When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 103 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
With a hematocrit of 45 I guess he is still pretty talented given that he beat earlier riders with HC well over 50 and some reported over 60. So please anyone explain how the EPO is working here? What to raise his HC from 43.4 to 45?
The simplest terms are EPO is take to raise oxygen carrying of the blood but if his HC is not higher then what is the doping mechanism here?
Really what dope is he taking? explain how that 45 represents any increase? I don't get it. Like why is he taking drugs of his HC levels are the same as without it?
THousands of posts but no substance.
 
Parker said:
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.
How can data show he is clean:confused:

Since this discussion was mostly you moaning about the legitimate term omerta being used to describe accurately the despicable behaviour of some of your favourite cyclists, I would observe that the above may actually itself fall.under omerta.

Pretending that 3 decade old blood doping is the only form of doping in the world and that if one can prove that a team doesn't do transfusions on the bus or that their blood profile doesn't resemble that of Ricardo Ricco, that would mean they are clean.

A blatantly false suggestion. Very similar to the most notorious and famous omerta cycling line of argument- didn't test positive.
 
Parker said:
Or

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).
To paraphrase Merckx Index, widely aknowledged as the brightest and largest beacon of logic and rationality on the forum, what you are advocating is argument from authority over argument from merit.

doesn't matter to you if the argument has merit or not. It's the status of the source.

would be interesting to know however how you see Kimmages heavy scepticism of sky, Wiggins, froome.

do you give serious consideration and thought to his arguments every time he calls out sky because of his richly earned status as a anti doping caporegime, or do the standards laid out above only apply to those who defend his highness ser Wiggins
 
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.
If there was a chance of a sanction, he couldn't possibly release those values. As Dave said, it's a well designed program. No obvious possibility of a sanction with those values. But, I'm no haemotologist.

Regarding your question about the believers. Look at the comments on Horner stories on CN. CN clearly has an editorial bias regarding Horner and yet the believers post comments practically copied from the Armstrong faithful and then get modded up.
 
Master50 said:
So please anyone explain how the EPO is working here?
Uhh, news flash, EPO use is now limited by the bio-passport. So, it's not being used to the same extent as years ago, but somethings have clearly taken their place. What things? Let's get Horner's doping program manager to tell us!

Master50 said:
THousands of posts but no substance.
The link to Dr. Veloclinic's analysis seems pretty substantial. Or, are we supposed to wait for the UCI? We all know how consistent and aggressive their anti-doping enforcement is...
 
Jul 26, 2009
42
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
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 [...]
Thanks for the link! Quite informative.

I have to disagree with your analysis, though - Dr. Veloclinic did a good job keeping his analysis objective. Specifically, I'd like to point out parts of the summary toward the end of the article:

Considereing the big picture, there is room for Horner to argue his case. His initial volume expansion and the Corsetti data suggest the possibility that Horner falls within a subset of GT riders whose Hgb concentration naturally rebounds in the second half of a GT. Similarly, the limited amount of “normal” data for reticulocyte count during GTs means that a subset of GT rider’s whose reticulocyte count is suppressed naturally may exist as well. 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. Overall, Horner’s data does not contain the elements of a reassuring Biopassport profile with the limitations explained above noted.
A more accurate summation of this article, in my opinion is: "Dr. Veloclinic says that Chris' bio passport does not prove Chris is clean."

In other words, certain things on the bio passport could be consistent with doping, but could also have alternate explanations.

The problem with the whole process is that the research on what constitutes "normal" for these blood values is imperfect - so while certain patterns have certainly been detected as being associated with doping, this is not necessarily strong enough to prove that someone's doping.

Hopefully the presence of the biopassport will help in furthering the research. The data that's being collected should give more insight into what is and what isn't normal. Of course the confounding factor to all of this is the question of what percentage of the peloton is still doping - if a significant percentage of the peloton is doping, that somewhat invalidates the data being collected (at least in terms of establishing a baseline of what a "clean" blood profile looks like).
 
ulrichw said:
Hopefully the presence of the biopassport will help in furthering the research. The data that's being collected should give more insight into what is and what isn't normal. Of course the confounding factor to all of this is the question of what percentage of the peloton is still doping - if a significant percentage of the peloton is doping, that somewhat invalidates the data being collected (at least in terms of establishing a baseline of what a "clean" blood profile looks like).
And there lies the problem.

They won’t know who’s doping and whether a profile is looks “normal” because it is “normal” or due to another factor.

And when you consider another “factor” those factors could be legitimate reasons. Not all the time but sometimes.

In addition the anonymous profiles are performing different functions. One day races, GTs, rest, altitude, dom duties etc.

The passport with its current scope is doing very little. Reducing the number of tests to fund GCP what a awful error in judgment.

But it is what it is.

Horner was brave releasing his data but all it showed is just how easy it is to side step around the passport and dope controls.
 
DirtyWorks said:
If there was a chance of a sanction, he couldn't possibly release those values. As Dave said, it's a well designed program. No obvious possibility of a sanction with those values. But, I'm no haemotologist.

Regarding your question about the believers. Look at the comments on Horner stories on CN. CN clearly has an editorial bias regarding Horner and yet the believers post comments practically copied from the Armstrong faithful and then get modded up.
This is why I feel like the passport is far less meaningful than some people suggest. You can be on the sauce in a pretty big way, enough to set or equal the best times on premier climbs and have no consequences.

I guess it's better that it's there, but is it a deterrent? Obviously not. It makes little meaningful difference in terms of stopping people from doping.
 
Aug 5, 2012
2,290
0
0
del1962 said:
I know the word, but when the letters are part of a longer word, filters should recognise that. Just like a town whose football team's reserves Ian Botham played for.
Same with a cricket team who are giving South Africa a run for their money right now.
 
red_flanders said:
This is why I feel like the passport is far less meaningful than some people suggest. You can be on the sauce in a pretty big way, enough to set or equal the best times on premier climbs and have no consequences.

I guess it's better that it's there, but is it a deterrent? Obviously not. It makes little meaningful difference in terms of stopping people from doping.
If there is any meaningful difference it is only going to be seen with the smaller teams. Anti-doping is typically weighted against the smaller teams for many reasons but with the passport even more so because of the subjective nature of it. Following the difficulties and expense pursuing the Pellizotti case I'd be pretty confident this is a one off. The big teams who can afford the weighty legal teams are most likely untouchable (and long since aware of this) as far as direct passport sanctions are concerned.

Anyone think the biggest reason Armstrong came back was when he found out the passport was coming in and was being administered by the UCI ?
 
red_flanders said:
I guess it's better that it's there, but is it a deterrent? Obviously not. It makes little meaningful difference in terms of stopping people from doping.
I will say it doesn't kill athletes.

Some of us go back to the time elite under-23's were dying under mysterious conditions and the UCI (Hein) did not lift a finger to look into the matter. IMHO, the deaths were most likely due to EPO heart attacks. Do we know for sure? No. But, we don't see elite national-level athletes dying at that rate any more.

Ideally, when the steroid module is in full use, we could see some limits to steroid abuse. See Tammy Thomas' story. She's apparently dealing with enormous health complications due to steroid abuse.

Also, as mentioned elsewhere, if WADA had the authority to open cases, I think we'd see less doping. If WADA had the budget to do historical testing with modern consequences, it would absolutely limit doping to the really stupid. But, WADA needs to be able to open cases against those old samples.
 
Eyeballs Out said:
Anyone think the biggest reason Armstrong came back was when he found out the passport was coming in and was being administered by the UCI ?
I think he saw Contador winning the Tour and thought he would win eight. He wanted to come back and mess with that ambition ;)
 
Jan 18, 2010
3,059
0
0
barn yard said:
chris horner is the charlie sheen of pro cycling
Ted Danson is another one he reminds me of - he just gets better and better.
Ok he's gone bald instead of grey but anyway..
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS