When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 128 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
RiccoDinko said:
Come one DirtyWorks, it's not as simple as best doctor. Natural factors, training, teamwork, diet, luck, tactics, mental strength, the course, they all play a factor.
Ok, it's not the best doctor. It's the best response to whatever potions PED experimenters are finding. The rest of that stuff is all well and good in a low-dope field, but that's not how it works. And you forgot to add the federation assisting some riders.

While I agree with MarkvW's criticism, its still not the same thing. Pot Belge would not, did not, create a Chris Horner.
 
Master50 said:
...

I am consistent. Innocent until proven guilty. It is the fist principle of officiating, inspecting, which are my avocation and vocation. If I acted as you do on this subject. Declaring a person guilty based entirely on faith I would have been suspended as an official and fired in my job.

...
That really illustrates why I find your general position on doping confusing...or maybe not confusing, I just don't know why you seek to hold people on a cycling forum to the standard you are held to in your work.

It seems completely normal to me that one would think and act as you do in your job. Of course if I had that job I'd treat people in that job the same way, because it would be my responsibility to enforce the rules of the game.

However posting on a forum and officiating a sport are two completely different things. If a cycling official were writing these posts I would find it appalling and I'm sure that person would be fired. No such burdens or responsibilities are put upon those who do not directly effect the outcome of a sport. People are simply posting opinion and discussing interesting and controversial topics. Fully your right to criticize us for it, but some people see it as completely normal and ethically acceptable to have such discussions.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Master50 said:
Your questions are inane.
What´s inane of asking you simple Qs, of how you explain that CH pushes his highest W/KG at age 40+, and how he bests proven old doper times?
You can´t explain it w/out him being doping, that´s why you come out shouting insults...
That always happens with people who don´t have arguments. Old rule, never dies.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
RiccoDinko said:
He's a late Bloomer:D What are your credentials to judge in this matter? What do you mean after Armstrong happened, didn't Indurain win five straight tours. Didn't he get help by Conconi? This did not start or end with LA, he may have perfected it though. This started 100yrs ago, the riders have always looked for the biggest edge they can find. We need to bust them, suspend them, give them life, give team workers, and doctors life. Draw a line, and take no prisoners, or this will never go away, the penalty needs to be greater than the gain.
May I got you wrong. :confused:
So your previous post was meant sarcastic?
Then sorry... didn´t know you think CH is a doper.... Good.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
red_flanders said:
That really illustrates why I find your general position on doping confusing...or maybe not confusing, I just don't know why you seek to hold people on a cycling forum to the standard you are held to in your work.

It seems completely normal to me that one would think and act as you do in your job. Of course if I had that job I'd treat people in that job the same way, because it would be my responsibility to enforce the rules of the game.

However posting on a forum and officiating a sport are two completely different things. If a cycling official were writing these posts I would find it appalling and I'm sure that person would be fired. No such burdens or responsibilities are put upon those who do not directly effect the outcome of a sport. People are simply posting opinion and discussing interesting and controversial topics. Fully your right to criticize us for it, but some people see it as completely normal and ethically acceptable to have such discussions.
I suppose these are fair comments but do you think I should just ignore things that I find offensive and against all I have worked for for the last 28 years because it is a "FORUM"? How you do anything is how you do everything. I do not believe people are morally separated from what they say here in the forum and how they treat people in life. If you really want to defend a persons right to call you a pedophile or rapist in a forum then great you probably think it is ok to do it at work to a co worker or at school or at home about your spouse. It is wrong all the time not just in real life. Foxxy said CH is a doper not that he thinks CH must be cheating but that he is a doper. it looks subtle to you but it screams disrespect to me.
The other more complicated part is the fact that I know a lot of these riders personally. IE well enough that they know my name and what I do at the race. yes the uniform I wear identifies me but I have worked a 1/2 dozen races CH was entered in and he won the first tour of Georgia I was chief official at. I don't have his home number and we are not friends but I know him as a person which makes it personal to read this tripe.
I also defended LA and not because I thought he is clean but for the same reasons of due process. My first encounter with him definitely put him on the A-hole list way back when he was 18 years old. I did not like him from the first words I heard him say. My defence was over due process and in the end he fell. For me that was just relief the truth was finally out. So I can say I might be intolerant of many Clinic threads but I am consistent.
Now as for the clines itself.
Way too many people only see cycling from this point of view. every subject they participate turns to doping, including things that probably are not really clinic subjects. You could be sure that if the thread was about LA bike company the thread would be in the clinic only because LA is now a confirmed doper.
Then there is the general lack of perspective. CH is performing better than he ever did? IS he better or has the playing field levelled enough that he is finally getting the opportunity to show that talent? I say it is a possibility and well you have read the rest.
I am optimistic that the peloton is really changing and from the car it looks different. riders look real. they get tired sooner after long or hard chases. the same guys can't get back to the front after they do their jobs because they need to recover. Riders are not attacking 10 km from the summit and winning. they are winning from 2 to 4 Km.
So much has changed and much cannot be easily seen from a tv screen so I think my optimism is well founded.
If you think my defence is over the top it is pretty easy to just read the next post in the thread but I see you read it anyway. You know where I will come from and what I will repeat so nothing new to read from me is there? Why do you read my posts? Of the several hundred posts and the dozens of posters I have not that many posts on this thread so ignoring me should be simple. I just hope I have made even 1 person look inside for their motivation to pile on.
Foxxy gets a pass when he calls CH a doper and not that he thinks the only explanation for his performance is drugs but I get a poke when I ask for the proof. Do you think that is fair? what is the difference if he calls you a XXXXXX? There are laws about this. Saying things are true when you can't provide evidence can ruin a life and I just think that we need to be accountable to provide proof or it is just an opinion which should be phrased that way.

There are some very good posts in the clinic too. the discussion of Xenon serves to bring attention to a new emerging method and I love that cycling teams are actually turning to WADA and asking for rules against it. The pathology of guys like Ricco is a great subject to explore the dopers mentality and motivation. It also is a good example of moral disconnect.
Do you really think I should just roll with it? There are lots of clinic threads I have never read too so they should be pretty safe from my posts.
Now if Foxxy could only provide the proof of CHs doping I could leave it alone. I see he is certain but does not seem to be able to tell us how his blood profile and Passport data explain his unreal performances against performances of riders who have since been proven dopers. These were the guys that CH was not keeping up to in the 90s. What drug is he taking? what is getting him up the climbs beyond his natural ability? If he has suddenly discovered the secret drug how did it raise his level above his talent? If it is EPO wouldn't he have higher HCT? If his HCT is the same what magic now makes him fly at 42? I want some because from my perspective all riders must be cheating especially the girls. I mean I have been riding for 30 years and can't do a sub 1 hour 40 k TT. My HCT is around 43 to 45, My Testosterone levels are higher than some especially the girls and I have reasonable muscle mass yet I am slow and always have been. why didn't I make pro? Maybe because even if I got a pass on the drugs it wouldn't be enough. I need better parents.
If anyone can prove Ch is doping i think it would serve us very well but in the absence of proof his performances are legit under all the applicable rules. Not saying that everyone must believe it but they cannot say he is a doper. only that they do not believe he is clean. That allows for non belief but still accepts that in the absence of proof this is the worst they can say.
Last point is why can a person make slanderous posts about a person and get a pass just because it is a forum? The clinic has a lot of threads that might violate libel and slander laws but if it is in a cycling forum mostly restricted to hardcore cycling fans that it is some kind of protected speech? A person can make a public statement that a person is a cheater or worse without proof and it is OK. Try writing to the editor of your local paper and say the mayor in your town is a pedophile, Maybe that is not a good example but how about a liar? We all know that if their lips are moving that a politician must be lying. At some point you have to provide proof.
 
Master50 said:
I am consistent. Innocent until proven guilty. It is the fist principle of officiating, inspecting, which are my avocation and vocation. If I acted as you do on this subject. Declaring a person guilty based entirely on faith I would have been suspended as an official and fired in my job.
Presumption of innocence is a stated bias towards the accused, let's not pretend it is some kind of gold standard. It is the stated foundation of the US criminal legal system, but there are plenty of nice, civilized systems that do not subscribe to this bias.

For example, I was under the impression that sports officials (should) strive to establish an objective version of events.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
I count you up...
After the 10th shot or beer, it´s counting down to who is lights out first.
I prefer we meet at the Giro while watching CH riding away from the bunch a la Indurain...

:D
 
Master50 said:
I suppose these are fair comments but do you think I should just ignore things that I find offensive and against all I have worked for for the last 28 years because it is a "FORUM"?
Nope, I think you should speak your mind. I'm simply engaging in the discussion with you and I find your POV interesting even if I don't agree.

How you do anything is how you do everything. I do not believe people are morally separated from what they say here in the forum and how they treat people in life.
I disagree strongly, I think different situations have different ethical ramifications. For example, I think Chris Froome is doping. I don't think Chris Froome should be sanctioned because he hasn't been caught doping. I would certainly tell Chris Froome (if he asked, total hypothetical) that I think he's doping if we discussed it in real life. I think behavior for a forum poster is under a different ethical standard than a race official. Seems obvious to me.

If you really want to defend a persons right to call you a pedophile or rapist in a forum then great you probably think it is ok to do it at work to a co worker or at school or at home about your spouse.
Specifics matter. I am saying I think a cyclist dopes. I am not calling him names and this is not a matter of criminal behavior (probably). I am not calling him a rapist or a pedophile. The burden of ethical behavior is different for more serious issues or crimes than for cheating (or not) in a bike race.

It is wrong all the time not just in real life. Foxxy said CH is a doper not that he thinks CH must be cheating but that he is a doper. it looks subtle to you but it screams disrespect to me.
I think he's a doper too. I don't regard it as exactly news or some kind of earth-shattering offense. He's another in a long list of elite athletes who probably dope. I certainly think he does. Not a shocker.

The other more complicated part is the fact that I know a lot of these riders personally. IE well enough that they know my name and what I do at the race. yes the uniform I wear identifies me but I have worked a 1/2 dozen races CH was entered in and he won the first tour of Georgia I was chief official at. I don't have his home number and we are not friends but I know him as a person which makes it personal to read this tripe.
To me that means you are being influenced by things other than facts. Access and closeness tend to warp objective thought, it happens to all of us. I think my wife is a saint. Probably not the objective truth, but my closeness to her affects my view.

I also defended LA and not because I thought he is clean but for the same reasons of due process. My first encounter with him definitely put him on the A-hole list way back when he was 18 years old. I did not like him from the first words I heard him say. My defence was over due process and in the end he fell. For me that was just relief the truth was finally out. So I can say I might be intolerant of many Clinic threads but I am consistent.
Now as for the clines itself.
Way too many people only see cycling from this point of view. every subject they participate turns to doping, including things that probably are not really clinic subjects. You could be sure that if the thread was about LA bike company the thread would be in the clinic only because LA is now a confirmed doper.
Then there is the general lack of perspective. CH is performing better than he ever did? IS he better or has the playing field levelled enough that he is finally getting the opportunity to show that talent? I say it is a possibility and well you have read the rest.
I am optimistic that the peloton is really changing and from the car it looks different. riders look real. they get tired sooner after long or hard chases. the same guys can't get back to the front after they do their jobs because they need to recover. Riders are not attacking 10 km from the summit and winning. they are winning from 2 to 4 Km.
So much has changed and much cannot be easily seen from a tv screen so I think my optimism is well founded.
I think there is some reason for optimism, but much reason for continued skepticism, particularly in the case of some riders with over-the-top performances.

If you think my defence is over the top
I don't, I just disagree with it. For the rest, I think I've already addressed it. I don't read that many of your posts, but it recently struck me that you have a consistent POV that I have commented on. It's a forum and that's okay in my book. I was curious where you were coming from and you've explained. We don't see eye-to-eye and that's OK.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I count you up...
After the 10th shot or beer, it´s counting down to who is lights out first.
I prefer we meet at the Giro while watching CH riding away from the bunch a la Indurain...

:D
awesome, or should that be hawesome
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
IzzyStradlin said:
Presumption of innocence is a stated bias towards the accused, let's not pretend it is some kind of gold standard. It is the stated foundation of the US criminal legal system, but there are plenty of nice, civilized systems that do not subscribe to this bias.

For example, I was under the impression that sports officials (should) strive to establish an objective version of events.
Thank you. I have long fought the ridiculous notion that as an individual, the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" is applicable to personal views. As you correctly point out, it is a standard meant to protect the integrity of a system that can take away life and liberty. That standard has nothing to do with interpersonal relationships or opinion of the guilt of another by an individual. If you're fool enough to treat everyone under that standard in your personal life, you will be taken advantage of like an Olsen twin in Lance Armstrong's hotel room.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
you will be taken advantage of like an Olsen twin in Lance Armstrong's hotel room.
well i heard that anecdote that may well be apocryphal, that the Olsen Twins, Mary-Kate and Ashley played that trick on a paramor that only twins can play.

They dont even need roofies or the lights dimmed.

Lance had found out, but he refused to go the police to complain he was defiled by an Olsen twin for the fear it would make him the but t of all April Macie jokes http://www.examiner.com/article/april-macie-lance-armstrong-asked-me-to-perform-analingus-on-him
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
blackcat said:
well i heard that anecdote that may well be apocryphal, that the Olsen Twins, Mary-Kate and Ashley played that trick on a paramor that only twins can play.

They dont even need roofies or the lights dimmed.

Lance had found out, but he refused to go the police to complain he was defiled by an Olsen twin for the fear it would make his the **** of all April Macie jokes http://www.examiner.com/article/april-macie-lance-armstrong-asked-me-to-perform-analingus-on-him
Okay, so "like an Armstrong testicle in an Olsen twin hotel room" then.
 
Master50 said:
I am consistent. Innocent until proven guilty. It is the fist principle of officiating, inspecting, which are my avocation and vocation. If I acted as you do on this subject. Declaring a person guilty based entirely on faith I would have been suspended as an official and fired in my job.
So why do you think I owe you any response other than what I have already consistently stuck to?
Maybe if you spent some time looking at justice systems in countries where there is over 90% impunity and anyone involved in any type of crime simply pays off the judge, and the richest criminals, who plant bombs and kill human rights protesters and enslave peasants or whatever kill judges if they don't accept the bribe and gain government favour by funding presidential campaigns, maybe you wouldn't hold so strongly to this ridiculous notion that justice systems are all always 100% right.
 
Master50 said:
I also defended LA and not because I thought he is clean but for the same reasons of due process. My defence was over due process and in the end he fell.
If there was a reliable due process in Wonderboy's case and in Horner's case, there would be quite a bit less to talk about. But, there isn't. To be clear, I am not incriminating race-day officials. There are plenty of well meaning people involved in cycling sports administration. The problems are very high up the national and international cycling federation.

For example, USAC and the UCI tried their level best to stop the USADA sanction. That's not a transparent, reliable due process.


Master50 said:
If anyone can prove Ch is doping i think it would serve us very well
And they have. A WADA analyst called his profile suspicious and wondered in the press why he has never seen such a suspicious profile. Here's where I remind you the sanction process is neither transparent nor reliable. The federation is the bad actor.

Master50 said:
At some point you have to provide proof.
If it looks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, has feet like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's not a duck until the Official Worldwide Duck Identifying Agency that is rife with corruption says it's a duck. I'm not waiting for something that probably won't happen.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Thank you. I have long fought the ridiculous notion that as an individual, the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" is applicable to personal views. As you correctly point out, it is a standard meant to protect the integrity of a system that can take away life and liberty. That standard has nothing to do with interpersonal relationships or opinion of the guilt of another by an individual.
Well said, more succinctly than I did for sure!
 
DirtyWorks said:
...If it looks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, has feet like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's not a duck until the Official Worldwide Duck Identifying Agency that is rife with corruption says it's a duck....
Any time a mule is transformed into a thoroughbred, it is suspicious. But when it is a 41-year old mule that is transformed into a thoroughbred, it is blatant.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
The Hitch said:
Maybe if you spent some time looking at justice systems in countries where there is over 90% impunity and anyone involved in any type of crime simply pays off the judge, and the richest criminals, who plant bombs and kill human rights protesters and enslave peasants or whatever kill judges if they don't accept the bribe and gain government favour by funding presidential campaigns, maybe you wouldn't hold so strongly to this ridiculous notion that justice systems are all always 100% right.
Is that the justice system you want here? It seems you are defending trial by inference and innuendo. If that is the example of a justice system you want to model I see your point but if it is a system you are offended by then what is your point? I would not support this system. I hope I have at least made that clear.
I have defended the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the due process afforded under WADA code and UCI rules. This is similar to the justice systems of Canada, my home and the USA I assume is your home. Rules that protect these rights. I get a feeling that if it was your freedom at stake you are pretty glad to live in a country where this is true.
Maybe they can torture confessions out of riders in your country?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Master50 said:
Is that the justice system you want here? It seems you are defending trial by inference and innuendo. If that is the example of a justice system you want to model I see your point but if it is a system you are offended by then what is your point? I would not support this system. I hope I have at least made that clear.
I have defended the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the due process afforded under WADA code and UCI rules. This is similar to the justice systems of Canada, my home and the USA I assume is your home. Rules that protect these rights. I get a feeling that if it was your freedom at stake you are pretty glad to live in a country where this is true.
Maybe they can torture confessions out of riders in your country?
Where was your system to catch Ryder Hesjedal? The system to catch people cheating in sport was made broken from day 1. It catches the stupid or the unlucky.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
If there was a reliable due process in Wonderboy's case and in Horner's case, there would be quite a bit less to talk about. But, there isn't. To be clear, I am not incriminating race-day officials. There are plenty of well meaning people involved in cycling sports administration. The problems are very high up the national and international cycling federation.

For example, USAC and the UCI tried their level best to stop the USADA sanction. That's not a transparent, reliable due process.




And they have. A WADA analyst called his profile suspicious and wondered in the press why he has never seen such a suspicious profile. Here's where I remind you the sanction process is neither transparent nor reliable. The federation is the bad actor.



If it looks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, has feet like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's not a duck until the Official Worldwide Duck Identifying Agency that is rife with corruption says it's a duck. I'm not waiting for something that probably won't happen.
I understand your reasons for your beliefs. I am aware of all of these things and have opinions on those items too. The Wada analyst op ed too. I understand your cynicism and cannot argue it.
I am sure that there are more people watching his every move than ever and if there is proof I certainly hope it can be shown but until that happens He is innocent.
I also know that this principle has been ignored by many people that are also entrusted to protect those rights. Lots of people have died and later proven not guilty but no one doubted they were hanging the right person at the time.
I know guilty people are set free on technicalities and for reasons of corruption or intimidation.
Maybe it is actually a swan?
 
Master50 said:
I am sure that there are more people watching his every move than ever and if there is proof I certainly hope it can be shown but until that happens He is innocent.
That is a totally reasonable reply. Thank you. We can agree to disagree.

Unfortunately, I'm not as optimistic as you are about people watching his every move. There is no money to be made in Pro Cycling doing that.

My only other comment is anti-doping and sporting rules in general isn't a justice system per se. The sporting federations do not have any powers granted to judicial systems. They enforce their rules, but cannot go about it by issuing subpoenas and so on.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY