When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[ChewbaccaD]

I hear that Breakaway from Cancer Masters in SoCal needs a rider, so does Atlantic Velo-Virginia.

 

[darwin553]

Former team of Michael Rasmussen. Enough said.

 

[dolophonic]

But isnt Horner just as clean as Froome ? really tho...
all this talk "he's too hot":..etc kind of like Ryder ? oh no he has never tested positive.. maybe JV should give him a shot, isnt that his kind of rider ?

 

[ustabe]

"I'm sorry there isn't a team willing to pay me what I'm worth. I'm sorry you can't dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles"

- Horner living room speech 2014

Shades of Lance. This sort of thing can't help.

 

[Ferminal]

Former team of Michael Rasmussen. Enough said.

What do you mean?

 

[DirtyWorks]

I hear that Breakaway from Cancer Masters in SoCal needs a rider, so does Atlantic Velo-Virginia.

Francisco Mancebo would actually have a little competition!

 

[gustienordic]

I am just waiting for the day Horner gets a contract from Torku, Tabriz, or one of the other contintental teams. Would love to see him kick a bunch of (ex)dopers (just kidding, still dopers) that are on these teams. Imagine Cobo, Horner, & co dominating the Tour of Turkey. Kittel would be furious

 

[MarkvW]

I am just waiting for the day Horner gets a contract from Torku, Tabriz, or one of the other contintental teams. Would love to see him kick a bunch of (ex)dopers (just kidding, still dopers) that are on these teams. Imagine Cobo, Horner, & co dominating the Tour of Turkey. Kittel would be furious

Ah, the Tour of Turkey . . .. Sludge-bottom's old stomping ground.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I do not think doping had much to do with it. Frank Schleck has a ride. Teams are chock full of suspicious riders. Horner misjudged his market value. Probably a large stretch of negotiating time passed him by when he thought he had a fat contract from Alonso's new team. When that fell apart, there were not many teams with an opening that could pay him anywhere near what he wanted.

I'd say that doping does have something to do with it, inasmuch as Trek didn't want to keep him. Plenty of riders who are dopers continue to ride on with their current teams when going well; oftentimes the current team trusts them not to get busted because they've got this far with it. That's why, for example, Rubén Plaza always keeps ending back at Abarcá, and still hasn't got anything against his name. Other riders have been shady for so long and have moved teams nearly every year but have not raised too many red flags and are non-integral riders that can simply be jettisoned with the "we didn't know and stand against this" line - say, for example, Ángel Vicioso.

Horner isn't like that. He's a reigning GT winner, and his biopassport figures have been published, so a team can't really argue "we didn't know" when it's clear to more or less everybody out there. He's not a small fry guy that they can quietly release under cover of darkness. With his age, you'd be looking at a one year contract, for a lot of money, for a guy who has high potential to bring bad press because nobody believes in him, let alone what might happen if he actually tests positive. Bearing in mind the sudden drop-off of riders who had indian summers in similar environments, such as Leipheimer, teams may also be wary of paying big money to a guy who could just collapse in form.

Horner will, more than anything else, be cursing that Vacansoleil went under. They would have been daft enough to pay him, after all, they have a pretty strong record of hiring GT leaders.

 

[BroDeal]

I'd say that doping does have something to do with it, inasmuch as Trek didn't want to keep him.

Even in October, people at Trek said a deal for Horner was still possible. It just came down to money.

Any other year Horner would have easily gotten a contract because of his points. This year the points are worth nothing. It shows a huge flaw in the World Tour system. Riders cannot count on their points being worth anything and in the previous season teams paid more money or give longer contracts than necessary for riders with points.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Even in October, people at Trek said a deal for Horner was still possible. It just came down to money.

Any other year Horner would have easily gotten a contract because of his points. This year the points are worth nothing. It shows a huge flaw in the World Tour system. Riders cannot count on their points being worth anything and in the previous season teams paid more money or give longer contracts than necessary for riders with points.

But a GT winner shouldn't be in the position where teams would only be picking him for the points he has. He should be in the position where teams are picking him for the points he will have. It's alarming for Horner that nobody views those points as being numerous enough to offset the expenditure on paying him and the reputational risk that a former Armstrong/Bruyneel cohort who failed in Europe then returned in his mid-30s to a dodgy team and has then continued to improve into his 40s brings.

For a lot of teams, lip service to anti-doping is what's required. Horner may not have tested positive, but his performances have torn down the fabric of doping within realistic parameters (which has been the byword of the biopass era). The widespread ridicule and amusement that has greeted his GT win shows that nobody believes in him. For a lot of teams, signing him would make that lip service to anti-doping quite awkward because they'd be saying it knowing that the media didn't believe them.

 

[BroDeal]

But a GT winner shouldn't be in the position where teams would only be picking him for the points he has. He should be in the position where teams are picking him for the points he will have. It's alarming for Horner that nobody views those points as being numerous enough to offset the expenditure on paying him and the reputational risk that a former Armstrong/Bruyneel cohort who failed in Europe then returned in his mid-30s to a dodgy team and has then continued to improve into his 40s brings.

Did Wiggins fail in Europe? How about Hesjedal? How about Evans? What if, after their first few years, they had decided they did not like racing in Europe and had gone home where they could get paid more money while working in an environment they felt comfortable?

Horner is forty-two. He has a history of injury. There is a good chance that he will be unable to do a race he was hired to do. A rider like that should not have been asking for one and a half million for two years. He should not have been asking for seven hundred and fifty thousand either.

 

[aphronesis]

Did Wiggins fail in Europe? How about Hesjedal? How about Evans? What if, after their first few years, they had decided they did not like racing in Europe and had gone home where they could get paid more money while working in an environment they felt comfortable?

Horner is forty-two. He has a history of injury. There is a good chance that he will be unable to do a race he was hired to do. A rider like that should not have been asking for one and a half million for two years. He should not have been asking for seven hundred and fifty thousand either.

You're saying Wiggins didn't fail in Europe this past year?

 

[webvan]

I wonder if we'll ever find out how much Trek were willing to pay him...apparently he was getting $100k these past years? Surely they were ready to give him a little bump, say $150k or maybe even $200k? And he turned that down without having anything else lined up?! How much is it worth having Cancellara working for you too?

 

[BroDeal]

You're saying Wiggins didn't fail in Europe this past year?

Once again the point seems to have zoomed over your head with a loud whooshing sound.

 

[aphronesis]

Once again the point seems to have zoomed over your head with a loud whooshing sound.

No, your point is pretty obvious and tedious as usual (repeating the same thing for a few days will do that); I'm questioning the argument you made--and are making--against multiple factors being in play.

Get as reductive as you like for the sake of having others engage, but don't imagine that just because some ignore your bone simple insights that they can't be understood.

 

[Clausfarre]

The heart of the issue is not that Horner is an old man. It is what he suddenly could do once he became an old man. He is the epitome of Captain Obvious and in most ways bad for business, point accumulation aside.

 

[roundabout]

I wonder if we'll ever find out how much Trek were willing to pay him...apparently he was getting $100k these past years? Surely they were ready to give him a little bump, say $150k or maybe even $200k? And he turned that down without having anything else lined up?! How much is it worth having Cancellara working for you too?

he either likes to pretend that he is poor or has the worst agent ever. I find it hard to believe that a rider with his results would settle for 100k.

 

[BroDeal]

No, your point is pretty obvious and tedious as usual (repeating the same thing for a few days will do that); I'm questioning the argument you made--and are making--against multiple factors being in play.

Get as reductive as you like for the sake of having others engage, but don't imagine that just because some ignore your bone simple insights that they can't be understood.

Obviously you did not get anything or you would not have made a comment that showed you were not following along. But go ahead and try to pretend it was actually a clever remark from a plane of pseudo-intellectualism that no one else is worthy of inhabiting. Maybe someone will believe you. Maybe.

What multiple factors are you going to point to that explain why having an undistinguished first few years as a pro in Europe should count as failure even though the peloton is filled with riders who had few results in their early years. Do tell.

 

[aphronesis]

Obviously you did not get anything or you would not have made a comment that showed you were not following along. But go ahead and try to pretend it was actually a clever remark from a plane of pseudo-intellectualism that no one else is worthy of inhabiting. Maybe someone will believe you. Maybe.

What I got was that in your zeal to have a thread--and thereby your idea of community--on which to argue, rabble rouse and to drive home a basic point, you overreached and made use of a patently dumb example that any number of less than moderately informed posters could have called you on.

I'm not pretending anything, or claiming anything. I asked you a pretty simple question and you attacked me instead.

Your example of Wiggins doesn't hold. Hesjedal is similarly--but not quite as--tenuous. Evans isn't even a remote analogy.

 

[BroDeal]

Your example of Wiggins doesn't hold. Hesjedal is similarly--but not quite as--tenuous. Evans isn't even a remote analogy.

Wiggins signed for his first European team in 2002 and had no results on the road in the first year. He had one notable result in the first three years. Even after that his results showed him to be a mediocre time trialist who could win if none of the top men showed up or were not in form.

Hesjedal has one result in the first three years of his road career, a fourth place. Sounds like a total failure in Europe if he had decided to return to North America and race there. Oh, hold it. That is exactly what he did.

Evans had one early year where he showed promise then two years of sparse results. It was not until 2005 that he showed he could ride into the top ten of the Tour de France and stay there to the end of the race.

Before he returned to the U.S., Horner had better results in Europe than Hesjedal. He was getting paid crap on FDJ and he did not integrate well with the culture. After he came back he won everything in the states and was the highest paid domestic pro. He then took a massive pay cut to return to Europe. Clearly he thought he could do well there, and he did.

There a huge number of riders who could be said to have "failed in Europe" if the cut-off was their neo pro year and year or two afterward. To say someone failed in a sport where most pros are initially hired as domestiques because of his first few years is a bogus. The knock against Horner should be the same as the knock against Froome. If he really had the natural engine to be at the edge of what is humanly possible then his talent would have exhibited itself early on, even if it did not result in big wins. Evans did not win the Giro in 2002. He did show he might have the engine capable of winning a GT.

 

[aphronesis]

Wiggins signed for his first European team in 2002 and had no results on the road in the first year. He had one notable result in the first three years. Even after that his results showed him to be a mediocre time trialist who could win if none of the top men showed up or were not in form.

Hesjedal has one result in the first three years of his road career, a fourth place. Sounds like a total failure in Europe if he had decided to return to North America and race there. Oh, hold it. That is exactly what he did.

Evans had one early year where he showed promise then two years of sparse results. It was not until 2005 that he showed he could ride into the top ten of the Tour de France and stay there to the end of the race.

Before he returned to the U.S., Horner had better results in Europe than Hesjedal. He was getting paid crap on FDJ and he did not integrate well with the culture. After he came back he won everything in the states and was the highest paid domestic pro. He then took a massive pay cut to return to Europe. Clearly he thought he could do well there, and he did.

There a huge number of riders who could be said to have "failed in Europe" if the cut-off was their neo pro year and year or two afterward. To say someone failed in a sport where most pros are initially hired as domestiques because of his first few years is a bogus. The knock against Horner should be the same as the knock against Froome. If he really had the natural engine to be at the edge of what is humanly possible then his talent would have exhibited itself early on, even if it did not result in big wins. Evans did not win the Giro in 2002. He did show he might have the engine capable of winning a GT.



I have to play the odds based on your history of drive-by trolling and general asininity.[/QUOTE]

This is all known, but thanks for the summary. The relevant qualifier wasn't the return on results in the first year or two as a neo-pro, but the team affiliations--and perceptions-- of the rider--in this case Horner--as related to doping. You seem to want to keep arguing against that.

Good of you to slide Froome into the discussion though.

As to the latter, that's quite rich coming from you.

 

[aphronesis]

This is all known, but thanks for the summary. The relevant qualifier wasn't the return on results in the first year or two as a neo-pro, but the team affiliations--and perceptions-- of the rider--in this case Horner--as related to doping. You seem to want to keep arguing against that.

Good of you to slide Froome into the discussion though.

As to the latter, that's quite rich coming from you.

 

[BroDeal]

This is all known, but thanks for the summary. The relevant qualifier wasn't the return on results in the first year or two as a neo-pro, but the team affiliations--and perceptions-- of the rider--in this case Horner--as related to doping. You seem to want to keep arguing against that.

Good of you to slide Froome into the discussion though.

As to the latter, that's quite rich coming from you.

No. The point was whether it is fair to label Horner as a failure based on his first years as a pro. At which point you jumped in with some unrelated babble about Wiggins' 2013 performance.

So far we have established that Horner's first couple of years hardly qualify as a failure. Wiggins 2013 performance is not relevant.

 

[Eshnar]

Better cool off guys...