When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Almeisan said:
Yeah, Horner rode pretty well in the EPO age and the Armstrong age.
He went from average, to super average and now simply awesome and all from about his early to mid 30s and now to his early 40s. You can't tell me that doesn't defy nature as it should be the other way around! :eek:
 
Oct 8, 2009
19
0
0
Merckx index said:
You're not talking about elite racers, the very best in the world.

Actually, yes. I am talking about the elite racers. The very best in the world at the elite races with the very highest level of completion at the 100 mile distance. At least every bit as much as the Vuelta is an elite race. even though it is third tier as a grand tour and only third level riders (ie ones that have no real shot at the Giro or Tour) truly target it as a primary goal. Comparing 100 mile racers to marathoners would be like comparing someone who can win a grand tour to a US crit rider. Sure the crit riders got raw speed but they'll never win a GT training for crits. The 2 hour marathoners (many of whom believe it or not are DOPERS :eek:) would get blown out of the water at the 100 mile distance as well.

Matt Carpenters Leadville CR is stout. Lots of elite racers, best in the world, have taken a stab at it. Nobody has yet come close. This year a 32 year old who recently ran the fast 100 ever run in recorded history took a stab at it and missed it by 45 minutes.

Although I have only provided anecdotes it is backed up by scientific research and I told you where you can find it if you are interested. I don't really give a **** if anyone here believes it or not and I'm not gonna waste my time digging for it. Somebody asked for information on performance decline with age and I provided it.

And I am fully aware that there are many differences between running 100 miles and riding a grand tour. Many more than even the very helpful people here have mentioned. It is not a perfect comparison but on the other hand I think it is a better way to gauge general athletic performance decline with age then cycling as it doesn't have the confounding factors of aerodynamics, team tactics, contract issues, etc. if cyclists would do 20 hour time trials it might be a better comparison.

So there you have it. Believe me or not, physiological a well trained 41 year old is not at their prime but they about as close to it as a 24 or 25 year old. We don't get many 24 year old tour winners either but we have had them and from a strictly biological standpoint Horners performance is no less believable than that.
 
lstomsl said:
Merckx index said:
You're not talking about elite racers, the very best in the world.
Actually, yes. I am talking about the elite racers. The very best in the world at the elite races with the very highest level of completion at the 100 mile distance. At least every bit as much as the Vuelta is an elite race. even though it is third tier as a grand tour and only third level riders (ie ones that have no real shot at the Giro or Tour) truly target it as a primary goal. Comparing 100 mile racers to marathoners would be like comparing someone who can win a grand tour to a US crit rider. Sure the crit riders got raw speed but they'll never win a GT training for crits. The 2 hour marathoners (many of whom believe it or not are DOPERS :eek:) would get blown out of the water at the 100 mile distance as well.

Matt Carpenters Leadville CR is stout. Lots of elite racers, best in the world, have taken a stab at it. Nobody has yet come close. This year a 32 year old who recently ran the fast 100 ever run in recorded history took a stab at it and missed it by 45 minutes.

Although I have only provided anecdotes it is backed up by scientific research and I told you where you can find it if you are interested. I don't really give a **** if anyone here believes it or not and I'm not gonna waste my time digging for it. Somebody asked for information on performance decline with age and I provided it.

And I am fully aware that there are many differences between running 100 miles and riding a grand tour. Many more than even the very helpful people here have mentioned. It is not a perfect comparison but on the other hand I think it is a better way to gauge general athletic performance decline with age then cycling as it doesn't have the confounding factors of aerodynamics, team tactics, contract issues, etc. if cyclists would do 20 hour time trials it might be a better comparison.

So there you have it. Believe me or not, physiological a well trained 41 year old is not at their prime but they about as close to it as a 24 or 25 year old. We don't get many 24 year old tour winners either but we have had them and from a strictly biological standpoint Horners performance is no less believable than that.
How many hundred milers have you run, dude? If you have run any of the mountainous ones then you would know that aerobic capacity is not a limiting factor.
 
Oct 12, 2012
169
0
0
Am I the only one, who thinks that Horner's riding wasn't as supernatural as it is made out to be?
First of all, this year's Vuelta was woefully short of serious contenders. Also, it's not like Horner is leading by minutes. I can't remember seeing anything that he hasn't done in years before. The only difference is that he somehow managed not to fall over as he's done in so many seasons. He's always been decent in the mountains, he just crashed almost every year. He also rides a lot fewer races these days than some of the younger guys, so he isn't as tired yet.

just my opinion
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Lukenwolf said:
Am I the only one, who thinks that Horner's riding wasn't as supernatural as it is made out to be?
First of all, this year's Vuelta was woefully short of serious contenders. Also, it's not like Horner is leading by minutes. I can't remember seeing anything that he hasn't done in years before. The only difference is that he somehow managed not to fall over as he's done in so many seasons. He's always been decent in the mountains, he just crashed almost every year. He also rides a lot fewer races these days than some of the younger guys, so he isn't as tired yet.

just my opinion
Pretty much.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Cookster15 said:
Yes, performance versus age is the big question here that needs answering.
It probably hasn't been the subject of much examination as logic and most likely natural science says that a body cannot maintain a certain level of performance as age increases unless there is some sort of performance enhancing substance involved.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
del1962 said:
WHat a complete fraud you are

If you beleive Sky started the Arms Race, you must beleive Radioshack was clean in 2011,

But you don't beleive Brunyeel was claen, but you just want to be angry with Sky, its what Orwell called doublespeak, NK beckons for you, you could be a star there
Agree. The double standards are atrocious.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Merckx index said:
When you get past the anecdotal observations about someone this age or that age who performed well and actually look at the scientific data available, you will find that the decline with age is not miniscule. It's not so great that a supremely talented individual can't get into his 40s or 50s and beat most of the competition, but when you race at the highest levels, the races are dominated by younger competitors. It becomes more and more difficult to compete at that level with age, and even when the rare individual does, he is not going to perform as well as he would have when younger.

You might ask yourself why, if cyclists experience little decline in performance with age, Horner is about to become by far the oldest GT winner. You really think it's all about freshness? If that were the case, some of these multiple GT winners who retired in their early 30s could have come back after taking some years off and been as good as ever. Or someone could come into the sport late and have a career well into his 40s.
Well, the thing is that you two different things going on with someone like, say Ullrich coming back to cycling. First, they've been getting older. But they've also become detrained from not riding. "Freshness" from not racing a ton is a lot different that freshness from sitting on the couch and gaining 20 lbs. If you really want to look at the the loss in performance of a clean rider (at least a guy most believe to be clean), take a look at Ned Overend. His time up Mt. Evans is within a minute or so of his fastest time...at age 55...

No one knows for sure what the loss in vo2 over time in an individual athlete (though there's certainly a range). But besides loss of muscle mass, keep in mind that functional vo2 is expressed in output/weight, so one way to mitigate this loss is simply to lose body fat. I can tell you with 100% certainty Horner is more lean than he ever was before.

For the 234234 time, just so no one's head explodes...I'm saying he's not doping. I'm just saying the age thing is a bit of a red herring. Old guys dope. Young guys dope. And I still maintain Nibali's zero to hero in 3 weeks performance is even more ridiculous that Horner's, and certainly the most "ridiculous" performance of this race.

For me, euro grand tours are simply WWF in spandex.
 
Lukenwolf said:
Am I the only one, who thinks that Horner's riding wasn't as supernatural as it is made out to be?
First of all, this year's Vuelta was woefully short of serious contenders. Also, it's not like Horner is leading by minutes. I can't remember seeing anything that he hasn't done in years before. The only difference is that he somehow managed not to fall over as he's done in so many seasons. He's always been decent in the mountains, he just crashed almost every year. He also rides a lot fewer races these days than some of the younger guys, so he isn't as tired yet.

just my opinion
It may be a situation similar to the Tour last year when no one but Wiggins and Froome were on form. I can see many parallels. Nibali was not at the level he was at the Giro. Piti and Purito were tired. Roche was the only one at the top of his game aside from Horner, so the Horney Badger's win needs to be looked at as only doing a bit better than Roche. It looks believable to me.
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,868
0
0
So another embarrassing American GT win is just one day away. Wonder how long it will take this one to get a line through it.
 
Aug 14, 2009
79
0
8,680
Lukenwolf said:
Am I the only one, who thinks that Horner's riding wasn't as supernatural as it is made out to be?
First of all, this year's Vuelta was woefully short of serious contenders. Also, it's not like Horner is leading by minutes. I can't remember seeing anything that he hasn't done in years before. The only difference is that he somehow managed not to fall over as he's done in so many seasons. He's always been decent in the mountains, he just crashed almost every year. He also rides a lot fewer races these days than some of the younger guys, so he isn't as tired yet.

just my opinion
Nope. I completely agree.

However, in this forum, winners are all on the dope. Period. Full stop.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BroDeal said:
It may be a situation similar to the Tour last year when no one but Wiggins and Froome were on form. I can see many parallels. Nibali was not at the level he was at the Giro. Piti and Purito were tired. Roche was the only one at the top of his game aside from Horner, so the Horney Badger's win needs to be looked at as only doing a bit better than Roche. It looks believable to me.
I'm totally breaking up with you.
 
goggalor said:
So another embarrassing American GT win is just one day away. Wonder how long it will take this one to get a line through it.
I always enjoy watching the Brits complain about the Americans until they need American assistance in beating world powers like Argentina over some meaningless islands.

Have some tea and crumpets and STFU.
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,868
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
I always enjoy watching the Brits complain about the Americans until they need American assistance in beating world powers like Argentina over some meaningless islands.

Have some tea and crumpets and STFU.
I'm not British, champ. Do you want fries with that?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY