When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
To me there are degrees of cheating. Froome and Brailsford have taken it too far. They are trying to push us back to 1999.
 
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.
He was already too old to be a student of bruyneel. Media tend to give passes to riders that look to have talent to begin with. Usually harder to catch to the average viewer. Besides if it is not extreme it is harder to assess the doping problem.
On the other hand, Froome and Porte ....
 
red_flanders said:
Let's move off Froome and Sky at this point, it's well off topic. Apologies for my part in adding to it, but the topic is Horner. Thanks.
People are trying to compare. It is part of the discussion anyway.

Besides some forumites feel like the Froome / Porte defenders or fans are the ones attacking or questioning Horner.
 
Escarabajo said:
I am Colombian and I knew him before he joined the dark side. I always had him on high regard.
He got next to no results.

Edit: Maybe he didn't race that much, but I don't remember anything from Horner during his FdJ stint

Edit 2: and of course you "knowing" him makes his lack of results acceptable while Porte is a chemical creation despite being an impressive neo-pro.
 
roundabout said:
He got next to no results.

Edit: Maybe he didn't race that much, but I don't remember anything from Horner during his FdJ stint

Edit 2: and of course you "knowing" him makes his lack of results acceptable while Porte is a chemical creation despite being an impressive neo-pro.
Don't kill the messanger, but what I remember of Porte is his top ten in a Giro because of a breakaway. I saw him briefly during that Giro and he was laboring a lot on some climbs.

The other thing I remember of Porte is being a temmate of Contador. When he needed him the most during the 2011 Tour he was not even close to him. I did not even see him. In fact if it wasn't for people making jokes about him in the forum I would not have known that he was in the Tour. One of the best jokes in this forum on that year is that Porte was a great help for Contador in case he rolled down the mountain he could catch him with his arms in the Gruppeto.

Sorry but Horner was always good even if he is doping now. It is very simple criteria. I apply it on my Colombian riders. I trust some of them, I don't trust others. Very simple.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Escarabajo said:
People are trying to compare. It is part of the discussion anyway.

Besides some forumites feel like the Froome / Porte defenders or fans are the ones attacking or questioning Horner.
Granted I haven't read the entire thread, but I'd like to see examples of this. I have no problem with Horner, good rider and personable chap. 41 and going for a GT win, that's a hell of a story, although I do think it's hubris on his part. Hope he gets red back today, so that's me and Nibali then.
 
Escarabajo said:
Don't kill the messanger, but what I remember of Porte is his top ten in a Giro because of a breakaway. I saw him briefly during that Giro and he was laboring a lot on some climbs.

The other thing I remember of Porte is being a temmate of Contador. When he needed him the most during the 2011 Tour he was not even close to him. I did not even see him. In fact if it wasn't for people making jokes about him in the forum I would not have known that he was in the Tour. One of the best jokes in this forum on that year is that Porte was a great help for Contador in case he rolled down the mountain he could catch him with his arms in the Gruppeto.

Sorry but Horner was always good even if he is doping now. It is very simple criteria. I apply it on my Colombian riders. I trust some of them, I don't trust others. Very simple.
I am not trying to kill the messenger, just figuring out how inconsistent you are about judging riders.
 
Horner was winning everything in the States back in his Webcor days. The guy was an amazing rider. When he went to Europe, well, things didn't go so well, though he did have one victory at Saunier in the Tour de Suisse I think. I seem to remember he almost won Romandie one year, but he lost it in the TT on the last stage.

As I said, my impression is that he was racing clean in the States, then decided that wasn't enough $$, so took his talents to Europe late in his career where he went on the juice. I remember he raised questions about US Postal long ago.
 
Moose McKnuckles said:
Horner was winning everything in the States back in his Webcor days. The guy was an amazing rider. When he went to Europe, well, things didn't go so well, though he did have one victory at Saunier in the Tour de Suisse I think. I seem to remember he almost won Romandie one year, but he lost it in the TT on the last stage.

As I said, my impression is that he was racing clean in the States, then decided that wasn't enough $$, so took his talents to Europe late in his career where he went on the juice. I remember he raised questions about US Postal long ago.
I would share your impression of him on all counts.
 
JimmyFingers said:
Granted I haven't read the entire thread, but I'd like to see examples of this. I have no problem with Horner, good rider and personable chap. 41 and going for a GT win, that's a hell of a story, although I do think it's hubris on his part. Hope he gets red back today, so that's me and Nibali then.
Don't worry. I don't think he will win. That would be extreme IMHO.
 
roundabout said:
He got next to no results.

Edit: Maybe he didn't race that much, but I don't remember anything from Horner during his FdJ stint

Edit 2: and of course you "knowing" him makes his lack of results acceptable while Porte is a chemical creation despite being an impressive neo-pro.
This comment is typical of posters who basically have zero knowledge of Horner. I'm not defending the guy, but if you're going to post about him, at least be accurate. The guy had DOZENS of results in the States. He's won almost every race there is in in the States.

The guy was known for going on crazy breaks early in his career, while people were laughing at him. Pretty soon, he was dropping them like flies, and they weren't laughing. I don't particularly care for his late-age transformation into Lance's buddy, but I see it as a purely economic decision. He's got kids and not much of a career window left. He's maximizing it. I'm not excusing it, just giving my interpretation.
 
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.
Ofc there is. There's a reason why riders get different punishment for different actions. The same with the law. It's worse to break some laws than others.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
This is sport, not a criminal court. So what, Froome is a murderer and Horner is a first time petty thief?

You dope to win you cheat, that's the line. If you're going to qualify it with the degree of cheating (so what the length of time you're doping, the products you're using, the number of products you're using and variety of sentences for each, which means you'd have to quantify exactly the advantage gained for each rider?), for me you are the top of the slippery slope.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
As a (wise) man once said;

"If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday."
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
2
0
JimmyFingers said:
This is sport, not a criminal court. So what, Froome is a murderer and Horner is a first time petty thief?

You dope to win you cheat, that's the line. If you're going to qualify it with the degree of cheating (so what the length of time you're doping, the products you're using, the number of products you're using and variety of sentences for each, which means you'd have to quantify exactly the advantage gained for each rider?), for me you are the top of the slippery slope.
so its a sport now? I usually dont bother reading your posts, but i do remember a lot of talk about "evidence" or lack thereof in the sky threads.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
BYOP88 said:
As a (wise) man once said;

"If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday."

For once we'll agree
 
Horner's increase in performance comes down to diet. He used to eat a lot of junk food. Bruyneel would not have any of that from a rider on his team. Horner was put on a carefully planned diet. He pared his weight down. The elite climbing ability followed. It was a plan that has seen many a rider discover his ability late in his career.

That is why Bruyneel's teams have their own chef. No other teams have had the conscientious attention to detail that Bruyneel has used to guide his teams to one GT victory after another. It takes more than riding around for six hours a day to get ahead in this game. Other teams need to throw out their old training habits and embrace modern science.
 
Feb 15, 2011
1,306
0
0
Meh, nothing about Horner's attack the other day was a sign of doping to me. It was simply a well timed attack, that succeeded. I still think he's doped up though. I'm gonna go with my gut on this one. He's not as doped up as others mentioned, but still I think has some juice to lessen the old age effects
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY