When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 129 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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?
<rhetorical>Are we talking about justice systems or what is being said on a cycling forum?</rhetorical>
 
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?
My point is that in some cases justice systems can in some cases be subverted so its stupid to declare that anyone who is found not guilty by any justice system must be innocent.

There comes a point when one aknowledges its easy for criminals to beat a system.

I would say that when 99% of all drugs tests taken by people who we now know doped, have come back clean, that point has been reached.

I would say that if the biggest criminal in the sport managed to with ridiculous ease able to bribe off the entire system for over a decade, a sane person aknowledges that not being found guilty is NOT the ultimate argument in the "did they didn't they"discussion.

You believe that a guilty person can make themselves innocent by bribing or threatening others. I find that position as despicable as you seem to find mine.
You seem to have very little understanding of history and some of the people who you would have defended as just and innocent because they managed to get around human (therefore error prone) justice systems, with the same arguments you do here, would hopefully, make you sick.

Wake up.

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.
Freedom?
at stake?
What the **** are you talking about? :confused:

Maybe they can torture confessions out of riders in your country?
Your logic is messed up. According to you I convict people without confessions. Why then would I need to torture people for confessions I didn't need their confessions to begin with:rolleyes:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Master50 said:
Appreciate your POV. But of course I disagree.
I think the RR section of this forum is a better place for you. In the clinic you are pretty much fighting the fight of Don Quijote. I mean 99% of people here think CH is a hardcore doper...
And further, not only me but most posters call him outright a doper. I mean his doping case is the most obvious since LA, given all the rumours and facts that are discussed at length and repeatedly.
So, we should finish it off in peace... At the end I finally would like to know how you explain (1) his times that beat old doper times, (2) how you explain his highest W/KG of his career at an age where most pros (even the doped top contenders) had to retire simply b/c they declined, (3) how you explain his non results even against proven non dopers (Casar, Moncoutie) in his 1st europe stint at the peak-performance-age.
Thanks in advance.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
the sceptic said:
Horner is a doper, we dont need a jury to figure that one out.
i really don't understand the rules of this forum

are you allowed to make wild claims without any backup?

not to speak about the "we", getting out the impression of group when you are alone making stupid things. just adding to the offense , giving the impression of certainty for something that is a far from that.

i can start any thread on any rider with "x is a doper, we dont need a jury to figure that one out." ?
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Master50 said:
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.
And we all know that there were no dopers at the ToG:rolleyes: You may have been the head official, I raced. Horner is a doper, and worse than being a doper is talking a bunch of cat 1's from CA to dope along side you to help you get back to Europe when no other domestic teams wanted to touch the fool. And yes, I was there when the Webcor guys were drilling it at Philly, trying to bring it back together before the wall on the last lap. A bunch of cat 1's mixing it up with the squeaky clean USPS, CSC, Saunier Duval and Aqua Sapone guys. :confused:
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
2
0
EnacheV said:
i really don't understand the rules of this forum

are you allowed to make wild claims without any backup?

not to speak about the "we", getting out the impression of group when you are alone making stupid things. just adding to the offense , giving the impression of certainty for something that is a far from that.

i can start any thread on any rider with "x is a doper, we dont need a jury to figure that one out." ?
Its not a wild claim, and it has been backed up by myself and others countless of times ITT.

the point is, "innocent until proven guity" is something the legal system uses to avoid throwing innocent people in jail without due process. It has nothing to do with posters on a forum making up their minds whether someone is doping or not.

feel free to start a new thread, Im sure it will be entertaining.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
EnacheV said:
i really don't understand the rules of this forum

are you allowed to make wild claims without any backup?
Yes


EnacheV said:
i can start any thread on any rider with "x is a doper, we dont need a jury to figure that one out." ?
Yes


the sceptic said:
Horner is a doper, we dont need a jury to figure that one out.
But if we do, I could fill those 12 seats with the snap of a finger. :)
 
Jan 20, 2013
238
0
0
EnacheV said:
i really don't understand the rules of this forum

are you allowed to make wild claims without any backup?
Well, calling Horner a doper is about the least wild claim one could make. Is there a box he doesn't tick?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
2
0
thehog said:
True but an effective anti-doping system might help.
It wouldnt hurt. But as I see it now there isnt much hope for that.

Cookson and his big plans of independent testing seems to have been nothing but talk (surprise surprise). As long as he is UCI president, I dont believe there will be any crackdown on whatever is going on at sky.

Then we are left with either hoping the rest of the peloton cleans up, and sky dominate all year long, or hope that people like Horner juice up to the eyeballs so they can get challenged.

Its a frustrating situation.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
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"?
Allow me. May I have this dance?

To your question, I would offer a resounding, YES! I do think you should ignore some of these things precisely because it is a forum. Especially if you can't see the perspective offered by red_flander's incredibly sane response. If you can't, then perhaps forums that address these issues are not for you. I'm not being condescending—I'm totally serious. It's an internet forum. That's all it is.

Are the people who are in a position to make career and/or life-altering decisions about these things seeking advice and information from The Clinic? Or is what goes on here nothing but background noise from a dozen lunatics that are, apparently, looked down upon by other, greater social media outlets and people out there, somewhere, in the real world? Because it can't be both. (The correct answer may even be "other.")

Master50 said:
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.
OK, again, it is not my intention to be condescending, but if you have spent more than the sum total of five minutes on the internet, then it is beyond my imagination as to how you could possibly adopt such a black-and-white stance.


Master50 said:
The other more complicated part is the fact that I know a lot of these riders personally.
As red_flanders pointed out, this should not be viewed as some sort of strengthening of your position. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Master50 said:
Saying things are true when you can't provide evidence can ruin a life
Since you seem to be committed to the letter of the law, and demand links for other people's claims, is there something you could provide us with that might substantiate your claim above, as it applies to this forum?



Master50 said:
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?
You're right. It's not a good example. In fact, it's a horrible example and not at all attached to reality. You're behaving as someone who has only just discovered the internet. Social norms have changed greatly in the past ten to fifteen years due to digital technology. It used to be illegal (or at least considered to be) to do many, many things involving public exposure of others. Making audio or video recordings of many different types of live events was strictly forbidden in many circumstance. Now it's simply a given that it will occur, and most people don't even bat an eye.

How would anyone have responded twenty years ago if someone had gone to your home, taken a picture of your house, attached an overhead satellite view, provided an address, phone numbers and other personal info, and then made that same information available, around the world, to millions of people, without your permission?

Law suits, scandal, outrage...these would've been the norm. But now?
My point is, the world has changed. I can call Chris Horner a doper. See? I did it just there. Thousands of people could easily read my remark.

Will Chris Horner even repsond?
Hi, Chris! You're a doper, aren't you?

But forget about me for a minute, and forget about you (if I may), and answer me this:
If Chris Horner, at the age of nearly 102<humor> , wins a GT, and he does so while riding clean, wouldn't you then (being intimately involved with pro cycling, and all) expect to see an outpouring of support and encouragement from, oh, let's say...

Jonathan Vaughters
Christian Vande Velde
David Zabriskie
Levi Leipheimer
George Hincapie
Tyler Hamilton
Floyd Landis (sorry, I couldn't resist)

To name just a few?
I mean, for the most part, aren't those the very guys who found Jesus and stopped doping all around the same time? Tried to do their best to influence the next generation of riders to ride clear? Tried to show the world that you can ride clean and still be competitive, and sometimes even win, in this new and glorious age of cleaner cycling?

Wouldn't Chris Horner's magnificent performance at the Vuelta have been proof-positive (no pun intended, but I'm willing to roll with it) of just what a clean rider can accomplish on bread and water, on blood, sweat and tears, now that the playing field is finally level?

He's one them! American, old, "experienced." Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip...

Wait a second. What was their response?

As much as you may feel informed about pro cycling based on your own personal experience, I'd be willing to bet large sums of money that you know very little about doping and pro cycling, and pro cycling and doping, when compared to the names above.

But let's forget about all that for the moment, if you prefer.
Maybe there are other reasons for them not joining hands and trumpeting Horner's success, even though, it if were legitimate, it would prove all their supposed hard years of work for redemption of the sport they love so much had finally paid off. Forget about that.

Why, with everyone under the sun casting suspicion towards Chris Horner, are the above named gentlemen not jumping up and down with indignation and defending him?

Unless they know something we don't. Or at least some of us don't.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
No, I would not expect those bitter, jealous haters to congratulate someone like CH winning a Vuelta clean, when they couldn't get on the bike to train without a needle.
 
Aug 1, 2011
234
2
0
the sceptic said:
It wouldnt hurt. But as I see it now there isnt much hope for that.

Cookson and his big plans of independent testing seems to have been nothing but talk (surprise surprise). As long as he is UCI president, I dont believe there will be any crackdown on whatever is going on at sky.

Then we are left with either hoping the rest of the peloton cleans up, and sky dominate all year long, or hope that people like Horner juice up to the eyeballs so they can get challenged.

Its a frustrating situation.

Cookson is a Dope, spending all this money to investigate the past, when it could be spent on more controls, especially out of competition.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
Granville
thanks you make some valid observations and I agree that my personal experience can influence my perspective. IE you say I am possibly too close. Valid. In fact I chose to crusade in this thread because of personal observations of this rider. I did not say too much in the other "Chris threads"

This is my perspective on CH. I first saw him racing in the USA where he was clearly a TOP rider. He stood out for another reason at first I though was very out of place. How you ask? he was enthusiastic not like any rider I had seen at this level. He smiled all the time and not just a facial expression but his whole body. This guy trained longer and harder because he love to do it and not because it is a job.
Now he goes to Europe and fails. Might it be because he would not Boost over there? certainly at the time we only had a sense of why the racing in europe was so much faster and it just cannot be explained by short American races versus long euro races.
Back in America he is winning again. Could it be the lack of American food and culture? Yes riders get homesick.
Changes in Euro racing are slow but bit by bit the enhancements were eroding. Rider calendars started to focus on training and fitness cycles and fewer days of racing also reduce some of the riders stress which was the old reasons for doping.
Blood passport was a tool to at least lower the throttle and at the same time the public was demanding more from the police too. Finally the police got involved and the authority that the justice system brings got LA out and much of that we are only learning now.
Now in terms of a part of a cycling forum to argue reasonable doubt is here in the Clinic where the most cynical posters lurk and I do understand how they got to be so sure of their perspectives.
So personally I have been developing some optimism that we have turned the corner especially since 2010. We can't all be cynics.
I do have a pretty black and white view mostly because every time I allow for the grey I ultimately suffered the consequence. A very simple illustration is with body numbers. If you ever start officiating it is one of the most difficult rules to get compliance and it is usually the lowest level races where it most matters. WE judge results on body numbers and most of the things riders do reduce our ability to identify them correctly. they fold them, which reduces the field and contrast. they place them in different places on their bodies. A rider with a badly placed number requires the judge to pay more attention than the time they have so they miss the next rider or several. IE if the guy in front of you puts his numbers on badly it can affect your results in a manual results system.
My point is cut them slack at the start and argue with them at the finish when they want recognition of their 14th place.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result! OK I may be crazy but if 1 person has read my posts and though they should wait for proof positive then great. I guess I don't really expect to turn Foxxy or DW's minds or your either.
I have been burned too. Ryder admitted doping from his past MTB years. Now that he is outed I certainly cannot defend him as an innocent. Clearly he did cross the line and of course that translates to he must still doping for the regulars here.

To be clear I do recognize the reason they are cynical. it is valid. I am an optimist that believes I have seen a real change and continue to do so.

I don't believe Sky are involved in any organized cheating but I am much less certain that all their riders are clean. I won't say they are doping however until the positive test is in.

There is one other point and that is about the UCI, WADA, USADA, CCES, etc.

At the UCI, I have met many officials and both HV and PM as well as many anti doping officials. at the ground I would be very surprised to see any co-operation with cheaters. Except for a few tourists most sport officials are honest and some of the most passionate ambassadors for the sport. At the top? they are politicians and that is mostly a dirty word. I liked Pat, did not like Hein. I like Sylvia Shenk and dispise 1 UCI BMX vice president. I have not met Brian. Many top UCI functionaries come from the pro ranks as ex riders. So I think their is a lot of potential poison at the top.

My problem is when I read that the uci or other sports body is corrupt it hits me in the guts. You have no idea what we go through to get to wear that uniform. That anyone would become a commissaire or anti doping inspector and not do it for the love of the sport is much too alien for me to hear and it hurts to read it! I try to separate the bosses from the workers but not always easy to do. The idea however that the guys at the top could hide a positive seems ludicrous. Secrets are very hard to keep. Big secrets are harder. Proof that any team is involved with organized doping would be a very hard secret to keep in tho atmosphere of change. OOPs we don't believe that is happening either?

I have made my points and probably have done little to change any minds. I get that this is entertainment for some.
I don't get the defence of bad manners and tolerance for it just because it is the NEW order. The deterioration of morality is not comforting. Or maybe your defines of it is even less comforting. If it is too much trouble to do the right thing over minor things like anonymous posts in a forum do you also think they are as committed to being honest when they have a collision after a drink? I am seeing a lot of hit and runs locally? is it related? How you do anything is a good indication of how you act when it really matters.

To several posters asking questions about their so called evidence. IE the points that they use to support CH's apparent guilt. Sorry the burden of proof is upon the accusers. CH is no more capable of proving a negative than I am. This thread is not new and so far Ch is racing. I guess the UCI and WADA don't know about the experts here?

When a rider is sanctioned I get an email reminding me of their suspension. I am sure that there is someone in the anti doping world thinks that proof would boost his career so maybe if you all are right you will get your guilty as charged and of course will have total justification to be smug. Until I get that email I am not convinced doping is the only solution to this equation. I am not so naive that this makes me right. I understand that not doping might only mean not caught. I can mean Not Doping too.

This thread has spent a lot of space arguing with me and it isn't about me. That said there has not been much new arguments since the first 200 or 300 posts.

As long as there are Babes on Bikes I will return.

Did you know that some of these girls are artificially enhanced? Is that a competitive advantage or chest doping? maybe we could move it to the clinic :D
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
RiccoDinko said:
Cookson is a Dope, spending all this money to investigate the past, when it could be spent on more controls, especially out of competition.
this. i find it sad that even this forum is half about armstrong , in 2014. i don't give a **** about armstrong.

im starting to feel very sad and let down reading stuff like "i have my first blood test of the year in middle of March"
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
RiccoDinko said:
Cookson is a Dope, spending all this money to investigate the past, when it could be spent on more controls, especially out of competition.
I didn't think it would take long to read derogatory Brian Cookson threads.
RiccoDinko for UCI president
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
RiccoDinko said:
Cookson is a Dope, spending all this money to investigate the past, when it could be spent on more controls, especially out of competition.
The whole point of investigating the past is to do nothing about the present.

JV has been spinning this since 2005. We had it after Festina, after Puerto.......without serious money and effort being put into independent anti doping, and i believe the teams should pay for it, the sport is still the same dirty cesspit it has always been.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Master50 said:
Granville
thanks you make some valid observations and I agree that my personal experience can influence my perspective. IE you say I am possibly too close. Valid. In fact I chose to crusade in this thread because of personal observations of this rider. I did not say too much in the other "Chris threads"

This is my perspective on CH. I first saw him racing in the USA where he was clearly a TOP rider. He stood out for another reason at first I though was very out of place. How you ask? he was enthusiastic not like any rider I had seen at this level. He smiled all the time and not just a facial expression but his whole body. This guy trained longer and harder because he love to do it and not because it is a job.
Now he goes to Europe and fails. Might it be because he would not Boost over there? certainly at the time we only had a sense of why the racing in europe was so much faster and it just cannot be explained by short American races versus long euro races.
Back in America he is winning again. Could it be the lack of American food and culture? Yes riders get homesick.
Changes in Euro racing are slow but bit by bit the enhancements were eroding. Rider calendars started to focus on training and fitness cycles and fewer days of racing also reduce some of the riders stress which was the old reasons for doping.
Blood passport was a tool to at least lower the throttle and at the same time the public was demanding more from the police too. Finally the police got involved and the authority that the justice system brings got LA out and much of that we are only learning now.
Now in terms of a part of a cycling forum to argue reasonable doubt is here in the Clinic where the most cynical posters lurk and I do understand how they got to be so sure of their perspectives.
So personally I have been developing some optimism that we have turned the corner especially since 2010. We can't all be cynics.
I do have a pretty black and white view mostly because every time I allow for the grey I ultimately suffered the consequence. A very simple illustration is with body numbers. If you ever start officiating it is one of the most difficult rules to get compliance and it is usually the lowest level races where it most matters. WE judge results on body numbers and most of the things riders do reduce our ability to identify them correctly. they fold them, which reduces the field and contrast. they place them in different places on their bodies. A rider with a badly placed number requires the judge to pay more attention than the time they have so they miss the next rider or several. IE if the guy in front of you puts his numbers on badly it can affect your results in a manual results system.
My point is cut them slack at the start and argue with them at the finish when they want recognition of their 14th place.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result! OK I may be crazy but if 1 person has read my posts and though they should wait for proof positive then great. I guess I don't really expect to turn Foxxy or DW's minds or your either.
I have been burned too. Ryder admitted doping from his past MTB years. Now that he is outed I certainly cannot defend him as an innocent. Clearly he did cross the line and of course that translates to he must still doping for the regulars here.

To be clear I do recognize the reason they are cynical. it is valid. I am an optimist that believes I have seen a real change and continue to do so.

I don't believe Sky are involved in any organized cheating but I am much less certain that all their riders are clean. I won't say they are doping however until the positive test is in.

There is one other point and that is about the UCI, WADA, USADA, CCES, etc.

At the UCI, I have met many officials and both HV and PM as well as many anti doping officials. at the ground I would be very surprised to see any co-operation with cheaters. Except for a few tourists most sport officials are honest and some of the most passionate ambassadors for the sport. At the top? they are politicians and that is mostly a dirty word. I liked Pat, did not like Hein. I like Sylvia Shenk and dispise 1 UCI BMX vice president. I have not met Brian. Many top UCI functionaries come from the pro ranks as ex riders. So I think their is a lot of potential poison at the top.

My problem is when I read that the uci or other sports body is corrupt it hits me in the guts. You have no idea what we go through to get to wear that uniform. That anyone would become a commissaire or anti doping inspector and not do it for the love of the sport is much too alien for me to hear and it hurts to read it! I try to separate the bosses from the workers but not always easy to do. The idea however that the guys at the top could hide a positive seems ludicrous. Secrets are very hard to keep. Big secrets are harder. Proof that any team is involved with organized doping would be a very hard secret to keep in tho atmosphere of change. OOPs we don't believe that is happening either?

I have made my points and probably have done little to change any minds. I get that this is entertainment for some.
I don't get the defence of bad manners and tolerance for it just because it is the NEW order. The deterioration of morality is not comforting. Or maybe your defines of it is even less comforting. If it is too much trouble to do the right thing over minor things like anonymous posts in a forum do you also think they are as committed to being honest when they have a collision after a drink? I am seeing a lot of hit and runs locally? is it related? How you do anything is a good indication of how you act when it really matters.

To several posters asking questions about their so called evidence. IE the points that they use to support CH's apparent guilt. Sorry the burden of proof is upon the accusers. CH is no more capable of proving a negative than I am. This thread is not new and so far Ch is racing. I guess the UCI and WADA don't know about the experts here?

When a rider is sanctioned I get an email reminding me of their suspension. I am sure that there is someone in the anti doping world thinks that proof would boost his career so maybe if you all are right you will get your guilty as charged and of course will have total justification to be smug. Until I get that email I am not convinced doping is the only solution to this equation. I am not so naive that this makes me right. I understand that not doping might only mean not caught. I can mean Not Doping too.

This thread has spent a lot of space arguing with me and it isn't about me. That said there has not been much new arguments since the first 200 or 300 posts.

As long as there are Babes on Bikes I will return.

Did you know that some of these girls are artificially enhanced? Is that a competitive advantage or chest doping? maybe we could move it to the clinic :D
Yeah I'm with you. Of course a forty something can win a grand tour. No problem, blood sweat and gears. Its taken years and years and years and throw in a few to get there but now the peleton is clean at forty Chris wins.Imagine if all those dopers had not doped how well Chris would have done years ago...at least 8 tours. I can't believe all the sceptics here not believing in miracles. Shame the clean 20 somethings don't train as hard as chris cause in a normal world they would win. But chris isn't normal he is just the miracle us forty somethings need.

And leave Usain Bolt and the kenyans alone too.
 
Benotti69 said:
The whole point of investigating the past is to do nothing about the present.

JV has been spinning this since 2005. We had it after Festina, after Puerto.......without serious money and effort being put into independent anti doping,
Not just JV, everyone making a buck off of competitive cycling works this into their pitch.

Again, if the anti-doping agencies could open cases on their own, I think we'd see some of the doping diminish. Not much more money is needed.

For the new reader, chasing current doping is almost fruitless. Testing older samples is the most likely method to catch numerous dopers.
 
Master50 said:
He was enthusiastic not like any rider I had seen at this level. He smiled all the time and not just a facial expression but his whole body. This guy trained longer and harder because he love to do it and not because it is a job.
This is why I like Horner. He genuinely appears to be having fun, and his positivity is infectious. Just an enjoyable rider.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Master50 said:
... very looong post ...
noddy69 said:
Yeah I'm with you. Of course a forty something can win a grand tour. No problem, blood sweat and gears. Its taken years and years and years and throw in a few to get there but now the peleton is clean at forty Chris wins.Imagine if all those dopers had not doped how well Chris would have done years ago...at least 8 tours. I can't believe all the sceptics here not believing in miracles. Shame the clean 20 somethings don't train as hard as chris cause in a normal world they would win. But chris isn't normal he is just the miracle us forty somethings need.

And leave Usain Bolt and the kenyans alone too.
Nice answer... But I think you wouldn´t change a bit of Master50s mind. Horner is too nice to dope. Master has firsthand witness. :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY