When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[Dr_Lexus]

Diluca was legendarily arrogant and stupid.
Horner's prior results don't require speculation when he rode for LA and crew; he was known to be on program.We don't know if he is now. As several have noted he would benefit from any future contract and lacks income beyond this season. If he's implicated it would take awhile to confirm and, unless he signs a deal requiring him to give money back for a retrospective test; he's home and dry.

So the tests don't work?

Does not having a contract for the next season mean you take drugs?

It's far fetched.

Horner is in the testing pool like everyone else. USADA can test him day and night in the USA.

He is in the jersey and won two stages. He has been tested. How can he dope and still test clean?

On that logic then all riders can dope and not get caught.

Not buying it. Hard work and experience in this specific case.

 

[maltiv]

These are just words. That is not a positive test are a passport case.

That is what I'm saying. If you accuse Horner then accuse them all.

I don't believe for one minute Valverde went back to doping after what he went though.

Horner lived in the dark era. Do you think he'd dope just to win the Tour of Spain? At 42?

You have to be logical. I don't think so. Why risk it all? The tests work.

Are you telling me the tests only work on DiLuca and no one else?

Thought not.

It's very baffling that some people seem to have an underlying assumption that everyone acts rationally. "Horner is clean because it would be illogical to dope now". Really? Have you never met a person in your life who has made an illogical decision? It wouldn't make sense for Di Luca make a come back only to get busted again immediately after, but that's just what he did.

Also, it's not really illogical per se. Horner currently has no contract for next year. So he basically had two options:

1. No doping. Go to the Vuelta and hope for the best, risk having to retire if performance isn't adequate.

2. Dope up like crazy. Good performance guaranteed, followed by a guaranteed renewed contract with a huge increase in wage. Risk testing positive, which would force him to retire.

So in both cases there would be a chance that he'd have to retire, but clearly the conditions in option 2 are better if he doesn't mind the bad PR/reputation of a positive test. So from an economical point of view, doping up would actually be completely rational.

 

[Oldman]

So the tests don't work?

Does not having a contract for the next season mean you take drugs?

It's far fetched.

Horner is in the testing pool like everyone else. USADA can test him day and night in the USA.

He is in the jersey and won two stages. He has been tested. How can he dope and still test clean?

On that logic then all riders can dope and not get caught.

Not buying it. Hard work and experience in this specific case.

Not trying to sell you on anything. He's been known to juice and not get caught before. He needs money and has spent much time defending Lance Armstrong as clean.
He does work hard and is experienced. If all of the riders were limited to just those resources I do think he could win and always have. Unfortunately that fairy tale world has never taken form in the real world.

 

[Hugh Januss]

So the tests don't work?

Does not having a contract for the next season mean you take drugs?

It's far fetched.

Horner is in the testing pool like everyone else. USADA can test him day and night in the USA.

He is in the jersey and won two stages. He has been tested. How can he dope and still test clean?

On that logic then all riders can dope and not get caught.

Not buying it. Hard work and experience in this specific case.

Please don't take this the wrong way. Are you 12? How many emails from Nigerian Princes have you answered?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

These are just words. That is not a positive test are a passport case.

So why did Basso, Scarponi, Rasmussen, Valverde, serve bans? No positive tests or passport cases between them.

That is what I'm saying. If you accuse Horner then accuse them all.

What makes Horner the gold standard of innocence when he's better than he was at peak years? Why can't I believe in, say, Pierrick Fedrigo, but not believe in Horner?

I don't believe for one minute Valverde went back to doping after what he went though.

I don't believe he went back to whatever he was doing pre-Puerto, but whatever his program, doping or not, was from 2007-10, it worked since there were no positives etc and lots of wins even though the UCI wanted rid of him so likely targeted him.

Horner lived in the dark era. Do you think he'd dope just to win the Tour of Spain? At 42?

I don't believe he'd dope just to win the Tour of Spain. I do believe he'd dope full stop, and that just so happens to be still going on at the Tour of Spain. After all, it is thought to be highly likely that rider 15 or whoever it was - name redacted - in the USADA files was Horner. Is it as conclusive as a two year old bag with a dog's name on it, or saying you're in Mexico when you're in Italy? Mileages vary.

You have to be logical. I don't think so. Why risk it all? The tests work.

Are you telling me the tests only work on DiLuca and no one else?

Thought not.

The tests never caught Basso. Or Scarponi. Or Valverde. Or Rasmussen. Or Jaksche. Or Leipheimer, for that matter. Hell, they didn't even catch freaking Matteo Priamo, and he was going around handing vials of CERA to his teammates. He got busted cos Sella talked. Plenty of people we know were dopers still knocking around without having been banned. Look at the alumni of Rock Racing, or the dubious Puerto Spaniards racing in Portugal from 2007-10 or so.

Nice try, though.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Yes, it is true. It has been misreported often but the primary reason for Microdosing is to keep your off score from going wacky



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/biological-passport-expert-taking-landis-seriously

Nonsense! We have seen actual doping programs from the transfusion era and we have seen studies on the effects of EPO-doses used by riders in the transfusion era. Two conclusions can be drawn.

1) They did NOT only use EPO following a net reinfusion of blood.
2) The EPO-doses used result in a large increase in Hb-mass.

Did you even read the article by Veloclinic?

 

[Dr_Lexus]

So why did Basso, Scarponi, Rasmussen, Valverde, serve bans? No positive tests or passport cases between them.


What makes Horner the gold standard of innocence when he's better than he was at peak years? Why can't I believe in, say, Pierrick Fedrigo, but not believe in Horner?


I don't believe he went back to whatever he was doing pre-Puerto, but whatever his program, doping or not, was from 2007-10, it worked since there were no positives etc and lots of wins even though the UCI wanted rid of him so likely targeted him.


I don't believe he'd dope just to win the Tour of Spain. I do believe he'd dope full stop, and that just so happens to be still going on at the Tour of Spain. After all, it is thought to be highly likely that rider 15 or whoever it was - name redacted - in the USADA files was Horner. Is it as conclusive as a two year old bag with a dog's name on it, or saying you're in Mexico when you're in Italy? Mileages vary.


The tests never caught Basso. Or Scarponi. Or Valverde. Or Rasmussen. Or Jaksche. Or Leipheimer, for that matter. Hell, they didn't even catch freaking Matteo Priamo, and he was going around handing vials of CERA to his teammates. He got busted cos Sella talked. Plenty of people we know were dopers still knocking around without having been banned. Look at the alumni of Rock Racing, or the dubious Puerto Spaniards racing in Portugal from 2007-10 or so.

Nice try, though.

I'm not trying anything.

So what you are saying is Horner is doping, Valverde? Nibiali?

And at the Tour everyone in the Top 20?

Not possible. Everyone can't be doping.

Yes maybe some guys take a risk. But no everyone.

The sport had shown it is cleaning up. Or are you saying its still 2006?

If Horner is doping it must be some super undetectable drug that you can only buy in the US and he is the only one who has it.

Not happening. It's to far fetched.

 

[hrotha]

How can anyone suggest doping is illogical? It's perfectly logical to dope as long as the risk/reward ratio is favourable.

Nonsense! We have seen actual doping programs from the transfusion era and we have seen studies on the effects of EPO-doses used by riders in the transfusion era. Two conclusions can be drawn.

1) They did NOT only use EPO following a net reinfusion of blood.
2) The EPO-doses used result in a large increase in Hb-mass.

Did you even read the article by Veloclinic?

The Fuentes programs we've seen were before the passpost, when riders didn't have to worry much about offscore and the like.

 

[Race Radio]

Nonsense!

I suggest reading the articles I link, they are clear on how and why riders are using microdosing. If you still don't get it then take it up with Floyd.

Then read this interview with Ashenden

the early 2000’s most of us considered that EPO was used to boost performance, nowadays we believe that EPO is an important masking tool

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden

He makes it clear, over and over, that the prime reason riders are microdosing EPO primarily to manage reticulocyte levels

 

[Oldman]

So the tests don't work?

Does not having a contract for the next season mean you take drugs?

It's far fetched.

Horner is in the testing pool like everyone else. USADA can test him day and night in the USA.
He is in the jersey and won two stages. He has been tested. How can he dope and still test clean?

On that logic then all riders can dope and not get caught.

Not buying it. Hard work and experience in this specific case.

I would wager he was not tested at all during his rehab from knee surgery. As for the tests "working"....it's clear that they can be beaten. You'd have to live under a rock near the unicorn mating pasture to believe otherwise.

 

[Race Radio]

The Fuentes programs we've seen were before the passpost, when riders didn't have to worry much about offscore and the like.

They have been using Off Score since 2004. Levi was warned in 05. It predates the BioPassport. Using EPO to stimulate reticulocytes and keep them close to normal has been around for a while.

 

[hrotha]

They have been using Off Score since 2004. Levi was warned in 05. It predates the BioPassport. Using EPO to stimulate reticulocytes and keep them close to normal has been around for a while.

I know, but they couldn't use it for much at the time, other than for target testing.

 

[131313]

Here's an actual study by Ash and some danish fellow that is not an anti doping expert.

Net haemoglobin increase from reinfusion of refrigerated vs. frozen red blood cells after autologous blood transfusions.
Ashenden M, Mørkeberg J.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534982

That study compared freezing vs. refrigerated (which isn't a viable option for autologous blood doping); what is doesn't look at is the long-term degradation in freezing (which has been documented to be minimal over a period of years, not days or months). The losses (for the most part) in RBC's occur during the freezing/thawing, not the time in storage. Main point being, he could be using 9 month old blood. The study above does nothing to address that.

 

[neineinei]

yeah, and we still don't know what the index was based on.
If based on 2009, Horner had been invisible that year.
Beating Valverde in Pais Vasco in 2010, pre-TdF, was suspicious, but apparently not his bloodvalues (or simply not yet included in the Index).

The suspicion index seems to be described in the WADA 2010 Tour de France independent observers report.

p. 15

During the period of April to June 2010, the UCI conducted a substantial testing programme where a total of 1025 samples were collected, both in-competition and out-of-competition. Of these 22
were anti-doping blood samples, 597 blood samples for the purpose of the ABP and a further 406
urine samples. The results of the ABP tests conducted as well as the performance of each rider
during this period was analysed by the UCI and resulted in the selection of 54 riders for more
targeted testing before the Tour. ASO made a significant financial contribution to testing both before
and during the Tour, demonstrating the desire of the organisers of the Tour to tackle doping at the
Tour in cooperation with the UCI and recognition that effective testing must also include out-ofcompetition testing in advance of such events

Having implemented this programme two years ago the UCI has access to a variety of blood
parameters for each rider which forms what is known as the rider’s blood profile. Where this differs
from previous versions of a passport programme, the UCI’s programme is able to establish the norm
of the measured parameters for each individual rider after a number of samples have been collected.
If atypical or abnormal readings are observed then the UCI is able to react by target testing or in some
instances charge a rider for the ‘use’ of prohibited substances and/or methods.

For the Tour ABP samples are sent to the Lausanne Laboratory in anonymous format, the results of
which are then statistically analysed by the Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU) and sent to
the UCI and the experts if necessary During the major Tours the AMPU in turn provides a
commentary to the UCI regarding all of the riders’ profile identifying whether the profile was
suspicious (using a 10 point scale with 10 representing the highest priority for testing and 1 the
least) as well as recommendations as to the type of test to target the rider.

p. 19

While recognising the high level of testing and a focus on targeting riders in the Pre-Tour period
(i.e. April to June 2010) it was noted that there were a number of riders of significance who took
part in the Tour who had either not been tested during the Pre-Tour period or who had only been
tested once (with the majority of these for the ABP).

• A rider identified as having a priority index of eight (with ten being the highest and most at risk of
doping) was tested only once (urine EPO) during the Pre-Tour period with no blood sample
collected for the analysis of CERA, HBT, HBOC or other prohibited substances and/or methods.
During the Tour recommendations from the Laboratory related to target testing for EPO did not
seem to be conducted expediently or as appropriate (ie. the EPO test was conducted 6 days later
while the blood sample was only analysed for hGH). Lastly, following a significant delay in
providing an early morning sample and in conjunction with the intelligence already held on this
rider, there seems no evidence of more intense target testing on this rider.
• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following
the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week
of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory.
Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.
• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3
April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the
first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only
urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the
laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the
use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further
analysis of that sample was made available.
• For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target
tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample
collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up
samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution.

 

[sniper]

The suspicion index seems to be described in the WADA 2010 Tour de France independent observers report.

p. 15

p. 19

yeah, thanks for that, neineinei.
i probably should not have brought it back up.
the index is/was clearly flawed in several respects.
goes to show how flawed the testing was at that point, if it was based on that list.
perhaps an interesting question is: who leaked the list?

 

[Deagol]

..... How can he dope and still test clean?

.....

Did you really write that? Where have you been living the last 10 years? under a rock?

RE: Horner- this is the same guy who said about Lance that if he didn't get caught, then it doesn't matter if he was cheating or not.

 

[Dr_Lexus]

I would wager he was not tested at all during his rehab from knee surgery. As for the tests "working"....it's clear that they can be beaten. You'd have to live under a rock near the unicorn mating pasture to believe otherwise.

So the solution is to out where his family lives? That will solve doping problem?

USADA just brought down kingpin Lance. They test as well.

They can test him anywhere anytime.

If you say tests don't work. Then Sky an Astana won GTs with dopers?

I'm not buying it. Say Horner dopes then say they all do.

Are you saying cycling is doping top to bottom?

Nothing has changed?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So the solution is to out where his family lives? That will solve doping problem?

USADA just brought down kingpin Lance. They test as well.

They can test him anywhere anytime.

If you say tests don't work. Then Sky an Astana won GTs with dopers?

I'm not buying it. Say Horner dopes then say they all do.

Are you saying cycling is doping top to bottom?

Nothing has changed?

Yet you will surely acknowledge that USADA did not have a positive test in catching The Lance.

You also asked "Nothing has changed?" - it is a little harder to dope, but there is still no test for blood doping and there has been no change within the UCI.

 

[Dr_Lexus]

Did you really write that? Where have you been living the last 10 years? under a rock?

RE: Horner- this is the same guy who said about Lance that if he didn't get caught, then it doesn't matter if he was cheating or not.

He did not. He said that how can take it all away when he had already won the races. When it was over by a long time ago. What was the point because the race has been ridden and was over. Ullrich didn't want the titles and so forth.

That is all he said. At least it was truth and not made up stuff like the Wiggins guy.

He wasn't saying that he likes lance and that he dopes. He was just supporting a friend who supported him.

He cried when Lance retired. That says something. Means he respects him.

Anyway who cares. Horner is tested in Europe and America. What more can he so?

Release his SRM data? Oh he did that? Did Sky riders do that?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So the solution is to out where his family lives? That will solve doping problem?

USADA just brought down kingpin Lance. They test as well.

They can test him anywhere anytime.

If you say tests don't work. Then Sky an Astana won GTs with dopers?

I'm not buying it. Say Horner dopes then say they all do.

Are you saying cycling is doping top to bottom?

Nothing has changed?

Why "if Horner dopes, they all do"? Why is Horner the tipping point? There are lots of riders out there, probably clean, who aren't fighting for the win in GTs aged 42. Fighting for the win in GTs aged 42 is "not normal". So why single him out as being more likely to be clean than any other GC contender given he has plenty of contentious actions in his past? Why not choose somebody like Pierrick Fedrigo, or Sandy Casar, who come with good reputations on that front, rather than a guy who openly defended Armstrong and who has only been performing at the highest level since he was already in his late 30s? Do you not think that a guy who rode with Armstrong's team when we know doping went on, and is inextricably linked to Lance and Bruyneel, suddenly increasing in level at the end of his career and now climbing with the best, carries the stench of the bad old days with him?

 

[red_flanders]

Good points Libertine.

I honestly can't keep track however of why I should think the "bad old days" are behind us. I can't really see a whole lot of difference other than the guys winning are not arses like Armstrong.

What in terms of testing or the organization of the sport would really preclude people from doping? Maybe a new thread would be better for that topic.

 

[Race Radio]

He cried when Lance retired. That says something. Means he respects him.

What's that smell?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

That study compared freezing vs. refrigerated (which isn't a viable option for autologous blood doping); what is doesn't look at is the long-term degradation in freezing (which has been documented to be minimal over a period of years, not days or months). The losses (for the most part) in RBC's occur during the freezing/thawing, not the time in storage. Main point being, he could be using 9 month old blood. The study above does nothing to address that.

Yes, it adresses freezing vs refrigeration (which isn't viable why? ) for blood doping, which is the very issue debated in the posts I responded to. There was no hint of the discussion being limited to long-term degradation in freezing.

Of course he could be using 9 months old blood. Of course the study doesn't disprove that. What gave you the impression I was attempting to debunk the feasibility of siberias by posting that study?

 

[the sceptic]

Good points Libertine.

I honestly can't keep track however of why I should think the "bad old days" are behind us. I can't really see a whole lot of difference other than the guys winning are not arses like Armstrong.

What in terms of testing or the organization of the sport would really preclude people from doping? Maybe a new thread would be better for that topic.

independent testing, UCI ran by someone that is strongly anti doping, harsher bans, no team doctors, former dopers not allowed to work in cycling.

Maybe at this point it wouldnt be worth it anymore.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I suggest reading the articles I link, they are clear on how and why riders are using microdosing. If you still don't get it then take it up with Floyd.

Then read this interview with Ashenden



http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden

He makes it clear, over and over, that the prime reason riders are microdosing EPO primarily to manage reticulocyte levels

That was just one reason to microdose EPO. The other being you could increase Hb-mass by 10%.

Why don't you read this study by Ashenden.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951

And this article by Michael Puchowicz.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...rraris-altitude-training-claims-part-2_275383