lemond line most likely because the public stoush between Lemond and Armstrong would hurt their image, with the decision being in Armstrong's favour because he is able to pull in more consumer dollars. Those consumer dollars more than likely comes from people not as interested in professional cycling as we are, and not as aware of the controversy that swirls around Armstrong in forums like this.

actually my young riders are sponsored by trek as I am good friends with a member of the board at trek, and I am interested and aware of the controversy surrounding their main marketer, but I still have to do the best for my riders.

 

[Anonymous]

You're right about the catchet. If all you're paying for is image and exclusivity, then it certainly makes more sense to spend your $9K on a Pinarello or a Cervelo.

However, I'm not sure that a top-of-the-line small brand production bike is any better than the equivalent Trek, Specialized or Giant.

Custom bikes are a whole different stroy, especially if you're hard to fit.

This is going to sound really snobbish, but unless I can call and talk to the guy who is building my frame, I don't see any exclusivity. Here is my new wet dream: http://speedvagen.com/

I see way to many Cervelo's and Pinarello's to think "exclusive" regardless of the fact that the person riding the bike paid too much.

Moots, now we are talking. I still get comments on my Ibis and Brew mountain bikes.....because they are sweet.

Trek? Puh..leze. I understand the sponsorship thing, hey every cent counts for a team. But as for every ride where half of the riders are on some Trek something or other.....well, I do a lot of those, and I have to say that I just don't comment on their bikes. And when I hear "I ride a Trek __________." I reply with something like "oh, yea? I am a custom steel or Ti guy myself," and then I move on to other topics.

I may, MAY go after an Ibis carbon road this year.....maybe. It's not $9000, but I trust them when they say their bikes ride sweet because they do. Even if they aren't steel anymore....

 

[slcbiker]

As for the Italian guys quotes about cocaine, I don't know that I agree.
It used to be a performance enhancer BITD. But the performance benefits are short-lived, and it's really pretty easy to test for, and I think would generally be caught by in-competition controls.

Boonen is being excused not because he used it for recreation, but because it was an out-of-competition test. If he'd been caught with that in a post-race test, he'd have been handed a two-year suspension, recreational or not.

 

[Anonymous]

As for the Italian guys quotes about cocaine, I don't know that I agree.
It used to be a performance enhancer BITD. But the performance benefits are short-lived, and it's really pretty easy to test for, and I think would generally be caught by in-competition controls.

Boonen is being excused not because he used it for recreation, but because it was an out-of-competition test. If he'd been caught with that in a post-race test, he'd have been handed a two-year suspension, recreational or not.

Richard Pryor swears it was a performance enhancer.....

 

[Snake8]

Had to parse that down a bit...great thread guys. What does a smile say?

In this case it's not "Ha ha, that's silly." We were going up one of the hardest climbs of the Tour of CT in 2004...but there are two big smiles on the front of the peloton, one is mine, while to the far left, away from us and a few rows back, you'll see a red-helmeted rider wearing the KOM jersey who is most decidedly not smiling on that ascent. In the center of the group, actually just right of center in the second row, you'll see a rider with a yellow helmet, head cocked slightly to his left, face showing the true effort of the climb. He was a former teammate, one of the few never to touch the needle, and it showed that day.

Back to the topic at hand....Joe, I get what you are saying. You and other certainly know more than I about what really goes on. Still, there's a huge grey area here that I think many people on this forum choose to ignore. I doubt I could articulate it well, but I thought it was expressed very well in the documentary, "Steroid nation: Bigger, Stronger, Faster." If you have Netflix, you can watch it on your computer. Floyd is in there hobbling around on his crutches, showing off his hyperbaric sleeping chamber that he built from stuff he pooched from a construction site!

In any case, back to Chris H. I don't think I've ever seen a picture of him not smiling. One of my old coaches told me to smile when you were hurting the most because it not only uses less energy than grimacing, but it also psyches out your competition to look over when they are at their limit and there you are smiling and looking like a pig in sh!t. And in the case of CH, if Joe is right, Horner just may be a pig in ****...nonetheless I will bury my head in the sand and continue to enjoy watching him ride until he gives me a reason not to.

And, last point, I've noticed that so many cyclists, especially the geeks like us in the kits with fancy bikes look like absolute grim death. Try smiling just because riding a bike is FUN! I snuck onto the local running track last night, bikes prohibited, and did lap sprints at 1AM. Way too much fun. And yes there was beer involved.

 

[elapid]

This is going to sound really snobbish, but unless I can call and talk to the guy who is building my frame, I don't see any exclusivity. Here is my new wet dream: http://speedvagen.com/

I see way to many Cervelo's and Pinarello's to think "exclusive" regardless of the fact that the person riding the bike paid too much.

In mild defense of Cervelo, they are not that expensive. I bought a complete 2008 Cervelo R3 with DuraAce for CA$3400. I decided on a Cervelo because they seemed to be the best bang for your buck and with a good reputation as well.

However, your dream is a worthy dream. I love Vanilla bikes, pity I don't have the money and that they're no longer taking orders.

 

[BroDeal]

Richard Pryor swears it was a performance enhancer.....

All I know is that Robin Williams used to actually be funny when he was a cokehead. Now I would rather gouge my eyes out with a plastic spork than watch one of his movies.

 

[elapid]

I snuck onto the local running track last night, bikes prohibited, and did lap sprints at 1AM. Way too much fun. And yes there was beer involved.

Cool......

 

[Anonymous]

In mild defense of Cervelo, they are not that expensive. I bought a complete 2008 Cervelo R3 with DuraAce for CA$3400. I decided on a Cervelo because they seemed to be the best bang for your buck and with a good reputation as well.

However, your dream is a worthy dream. I love Vanilla bikes, pity I don't have the money and that they're no longer taking orders.

Not really bagging on them, just saying that they aren't all that "exclusive." I do have a couple of friends who are tri geeks and they swear by them. $3400 is actually very reasonable for a DuraAce bike.

As for Vanilla, that is the beauty of the Speedvagen, it is a limited production bike you can order once a year. You don't have to wait 5+ years. Hopefully next year.....hopefully. They are doing a CX frame this year....dang.

 

[elapid]

Not really bagging on them, just saying that they aren't all that "exclusive." I do have a couple of friends who are tri geeks and they swear by them. $3400 is actually very reasonable for a DuraAce bike.

Agreed on the exclusivity, especially here in Canada. I bought a custom road Lynskey a number of years ago. Exclusive, at least around here, but still like the Speedvagen!

 

[Anonymous]

Back to the topic at hand....Joe, I get what you are saying. You and other certainly know more than I about what really goes on. Still, there's a huge grey area here that I think many people on this forum choose to ignore. I doubt I could articulate it well, but I thought it was expressed very well in the documentary, "Steroid nation: Bigger, Stronger, Faster." If you have Netflix, you can watch it on your computer. Floyd is in there hobbling around on his crutches, showing off his hyperbaric sleeping chamber that he built from stuff he pooched from a construction site!

In any case, back to Chris H. I don't think I've ever seen a picture of him not smiling. One of my old coaches told me to smile when you were hurting the most because it not only uses less energy than grimacing, but it also psyches out your competition to look over when they are at their limit and there you are smiling and looking like a pig in sh!t. And in the case of CH, if Joe is right, Horner just may be a pig in ****...nonetheless I will bury my head in the sand and continue to enjoy watching him ride until he gives me a reason not to.

And, last point, I've noticed that so many cyclists, especially the geeks like us in the kits with fancy bikes look like absolute grim death. Try smiling just because riding a bike is FUN! I snuck onto the local running track last night, bikes prohibited, and did lap sprints at 1AM. Way too much fun. And yes there was beer involved.

I watched it, and what I got out of it was that doping is safe if you know what you are doing, and that it is rampant. As for Floyd, I am sure the synthetic Testosterone he was using benefited him much more in a 3 week tour than any altitude chamber ever could.