When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[sniper]

In case it wasn't previously posted, worth listening to…Michael Creed interviews Levi and they talk about Horner, US Postal, life in Europe etc. At about 29 minutes, what about Horner - he's older than me? "I think I'll bite my tongue on that one."

At one point Levi says, "This is just business…it's this or we go home." Around 54-55 minutes in. Many more gems and worthy of your time. At 1 hr 8 minutes…"Dr. Dave the Belgian rider." 1 hr 17 minutes, "how many units of stimulation?"

http://cyclismas.podomatic.com/entry/2013-10-24T20_58_25-07_00

thanks, great (and rather funny) stuff indeed.

great sketch of the doping culture in cycling and the motives behind doping.
makes one wonder even more where, when and why JV's "180% culture change" would have ever occurred.

 

[Taxus4a]

in the answer to why not dope, he says i didn't do dope because i did not know where to get it and that riders were getting caught and lost jobs. Nowhere there is a strong ethical stance of not cheating. The guy does not know how to do a proper doping interview.

Horner dont have a strong doping ethical stance, but that doesnt mean he doped anytime in his life.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

It is quite unlikely that someone without a strong ethical stance on doping wouldn't dope when all others did though

 

[Taxus4a]

It is quite unlikely that someone without a strong ethical stance on doping wouldn't dope when all others did though

You would get surprised with a lot of things in cycling. Never stop to amaze me.

Doped or not in the past, what is true is that he is better with better antidoping policy.

 

[Benotti69]

It is quite unlikely that someone without a strong ethical stance on doping wouldn't dope when all others did though

You must mean Zabriskie

If someone had a strong ethical stance on doping and saw what was going on in cycling they would've got out of dodge!

 

[TheGame]

http://bikeraceinfo.com/stageraces/Switzerland/2005-swiss-tour.html

Lastras solos a stage win.
Horner has a stage win... and 5th place overall in a rather ridiculous podium.
Loosli is somewhere in the middle in the TdS and looks like a domestique?
Colli, Cooke, Boonen, and Rast all sprinting well.
Julich does top-10 in the ITT.

Of those, if my fact checking is right, Horner is mentioned as having knee issues.
Cooke is "plagued by injuries" http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=10082

Cooke is just a little bit too long to fit in the space.

Copy Pasted

Kim Kirchen - wasnt injured prior to the Tour de Suisse
Bobby Julich - we know its not him, he is rider 4
Cedric Herve - Retired in 2007, doesnt appear on CQ as even riding Suisse.
Tom Boonen - wasnt injured before Suisse, was busy winning tour of belgium.
David Loosli - Rode Catalunya and Romandie prior to Suisse
Gregory Rast - Finished the giro d'Italia 2 weeks before Suisse
Daniele Colli - was injured that year, but not till after the Tour de Suisse
Joan Horrach - Rode and completed the Giro d'Italia 2 weeks before Suisse.

Chris Horner - Injured prior to the Tour de Suisse. Hadnt ridden since march. BUT ITS NOT HIM.

 

[northstar]

Bit large I'm afraid, but not readable otherwise.

The 2005 Tour de Suisse Startlist

Have you considered the possibility that the name on the startlist does not necessarily have to exactly correspond with the name in Levi’s affidavit. He could have used a variation of the rider’s name.

For example, the startlist shows Michael Rogers and Levi could have said Mick Rogers in his affidavit.

 

[TheGame]

Have you considered the possibility that the name on the startlist does not necessarily have to exactly correspond with the name in Levi’s affidavit. He could have used a variation of the rider’s name.

For example, the startlist shows Michael Rogers and Levi could have said Mick Rogers in his affidavit.

The testimonies are legal documents. Certainly in the first instance of a name it would need to appear as their full legal name.

 

[hrotha]

Have you considered the possibility that the name on the startlist does not necessarily have to exactly correspond with the name in Levi’s affidavit. He could have used a variation of the rider’s name.

For example, the startlist shows Michael Rogers and Levi could have said Mick Rogers in his affidavit.

As another example, Levi could have said Chris Horner rather than Christopher Horner.

 

[TheGame]

As another example, Levi could have said Chris Horner rather than Christopher Horner.

He could have done. Christopher Horner wouldn't fit. But Horner is commonly known as Chris Horner. Micheal Rogers is generally referred to as Micheal Rogers, as opposed to his nickname of Mick.

From a legal perspective, Chris Horner (his recognized name) would be fine. Mick Barry, or Mick Rogers legally possibly wouldn't be.

 

[northstar]

The testimonies are legal documents. Certainly in the first instance of a name it would need to appear as their full legal name.

I agree that full legal names should have been used but the affidavits were somewhat rushed and an error could have been made.

My example of Mick Rogers is not a good one as I just noticed he’s shown as ‘Michael Rogers’ in clauses 68 and 69 of Levi’s affidavit (they all trained together with Dr. Ferrari).

Could be other possible names though.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I agree that full legal names should have been used but the affidavits were somewhat rushed and an error could have been made.

That would be a huuuuuge error. The affadavit's I've read, the legal names, definitions and such are sorted out when introduced in the document.

 

[Polyarmour]

Chris Horner says it's not him.
Chris Horner will lose everything if he is later found out to have lied about this.
And sure as the sun comes up in the morning, it will be found out.

The Sherlocks in the Clinic say otherwise.
The Sherlocks will lose nothing if they are later found out to be wrong.
They will have moved on to the next carcass to dissect.

I'm going with Chris Horner on this one.
No-one can be that stupid.

 

[thehog]

I'm going with Chris Horner on this one.

Shame. None of the ProTour teams are going with him on this one

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

I've done a bit of liberal editing to give a new version below of previous post for some perspective.

Lance Armstrong says he didn't dope.
Lance Armstrong will lose everything if he is later found out to have lied about this.
And sure as the sun comes up in the morning, it will be found out.

The Sherlocks in the Clinic say otherwise.
The Sherlocks will lose nothing if they are later found out to be wrong.
They will have moved on to the next carcass to dissect.

I'm going with Lance Armstrong on this one.
No-one can be that stupid.

 

[MarkvW]

I've done a bit of liberal editing to give a new version below of previous post for some perspective.

Lance Armstrong says he didn't dope.
Lance Armstrong will lose everything if he is later found out to have lied about this.
And sure as the sun comes up in the morning, it will be found out.

The Sherlocks in the Clinic say otherwise.
The Sherlocks will lose nothing if they are later found out to be wrong.
They will have moved on to the next carcass to dissect.

I'm going with Lance Armstrong on this one.
No-one can be that stupid.

Horner's not a rich target. He won't attract big game hunters. Horner's also got to work! Putting 'big time snitch' on his resume means he won't ever work in pro cycling again. What other kind of work is Horner qualified for?

I think that we can all be confident that Horner help shape many "new generations" of cyclists to come!

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Horner's also got to work! Putting 'big time snitch' on his resume means he won't ever work in pro cycling again. What other kind of work is Horner qualified for?

Wild guess - how much do you think Horner has pulled down in total salary in the last, say, since 2005? Sure, we're talking pre tax dollars and no doubt he's incurred some living expenses over that For a guy who revels in his own reputation as a man of simple means and cheeseburgers, how much do you think he needs to set himself up to live on?

 

[MarkvW]

Wild guess - how much do you think Horner has pulled down in total salary in the last, say, since 2005? Sure, we're talking pre tax dollars and no doubt he's incurred some living expenses over that For a guy who revels in his own reputation as a man of simple means and cheeseburgers, how much do you think he needs to set himself up to live on?

Five million to live moderately well.

Maybe he's making $250K some years, less in others. He's not the star . . ..

What do you think?

 

[Polyarmour]

I've done a bit of liberal editing to give a new version below of previous post for some perspective.

Lance Armstrong says he didn't dope.
Lance Armstrong will lose everything if he is later found out to have lied about this.
And sure as the sun comes up in the morning, it will be found out.

The Sherlocks in the Clinic say otherwise.
The Sherlocks will lose nothing if they are later found out to be wrong.
They will have moved on to the next carcass to dissect.

I'm going with Lance Armstrong on this one.
No-one can be that stupid.

Nice analogy but it's not the same thing.
Leipheimer has already made the statement under oath and there is a very high chance that one day USADA will release the name.
If it really was Horner he would either confess all or keep his mouth shut.
Even Lance would be issuing no comments at this point.
Of course I do accept the very remote possibility that Horner is another psychopathic congenital nutjob liar, but so far I've seen no evidence of that.

 

[hrotha]

He's a cyclist. Cyclists lie long after their position is untenable all the time.

 

[TheGame]

Of course I do accept the very remote possibility that Horner is another psychopathic congenital nutjob liar, but so far I've seen no evidence of that.

The thing about liars is, we don't know they are liars until the truth comes out. The evidence that Horner is a congenital nutjob liar, will be when he is discovered to be a congenital nutjob liar.

Remote possibility? I would estimate the odds of any cyclist being a liar being around 50/50

 

[DirtyWorks]

Veloclinic Does it Again

Veloclinic breaks down how it's possible for grand tour doping to never test positive.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/66793773486/continuing-the-what-does-zero-vuelta-positives-mean

If we assume the APMU uses Bayesian statistical methods to trap outliers, then the door is left wide open for smart grand tour doping. Bayesian statisical methods can identify "too normal", but that's a new set of criteria which means more software programming.

This is a specific three week period of targeted testing where the general rules of blood profile analysis will not work. In other words, if the software analysis system is set up for FINRA/IAAF type events, then they might not have the software written to handle grand tour doping analysis.

The known-unknown in this situation is that longitudinal positives have been processed before. But, we don't know if Horner's kind of suspicious values were the source of the positive case being opened by the UCI. We know for sure Armstrong's 2009 grand tour samples did not get flagged for being too normal. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13931/Armstrongs-blood-profile-was-never-submitted-to-bio-passport-experts-after-May-2009.aspx

I can't recall any public acknowledgement that the passport analysis software can flag Horner-style doping.

 

[thehog]

Veloclinic breaks down how it's possible for grand tour doping to never test positive.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/66793773486/continuing-the-what-does-zero-vuelta-positives-mean

If we assume the APMU uses Bayesian statistical methods to trap outliers, then the door is left wide open for smart grand tour doping. Bayesian statisical methods can't identify "too normal."

Also this is a specific three week period of targeted testing where the general rules of blood profile analysis will not work. In other words, if the software analysis system is set up for FINRA/IAAF type events, then they might not have the software written to handle grand tour doping analysis.

The known-unknown in this situation is that longitudinal positives have been processed before. But, we don't know if Horner's kind of suspicious values were the source of the positive case being opened by the UCI. We know for sure Armstrong's 2009 grand tour samples did not get flagged for being too normal. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13931/Armstrongs-blood-profile-was-never-submitted-to-bio-passport-experts-after-May-2009.aspx

I can't recall any public acknowledgement that the passport analysis software can flag Horner-style doping.

The key being. If given the key by the UCI per the method then you be flagged.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...If we assume the APMU uses Bayesian statistical methods to trap outliers, then the door is left wide open for smart grand tour doping. Bayesian statisical methods can't identify "too normal."

This is not actually true. It's more the case a bayesian filter has to be trained to identify "too normal." I know this because I use them.

 

[Taxus4a]

He's a cyclist. Cyclists lie long after their position is untenable all the time.

You are a doperdog, and they see always a posibility. Your objetivity is low.

But you can change, as most of cyclist did.