When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[SeriousSam]

You see no evidence that he's doping today? I'm afraid you mistakenly believe only a positive or confession or Fuentes link or Ferrari link are evidence. Not so. There's plenty of evidence. Let's start with the fact that he's friggin 42 years old.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

lack of results because of the billion factors, like riding for others for most of his career.

Gimme 5 of the billion. That´s enough to convince me.
And that "argument" riding for others. LOL. Lemond rode for others, Indurain did, Ullrich did, hell even Zubeldia did. And yet all of them finished high while being a dom... and OFC havn´t been released from their teams when in their mid-20s.

I don't know if Horner is doping or not but I've seen nothing concrete like we had in the Armstrong era..

What did we have concrete in the LA era, other than we knew he was doping full scale? There is no difference. Actually Horner is worse. Insulting our brains with even more grotesque performances (given his steady improvement while getting older).

I am sure Horner probably doped in the past but I see no evidence that he's doping today.

So he doped in the past when he couldn´t hold on wheels of clean riders like Casar and Moncoutie, but doesn´t dope past 40, when he performs his biggest W/Kg of his life (either on one leg, or half dead BTW) and almost breaks doper records at major Vuelta climbs?
Wow. Your post is so illogical, I guess this post wouldn´t even make the respect Horner thread. Omg!

I am sorry to say this, but even old LA fanboys did better with their reasoning for LA being clean.

 

[red_flanders]

What did we have concrete in the LA era, other than we knew he was doping full scale? There is no difference. Actually Horner is worse. Insulting our brains with even more grotesque performances (given his steady improvement while getting older).

There were plenty of people vehemently denying evidence of LA's doping 'till the minute before he admitted it.

Horner is worse than LA? I'd say you've jumped the shark if that wasn't the case a long time ago. Get real. Seriously, utter lack of perspective here.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

There were plenty of people vehemently denying evidence of LA's doping 'till the minute before he admitted it.

Horner is worse than LA? I'd say you've jumped the shark if that wasn't the case a long time ago. Get real. Seriously, utter lack of perspective here.

Worse b/c

LA jumped from 36th TdF > death bed > serial GT winner

Horner zilch considerations for even a GT roster in his late 20s (when LA finally made his appearance as 4th in Vuelta) > ToC win at 38something > hide > nothing > injury > one leg > GT winner age 41 (breaking the old record by 5 !!! years AFAIR) basically w/o training and race days > death bed > 16th TdF w/o much training, less race days > GT win again (??)...

Sorry, but for me it can´t get more absurd. I can´t imagine something coming close. No matter how hard I try.

Edit: OK, I found something more absurd: Degenkolb winning the TdF within 5 years.

 

[blackcat]

horner's weight loss has hurt his chrono. he cant beat froome or someone who can ride a tt at the vuelta

i am interested with Nibal, because he looks about ~7lbs leaner, even tho he was the boss on the arenberg forest finish over those roubaix cobbles. that was the most impressive ride in the tt

 

[simo1733]

He is 1.5 kg lighter according to his trainer.

 

[Master50]

Worse b/c

LA jumped from 36th TdF > death bed > serial GT winner

Horner zilch considerations for even a GT roster in his late 20s (when LA finally made his appearance as 4th in Vuelta) > ToC win at 38something > hide > nothing > injury > one leg > GT winner age 41 (breaking the old record by 5 !!! years AFAIR) basically w/o training and race days > death bed > 16th TdF w/o much training, less race days > GT win again (??)...

Sorry, but for me it can´t get more absurd. I can´t imagine something coming close. No matter how hard I try.

Edit: OK, I found something more absurd: Degenkolb winning the TdF within 5 years.

While historically accurate the context was LA was doping but CH was not. CH was not winning GTs because most of the Euro peloton was racing on EPO. I keep repeating myself because you are getting increasingly ridiculous about your distain for the guy.

I understand the real problem for you is for my argument to be true then the peloton has to be a lot closer to clean than you want to believe.

I have repeatedly asked for anyone to explain how any of the available evidence, his bio passport data, his guesstimated time over distance up xyz grades, his standing style are all proof? My issue with it all is that at worst he is holding at his natural talent levels because he is not increasing his capacity with anything I have seen. According to your claims he is so incapable of riding top 10 that he must be boosting 5% or 6%. Maybe even more, for a 42 year old? My problem is no doping technique I have ever heard of can boost his ability that much without detection. What LA got almost away with was not what he could do today.

I know what you can do to fight doping that would really help. and I am not being sarcastic. Join your anti doping organization USADA? is it? I am hoping you might turn your anger into something useful while at the same time giving you some better foundation for your opinions. That, and if you are also honest then you can make a change. one less corrupt official. Try it. we might benefit. I tried it, couldn't do it.

 

[Merckx index]

Worse b/c
Horner zilch considerations for even a GT roster in his late 20s (when LA finally made his appearance as 4th in Vuelta) > TDF stage win if not for idiot Chavenel > TDS stage win > ToC win at 38something > top 10 TDF > injury > > GT winner age 41 (breaking the old record by 5 !!! years AFAIR) basically w/o training and race days > injury > 16th TdF, 40’ down, not even remotely close to top 10 w/o much training, less race days > never another GT win again (??)...

No need to exaggerate, Foxxy, the truth is suspicious enough.

I have repeatedly asked for anyone to explain how any of the available evidence, his bio passport data, his guesstimated time over distance up xyz grades, his standing style are all proof? My issue with it all is that at worst he is holding at his natural talent levels because he is not increasing his capacity with anything I have seen. According to your claims he is so incapable of riding top 10 that he must be boosting 5% or 6%. Maybe even more, for a 42 year old? My problem is no doping technique I have ever heard of can boost his ability that much without detection. What LA got almost away with was not what he could do today.

With regard to his times up climbs, there is this, discussed here.

Probably the most surprising and alarming performance is due to Horner in the Vuelta 2013. Horner’s CP and ̇V0wmax are only superseded by Indurain in his top years 1994-1995. In the words of A. Vayer, Indurain was a “fully loaded mule”, and indeed it is known now that the years 1994 – 1999 were the years of unlimited use Epo.

As to individual cases, the data give indications for anomalous high CP values and hence possible oxygen-boosting practices for Contador in his winning TDF of 2009, and for Horner in his 2013 Vuelta a España.

With regard to passport, I posted this earlier today in the FTP thread, and posted and discussed it before in the Clinic:

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Sep;111(9):2307-14. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-1867-6. Epub 2011 Feb 20.
Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping.
Ashenden M1, Gough CE, Garnham A, Gore CJ, Sharpe K.

Abstract
The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against a background of biological and analytical variability. Ten subjects were given twice weekly intravenous injections of rhEPO for up to 12 weeks. Full blood counts were measured using a Sysmex XE-2100 automated haematology analyser, and total haemoglobin mass via a carbon monoxide rebreathing test. The sensitivity of the passport to flag abnormal deviations in blood values was evaluated using dedicated Athlete Blood Passport software. Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.

We discussed this study last year, and came to the conclusion while a rider on this program might test positive for EPO, there was a very good chance he would not.

And this:

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011 Apr;21(2):235-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01033.x.
Detecting autologous blood transfusions: a comparison of three passport approaches and four blood markers.
Mørkeberg J1, Sharpe K, Belhage B, Damsgaard R, Schmidt W, Prommer N, Gore CJ, Ashenden MJ.

Abstract
Blood passport has been suggested as an indirect tool to detect various kinds of blood manipulations. Autologous blood transfusions are currently undetectable, and the objective of this study was to examine the sensitivities of different blood markers and blood passport approaches in order to determine the best approach to detect autologous blood transfusions. Twenty-nine subjects were transfused with either one (n=8) or three (n=21) bags of autologous blood. Hemoglobin concentration ([Hb]), percentage of reticulocytes (%ret) and hemoglobin mass (Hbmass) were measured 1 day before reinfusion and six times after reinfusion. The sensitivity and specificity of a novel marker, Hbmr (based on Hbmass and %ret), was evaluated together with [Hb], Hbmass and OFF-hr by different passport methods. Our novel Hbmr marker showed superior sensitivity in detecting the highest dosage of transfused blood, with OFF-hr showing equal or superior sensitivities at lower dosages. Hbmr and OFF-hr showed superior but equal sensitivities from 1 to 4 weeks after transfusion compared with [Hb] and Hbmass, with Hbmass being the only tenable prospect to detect acute transfusions. Because autologous blood transfusions can be an acute practice with blood withdrawal and reinfusion within a few days, Hbmass seems to be the only option for revealing this practice.

There was also quite a bit of discussion last year about how unusual it is for riders not to decline significantly by the time they reach their 40s. There is quite a bit of evidence indicating that they almost always do, but I'm not going to dig it up now.

I add that if you think Horner has been riding clean all this time, and is showing results now that the peloton is clean or cleaner, why was he better than his contemporary LA in 2010, but nowhere near him during the seven TDF reign? Do you think LA was clean in 2010?

None of this is slam-dunk evidence, but it's highly suspicious.

 

[DirtyWorks]

No need to exaggerate, Foxxy, the truth is suspicious enough.....

Excellent post. And that's just the "tried and true" methods.

-We know peptides are bringing high performance without the heavy penalties of older doping cycles.
-We know for sure that there's working methods of inspiring the body to produce more RBC's. This method is beyond the much published inert gases schemes.
-We know for sure athletes can push Test/HGH combination hard with such a high T/E ratio threshold.
-As always, sports administration is complicit in the doping.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

While historically accurate the context was LA was doping but CH was not. CH was not winning GTs because most of the Euro peloton was racing on EPO. I keep repeating myself because you are getting increasingly ridiculous about your distain for the guy.

... and I repeat b/c it makes no sense to think Horner was doping when posting worse performances, while he is not doping when posting better performances. Even you with your high score in logical thinking and super duper job should get, that this is absurd.

I understand the real problem for you is for my argument to be true then the peloton has to be a lot closer to clean than you want to believe.

Your amazing score fools you again. I said one reason for Horner to win with such ease must be that he is doping while his young fine highly trained heahlty opponents are on less doping than before. Add both together, his over the top doping = best ever performance numbers with weaker opponent power numbers add up to grotesque winning performances on one leg in last years Vuelta.

According to your claims he is so incapable of riding top 10 that he must be boosting 5% or 6%. Maybe even more, for a 42 year old?

It seems your high score keeps you from informing yourself. For starters go to sportsscientists.com, sift a little trou the articles there, and you´ll easily come up with, that 5-6% increase with Epo alone is possible.
And stop lying about that you didn´t hear what most think is the most likely doping tech he uses; good ol BBs (which have nearly the same effects as Epo doping) in combination with low undetectable Epo doses. And the usual other undetectable stuff (like HGH)...
And you shall know by now that blood doping with transfusions is not directly detectable. The only way to catch him is by proofing suspect BP numbers. But that is imposible when he hides from testers. He learned from the master (no, not you) how to fool testers, thus came away with blood doping up to now. But he will make a mistake once. The same arrogance like LAs will trap him. I am optimistic.

I know what you can do to understand coherencies better, and I am not being sarcastic. Just read a little bit about what can be tested for, and what not. How much blood and/or Epo doping improves cycling performance, why it is impossible to ride clean as a 41 year old when almost breaking times of dopers who rode with him in the darkest era of cycling.

Then you will understand better. Just a recommendation, but a serious one. Then come back and write more logical posts.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

No need to exaggerate, Foxxy, the truth is suspicious enough.

OK. I thought I keep my posts rather short, thus only write the important points down.

None of this is slam-dunk evidence, but it's highly suspicious.

In Germany, that´s slam dunk evidence. In a courtroom you would get convicted, if the state attorney also brings up DiCanio and else as witnesses to underline the reasoned points you gave in a logical way.
The judge would weigh his posted BP numbers (in addition he would ask the UCI and USADA for more informations on the issue), listen to scientists how they interpret them, listen to the likes of DiCanio what they heared and think. Then he would weigh in all evidence, and come to the right conclusion: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Convicted. Case closed. Next file please.

Great post BTW.

 

[IndianCyclist]

With regard to his times up climbs, there is this, discussed here.

Very good reading. Thanks

 

[red_flanders]

Dearly hope so too. Two dopers in dopers heaven. Should be an epic battle with Ullrich/Indurain like Watt numbers. It should get sooo grotesque, that even the dumbest naive cycling fan goes away in disgust until the governing bodies catch at least the most blatant dopers out there.

For those pumping up Horner's Vuelta times last year as better than Froome's Tour numbers, I'll be taking bets on which one of them climbs better in the Vuelta head to head.

Yes, I see what the numbers say. They don't speak at all to the tactics of the day.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

For those pumping up Horner's Vuelta times last year as better than Froome's Tour numbers, I'll be taking bets on which one of them climbs better in the Vuelta head to head.

Yes, I see what the numbers say. They don't speak at all to the tactics of the day.

Better don´t.
Remember last year? Hog and I said early (1st week AFAIR) that Horner will win. We got laughed at. Many said, ah wait, he´ll lose in the TT and break in the 3rd week. Then he did have an average TT, everbody clapped hands. Hog & I; he´ll win anyway... boom, no breakdown in 3rd week. What does it all mean?
I´d take your bet. Horner destroys the field inclusive Froome, if this crazy doper isn´t stopped NOW. He´ll drop as many BBs in his body until it fits (IOW being sure to drop everybody). This guy has no self esteem. Winning at all costs. High risk taker (riding w/o helmet for example), arrogant beyond help. Shamless to no end...

 

[red_flanders]

Better don´t.
Remember last year? Hog and I said early (1st week AFAIR) that Horner will win. We got laughed at. Many said, ah wait, he´ll lose in the TT and break in the 3rd week. Then he did have an average TT, everbody clapped hands. Hog & I; he´ll win anyway... boom, no breakdown in 3rd week. What does it all mean?
I´d take your bet. Horner destroys the field inclusive Froome, if this crazy doper isn´t stopped NOW. He´ll drop as many BBs in his body until it fits (IOW being sure to drop everybody). This guy has no self esteem. Winning at all costs. High risk taker (riding w/o helmet for example), arrogant beyond help. Shamless to no end...

Great. What are we betting?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Great. What are we betting?

So you say Froome wins, or anybody else*?
If it´s Froome vs Horner, I take any bet... Horner to prevail.

(* Never forget Horner, Cobo, Froome, Lagutin, and else showed the world & opponents there are no borders and fear to do open-end doping at the Vuelta. There are more sick cyclists out there, who´d do everything like a cheap street hooker would, for some cash. So it´s not out of thought that another guy from nowhere wins the Vuelta. My "Chad-Haga-Option".)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Cadel's last GT too. He's a dirty Ferrari client so we should expect a great GT.

 

[thehog]

For those pumping up Horner's Vuelta times last year as better than Froome's Tour numbers, I'll be taking bets on which one of them climbs better in the Vuelta head to head.

Yes, I see what the numbers say. They don't speak at all to the tactics of the day.

This year, 8 summit finishes most of them fairly new or with limited climbing data.

(People stating Horner rode a record on Pena means little when it's only been ridden once before and the climb was non accessible for 20 years due to separatists fighting.)

Whilst I picked Horner would win in week 1, I've ways maintained Froome climbed faster, harder & better than Horner did.

The Vuelta climbs are shorter as are most of the stages than than Tour. At the Vuelta you can sit mid pack without much of a team and attack on the final climb. The Tour as we've seen this year has been raced hard everyday.

Considering those factors and that Froome & Horner on numbers alone were about the same meant Foome was fair superior.

The Dawg if recovered will kill the Vuelta. He'll smash it in half. His response to all things is to take more drugs and that he will.

Horner too, of course is doping. But he is not on the level of the Dawg no matter how much people want to blame him for Lance.

 

[the sceptic]

At least its comforting to know that we have some evidence against Froome now. The horse TUE is very damning.

Horner is of course very worrying too, but since there is no evidence I will remain on the fence.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

His response to all things is to take more drugs and that he will.

Same as Horner. So it´s even. I still go with Horner. No one there in Bent to stop him from super charging...

 

[IzzyStradlin]

My "Chad-Haga-Option".

HUh?!? Please explain.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

HUh?!? Please explain.

A random guy who wins the Vuelta. I have nothing against Haga. Just picked him when he was not on WT... IOW the anonymous Average Joe of cyclists.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

I have repeatedly asked for anyone to explain how any of the available evidence, his bio passport data, his guesstimated time over distance up xyz grades, his standing style are all proof?

A consensus that his blood numbers from the Vuelta were ridiculous...within bp bounds...but completely implausible biologically.

Tons of doping rumors from domestic years. Particularly Saturn and Webcor. He gets no support from his Prime Alliance teammates.

Performances that match other riders, in week 3 of grand tours, against riders who are most certainly doped (ie Froome, Nibali).

What more do you want?

 

[red_flanders]

So you say Froome wins, or anybody else*?
If it´s Froome vs Horner, I take any bet... Horner to prevail.

I say Froome outclimbs Horner. Not sure how to handle if one crashes out at some point, and it would assume Horner free to ride for his own ambitions, which I assume will be the case.

Avatar bet? I have Cound as my avatar for 3 months? Well 3 months into the next season, I don't want to serve a UCI style "suspension" which starts in October. Too light? $100 US? Open to ideas.

 

[red_flanders]

With regard to his times up climbs, there is this, discussed here.


With regard to passport, I posted this earlier today in the FTP thread, and posted and discussed it before in the Clinic:

We discussed this study last year, and came to the conclusion while a rider on this program might test positive for EPO, there was a very good chance he would not.

And this:

There was also quite a bit of discussion last year about how unusual it is for riders not to decline significantly by the time they reach their 40s. There is quite a bit of evidence indicating that they almost always do, but I'm not going to dig it up now.

I add that if you think Horner has been riding clean all this time, and is showing results now that the peloton is clean or cleaner, why was he better than his contemporary LA in 2010, but nowhere near him during the seven TDF reign? Do you think LA was clean in 2010?

None of this is slam-dunk evidence, but it's highly suspicious.

Will be curious to see if this all addresses Master 50's concerns. Would hate for it to be ignored, then brought up again later as if it wasn't addressed.