When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 100 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Benotti69 said:
...
The 'reasoned decision' has had an effect int ehs port and that is the secrecy levels have risen. Their could be team programs where riders on the team dont know what their team mates are doing or even on the program.
this.
we're not gonna find syringes anymore.
anti-doping talk is no longer about 'never tested positive'. that doesn't cut it anymore.
it's become much more proactive and even aggressive.
'perception is reality' is the new omerta, at least among the anglophone teams.
southern europeans are still lagging behind a bit, with more old school omerta.
 
D-Queued said:
That is frikkin weird.

One data point that has received very little air time is Wiggo's power output.

There was a time when Indurain's 508 watts was such an aberration you couldn't possibly claim he was clean without snickering, rolling your eyes, or coughing up your milk.

Wiggo at 450 watts for an hour? From someone with the new cycling somatotype? And, though he is still a sitck figure, he claims to have gained weight to increase power, but his power actually goes down? C'mon.

Then some guy like Horner comes out of the clear blue sky (hint: b for blue and s for sky) offering an even more miraculous miracle.

Well, like someone said, I'm sorry I don't believe in them. Not even the less miraculous miracles.

We may be seeing less doping in some areas, which would be fantastic, but the sleight-of-hand in the pro peloton is making Barnum and Bailey look more tame by the moment.

Or, to put a finer point on it, it is like the startup that only needs 2-3 more breakthroughs so the Engineer asks 'Would you like me to schedule them for you?"

Looks like we are now scheduling miracles in cycling with the miracle of Wiggo replaced by the miracle of Froome, and then by the miracle of Horner.

If you believe in miracles, shouldn't they at least be slightly unpredictable?

Dave.
What!!!! Indurain could have been doping!!!!

That anomaly aside, of the millions of your posts that I have had the pleasure of reading, this could be your best effort!
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
goggalor said:
Daniel Benson deserves some credit for putting this troll line at the end of every Horner article: "Previously, Horner had opted not to answer when asked by Cyclingnews if his was a redacted name in rider testimony published last year as part of USADA’s Reasoned Decision on the Lance Armstrong doping case."

Drives the fanboys up the wall. :D
Good thing Daniel does the same on every other obvious/suspect doper in the pelotoooooon.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
Fatclimber said:
M50, it appears you're confusing this discussion forum with some sort of legal proceeding. Nobody gets convicted by anything written here.
I know that but how you do anything is likely how you do everything. Look if you think it is OK to call someone a doper without a little more proof than has been offered here I suppose you would not mind being called a pervert of some sort? It does not offend you then I guess nothing I say matters.
I am concerned about how we act in public and this forum is public (to a rather narrow group) is open to your kids and is an example of the kind of behaviour I have read that some here are offended by. We are not talking about nameless cases but making accusations about peoples lives and their integrity. The simple greatest challenge I know is to get proof but that is the burden of proof. I think that some of these people are parents and would defend their kids against exactly the same behaviour they are participating in. Again I think it is wrong to do so and I believe it is the same message that I think some of the offenders here would say to their kids. that is hypocrisy,
Really what is the value to the sport and to the forum? it is lurid, there is no proof here and to date there is no investigation by anyone that understands this data well enough to offer an expert opinion.. I talk to doctors that cannot make a definitive statement and they would go to a blood doctor to talk about it so how do so many lay people have such confident opinions?
What group in society is only compromised of dishonest people? Apparently within this subset of bike racing followers the number is very high that all pro riders are cheating? Sorry but even prisons have convicts that are more honest than that.
Now discussing a doping positive or a Betsy Andreu story is open game as this subject is out there but this thread and several on the other Chris are the worst kind of speculation and I hate it. I think it is a failure of this forum to better police itself.
Now as for the legal part? more and more laws are aimed at internet chats and activities. Sure most are currently aimed at things like posting naked pictures of your ex girlfriend but kids are being convicted of distributing porn if the subject is or was underage. Making a printed accusation about someone that can bring them disrepute is subject to the law and eventually it will extend to a chat group for Libel or defamation as the legality applies. We may not be close to that yet but eventually someone will be hurt enough by some malicious accusation on some forum that the law will look at threads like this.
This forum has a very large following so in some ways it is the leading English language internet news site on the sport and I would love it if the forum was also the highest level of discussion and a lot less like a tabloid.
Perhaps it is because I chose to argue my point inside this thread but I am troubled that most of the comments generated by my distain are not supportive if any are? I also suppose that more than a few regulars here are in fact trolls or children and not just acting like them?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Master50 said:
I know that but how you do anything is likely how you do everything. Look if you think it is OK to call someone a doper without a little more proof than has been offered here I suppose you would not mind being called a pervert of some sort? It does not offend you then I guess nothing I say matters.
I am concerned about how we act in public and this forum is public (to a rather narrow group) is open to your kids and is an example of the kind of behaviour I have read that some here are offended by. We are not talking about nameless cases but making accusations about peoples lives and their integrity. The simple greatest challenge I know is to get proof but that is the burden of proof. I think that some of these people are parents and would defend their kids against exactly the same behaviour they are participating in. Again I think it is wrong to do so and I believe it is the same message that I think some of the offenders here would say to their kids. that is hypocrisy,
Really what is the value to the sport and to the forum? it is lurid, there is no proof here and to date there is no investigation by anyone that understands this data well enough to offer an expert opinion.. I talk to doctors that cannot make a definitive statement and they would go to a blood doctor to talk about it so how do so many lay people have such confident opinions?
What group in society is only compromised of dishonest people? Apparently within this subset of bike racing followers the number is very high that all pro riders are cheating? Sorry but even prisons have convicts that are more honest than that.
Now discussing a doping positive or a Betsy Andreu story is open game as this subject is out there but this thread and several on the other Chris are the worst kind of speculation and I hate it. I think it is a failure of this forum to better police itself.
Now as for the legal part? more and more laws are aimed at internet chats and activities. Sure most are currently aimed at things like posting naked pictures of your ex girlfriend but kids are being convicted of distributing porn if the subject is or was underage. Making a printed accusation about someone that can bring them disrepute is subject to the law and eventually it will extend to a chat group for Libel or defamation as the legality applies. We may not be close to that yet but eventually someone will be hurt enough by some malicious accusation on some forum that the law will look at threads like this.
This forum has a very large following so in some ways it is the leading English language internet news site on the sport and I would love it if the forum was also the highest level of discussion and a lot less like a tabloid.
Perhaps it is because I chose to argue my point inside this thread but I am troubled that most of the comments generated by my distain are not supportive if any are? I also suppose that more than a few regulars here are in fact trolls or children and not just acting like them?
if you look at the history of the sport, doping is not an epithet, its a signigificant element of the sport, and not seen in value judgement terms, like you are using, it is not defamation or a smear. the sport has never stopped lying to the public.being a doper is more common than not being a doper.

and the hyperbole about kiddie porn or plastering the web with naked photos of your ex is pretty poor argument.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
Chris Horner tearing pseudo-science

CH: It’s like the thing that came out with the VAM [average ascent speed] thing … some guy in Europe had this VAM formula. It was the most ridiculous thing. He wasn’t there at the event, so he doesn’t know what the wind was like. He doesn’t know how long I spent drafting on the wheel up front. He doesn’t know what happened, how long of a stage it was compared to the other stages. He doesn’t know what the competition was like. He has no idea what I weigh, has no idea if I did the climb with one full bottle, or zero bottles or two full bottles … but he came up with this magical number that says, “he must be doping.” And then, of course the journalists print that stuff, and the journalists didn’t check their own facts. Matt, I’m really quite surprised when I released my blood results from 2008, not one cycling newspaper or magazine or internet [site] has even paid to have a professional blood guy actually analyze my results and say, “look, these numbers are fantastic. they’re clean.” … Why haven’t you guys — and I don’t mean you guys, I mean the whole of the journalism area — why hasn’t all of [cycling] journalism paid the money to have a professional look at my blood results and then post to everybody on the web page about how clean my results are? Because I know my results are clean.
more stuff
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/10/news/horner-qa-looking-for-a-job-releasing-data-and-winning-at-41_304993

watts/kg rofl

also, just to be clear that he means business

and I have plans on winning the Tour of Spain next year
Go Chris :D
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Horner.one cycling newspaper or magazine or internet [site] has even paid to have a professional blood guy actually analyze my results and say, “look, these numbers are fantastic. they’re clean.” … Why haven’t you guys — and I don’t mean you guys, I mean the whole of the journalism area — why hasn’t all of [cycling] journalism paid the money to have a professional look at my blood results and then post to everybody on the web page about how clean my results are?
Sounds like a challenge to Ashenden. But Horner is right, why dont the cycling media pay a specialist to analyse Horner's numbers?
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
EnacheV said:
Chris Horner tearing pseudo-science



more stuff
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/10/news/horner-qa-looking-for-a-job-releasing-data-and-winning-at-41_304993

He wasn’t there at the event, so he doesn’t know what the wind was like. He doesn’t know how long I spent drafting on the wheel up front. He doesn’t know what happened, how long of a stage it was compared to the other stages. He doesn’t know what the competition was like. He has no idea what I weigh, has no idea if I did the climb with one full bottle, or zero bottles or two full bottles … but he came up with this magical number that says, “he must be doping.”
I'm sure some of the clinic geniuses will be along any minute to clear this up.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
ChrisE said:
I'm sure some of the clinic geniuses will be along any minute to clear this up.
Well it hardly takes a genius to point that Horner presents a rather specious argument here. There is nothing magical about gradient, time and height. Its so simple a caveman could do it. The dehydration insinuation doesn't wash either.
 
EnacheV said:
Chris Horner tearing pseudo-science



more stuff
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/10/news/horner-qa-looking-for-a-job-releasing-data-and-winning-at-41_304993

watts/kg rofl

also, just to be clear that he means business



Go Chris :D
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
The funniest thing is Chris Horner is absolutely right in questioning the cycling 'media'.
Benotti69 said:
Sounds like a challenge to Ashenden. But Horner is right, why dont the cycling media pay a specialist to analyse Horner's numbers?
webvan said:
Didn't you read what follows? The guy from VN says he did ask several experts and was turned down, WTF ?!
^This

"VN: You’re absolutely right. The problem is, I tried different guys, and nobody would touch it … yet."


The Clinic, the joke journalist, the "experts" like Ashenden (who learned all he knows from Floyd..rofl.).

Let's bring it on USADA and the paid experts.

Get it over with and bust him already.
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
vrusimov said:
Of course you won't read it but you sure will take time to comment on its not read contents, which only proves that you couldn't resist the surreptitious and "salacious" solicitations of its suppositions after all. And then you subvert yourself still further with your hypocritical observation that this forum indeed cannot supersede its function as a vehicle of opinion rather than legal conviction. If your rebuttal gets scuttled with so little trouble then maybe the voltmeter is a better fiddle. Personally, I fail to fathom why someone would acquiesce to indulging the apparent feebleness of 59 pages of fatuous fiction when said someone's disposition is the termination of the very object of his rather pornographic 59 page obsession. I would say that I'm befuddled but then I have never underestimated the rather prevalent pugnacious proclivity of humans to pontificate on one hand while preempting the right for others do likewise on the other.
Looks like somebody just swallowed a thesaurus. :D
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Race Radio said:

It's probably worth noting the originator of that quote--Phil Zacijek. Not that I don't think Horner was jacked on Saturn, but context is important. Phil was trying to avoid the wrath of Decanio so he was eager to sell out the biggest fish, who at the time was Horner.

Honestly I don't even know if I believe the story as he told it. Saturn already had a drug connection, and it wasn't Horner (and you know this). Webcor is a different story...

Zacijek did the same thing with Nate Weiss to avoid bad press on rideclean.org. Point being, he's not the most reliable source.
 
May 13, 2009
10
0
0
131313 said:
It's probably worth noting the originator of that quote--Phil Zacijek. Not that I don't think Horner was jacked on Saturn, but context is important. Phil was trying to avoid the wrath of Decanio so he was eager to sell out the biggest fish, who at the time was Horner.

Honestly I don't even know if I believe the story as he told it. Saturn already had a drug connection, and it wasn't Horner (and you know this). Webcor is a different story...

Zacijek did the same thing with Nate Weiss to avoid bad press on rideclean.org. Point being, he's not the most reliable source.
What % of Webcor do you think was doping?

I had a college roommate on them and he's never said anything about doping on that team. And he called out other riders prior to them being busted. I think now 10 years later he would have said something.
 
131313 said:
It's probably worth noting the originator of that quote--Phil Zacijek. Not that I don't think Horner was jacked on Saturn, but context is important. Phil was trying to avoid the wrath of Decanio so he was eager to sell out the biggest fish, who at the time was Horner.

Honestly I don't even know if I believe the story as he told it. Saturn already had a drug connection, and it wasn't Horner (and you know this). Webcor is a different story...

Zacijek did the same thing with Nate Weiss to avoid bad press on rideclean.org. Point being, he's not the most reliable source.
Just a few words to say that I like your posts. Well written, understandable for non US-UK culture people and instructive :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS