When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[Samson777]

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?

Link?

.....

 

[DirtyWorks]

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.

I agree with you. I'd love to see it too. But again, the age of the winners over a very long period of time are so consistent despite so many known variables that it would be interesting to see how number of days affects results, but wouldn't alter John's conclusion.

It is definitely an interesting question. But I don't have the time.

 

[del1962]

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.

Still looking for that post Hitch? Or will you apolgoise

 

[The Hitch]

You count Horner attacking someone for speaking against lance as suspicious but see someone who represents your country doing the EXACT SAME THING as perfectly fine.

That is some of the most extreme hypocrisy I have ever seen and that you don't realize it shows exactly how small minded and blind the fanboy state of being can make a human.

 

[del1962]

You count Horner attacking someone for speaking against lance as suspicious but see someone who represents your country doing the EXACT SAME THING as perfectly fine.

That is some of the most extreme hypocrisy I have ever seen and that you don't realize it shows exactly how small minded and blind the fanboy state of being can make a human.

Which post have I said Horner is doping in, put up or shut up, instead of twisting things as you are apt to doing

 

[Master50]

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?

I can tell that as juniors Ryder and Roland were on another step. Roland won abitibi with a provincial team and Ryder was as fast as a junior as Roland in his World Champion years. So yes I defended them and to a point I still do. In fact I defend all riders that have not been convicted. I get the idea that no one thinks I think that there may be doping? I have already heard the bad news from Ryder. I won't say what I believe about Roland except he has never been sanctioned for any doping offence. Seamus? I know him and like him but I never paid his career any attention. I was sad to hear he crossed the line but mover surprised.
I am just as exasperated at all the doping problems and in retrospect it was as bad as I feared. I was paying attention all this time. I know we have a problem and I know it is worse than my more optimistic side and a lot better than it has been since the 1980s. BTW I got Delgado's autograph the day after his probenicide test was released. In those days positive doping offences did not garner 2 year suspensions. These were days when only amateurs were expected to be clean. If you are looking for a reason I insist on defending DUE Process it came from the 1988 Olympic trials. The winner was to make the Canadian Team in Seoul but he went as an alternate. He was a road sprinter and the race ended in a sprint with all the non sprinters out of contention. I am sure that rider was denied his opportunity based on suspicion of the coach he worked under. No drug tested ever showed anything and testing for performance enhancing drugs then was able to detect the banned substances of those days. The official announcements just suggested he was not ready yet everyone knew he was the only real medal chance on that course amongst the Canadians sent.
Due Process! That is all I want. That is what I am defending. I get that I have been disappointed by many if not most . I do see a real change and I am actually optimistic about it but I get that doping has not stopped.

 

[red_flanders]

It seems to me like there is due process. Is there not?

 

[zigmeister]

No, in the clinic it is guilty until proven innocent. If found innocent and no evidence, then the UCI must have been complicit and hid some facts and made it "go away."

 

[Netserk]

When have we sanctioned any rider here in the clinic?

 

[The Hitch]

No, in the clinic it is guilty until proven innocent. If found innocent and no evidence, then the UCI must have been complicit and hid some facts and made it "go away."

Who has been found innocent?

And it's guilty until proven innocent in plenty of places including the peloton where loads of people have already found Horner guilty and to a lesser extent Santa and Sayer, the Anglophone media which had no problem accusing Moroccan runners and Chinese swimmers of doping with absolutely 0 evidence.

At least in the clinic plenty of posters look to actual variables like climbing times, performance transformations, whether they uphold omerta, whether their explanations for improvements are clear lies, etc to assess if someone is doping. Unlike elsewhere where they just look to flags and whether an athlete is financially viable to decide if they are doping.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Nice summary Hitch. The clinic still has its moments.

 

[Master50]

It seems to me like there is due process. Is there not?

Not in this forum there isn't. The hitch just explained it, all guilt by innuendo. Using the most worthless tools imaginable. Climbing times? avg speed. VAM but no actual proof.

Before EPO the doping was not about going faster it was about going at all. often with near 200 racing days the riders used drugs to get out of bed, combat fatigue, manage pain and to some degree improve performance. A lot of changes in Pro Cycling has eliminated that too. Most riders now have recovery time and reasonable calendars so this form of doping is hardly as necessary as it was then and I said necessary simply because at some point most riders had to race while profoundly in need of time off. No one raced a GT stage from the word go and many GT stages went pretty slow in the first 1/2.

CH must be even better than that since his values hardly indicate a raise in his HC but I also know doping today must avoid spikes or odd changes because that is recognizable if you believe the bio passport has any value. The riders believe it. So if in the 1990s CH was getting dropped in Europe with an HC of 46 then why is he kicking **** in 2013 with the same HC? What is the new magic that makes racehorses without the blood boost? What is he taking? EPO does not explain it since riders he is beating have higher HC values?

Like I said it is just as reasonable to think he finally got the opportunity to showcase the talent he has always had and the reason he is winning now is because the rest of the riders are also playing fare.

The beauty of my position is you cannot prove me wrong regardless of what ever name you call me. Of course the opposite is true. I cannot prove any rider is clean but I can defend Due Process and that is one reason I became a cycling official. One reason I stopped was because of fans like these in the clinic. Frankly I came to believe I was wasting my time working for a sport the fans don't believe in.

Maybe I am defending your kids? Hope you never have to defend yourself against a false accusation because you will face a lot of people just like you. People that will hand someone a sentence because of a feeling or some ingrained hatred?

 

[roundabout]

He always had the talent to climb the Angliru in 43 minutes?

 

[argyllflyer]

Like I said it is just as reasonable to think he finally got the opportunity to showcase the talent he has always had and the reason he is winning now is because the rest of the riders are also playing fare.

You could also argue that if most riders nowadays are playing fair (which I think), then anyone who doesn't is at a massive advantage.

 

[gospina]

We shouldn't look at success at the age of the rider, but rather from a specific year, say 2008. Compare Froomey, Horner, maybe Cadel from that point forward. I picked 2008 arbitrarily. Say Pre-Massive EPO era to post-massive EPO or microdose era. Horner was always known to be strong before then. In one of Armstrong's TDF years, Brunyeel had identified Horner as the guy to beat in a domestic race. He was the enemy and Lance was tasked to stay with him and beat him.
At that point, Horner was known as an amazing domestic rider, but 'didn't have what it takes' to move to Europe.
If you follow American cycling, Horner was always the joke when it came to the world's team. He consistently proved that he should be chosen to be in the team, but was always passed for americans in European teams (Lance & Co.). This happen year after year.
I am not implying he is clean, I'm just saying that is plausible that his talent is now showing.

 

[Oldman]

Not in this forum there isn't. The hitch just explained it, all guilt by innuendo. Using the most worthless tools imaginable. Climbing times? avg speed. VAM but no actual proof.

Before EPO the doping was not about going faster it was about going at all. often with near 200 racing days the riders used drugs to get out of bed, combat fatigue, manage pain and to some degree improve performance. A lot of changes in Pro Cycling has eliminated that too. Most riders now have recovery time and reasonable calendars so this form of doping is hardly as necessary as it was then and I said necessary simply because at some point most riders had to race while profoundly in need of time off. No one raced a GT stage from the word go and many GT stages went pretty slow in the first 1/2.

CH must be even better than that since his values hardly indicate a raise in his HC but I also know doping today must avoid spikes or odd changes because that is recognizable if you believe the bio passport has any value. The riders believe it. So if in the 1990s CH was getting dropped in Europe with an HC of 46 then why is he kicking **** in 2013 with the same HC? What is the new magic that makes racehorses without the blood boost? What is he taking? EPO does not explain it since riders he is beating have higher HC values?

Like I said it is just as reasonable to think he finally got the opportunity to showcase the talent he has always had and the reason he is winning now is because the rest of the riders are also playing fare.

The beauty of my position is you cannot prove me wrong regardless of what ever name you call me. Of course the opposite is true. I cannot prove any rider is clean but I can defend Due Process and that is one reason I became a cycling official. One reason I stopped was because of fans like these in the clinic. Frankly I came to believe I was wasting my time working for a sport the fans don't believe in.

Maybe I am defending your kids? Hope you never have to defend yourself against a false accusation because you will face a lot of people just like you. People that will hand someone a sentence because of a feeling or some ingrained hatred?

You are ignoring some posts from early on. I like the guy and have enjoyed rides with him, know a lot of his history, etc.
But he is not above suspicion separate of the "analytics" you decry. He's avoided UCI testing inspectors, been on full program teams and has a history of training away from racing.
All things being equal (all contenders using available enhancements), and I think the Vuelta was an equal-opportunity venue for the main racers; he can be that good. He has always had that talent level but had the ultimate free-agent opportunity and exploited it. You can't be naïve about the sudden results, though. Tour of Utah can't do that for anybody.

 

[Granville57]

It seems to me like there is due process. Is there not?

Not in this forum there isn't.

Maybe I am defending your kids? Hope you never have to defend yourself against a false accusation because you will face a lot of people just like you. People that will hand someone a sentence because of a feeling or some ingrained hatred?

This perspective is often raised within the walls of The Clinic. The sane response though, as always, is:

The Clinic is not a court of law. Nor does it have any power of decision over...anyone, really.

I understand that you are expressing concerns that if the same methods, tactics and reasoning used by members here were applied in a legal sense, with some sort of binding authority, it would problematic, to say the very, very least. Obviously.

But that is not what we are faced with. Nor is it what anyone here is suggesting—that opinions here should have some legal weight attached to them.

 

[gospina]

You are ignoring some posts from early on. I like the guy and have enjoyed rides with him, know a lot of his history, etc.
But he is not above suspicion separate of the "analytics" you decry. He's avoided UCI testing inspectors, been on full program teams and has a history of training away from racing.
All things being equal (all contenders using available enhancements), and I think the Vuelta was an equal-opportunity venue for the main racers; he can be that good. He has always had that talent level but had the ultimate free-agent opportunity and exploited it. You can't be naïve about the sudden results, though. Tour of Utah can't do that for anybody.

Horner has twice been the designated leader in a Grand Tour, both at the Vuelta. It wasn't a fluke, compared to Cobo or even Sastre. He did go in as the GC candidate. It isn't sudden results as you don't get designated as a leader unless you prove yourself before.

I had no idea about the points you made regarding the analytic points.
Avoiding UCI is tough to justify. I can't think of one good reason to do that. Even if I just peed. If I have to go somewhere, can't I just ask the UCI guys to tag along?

 

[Clausfarre]

Who has been found innocent?

And it's guilty until proven innocent in plenty of places including the peloton where loads of people have already found Horner guilty and to a lesser extent Santa and Sayer, the Anglophone media which had no problem accusing Moroccan runners and Chinese swimmers of doping with absolutely 0 evidence.

At least in the clinic plenty of posters look to actual variables like climbing times, performance transformations, whether they uphold omerta, whether their explanations for improvements are clear lies, etc to assess if someone is doping. Unlike elsewhere where they just look to flags and whether an athlete is financially viable to decide if they are doping.

Well said Hitch. It's not all accusations pulled out of the old exit hole. Suspicious performances are generally rather suspicious.

 

[gospina]

Well said Hitch. It's not all accusations pulled out of the old exit hole. Suspicious performances are generally rather suspicious.

In that case, the suspicion should have started in Tour of California. When he beat everyone, including his teammate Levi, he said (paraphrasing) "I'm the best climber in the world. Only Contador can match me. Just put me in a Grand Tour and I'll show you". That should have raised flags, no?

 

[Oldman]

Horner has twice been the designated leader in a Grand Tour, both at the Vuelta. It wasn't a fluke, compared to Cobo or even Sastre. He did go in as the GC candidate. It isn't sudden results as you don't get designated as a leader unless you prove yourself before.

I had no idea about the points you made regarding the analytic points.
Avoiding UCI is tough to justify. I can't think of one good reason to do that. Even if I just peed. If I have to go somewhere, can't I just ask the UCI guys to tag along?

He got designated by default, pretty much. Who else did they have?
As for the UCI vampires-those were random.....in Bend...before Utah.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

In that case, the suspicion should have started in Tour of California. When he beat everyone, including his teammate Levi, he said (paraphrasing) "I'm the best climber in the world. Only Contador can match me. Just put me in a Grand Tour and I'll show you". That should have raised flags, no?

Well the performance has already been ridiculed several times. Have you been under a rock?

 

[gospina]

Well the performance has already been ridiculed several times. Have you been under a rock?

Yes...I was being a bit condescending. He let his legs talk and now it wasn't so ridiculous. Same argument can be said about other riders that state they are going to do something major. Cav did it...Sagan and Nairo more recently. Nairo has said that he will win the TDF in a few years. Is that considered just as bad as Horner?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Yes...I was being a bit condescending. He let his legs talk and now it wasn't so ridiculous. Same argument can be said about other riders that state they are going to do something major. Cav did it...Sagan and Nairo more recently. Nairo has said that he will win the TDF in a few years. Is that considered just as bad as Horner?

Let me help.

Already early in '11 rumors were flying that Radioshack (the team) was struggling to secure sponsors for the following season(s). Therefore a big result was needed in Cali. UCI pulled the plug on dope tests at the event and Leipheimer and Horner delivered a 1-2. Everybody else looked like amateurs.

Most people with working braincells suspected the clowns of doping, but this was a small event and what the hell.

Then Horner annihilated the field in the Vuelta a few years later aged 42 and many had enough.

Horner is a career doper imo. Once a doper always a doper.

 

[Race Radio]

In that case, the suspicion should have started in Tour of California. When he beat everyone, including his teammate Levi, he said (paraphrasing) "I'm the best climber in the world. Only Contador can match me. Just put me in a Grand Tour and I'll show you". That should have raised flags, no?

Since then he has been the most tested US cyclist, a honor reserved for a select few