darwin553 said:I don't know...I couldn't remember Horner having team leading potential at a GT before he joined JB at age 36![]()
So he was clean until 2008?
darwin553 said:I don't know...I couldn't remember Horner having team leading potential at a GT before he joined JB at age 36![]()
BroDeal said:I hope Horner takes the whole enchilada. It would put an exclamation mark on the year of the full ***. Plus it will be hilarious to watch the Skrybabies cast doubt on Horner while keeping the faith with Froome.
Let this new and clean era of cycling march on. Yippee-kai-yay, M'f'kers. Bald dude power!
BroDeal said:He was too busy winning everything in the U.S. before that. I guess he should have proved his worthiness at the Anatomic Jock Race.
red_flanders said:That is fo' sho', but at that point they had a couple other pretty good options for the GC...![]()
Wallace said:I'm totally with you Dude, because winning Redlands and the Cascades Classic is in every way the equivalent of winning one of the European GTs.
darwin553 said:I don't know...I couldn't remember Horner having team leading potential at a GT before he joined JB at age 36![]()
Wallace said:I'm totally with you Dude, because winning Redlands and the Cascades Classic is in every way the equivalent of winning one of the European GTs.
goggalor said:He's a student of Bruyneel and BFF of Lance whose bio pass looks like an ardennes classic and who's going for a GT win at 41. Seriously, if he wasn't Anglo there wouldn't even be any debate. He's the American Santambroggio, in fact he's worse. I wish cycling journos would take off their star spangled glasses and start asking some questions.
BroDeal said:Power levels are down.
red_flanders said:That would have been pretty funny if it didn't point out how ridiculous Froome's rise has been. At least Horner was a good rider and a winner before he joined the dark side. Functionally no difference, they're both IMO clearly doing something untoward to be where they are, but it makes Horner easier for me to stomach somehow. Plus he's pretty funny and a good interview.
Moose McKnuckles said:Actually, you guys are going overboard. I am guessing none of you remember what Horner was doing while on Labor Power here in the States.
Seriously, the guy was and still is an enormously talented and dedicated cyclist. My guess is that he figured out what everyone was getting rich off doping while he was crushing clean guys in the States. So, he figured that, WTF, I'm getting a bit long in the tooth, I better get while the getting's good.
JimmyFingers said:Isn't this the Lance line? It was the Euros doping so I had to too? Guess we're seeing your true colours Moose
JimmyFingers said:This is precisely the sort of flim-flamming that makes a mockery of this place. You can't qualify cheating, you do it or you don't, you can't pick riders you don't like and condemn them and then make excuses for riders you do.
JimmyFingers said:No, they haven't. If they've cheated then they've cheated, there's no degrees of cheating. Either they have borken the rules or they haven't, if they have they deserve sanction, if they haven't then a lot of people owe them an apology.
There's no sliding scale of doping that starts at 'Acceptable' and ends at 'Godzilla', you do or you don't, end of.
gillan1969 said:on the administrative and the legal side you are absolutely correct
However, not sure if you missed the whole Armstrong affair or not? The administrators cannot police our sport. It remains the case that had Armstrong given Landis a job, he would still be a 7 time tour winner. We cannot rely on knowing who has broken the rules through the testing procedure. I would go further, with the current incumbent at the UCI you might even argue the testing regime is there to allow the UCI to manage those breaking the rules (for mutual or unilateral benefit).....
Within this landscape the 'educated' cycling fan must make peace with his/her sport. They do so by having a knowledge and understanding of what constitutes, as Armstrong so eloquently put, 'not normal'
Froome = Not Normal, actually sorry scrub that..
Froome > Not Normal
Simple
So, the somewhat tenuous relationship I had with my sport is irrevocably altered whenever Froome (and Porte) turns up. Wiggins, at least, has had the sense not to push it (too far) and has got out....
JimmyFingers said:Interesting viewpoint, but one I don't subscribe to. Oh and thank you for reminding me about Lance, I'd forgotten.
JimmyFingers said:This is precisely the sort of flim-flamming that makes a mockery of this place. You can't qualify cheating, you do it or you don't, you can't pick riders you don't like and condemn them and then make excuses for riders you do.
gillan1969 said:on the administrative and the legal side you are absolutely correct
However, not sure if you missed the whole Armstrong affair or not? The administrators cannot police our sport. It remains the case that had Armstrong given Landis a job, he would still be a 7 time tour winner. We cannot rely on knowing who has broken the rules through the testing procedure. I would go further, with the current incumbent at the UCI you might even argue the testing regime is there to allow the UCI to manage those breaking the rules (for mutual or unilateral benefit).....
Within this landscape the 'educated' cycling fan must make peace with his/her sport. They do so by having a knowledge and understanding of what constitutes, as Armstrong so eloquently put, 'not normal'
Froome = Not Normal, actually sorry scrub that..
Froome > Not Normal
Simple
So, the somewhat tenuous relationship I had with my sport is irrevocably altered whenever Froome (and Porte) turns up. Wiggins, at least, has had the sense not to push it (too far) and has got out....