When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 102 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Parker said:
I think they will welcome it. They can now point to Horner and say that his realeasing the values changed absolutely nobody's opinion of him. Those who thought he doped thought it showed he doped. Those who thought he was clean thought it showed he was clean. Those who didn't know got no nearer to knowing.

So cyclists can now, quite justifiably, say 'what's the point' when asked for data.
Which is kinda strange. Here itself the people are divided based on the blood profile but it should be either yes, don't know or no. But the way people are looking at it is yes or no with no "dont know"s. Based on performance though it beggars belief that he did it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Parker said:
Or maybe the experts aren't giving them the story they want.

And even if someone qualified gives their opinion it will change nobody's mind - regardless of what he says. Those he disagrees with will merely attack him, his credibility and his motives. Althernative spin will be provided. (Just look at the David Walsh thread for who this works).

Giving data to the public is pointless. The few that care have little interest in the truth. They want validation of their opinions.
No one is going to give an opinion on what they don't know is factual.

Putting the data in public is not pointless if it is factual. But it isn't factual as riders lie about their weight for a start.

The Walsh thread is being debated about Walsh ignoring the glaring questions over Sky. He claims to have addressed them, but all the answers came from Sky.

Velonews are not interested in finding out if Horner doped. They never cared whether Armstrong was clean.
 
Benotti69 said:
No one is going to give an opinion on what they don't know is factual.
Of course they are. There's a whole host of experts in many fields that will give their opinion at the drop of a hat.

Benotti69 said:
Putting the data in public is not pointless if it is factual. But it isn't factual as riders lie about their weight for a start..
So your saying it's factual and then immediately saying it's not factual. It seems the factualness of the data is proportional to how much it validates your opinion

Benotti69 said:
The Walsh thread is being debated about Walsh ignoring the glaring questions over Sky. He claims to have addressed them, but all the answers came from Sky.
How do you know he ignored the questions? Did you follow around for all those weeks. You can't put several weeks worth of questions in just a couple of pages you know. He addressed them as much as they needed to be. Printing a two page spread about the minutae Leinders doing nothing much at Sky would be incredibly boring. Of interest to no-one really. It's worth the handful of paragraphs he gave it. Most people would like to hear about the race.

Walsh is there to report what he sees and what he finds out - not to vocalise the rambling opinions of the doping obsessed minority inspite of what everyone has said to him and based on no evidence. That's what Kimmage is for.

(Any way, this is going away from Horner. I actually thought I was on the Walsh thread)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Parker said:
Of course they are. There's a whole host of experts in many fields that will give their opinion at the drop of a hat.
Yet Velonews couldn't find one or they lied.

Parker said:
So your saying it's factual and then immediately saying it's not factual. It seems the factualness of the data is proportional to how much it validates your opinion
no didn't say.

Parker said:
How do you know he ignored the questions? Did you follow around for all those weeks. You can't put several weeks worth of questions in just a couple of pages you know. He addressed them as much as they needed to be. Printing a two page spread about the minutae Leinders doing nothing much at Sky would be incredibly boring. Of interest to no-one really. It's worth the handful of paragraphs he gave it. Most people would like to hear about the race.

Walsh is there to report what he sees and what he finds out - not to vocalise the rambling opinions of the doping obsessed minority inspite of what everyone has said to him and based on no evidence. That's what Kimmage is for.

(Any way, this is going away from Horner. I actually thought I was on the Walsh thread)
Is Walsh a reporter or a journalist. Very big difference.
 
I think every time Horner opens his flapper his chances of getting a contract diminish.

I wonder if those who dish out contracts also don't believe in miracles. Not that the contract dishers are strangers to the dark side either.
 
Benotti69 said:
Is Walsh a reporter or a journalist. Very big difference.
Both. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact there's really no difference - they're synonyms. I suppose you think a reporter only writes positive things and a journalist only writes negative things. In fact both convey what they think is the truth to their readers and write what they think is the most interesting and relevant story that day.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Parker said:
Both. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact there's really no difference - they're synonyms. I suppose you think a reporter only writes positive things and a journalist only writes negative things. In fact both convey what they think is the truth to their readers and write what they think is the most interesting and relevant story that day.
A reporter reports facts as they are relayed. A journalist investigates the facts. BIG difference.
 
Benotti69 said:
A reporter reports facts as they are relayed. A journalist investigates the facts. BIG difference.
No. A reporter reports events as in the manner which they feel gives the most accurate picture of what has happened, is happening or will happen. Asking questions to relevant people wherever possible. Facts will come from many sources. Preferably they will experience events first hand.

A journalist does exactly the same thing.
 
Sep 7, 2012
25
0
0
Horner's not getting a contract because he's going to get destroyed next year.

At 41 and end of his career, Horner had nothing to lose by pushing whatever cheating/doping strategy he had to maximum effect. If he got caught, no big deal - he retires. While younger riders may have been afraid to aggressively cheat or try something new, Horner had no constraints.

Now that Horner proved that whatever regimen he was a guinea pig for works, everybody else is going to start using it. Every GC contender is calling up his doctor and saying, "I want what Horner had."

Playing field will be leveled and Horner will get the results one would normally expect a 42 year old cyclist to get. His *** handed to him.

Also next year: superhuman record times and a very small number of cyclists will f-up the Horner regimen, push it too far, and get busted.
 
Mar 18, 2009
221
0
0
I think he's probably not signed yet because he's asking for a GT GC Star's paycheck.
Couple that with 41 + doping era rider + many of his American contemporaries retiring he's
probably more like a throw back. What's more, he doesn't seem to have an infrastructure/insider alliance
to parachute him into a good contract.

Who will miss The Mouth?

__________________ I will.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
hrotha said:
Careful, now you need to add "in my opinion" to your post or it'll get a [Citation needed] tag.
Thanks for that reminder, going to fix it so I have that all the time now as its true :eek:
 
delleErbe said:
Horner's not getting a contract because he's going to get destroyed next year.

At 41 and end of his career, Horner had nothing to lose by pushing whatever cheating/doping strategy he had to maximum effect. If he got caught, no big deal - he retires. While younger riders may have been afraid to aggressively cheat or try something new, Horner had no constraints.

Now that Horner proved that whatever regimen he was a guinea pig for works, everybody else is going to start using it. Every GC contender is calling up his doctor and saying, "I want what Horner had."

Playing field will be leveled and Horner will get the results one would normally expect a 42 year old cyclist to get. His *** handed to him.

Also next year: superhuman record times and a very small number of cyclists will f-up the Horner regimen, push it too far, and get busted.
What if Horner has a US doctor that cooked up his concoction/regimen so that the doctors of the others don't know what it is.
 
Ninety5rpm said:
What if Horner has a US doctor that cooked up his concoction/regimen so that the doctors of the others don't know what it is.
Yep. It would be really naive to think that Ferrari, Fuentes, Leiders are the only doping doctors. With the amount of money to be made there must be lots of others trying to get a piece of the action.
 
veganrob said:
Yep. It would be really naive to think that Ferrari, Fuentes, Leiders are the only doping doctors. With the amount of money to be made there must be lots of others trying to get a piece of the action.
Conte was running the doping programs for almost the entirety of America at one point. And he wasn't even a doctor! So yes. No doubt there are others.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
veganrob said:
Yep. It would be really naive to think that Ferrari, Fuetes, Leiders are the only doping doctors. With the amount of money to be made there must be lots of others trying to get a piece of the action.
It would aslo be very naive to think that because we know about Ferrari, Fuentes, Leinders and they have been outed for doping that they no longer dope riders.
 
Parker said:
I think they will welcome it. They can now point to Horner and say that his realeasing the values changed absolutely nobody's opinion of him. Those who thought he doped thought it showed he doped. Those who thought he was clean thought it showed he was clean. Those who didn't know got no nearer to knowing.

So cyclists can now, quite justifiably, say 'what's the point' when asked for data.
Well, Dr. Veloclinic is saying his grand tour profile does not fit a clean rider's.
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/63542182838/analysis-horners-biopassport-data

On the other hand, the Hgb concentraion rebound back to baseline, and the statstically significant reticulocyte suppression are consistent with the expected effects of blood transfusion during a GT based on studies reviewed above.

But, that's not going to convince most of the believers. The ridiculous stuff that would come out about Armstrong didn't dissuade the believers either.

Chris is definitely "never tested positive." Well played sir.
 
Probably worth adding that the analysis is less damning than I would have assumed it would be. Basically he concludes that it doesn't look good but isn't overwhelming, and could be within normal parameters.

Personally I can't look at that and the nature of his performance and conclude he's anything but dirty, but I would not expect sanction if what this analysis says is accurate.
 
red_flanders said:
Probably worth adding that the analysis is less damning than I would have assumed it would be. Basically he concludes that it doesn't look good but isn't overwhelming, and could be within normal parameters.

Personally I can't look at that and the nature of his performance and conclude he's anything but dirty, but I would not expect sanction if what this analysis says is accurate.
In other words, a well-designed program.

Dave.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS