When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 130 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
Granville57 said:
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.")

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. end quote ]


There is something I feel I am missing here and your response has me pondering it all day.

I have always assumed the forum is full of passionate people that believe doping it ethically and morally wrong. I have never read much support for open racing. All along I thought I was amongst like minded people and was only arguing about Due process and my special form of optimism. My arguments have always been based on the how and proof. I am not a man of faith. I am a man of witness but my idea that this part of the forum is largely populated by persons of strong ethical foundation. Are you suggesting it is actually motivated by ??? what are you suggesting. If it isn't because we care and that we think doping is a problem then why are we here? I disagree with your apology of modern communications. It is so much easier to irreparably and permanently destroy a person with forums and social media that the highest standards of ethical behaviour is critical.
Cyber bulling is credited with several suicides here in BC. Is that your defence of forum behaviour? I don't think so and I don't think my Grandmothers teachings were of no value in this Internet age.
I have always assumed that while I don't arrive at the same conclusion in this discussion that we are all here for the same purpose.
I will state mine. to make cycling a better sport and that all results are achieved fairly and according to all of the rules. I think that doping is cheating and as I have also made clear I believe that for a penalty to be fair it must be applied with due process.

I think you likely agree unless Nothing above applies. It just bothers me that you think I should be more grey and not so black and white. Sorry I thought we all agreed that at least in the clinic doping was black and clean is white?
Of course CH is black in this thread. I have him as grey. seems ironic :rolleyes:
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
red_flanders said:
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.
I have stated very much the same about Horner in the past. I'm sure I could dig up my old posts. I remember specifically saying as much after one of his ToC post-stage interviews.

He was brimming with excitement and enthusiasm, and his recap of the stage (which he had just won, if I recall) was both highly entertaining and informative. He knows cycling. He loves cycling. What I enjoyed the most about his attitude was just how different and refreshing it was when compared with the mind-numbingly dull responses that we could expect from Levi, George, etc. It was great to see, no doubt about it. I met him, myself, (briefly) at the U.S. Cyclocross Nationals in Providence, RI in 2005, and he was much the same, as would be expected.

Also, the fact that the guy had been such a dominant force on the U.S. scene throughout much of his career makes it all the more easy to applaud his success on the international stage. I thoroughly enjoyed watching him win Pais Vasco in 2010 as well (and I'm sure I could dig up those posts too).

But one of the things that gives me the most pause in regards to Horner these days, are his puzzling and abstract (and that's being extremely generous) responses to the issues of doping that he has given in recent interviews. I simply find him, in that context, to be entirely lacking in credibility and believability.
Judge for yourself (particularly @2:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jv_d9H1Adc

Are my suspicions grounds for any sort of sanction? Nope.
Would I be foolish to ignore my instincts? Yup.

My opinions of Chris Horner are based on many such things, and that is what they amount to: my opinions. If I worked for USADA, I would like to think that I would be influenced by my own opinions in such a way that I would vigorously pursue—in the interest of clean sport—all appropriate avenues available to me that might silence or confirm my doubts.

This is just an internet forum, so all I'm doing is expressing my opinion.
On the other hand, I've also no reason to believe that USADA is not pursuing Chris Horner as we speak. If they had any evidence against one of the most suspicious riders of the past year, and did not actively pursue that, I would be more than disappointed. But I've not the slightest idea if any such thing is taking place or not. It is a topic that I am most curious about, however, especially when reflecting on this statement, from USADA's Reasoned Decision against Armstong & Co.

Page 4

Footnote 9

In the witness affidavits provided in Appendix A names of individuals who have not yet been charged with doping have been redacted. USADA’s investigation into doping in cycling continues and evidence of doping obtained by USADA and involving individuals who have not already been charged will be handled in accordance with the rules.

(There are some other very good questions and points raised in this thread that I will try to address later this evening)
 
Granville57 said:
I have stated very much the same about Horner in the past. I'm sure I could dig up my old posts. I remember specifically saying as much after one of his ToC post-stage interviews.

He was brimming with excitement and enthusiasm, and his recap of the stage (which he had just won, if I recall) was both highly entertaining and informative. He knows cycling. He loves cycling. What I enjoyed the most about his attitude was just how different and refreshing it was when compared with the mind-numbingly dull responses that we could expect from Levi, George, etc. It was great to see, no doubt about it. I met him, myself, (briefly) at the U.S. Cyclocross Nationals in Providence, RI in 2005, and he was much the same, as would be expected.

Also, the fact that the guy had been such a dominant force on the U.S. scene throughout much of his career makes it all the more easy to applaud his success on the international stage. I thoroughly enjoyed watching him win Pais Vasco in 2010 as well (and I'm sure I could dig up those posts too).

But one of the things that gives me the most pause in regards to Horner these days, are his puzzling and abstract (and that's being extremely generous) responses to the issues of doping that he has given in recent interviews. I simply find him, in that context, to be entirely lacking in credibility and believability.
Judge for yourself (particularly @2:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jv_d9H1Adc

Are my suspicions grounds for any sort of sanction? Nope.
Would I be foolish to ignore my instincts? Yup.

My opinions of Chris Horner are based on many such things, and that is what they amount to: my opinions. If I worked for USADA, I would like to think that I would be influenced by my own opinions in such a way that I would vigorously pursue—in the interest of clean sport—all appropriate avenues available to me that might silence or confirm my doubts.

This is just an internet forum, so all I'm doing is expressing my opinion.
On the other hand, I've also no reason to believe that USADA is not pursuing Chris Horner as we speak. If they had any evidence against one of the most suspicious riders of the past year, and did not actively pursue that, I would be more than disappointed. But I've not the slightest idea if any such thing is taking place or not. It is a topic that I am most curious about, however, especially when reflecting on this statement, from USADA's Reasoned Decision against Armstong & Co.




(There are some other very goods questions and points raised in this thread that I will try to address later this evening)
good post Gville
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
mewmewmew13 said:
good post Gville
Ya' don't have to quote the whole thing, ya' know. :p



Master50 said:
This thread has spent a lot of space arguing with me and it isn't about me.
But you're providing an honest opinion that is contrary to what many others here feel, and you're willing to back up that opinion with your real-life experiences. So that makes for a worthy debate, which is what this really is. Unless Horner himself starts posting here, you may be strapped with the burden of holding the fort for "the other side."

Dr Maserati would approve! :)
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Feck. After winning *nothing* of note for his entire career, he goes on to win a *GRAND TOUR* in his early forties and you have doubts that he doped? Really? Not only is this without precedent, there's no plausible scenario where he's even partially clean.

John Swanson
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Master50 said:
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.
Nor should it be. There are many downfalls to the digital age that can easily lead me to depression, but history is littered with such sentiments every time there is a significant advancement in technology or major societal shift. Some times though, there is simply nothing one can do to halt drastic change. Just ask the Navajo.

I am not defending bad manners, rather simply pointing out how the boundaries and accepted norms of modern society have changed. This topic is certainly worthy of its own thread, but I’ll proceed with it here for the time being.

It was not long ago that pulling out one’s cell phone in a public place was considered rude and inconsiderate, if not entirely inappropriate. There are still many, many occasions when that is the case, but for the most part, ignoring the people around you while one is texting, reading, gaming or talking is not the slightest bit unusual. That’s not a justification, just the sad reality. One of the main reasons I rarely go to movies anymore is due to the predictability of having to listen to at least one oblivious person’s cell phone.

Both Facebook and Twitter, within a very short time span, rewrote many of the rules of conduct even with the most high-profile of people. The ease with which many of these people—who, given their positions in life, really should know better—were willing to expose either their own ignorance, racism, pure stupidity, obvious hatred (or even their own body parts) was, and is, staggering. Barely a week or day goes by without some politician, religious leader or media personality embarrassing themselves, backtracking, and then embarrassing themselves some more, simply because they lacked the foresight, maturity or self-awareness to think twice before hitting “send. As such behavior gains critical mass, the initial shock of much of it tends to diminish due to the sheer volume of it all.

One amusing aspect of all this to reflect upon was the widely held belief that by replacing the anonymous “comments” sections of certain publications with Facebook-only account access, the end result would be a more civil exchange amongst the participants. Well, that turned out not to be the case. Surprisingly (at least to me) many people became, if anything, more emboldened! It was if to say, “That’s right! This is me and these are my words! WTF are you going to do about it!?!?”

Even if it meant, in some cases, that something very real would be done about it (fired from jobs, visits by the authorities, etc). Which is one reason why I don’t buy into the concept that remaining anonymous makes one’s opinions any less valid. In this day and age, there is no shortage of useless, obnoxious and flat-out wrong commentary being offered on the world from, quite literally, millions of people who are quite conspicuous when it comes to their true identities. Funny thing, that. I never would’ve predicated such a turn of events. Honestly.

In my own life, I have a very public presence online, and, within my particular niche, I am known, quite literally, around the world. I have represented some of the most recognized and well-respected international companies within that niche, and have been exposed to some of the same types of internet critics as a result. In my case, I couldn’t care less about any of them. Nor do the people who have employed me. Ever. It simply doesn’t factor into the equation for either my employers or myself. I’m certain that some of these people feel better about themselves after having exposed their ignorance to the world, but it is inconsequential to me and my life. Although, truth be told, the vast majority of the feedback that I have bothered to even pay attention to has been overwhelmingly positive. But that’s because I’m good at what I do. :)

Which is why I seriously doubt that Chris Horner would lose any sleep over Granville57 suspecting him of any sort of doping. Why would he? Especially if he’s got nothing to hide?

Master50 said:
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?
Related to what? Anonymous internet posting? I don’t see the correlation. Unless those drivers turned out to be members of this forum, I just don’t see the connection, and I think it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest one. In all likelihood (based on my previous point) those drivers are probably anything but anonymous when engaged in whatever it is they do when they are online. Good people do bad things; good people do stupid things (but I'll need to expand on this a bit in a subsequent post).

Master50 said:
How you do anything is a good indication of how you act when it really matters.
I would suggest that you amend that to say, “How you do anything in real life is a good indication of how you act...” This forum is not the outside world, and I would imagine that quite a few of the members here would surprise in real life. Some are more transparent with their true selves, others take on the role of a carefully crafted internet-only character. I would never pretend to know, or predict, just who among us would leave the scene of an accident. I would just ask that if they do, they seek ChewbaccaD for legal advice soon afterward. ;)
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Granville57 said:
Nor should it be. There are many downfalls to the digital age that can easily lead me to depression, but history is littered with such sentiments every time there is a significant advancement in technology or major societal shift. Some times though, there is simply nothing one can do to halt drastic change. Just ask the Navajo.

I am not defending bad manners, rather simply pointing out how the boundaries and accepted norms of modern society have changed. This topic is certainly worthy of its own thread, but I’ll proceed with it here for the time being.

It was not long ago that pulling out one’s cell phone in a public place was considered rude and inconsiderate, if not entirely inappropriate. There are still many, many occasions when that is the case, but for the most part, ignoring the people around you while one is texting, reading, gaming or talking is not the slightest bit unusual. That’s not a justification, just the sad reality. One of the main reasons I rarely go to movies anymore is due to the predictability of having to listen to at least one oblivious person’s cell phone.

Both Facebook and Twitter, within a very short time span, rewrote many of the rules of conduct even with the most high-profile of people. The ease with which many of these people—who, given their positions in life, really should know better—were willing to expose either their own ignorance, racism, pure stupidity, obvious hatred (or even their own body parts) was, and is, staggering. Barely a week or day goes by without some politician, religious leader or media personality embarrassing themselves, backtracking, and then embarrassing themselves some more, simply because they lacked the foresight, maturity or self-awareness to think twice before hitting “send. As such behavior gains critical mass, the initial shock of much of it tends to diminish due to the sheer volume of it all.

One amusing aspect of all this to reflect upon was the widely held belief that by replacing the anonymous “comments” sections of certain publications with Facebook-only account access, the end result would be a more civil exchange amongst the participants. Well, that turned out not to be the case. Surprisingly (at least to me) many people became, if anything, more emboldened! It was if to say, “That’s right! This is me and these are my words! WTF are you going to do about it!?!?”

Even if it meant, in some cases, that something very real would be done about it (fired from jobs, visits by the authorities, etc). Which is one reason why I don’t buy into the concept that remaining anonymous makes one’s opinions any less valid. In this day and age, there is no shortage of useless, obnoxious and flat-out wrong commentary being offered on the world from, quite literally, millions of people who are quite conspicuous when it comes to their true identities. Funny thing, that. I never would’ve predicated such a turn of events. Honestly.

In my own life, I have a very public presence online, and, within my particular niche, I am known, quite literally, around the world. I have represented some of the most recognized and well-respected international companies within that niche, and have been exposed to some of the same types of internet critics as a result. In my case, I couldn’t care less about any of them. Nor do the people who have employed me. Ever. It simply doesn’t factor into the equation for either my employers or myself. I’m certain that some of these people feel better about themselves after having exposed their ignorance to the world, but it is inconsequential to me and my life. Although, truth be told, the vast majority of the feedback that I have bothered to even pay attention to has been overwhelmingly positive. But that’s because I’m good at what I do. :)

Which is why I seriously doubt that Chris Horner would lose any sleep over Granville57 suspecting him of any sort of doping. Why would he? Especially if he’s got nothing to hide?

Related to what? Anonymous internet posting? I don’t see the correlation. Unless those drivers turned out to be members of this forum, I just don’t see the connection, and I think it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest one. In all likelihood (based on my previous point) those drivers are probably anything but anonymous when engaged in whatever it is they do when they are online. Good people do bad things; good people do stupid things (but I'll need to expand on this a bit in a subsequent post).

I would suggest that you amend that to say, “How you do anything in real life is a good indication of how you act...” This forum is not the outside world, and I would imagine that quite a few of the members here would surprise in real life. Some are more transparent with their true selves, others take on the role of a carefully crafted internet-only character. I would never pretend to know, or predict, just who among us would leave the scene of an accident. I would just ask that if they do, they seek ChewbaccaD for legal advice soon afterward. ;)
Excellent, mature and informative post. Props G57
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Granville57 said:
Nor should it be. There are many downfalls to the digital age that can easily lead me to depression, but history is littered with such sentiments every time there is a significant advancement in technology or major societal shift. Some times though, there is simply nothing one can do to halt drastic change. Just ask the Navajo.

I am not defending bad manners, rather simply pointing out how the boundaries and accepted norms of modern society have changed. This topic is certainly worthy of its own thread, but I’ll proceed with it here for the time being.

It was not long ago that pulling out one’s cell phone in a public place was considered rude and inconsiderate, if not entirely inappropriate. There are still many, many occasions when that is the case, but for the most part, ignoring the people around you while one is texting, reading, gaming or talking is not the slightest bit unusual. That’s not a justification, just the sad reality. One of the main reasons I rarely go to movies anymore is due to the predictability of having to listen to at least one oblivious person’s cell phone.

Both Facebook and Twitter, within a very short time span, rewrote many of the rules of conduct even with the most high-profile of people. The ease with which many of these people—who, given their positions in life, really should know better—were willing to expose either their own ignorance, racism, pure stupidity, obvious hatred (or even their own body parts) was, and is, staggering. Barely a week or day goes by without some politician, religious leader or media personality embarrassing themselves, backtracking, and then embarrassing themselves some more, simply because they lacked the foresight, maturity or self-awareness to think twice before hitting “send. As such behavior gains critical mass, the initial shock of much of it tends to diminish due to the sheer volume of it all.

One amusing aspect of all this to reflect upon was the widely held belief that by replacing the anonymous “comments” sections of certain publications with Facebook-only account access, the end result would be a more civil exchange amongst the participants. Well, that turned out not to be the case. Surprisingly (at least to me) many people became, if anything, more emboldened! It was if to say, “That’s right! This is me and these are my words! WTF are you going to do about it!?!?”

Even if it meant, in some cases, that something very real would be done about it (fired from jobs, visits by the authorities, etc). Which is one reason why I don’t buy into the concept that remaining anonymous makes one’s opinions any less valid. In this day and age, there is no shortage of useless, obnoxious and flat-out wrong commentary being offered on the world from, quite literally, millions of people who are quite conspicuous when it comes to their true identities. Funny thing, that. I never would’ve predicated such a turn of events. Honestly.

In my own life, I have a very public presence online, and, within my particular niche, I am known, quite literally, around the world. I have represented some of the most recognized and well-respected international companies within that niche, and have been exposed to some of the same types of internet critics as a result. In my case, I couldn’t care less about any of them. Nor do the people who have employed me. Ever. It simply doesn’t factor into the equation for either my employers or myself. I’m certain that some of these people feel better about themselves after having exposed their ignorance to the world, but it is inconsequential to me and my life. Although, truth be told, the vast majority of the feedback that I have bothered to even pay attention to has been overwhelmingly positive. But that’s because I’m good at what I do. :)

Which is why I seriously doubt that Chris Horner would lose any sleep over Granville57 suspecting him of any sort of doping. Why would he? Especially if he’s got nothing to hide?

Related to what? Anonymous internet posting? I don’t see the correlation. Unless those drivers turned out to be members of this forum, I just don’t see the connection, and I think it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest one. In all likelihood (based on my previous point) those drivers are probably anything but anonymous when engaged in whatever it is they do when they are online. Good people do bad things; good people do stupid things (but I'll need to expand on this a bit in a subsequent post).

I would suggest that you amend that to say, “How you do anything in real life is a good indication of how you act...” This forum is not the outside world, and I would imagine that quite a few of the members here would surprise in real life. Some are more transparent with their true selves, others take on the role of a carefully crafted internet-only character. I would never pretend to know, or predict, just who among us would leave the scene of an accident. I would just ask that if they do, they seek ChewbaccaD for legal advice soon afterward. ;)
Master50 said:
Granville57 said:
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.")

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. end quote ]


There is something I feel I am missing here and your response has me pondering it all day.

I have always assumed the forum is full of passionate people that believe doping it ethically and morally wrong. I have never read much support for open racing. All along I thought I was amongst like minded people and was only arguing about Due process and my special form of optimism. My arguments have always been based on the how and proof. I am not a man of faith. I am a man of witness but my idea that this part of the forum is largely populated by persons of strong ethical foundation. Are you suggesting it is actually motivated by ??? what are you suggesting. If it isn't because we care and that we think doping is a problem then why are we here? I disagree with your apology of modern communications. It is so much easier to irreparably and permanently destroy a person with forums and social media that the highest standards of ethical behaviour is critical.
Cyber bulling is credited with several suicides here in BC. Is that your defence of forum behaviour? I don't think so and I don't think my Grandmothers teachings were of no value in this Internet age.
I have always assumed that while I don't arrive at the same conclusion in this discussion that we are all here for the same purpose.
I will state mine. to make cycling a better sport and that all results are achieved fairly and according to all of the rules. I think that doping is cheating and as I have also made clear I believe that for a penalty to be fair it must be applied with due process.

I think you likely agree unless Nothing above applies. It just bothers me that you think I should be more grey and not so black and white. Sorry I thought we all agreed that at least in the clinic doping was black and clean is white?
Of course CH is black in this thread. I have him as grey. seems ironic :rolleyes:
Granville57 said:
I have stated very much the same about Horner in the past. I'm sure I could dig up my old posts. I remember specifically saying as much after one of his ToC post-stage interviews.

He was brimming with excitement and enthusiasm, and his recap of the stage (which he had just won, if I recall) was both highly entertaining and informative. He knows cycling. He loves cycling. What I enjoyed the most about his attitude was just how different and refreshing it was when compared with the mind-numbingly dull responses that we could expect from Levi, George, etc. It was great to see, no doubt about it. I met him, myself, (briefly) at the U.S. Cyclocross Nationals in Providence, RI in 2005, and he was much the same, as would be expected.

Also, the fact that the guy had been such a dominant force on the U.S. scene throughout much of his career makes it all the more easy to applaud his success on the international stage. I thoroughly enjoyed watching him win Pais Vasco in 2010 as well (and I'm sure I could dig up those posts too).

But one of the things that gives me the most pause in regards to Horner these days, are his puzzling and abstract (and that's being extremely generous) responses to the issues of doping that he has given in recent interviews. I simply find him, in that context, to be entirely lacking in credibility and believability.
Judge for yourself (particularly @2:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jv_d9H1Adc

Are my suspicions grounds for any sort of sanction? Nope.
Would I be foolish to ignore my instincts? Yup.


My opinions of Chris Horner are based on many such things, and that is what they amount to: my opinions. If I worked...
Nice......
 
Granville57 said:
I have stated very much the same about Horner in the past. I'm sure I could dig up my old posts. I remember specifically saying as much after one of his ToC post-stage interviews.

He was brimming with excitement and enthusiasm, and his recap of the stage (which he had just won, if I recall) was both highly entertaining and informative. He knows cycling. He loves cycling. What I enjoyed the most about his attitude was just how different and refreshing it was when compared with the mind-numbingly dull responses that we could expect from Levi, George, etc. It was great to see, no doubt about it. I met him, myself, (briefly) at the U.S. Cyclocross Nationals in Providence, RI in 2005, and he was much the same, as would be expected.

Also, the fact that the guy had been such a dominant force on the U.S. scene throughout much of his career makes it all the more easy to applaud his success on the international stage. I thoroughly enjoyed watching him win Pais Vasco in 2010 as well (and I'm sure I could dig up those posts too).

But one of the things that gives me the most pause in regards to Horner these days, are his puzzling and abstract (and that's being extremely generous) responses to the issues of doping that he has given in recent interviews. I simply find him, in that context, to be entirely lacking in credibility and believability.
Judge for yourself (particularly @2:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jv_d9H1Adc

Are my suspicions grounds for any sort of sanction? Nope.
Would I be foolish to ignore my instincts? Yup.

My opinions of Chris Horner are based on many such things, and that is what they amount to: my opinions. If I worked for USADA, I would like to think that I would be influenced by my own opinions in such a way that I would vigorously pursue—in the interest of clean sport—all appropriate avenues available to me that might silence or confirm my doubts.

This is just an internet forum, so all I'm doing is expressing my opinion.
On the other hand, I've also no reason to believe that USADA is not pursuing Chris Horner as we speak. If they had any evidence against one of the most suspicious riders of the past year, and did not actively pursue that, I would be more than disappointed. But I've not the slightest idea if any such thing is taking place or not. It is a topic that I am most curious about, however, especially when reflecting on this statement, from USADA's Reasoned Decision against Armstong & Co.
Good post, agreed on all points.
 
Jun 8, 2012
52
0
0
Horner only 11 seconds off the pace today at Tirreno, well ahead of Martin, Wiggins, Evans, Basso to name a few.

The winter training must be paying off.:rolleyes:
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
pot belge said:
Horner only 11 seconds off the pace today at Tirreno, well ahead of Martin, Wiggins, Evans, Basso to name a few.

The winter training must be paying off.:rolleyes:
you guys might have to accept that he is good and bad luck of cosmic proportion in his life prevented him for making a bigger impact, at an earlier age.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
EnacheV said:
you guys might have to accept that he is good and bad luck of cosmic proportion in his life prevented him for making a bigger impact, at an earlier age. :rolleyes:
Corrected for you. :)

pot belge said:
Horner only 11 seconds off the pace today at Tirreno, well ahead of Martin, Wiggins, Evans, Basso to name a few.

The winter training must be paying off.:rolleyes:
You know, less race days = great results. The good ol Vuelta formula. ;)
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Corrected for you. :)



You know, less race days = great results. The good ol Vuelta formula. ;)
Horner is having his race days off and preparing for the 2015 Tour by riding in the 2014 Festival of May.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Master50 said:
There is something I feel I am missing here and your response has me pondering it all day.

I have always assumed the forum is full of passionate people that believe doping it ethically and morally wrong. <snip>

Are you suggesting it is actually motivated by ??? what are you suggesting. If it isn't because we care and that we think doping is a problem then why are we here?
I think you are attempting to frame the motivations of posters here in black & white terms as well. Your belief that, “the forum is full of passionate people that believe doping it ethically and morally wrong” is a bit idealistic, I hate to say. To some, I would argue that is simply nothing more than entertainment. At times, I would certainly fall into that category myself.

Why, you may ask, with a certain degree of astonishment? Because much of it simply becomes farcical over time. Failed test of an already-suspicious rider. Canned and predictable denials. Confirmation of failed tests. Legal action threatened...
It becomes a circus. Watching the unfolding side-show does have its entertainment value though, depending on one’s perspective.

For others (and I, too, fall into this category at times) there is a genuine curiosity about what goes on behind the curtain of pro cycling. What methods are used to cheat? What are the effects of such methods? How many other people have access to these methods? Etc. But this same curiosity can also be somewhat dispassionate at times. It’s no longer a moral or ethical issue, but more along the lines of scientific curiosity. Nothing more, nothing less. That same curiosity might also include sociological and anthropological elements. Why do these people behave this way, and what does that tell us in the grander scheme of things?

And then, among other varying perspectives, there are the passionate, die-hard cycling fans that wish nothing more than to see the scourge of doping eradicated from their beloved sport. At times, this is me as well. See? Shades of grey, if you will. I’d be willing to bet that only the smallest minority of forum members fall into one category, and one category only. Life is complex. Humans are complex. One size does not fit all when it comes to sorting these things out.


Master50 said:
I disagree with your apology of modern communications. It is so much easier to irreparably and permanently destroy a person with forums and social media that the highest standards of ethical behavior is critical.
It is not my intention to apologize for any of it, but you seem very determined to maintain the above line of reasoning. Could you please provide us with examples of people being “permanently” destroyed (I assume you also mean "wrongly" destroyed) by these methods, as it applies here, in our tiny corner of the interwebz? In the realm that we occupy (pro cycling and the related online community) I have yet to see any examples of that. To expand on one of the points I made in a previous post:
As caustic, toxic and “potentially” damaging as online commentary may be, the one thing working against it is the avalanche of daily info that we are faced with.

Chris Horner was born on Mars?!
Look, a jet liner lost a wing during takeoff!

Did you see that calico cat that pulled the infant from a burning house?!

OMG, they just discovered surveillance tape from inside the school book depository in Dallas!

Earthquakes.
 Tsunamis. 
Floods. 
Droughts...

All that, before 9:00am on any given day. Even the most damning accusation have to compete with an onslaught of digital overload that each and every one of us is forced to filter on a regular basis. The other side of that, of course (and this may be your point), is that if something does gain traction, it can catch fire and reach every corner of the planet within minutes. But even under those circumstances, it’s shelf life is usually very limited and fleeting. Tens of millions of people will see to that by injecting hundreds of millions of texts, picture and links to other ideas—all before lunch time. This is not meant to excuse inexcusable behavior, but rather to frame it in a different light. It may not be as damaging as you imagine (which is a good thing, and I think we will both agree on that).

If this were the 1960s, and Walter Cronkite announced on the Nightly News that there were reasons to suspect Chris Horner of doping (and for all I know, Horner was racing back then, too) then yes, he would be faced with a very serious problem—one that could be a career-ender for him. But even Race Radio (sorry, dude) doesn’t have the clout or influence of the esteemed Mr. Cronkite . So Christopher is probably safe. At least from us.


Master50 said:
Cyber bulling is credited with several suicides here in BC. Is that your defence of forum behaviour? I don't think so and I don't think my Grandmothers teachings were of no value in this Internet age.
I'm not disputing such horrors, but again, I think you're misplacing your perspective. The equivalent of those tragedies that you describe, for our purposes, would be if other riders in the peloton would constantly harassing and intimidating Horner. A good example of that might be what Bassons was subjected to under the oppression of Armstrong and all the other accomplices on the road at that time. (Of course cyber-bullying, as we now know it, wasn't an option at the time, but I've no doubt that it, too, would've been used to full effect had it been.)

But that is not what we are discussing here. I’m fairly confident that even the most concerted, tag-team effort by thehog, Dr Maserati and ChewbaccaD would have no such effect on Christopher Horner’s career. See the difference? It’s easy, and perhaps tempting, to reach for the most emotionally charged elements of cyber-behavior. But no one, that I am aware of, has lost a job or suffered any worst fate, in pro cycling, due to even the largest army of anonymous, online crusaders. The only times there have been real consequences, are when there have been real indiscretions (Hi, Lance!). If anything, the history of pro cycling tells us that, by far, most of the guilty ones have gone unpunished. I think that should illustrate the ineffectiveness of taking someone down by forums, Twitter or blogs alone. It takes power, influence and, most importantly, authority, that far surpasses anything generated on the pages of The Clinic. Can you cite any examples to the contrary?


Master50 said:
I think you likely agree unless Nothing above applies. It just bothers me that you think I should be more grey and not so black and white. Sorry I thought we all agreed that at least in the clinic doping was black and clean is white?
I hesitate to speak for others here, but I don’t think that comes even close to describing The Clinic. My experience of reading these pages tells me that there are many shades. To some, yes, a doper is a doper, is a doper. All equal. To most others though, there are varying degrees of transgressions, with varying degrees of contempt or forgiveness attached, based on a wide variety of factors.


By the way, thanks for your contributions to this discussion thus far, and for getting me to stretch my brain a bit on these matters. And thanks for not taking my initial response to your post too personally. It wasn't meant to be, as I was only hoping to offer my own perspective.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Master50 said:
There is something I feel I am missing here and your response has me pondering it all day.

I have always assumed the forum is full of passionate people that believe doping it ethically and morally wrong. <snip>

Are you suggesting it is actually motivated by ??? what are you suggesting. If it isn't because we care and that we think doping is a problem then why are we here?
I think you are attempting to frame the motivations of posters here in black & white terms as well. Your belief that, “the forum is full of passionate people that believe doping it ethically and morally wrong” is a bit idealistic, I hate to say. To some, I would argue that is simply nothing more than entertainment. At times, I would certainly fall into that category myself.

Why, you may ask, with a certain degree of astonishment? Because much of it simply becomes farcical over time. Failed test of an already-suspicious rider. Canned and predictable denials. Confirmation of failed tests. Legal action threatened...
It becomes a circus. Watching the unfolding side-show does have its entertainment value though, depending on one’s perspective.

For others (and I, too, fall into this category at times) there is a genuine curiosity about what goes on behind the curtain of pro cycling. What methods are used to cheat? What are the effects of such methods? How many other people have access to these methods? Etc. But this same curiosity can also be somewhat dispassionate at times. It’s no longer a moral or ethical issue, but more along the lines of scientific curiosity. Nothing more, nothing less. That same curiosity might also include sociological and anthropological elements. Why do these people behave this way, and what does that tell us in the grander scheme of things?

And then, among other varying perspectives, there are the passionate, die-hard cycling fans that wish nothing more than to see the scourge of doping eradicated from their beloved sport. At times, this is me as well. See? Shades of grey, if you will. I’d be willing to bet that only the smallest minority of forum members fall into one category, and one category only. Life is complex. Humans are complex. One size does not fit all when it comes to sorting these things out.


Master50 said:
I disagree with your apology of modern communications. It is so much easier to irreparably and permanently destroy a person with forums and social media that the highest standards of ethical behavior is critical.
It is not my intention to apologize for any of it, but you seem very determined to maintain the above line of reasoning. Could you please provide us with examples of people being “permanently” destroyed (I assume you also mean "wrongly" destroyed) by these methods, as it applies here, in our tiny corner of the interwebz? In the realm that we occupy (pro cycling and the related online community) I have yet to see any examples of that. To expand on one of the points I made in a previous post:
As caustic, toxic and “potentially” damaging as online commentary may be, the one thing working against it is the avalanche of daily info that we are faced with.

Chris Horner was born on Mars?!
Look, a jet liner lost a wing during takeoff!

Did you see that calico cat that pulled the infant from a burning house?!

OMG, they just discovered surveillance tape from inside the school book depository in Dallas!

Earthquakes.
 Tsunamis. 
Floods. 
Droughts...

All that, before 9:00am on any given day. Even the most damning accusation have to compete with an onslaught of digital overload that each and every one of us is forced to filter on a regular basis. The other side of that, of course (and this may be your point), is that if something does gain traction, it can catch fire and reach every corner of the planet within minutes. But even under those circumstances, it’s shelf life is usually very limited and fleeting. Tens of millions of people will see to that by injecting hundreds of millions of texts, picture and links to other ideas—all before lunch time. This is not meant to excuse inexcusable behavior, but rather to frame it in a different light. It may not be as damaging as you imagine (which is a good thing, and I think we will both agree on that).

If this were the 1960s, and Walter Cronkite announced on the Nightly News that there were reasons to suspect Chris Horner of doping (and for all I know, Horner was racing back then, too) then yes, he would be faced with a very serious problem—one that could be a career-ender for him. But even Race Radio (sorry, dude) doesn’t have the clout or influence of the esteemed Mr. Cronkite . So Christopher is probably safe. At least from us.


Master50 said:
Cyber bulling is credited with several suicides here in BC. Is that your defence of forum behaviour? I don't think so and I don't think my Grandmothers teachings were of no value in this Internet age.
I'm not disputing such horrors, but again, I think you're misplacing your perspective. The equivalent of those tragedies that you describe, for our purposes, would be if other riders in the peloton were constantly harassing and intimidating Horner. A good example of that might be what Bassons was subjected to under the oppression of Armstrong and all the other accomplices on the road at that time. (Of course cyber-bullying, as we now know it, wasn't an option at the time, but I've no doubt that it, too, would've been used to full effect had it been.)

But that is not what we are discussing here. I’m fairly confident that even the most concerted, tag-team effort by thehog, Dr Maserati and ChewbaccaD would have no such effect on Christopher Horner’s career. See the difference? It’s easy, and perhaps tempting, to reach for the most emotionally charged elements of cyber-behavior. But no one, that I am aware of, has lost a job or suffered any worst fate, in pro cycling, due to even the largest army of anonymous, online crusaders. The only times there have been real consequences, are when there have been real indiscretions (Hi, Lance!). If anything, the history of pro cycling tells us that, by far, most of the guilty ones have gone unpunished. I think that should illustrate the ineffectiveness of taking someone down by forums, Twitter or blogs alone. It takes power, influence and, most importantly, authority, that far surpasses anything generated on the pages of The Clinic. Can you cite any examples to the contrary?


Master50 said:
I think you likely agree unless Nothing above applies. It just bothers me that you think I should be more grey and not so black and white. Sorry I thought we all agreed that at least in the clinic doping was black and clean is white?
I hesitate to speak for others here, but I don’t think that comes even close to describing The Clinic. My experience of reading these pages tells me that there are many shades. To some, yes, a doper is a doper, is a doper. All equal. To most others though, there are varying degrees of transgressions, with varying degrees of contempt or forgiveness attached, based on a wide variety of factors.


By the way, thanks for your contributions to this discussion thus far, and for getting me to stretch my brain a bit on these matters. And thanks for not taking my initial response to your post too personally. It wasn't meant to be, as I was only hoping to offer my own perspective.
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
It's entertainment rather than moral outrage for me. I like the subterfuge and cloak n dagger nature of the hidden side of the sport. As I tell my friends, don't mind dopers, can't stand bullies. That's why Armstrong gets more zealous treatment than other dopers from me.
 
EnacheV said:
you guys might have to accept that he is good and bad luck of cosmic proportion in his life prevented him for making a bigger impact, at an earlier age.
I'll agree with that if we add:
He is the cause of a lot of his bad luck.
He's always been on drugs.
 
Granville57 said:
snipped....

By the way, thanks for your contributions to this discussion thus far, and for getting me to stretch my brain a bit on these matters. And thanks for not taking my initial response to your post too personally. It wasn't meant to be, as I was only hoping to offer my own perspective.
Well worth reading this post.

Hell I had to do it twice. Slow learner and everything.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
Granville57 said:
By the way, thanks for your contributions to this discussion thus far, and for getting me to stretch my brain a bit on these matters. And thanks for not taking my initial response to your post too personally. It wasn't meant to be, as I was only hoping to offer my own perspective.
Even a discussion from other perspectives can be enlightening and invigorating. I never really have a problem when you don't agree. Just when you make it personal and no I did not take your challenges as personal attacks.

There is something very peculiar about CH and it is related to his climbing style. the steeper it gets the more he stands on the pedals and he already stands a lot more than any of the current top climbers. the other day he was 11th and his comments about the climb was it was not steep enough for long enough to do his magic, the magic we are debating. Has much been made of this? I am not much of a climber but anytime it gets really steep I can only make progress standing. I sit and do paper boy turns. I stand and can ride straight up the road. at least until I have to sit down again. A 39 / 29 it the other help. Seriously how many power studies factor the standing? Standing is supposed to cost us a lot of unproductive energy which is why most climbers sit. CH has been a stander all his life so he is clearly adapted to it.

This is a variable I don't know that has ever been explored between riders with this style, maybe because there are so few of them?

Ok folks give it a new a$$ hole.
 
Master50 said:
CH has been a stander all his life so he is clearly adapted to it.

This is a variable I don't know that has ever been explored between riders with this style, maybe because there are so few of them?
Were there any "standers" pre-EPO/blood doping? Even just going back to Lemond days, big climbs looked a lot different.

Pantani, Ricco, Horner - What could they have in common?
 
IzzyStradlin said:
Were there any "standers" pre-EPO/blood doping?
Sitting or standing, it is still a simple power test. The rider with the most power on the climb wins. The rider with the most power over many days tends to win grand tours.

IMHO, recent editions of Il Giro are exceptions to the power test reduction. Le Tour, on the other hand, is still very much a simple power test.
 
Master50 said:
......
Standing is supposed to cost us a lot of unproductive energy which is why most climbers sit. CH has been a stander all his life so he is clearly adapted to it.
.....
Last century, when I lived and worked in New-Mexico I cycled to work 4 days out of every week (5th day was my turn to drive as there were usually 5 of us).
Distance was 26 km. The last bit, slightly less than 5 km, went up about 325 m IIRC.
Quite often I felt good, in which case I would go all out to the top at 2925 meters.
I tried to see if there was any difference in my climbing times depending on my position on the bike : seating or standing.

Result was : no real measurable difference, just slight day to day variations.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS