When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[FoxxyBrown1111]

lol. says the guy that was trying to argue Froome was clean

To correct you: (sad but true, but that is necessary almost everytime with your childish posts)
1.) I always said I don´t know if he dopes, is clean(ish) or operates in shady grey areas. The real world just isn´t black and white as yours.
2.) I didn´t say "was". And I wasn´t "trying", but did argue (something you lack).
Just go back reading and sift trou the 1 million pages in the Sky/Froome threads to get an idea what I wrote.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Seasoned forumites like Master50 just don't like to pile on the load of speculation. It isn't that I don't think it is possible that anyone in particular is cheating only that this trial by forum is distasteful to me. I believe in due process and not lynch mobs.

Chris Horner is one of the riders I have watched all his career and he is unique in his enthusiasm and discipline. I really don't think he does anything but ride his bike. His career can also be explained from the perspective of a clean rider that kept trying to find a place he could show his talent without the boost so he never got a foothold in Europe until the general level of boost dropped to levels more like normal performance levels. In 25 years of working in the sport I see a real change in the riders and the peloton itself. Fewer miracle riders. I know you don't look at his career from that perspective and I have been around long enough to know I may be wrong about him too. I will wait for the smoking gun.

I appreciate your post, but of course disagree. There is so many smoking guns (his extreme high W/Kg for a 40+ year old, his omerta tactics vs Hincapie, his eye opening interviews ("no positive = no doping"), his "toxic" passport (Vaughters), his absurd riding style with an still injured knee, his unseen before Vuelta performance (see Swansons posts), and so on), that it´s impossible for fans/critics/observers to think he is clean.

 

[the sceptic]

To correct you: (sad but true, but that is necessary almost everytime with your childish posts)
1.) I always said I don´t know if he dopes, is clean(ish) or operates in shady grey areas. The real world just isn´t black and white as yours.
2.) I didn´t say "was". And I wasn´t "trying", but did argue (something you lack).
Just go back reading and sift trou the 1 million pages in the Sky/Froome threads to get an idea what I wrote.

cool story bro.

"Froome is plausible. Sky is plausible."

maybe i should use that as a signature so i dont have to keep reminding you that you are being a hypocrite.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Chris Horner is one of the riders I have watched all his career and he is unique in his enthusiasm and discipline. I really don't think he does anything but ride his bike. His career can also be explained from the perspective of a clean rider that kept trying to find a place he could show his talent without the boost so he never got a foothold in Europe until the general level of boost dropped to levels more like normal performance levels.

The only "clean team" he's ridden on was Prime Alliance, and nobody he raced with there has much good to say about him.

Otherwise the dude's career is bi-continental who's-who of doing drugs to ride bikes faster. Saturn, Webcor, Saunier, Lotto, Astana, Shack.

To think he rode clean through all of those would require a pretty good imagination.

 

[DirtyWorks]

And yet, during all these changes the age of a Vuelta winner remained constant. Changes in course, road conditions, length, equipment and training methods has had zero (i.e., zilch) impact on when a person reaches peak performance (age 27). To paraphrase: "I'm sorry you believe in miracles".

John Swanson

I agree with you, but it would be an interesting exercise to categorize the years by the number of days racing and see what happens to ages. I don't think it changes your conclusion, but would like to see anyway. What discourages me from working on it is apparently the racing days changed in an inconsistent way.

Of course, the introduction of EPO and later is not reliable data.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

cool story bro.

"Froome is plausible. Sky is plausible."

maybe i should use that as a signature so i dont have to keep reminding you that you are being a hypocrite.

Now the question is who is the hypocrite:
a.) the person who says "I don´t know" or
b.) the person who defends Horner (even having an ugly fanboy avatar of him), but hits out on every unrelated chance against riders from a british team.

I guess every person with a right mind says b.).

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Of course, the introduction of EPO and later is not reliable data.

If the results from this era on would be excluded, the numbers become even more extreme when comparing Horners Vuelta to other first time GT winners.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I agree with you, but it would be an interesting exercise to categorize the years by the number of days racing and see what happens to ages. I don't think it changes your conclusion, but would like to see anyway. What discourages me from working on it is apparently the racing days changed in an inconsistent way.

Of course, the introduction of EPO and later is not reliable data.

Well that's the fascinating thing about the data. Since the average age and distribution remains the same from first Vuelta to 2012 (you really should graph the data!), then you can conclude that no matter what has changed through the years (roads, bikes, days racing, drugs, training methods, etc, etc, etc) it has not had an effect.

From that you could go "A ha!" and state that since drugs like EPO have not had an effect on average age of a Vuelta winner then drugs could not have been the cause of Horner's miraculous victory.

So whatever is driving Horner's performance must be relatively new, or we would have seen the ages trending upwards since the EPO era. From what we know about aging, endurance performance declines at a predictable rate from late 20's onwards. Horner has done something to counteract that decline, and the only reasonable inference is that it has been done medically. I.e., he's doping and doping real hard whatever it is.

CAVEAT: This inference and "conclusion" regarding doping is barring any new data which would explain such a heavy influence on age related decline.

John Swanson

 

[DirtyWorks]

Well that's the fascinating thing about the data. Since the average age and distribution remains the same from first Vuelta to 2012 (you really should graph the data!), then you can conclude that no matter what has changed through the years (roads, bikes, days racing, drugs, training methods, etc, etc, etc) it has not had an effect.

Excellent post all the way through. Thank you.

 

[EnacheV]

So what happens when there is no rider aged 27 at a start of the Vuelta ?

I'm sure data set of around 80 numbers is large enough for statistical data to be called in and state a probability for another millions occurances. With good accuracy.

Please. Sir D was right, pseudo science.

 

[frenchfry]

The only "clean team" he's ridden on was Prime Alliance, and nobody he raced with there has much good to say about him.

Otherwise the dude's career is bi-continental who's-who of doing drugs to ride bikes faster. Saturn, Webcor, Saunier, Lotto, Astana, Shack.

To think he rode clean through all of those would require a pretty good imagination.

Saturn, Webcor, Saunier, Lotto, Astana, Shack, Lampre.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

So what happens when there is no rider aged 27 at a start of the Vuelta ?

I'm sure data set of around 80 numbers is large enough for statistical data to be called in and state a probability for another millions occurances. With good accuracy.

Please. Sir D was right, pseudo science.

Just expand the sample size by counting all ever ridden 1+ week races at the highest pro level. I guess you won´t find a handful riders aged 42 having won one, if you would find any at all outside grandpa.
So what is your problem with Johns work?
Instead of criticising good work, bring up numbers that support the old doper...
But no, that´s too much work, and attacking is easier. Am I right?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I agree with you, but it would be an interesting exercise to categorize the years by the number of days racing and see what happens to ages. I don't think it changes your conclusion, but would like to see anyway. What discourages me from working on it is apparently the racing days changed in an inconsistent way.

Of course, the introduction of EPO and later is not reliable data.

Would be interesting to see "years racing" or "days raced" (ie racing or training age) before winning a GT. Age from day of birth is a misnomer, imo, granted CH would still be a few std devs outside the mean, i don't think it would be as bad as it looks going on age alone.

 

[Oldman]

The only "clean team" he's ridden on was Prime Alliance, and nobody he raced with there has much good to say about him.

Otherwise the dude's career is bi-continental who's-who of doing drugs to ride bikes faster. Saturn, Webcor, Saunier, Lotto, Astana, Shack.

To think he rode clean through all of those would require a pretty good imagination.

There were two Prime Alliance cliques...those that were squeaky clean and a small group that wouldn't speak to them. The management actually pushed riders out that were obvious but Chris landed in the more exclusive camp. Tough place to be in for team managers bent on doing the correct thing and many riders weren't brought along when they morphed to Toyota.

 

[EnacheV]

Would be interesting to see "years racing" or "days raced" (ie racing or training age) before winning a GT. Age from day of birth is a misnomer, imo, granted CH would still be a few std devs outside the mean, i don't think it would be as bad as it looks going on age alone.

days raced would much more representative and close to the truth, at least for minimal decency claim.

winning age is meaningless except some for some sunday magazine chill-out articles. you can look at any other sport if math is to complicated.

considering Horner has lots of years with around 30 raced days, and those like a tourist, and first years with under 10 days of racing (at least from what procyclingstats is recording), its not hard to spot that his human body didn't got to exhausted over the years.

a surprise would be to see Jensie win a GT, after making breaks all his career.

 

[veganrob]

days raced would much more representative and close to the truth, at least for minimal decency claim.

winning age is meaningless except some for some sunday magazine chill-out articles. you can look at any other sport if math is to complicated.

considering Horner has lots of years with around 30 raced days, and those like a tourist, and first years with under 10 days of racing (at least from what procyclingstats is recording), its not hard to spot that his human body didn't got to exhausted over the years.

a surprise would be to see Jensie win a GT, after making breaks all his career.

Those years with only 30 race days were usually spent with injuries. He has been prone to them his career. When one gets older it gets harder to recover and they take a toll on the body. Same or worse than racing. So the fact that he does not have as any race days as others in my opinion does not give him a plausible reason to jump up and win a GT at age 42. None whatsoever.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't understand why the word hypocrite is being thrown around to describe those who like Horner and not sky?

That's like saying someone is racist if they think maradona was better than pele or sexist if they vote for a male candidate in an election.
People can like a public figure for any reason. It's a private thing and can be brought about by absolutely any factor. The racing section of this forum is littered with people who support riders for any reason from because it's their kin to because they like the hair colour. It is not hypocrisy however to merely " like" or support one rider over another.

Hypocrisy is when someone applies different standards to different parties. Sceptic has already said loads of times he believes Horner dopes, so he is not being a hypocrite on this- he is applying the same standards to both. He is in fact being the opposite of a hypocrite since he is not extending his bias/support into the discussions.

Otherwise what is being suggested is that anyone who ever favours any rider or team is being a hypocrite.

You are a man utd fan but not an arsenal fan- hypocrite ?
No, it only becomes hypocrisy when you begin to apply a different set of standards to the team you like than you do to the one you don't.

Del on the other hand who has curiously used the word hypocrite to describe sceptic is on the record that Horner is doping but sky aren't and dismisses as irrelevant for sky some of the very same evidence he uses against Horner. That's what double standards are - using one set if standards for the riders you like and another for the ones you don't.

Now I'm not saying horners fans necessarily always play fair - the Horner dopes because sky made him argument for example seems to.me both weak and disingenuous.

But the word "hypocrite" should not be thrown around with such abandon at anyone one doesn't like. Especially not by people who legitimately do use massive double standards.

 

[del1962]

I don't understand why the word hypocrite is being thrown around to describe those who like Horner and not sky?

That's like saying someone is racist if they think maradona was better than pele or sexist if they vote for a male candidate in an election.
People can like a public figure for any reason. It's a private thing and can be brought about by absolutely any factor. The racing section of this forum is littered with people who support riders for any reason from because it's their kin to because they like the hair colour. It is not hypocrisy however to merely " like" or support one rider over another.

Hypocrisy is when someone applies different standards to different parties. Sceptic has already said loads of times he believes Horner dopes, so he is not being a hypocrite on this- he is applying the same standards to both. He is in fact being the opposite of a hypocrite since he is not extending his bias/support into the discussions.

Otherwise what is being suggested is that anyone who ever favours any rider or team is being a hypocrite.

You are a man utd fan but not an arsenal fan- hypocrite ?
No, it only becomes hypocrisy when you begin to apply a different set of standards to the team you like than you do to the one you don't.

Del on the other hand who has curiously used the word hypocrite to describe sceptic is on the record that Horner is doping but sky aren't and dismisses as irrelevant for sky some of the very same evidence he uses against Horner. That's what double standards are - using one set if standards for the riders you like and another for the ones you don't.

Now I'm not saying horners fans necessarily always play fair - the Horner dopes because sky made him argument for example seems to.me both weak and disingenuous.

But the word "hypocrite" should not be thrown around with such abandon at anyone one doesn't like. Especially not by people who legitimately do use massive double standards.

In which post have I said Horner is doping?

I have said that rider 15, Di Canio's allegartions and chasinng down Hincapie make him more suspicious, please stop twisting things.

 

[ebandit]

?

I don't understand why the word hypocrite is being thrown around to describe those who like Horner and not sky?

i'm sure you could if you wanted hitch...........if we were talking about observations in prr i would agree with you here 100%

but this is the clinic...........i have questioned why point the fingure at one rider for doping while praising their favourite rider who is equally suspicious

and flaunting that favouritism

accepting doping as bad does not allow exceptions for ones favourites

Mark L

 

[Master50]

CH doesn´t qualify for your method since he took the europe chance at young age.... only that he failed big time.

Thanks for supporting my point or don't you understand that? let me try again.
went to Europe and went home because he was clean and could not handle the supercharge?
returned to USA and dominated the domestic scene.
Anti doping efforts turn the throttle down and actually start to work.
Ch returns on much more equal footing after many more years of racing.
Racing continues to clean up and CH is finally crossed the threshold
The Vuelta he won was tailor made for his talent and he got there perfectly prepared.

Think what you like, you have no evidence I am wrong or that you are right. You watch racing on television, and see maybe 2 hours of coverage or watch a race pass by and see 30 seconds. I follow it from the start line to the finish on each day of the event. I see the riders every day and see them year upon year. I see how fast they really go rather than the distorted view from the TV. I have been doing this for 26 years. I retired 2 years ago but have worked as a volunteer at a couple of UCI races these last years so I am still getting some perspective from the ground. It has changed and it is definitely getting more credible. At least in my experienced eyes. But hey I know how much you love you dark theories and are attached to your beliefs. There is 1 point that if I believed in lynch mob justice I never would have been given a single day of those 26 precious years. As racing fan I got a lot of front row seats. Every principle of fair play demands due process and proof. I just cannot see how anyone who claims this guy is dirty can stand to think their kids or they could also have to defend against this kind of accusation.Worse is there is no more proof than was presented on the first page of this endless thread.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Thanks ...

I have no dark theories, but I went trou all doping scandals from Delgado to DiLuca. If you still believe in those riders, ok. I can´t. No one with a right mind can, especially when doping cries out loud with unreal performances like this from Horner at the Vuelta.
Still wait for you to explain why Horner pushes his highest W/kg at age 42, why he came close to or beat old doping times at last years Vuelta, etc.!
I think we should stop after your answers...
I am surprised an ex athlete like you can be so naive.
You believe in fairy tales, I in reality.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Thanks for supporting my point or don't you understand that?

I'm not trying to pick a fight.

I can see that you are from Vancouver Island, Canada.

I would like to hear, honestly, what you thought of the progression of riders from your backyard.

Seamus, Rolland, Ryder.

Did you think they were clean all along? Just awesome young talents?

Do you feel differently now?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I have no dark theories, but I went trou all doping scandals from Delgado to DiLuca. If you still believe in those riders, ok. I can´t. No one with a right mind can, especially when doping cries out loud with unreal performances like this from Horner at the Vuelta.
Still wait for you to explain why Horner pushes his highest W/kg at age 42, why he came close to or beat old doping times at last years Vuelta, etc.!
I think we should stop after your answers...
I am surprised an ex athlete like you can be so naive.
You believe in fairy tales, I in reality.

And yet you say you want to believe in Froome?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Would be interesting to see "years racing" or "days raced" (ie racing or training age) before winning a GT. Age from day of birth is a misnomer, imo, granted CH would still be a few std devs outside the mean, i don't think it would be as bad as it looks going on age alone.

John's conclusion is **VERY** elegant though. He's let any factor related to distance, race days, pool of international talent, even doping which we know revolutionized power output be in there to change the data and it doesn't do a single thing to his conclusion.

In the truest scientific sense, challenge the conclusion, test your hypothesis. Go for it.

It's not some kind of personal challenge either. As I have posted before, I'm happy to see this kind of discusssion. And I certainly know almost nothing out here in the cheap seats. More information is always better.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's not some kind of personal challenge either. As I have posted before, I'm happy to see this kind of discusssion. And I certainly know almost nothing out here in the cheap seats. More information is always better.

I'm just saying it would be of interest - to me - to see data relevant to racing age, vs relevant to chronological age. Nothing to do with John's original conclusion or data other than the comparison.