When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 42 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
SafeBet said:
An example of an athlete winning one of the biggest competitions in his sport at age 42 after never winning anything relevant before.
just to cherry pick a few...

2010 - 1st Basque Country
2011 - 2nd Basque Country
2012 - 2nd Tirreno Adriatico

how are these not relevant results? Most winners of the Basque tour are also GT winners. The same can be said of the winners of the last 5 editions of Tirreno.
 
Sep 14, 2011
1,980
0
0
proffate said:
I am tired of hearing this argument, Horner has shown signs of being one of the top climbers in the world for many years. He's been plagued by injury and unfortunate circumstances, but still has turned out very good performances in week long stage races and GTs when the stars aligned. Doesn't mean he's clean, but it's not like he came out of nowhere.
So if Zubeldia shows a sudden spurt of improvement in 2018 to win a Grand Tour, you'll be on here arguing that it's completely normal because he's been a decent cyclist for a long time?
 
Bernie's eyesore said:
So if Zubeldia shows a sudden spurt of improvement in 2018 to win a Grand Tour, you'll be on here arguing that it's completely normal because he's been a decent cyclist for a long time?
Horner's been a bit more than a "decent cyclist". Zubeldia had what, ZERO wins from 2000-2010. How many races did Horner win during that period?

Seriously, nobody's saying Horner's clean, but suggesting that Horner came out of nowhere is foolish.
 
Sep 14, 2011
1,980
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
Horner's been a bit more than a "decent cyclist". Zubeldia had what, ZERO wins from 2000-2010. How many races did Horner win during that period?

Seriously, nobody's saying Horner's clean, but suggesting that Horner came out of nowhere is foolish.
At Zubeldia's age, all Horner had won at the top level was a stage in Switzerland and a stage in Romandie. Let's not get carried away. Nobody has ever suggested that he came out of nowhere, I don't know where you get that idea from.
 
Bernie's eyesore said:
What has Froome got to do with anything?
Its called consistency.

A guy who is almost 42 and who has never placed Top5 in a GT but is now almost winning one is seriously suspicious and is unprecedented in the sport as you suggest.

However an athlete going from being a mid-ranking domestique to GT dominator almost overnight is also seriously suspicious and unprecedented in the sport, apart from a load of guys who turned out to be massive dopers.

I believe both are seriously suspicious and unbelievable.

You on the other hand believe in one but not the other. Its hypocrisy.
 
Bernie's eyesore said:
At Zubeldia's age, all Horner had won at the top level was a stage in Switzerland and a stage in Romandie. Let's not get carried away. Nobody has ever suggested that he came out of nowhere, I don't know where you get that idea from.
Do you not realize that the guy was racing and winning everything in the US? When he raced in GTs, he was a domestique for Evans, then for Pharmstrong.
 
Sep 14, 2011
1,980
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Its called consistency.

A guy who is almost 42 and who has never placed Top5 in a GT but is now almost winning one is seriously suspicious and is unprecedented in the sport as you suggest.

However an athlete going from being a mid-ranking domestique to GT dominator almost overnight is also seriously suspicious and unprecedented in the sport, apart from a load of guys who turned out to be massive dopers.

I believe both are seriously suspicious and unbelievable.

You on the other hand believe in one but not the other. Its hypocrisy.
I believe in Froome? Since when please?
 
pmcg76 said:
Its called consistency.

A guy who is almost 42 and who has never placed Top5 in a GT but is now almost winning one is seriously suspicious and is unprecedented in the sport as you suggest.

However an athlete going from being a mid-ranking domestique to GT dominator almost overnight is also seriously suspicious and unprecedented in the sport, apart from a load of guys who turned out to be massive dopers.

I believe both are seriously suspicious and unbelievable.

You on the other hand believe in one but not the other. Its hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy. They are two different riders with two very different career paths. There is little common ground other than them both winning races. Therefore they both need to be considered on their own merits. One may meet a person's personal criteria, while the other doesn't.

Saying if you believe/condemn this person you must believe/condemn this other person is incredibly simplistic .
 
May 13, 2009
407
0
9,280
You know in other athletic disciplines such as tennis there have been older players who succeeded to some degree like Poncho Gonzales and Rod Laver. Even at an older age they could still come out and blow much younger players off the court on any ONE given day, the problem was, and they were the first to admit it, is that as you age, you can't recover as quickly and hence the next day you're toast. An older Laver when asked if he could come out of retirement and be competitive again, stated that he felt he could still beat any player on the tour at that time for one set, maybe just maybe two but doubtful and no way could he win a best of five sets, and as far as coming back the next day for another round, "Forget about it"
 
Parker said:
There is little common ground other than them both winning races.
That's not even a common ground. Horner was winning races since the beginning of his career.

Froome was winning what, the Atomic Jock Sniffer race?

I think it's pretty clear both are doped to the gills, so let's stop pretending one's clean.
 
Parker said:
It's not hypocrisy. They are two different riders with two very different career paths. There is little common ground other than them both winning races. Therefore they both need to be considered on their own merits. One may meet a person's personal criteria, while the other doesn't.

Saying if you believe/condemn this person you must believe/condemn this other person is incredibly simplistic .
No it's about precedent. Froomes' career path is just as weird as an almost 42 year old winning a GT. Also Froome has suggested that part of the reason that he is successful now is because cycling is cleaner now, well considering Horner's career took in a large part of the worst doping era, why wouldn't the same apply to him. Maybe he is really benefiting from a cleaner peloton.

If you can find me an example like Froome's career trajectory who didn't end up being busted, I will happily withdraw my comments.
 
pmcg76 said:
If you can find me an example like Froome's career trajectory who didn't end up being busted, I will happily withdraw my comments.
Daryl Impey. He's an African who did two years at Barloworld, got a shot at a big team in his mid twenties and is now showing his potential at the age of 28.

If you think Froome's path to his current standing is comparable to the European riders who came through an established progression path with national federation backing, then you're daft.

This is the way arguments are often constructed here. An idealised standard is set - race circumstances on climbs are the same, career paths are the same - and any deviation for the norm can only be explained by doping.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Parker said:
Daryl Impey. He's an African who did two years at Barloworld, got a shot at a big team in his mid twenties and is now showing his potential at the age of 28.

If you think Froome's path to his current standing is comparable to the European riders who came through an established progression path with national federation backing, then you're daft.

This is the way arguments are often constructed here. An idealised standard is set - race circumstances on climbs are the same, career paths are the same - and any deviation for the norm can only be explained by doping.
No, not any deviation - you just made that up.

But history shows it to be the most likely explanation.
So for it to be considered it would have to be an extraordinary scenario - which I have not read in relation to either rider.
 
Moose McKnuckles said:
I realize that was over a decade before you started watching cycling, but you may want to take a look at who raced the Tour DuPont in 1996 before you start yapping.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/may96/dupont.html

Then again, maybe you won't recognize any of those names.
I was watching ten years before that thanks.

One name I don't remember though is Nate Reiss - he was Horner's breakaway companion on the stage he won. You might want to look at the actual results before you start yapping.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/may96/dupont2.html
 
Parker said:
I was watching ten years before that thanks.

One name I don't remember though is Nate Reiss - he was Horner's breakaway companion on the stage he won. You might want to look at the actual results before you start yapping.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/may96/dupont2.html
Not sure what you were watching, but it wasn't cycling. Not sure what your point is here anyway. Horner won the stage in a tour with all the major players in the sport, all this with an unknown as a breakaway companion? How does that help your point?

Oh, yeah, Froome was busy winning the Anatomic Jock Sniffer race during that same point in his career. LOL.
 
Moose McKnuckles said:
Looks like you need to heed your own advice.
That doesn't make any sense. I've not set up a norm. I've just said Horner, who you said won from an early age unlike Froome, had won sod all at Froome's age.

My opinion on Horner is open. I really have little idea whether he's doping or not. Froome is just an informed hunch.

My point is merely the incredibly poor way some of you use information.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Parker said:
I'm not talking about you - just some on here - so don't start your 'pick up on a small point and work it to destruction' technique. You're better than that.
A small point here.
You made up an argument - its called a strawman - and I merely exposed it for what it was. There was no point to actually destruct.

You're welcome.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY