When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 80 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 18, 2010
3,059
0
0
goggalor said:
:)

It's funny how (unironically) excited American fans are for Horner. Will they ever learn?
Well, probably the same gullible idiots that bought into Lance Armstrong so I'm holding my breath..
 
Apr 14, 2010
1,368
0
0
sniper said:
interesting.

yap, it is.
no doubt that Horner is the redacted name.
i guess it would also explain why USADA started target testing him in 2012.
I thought the USADA bumped up its testing alot of American riders in 2012?
 
sublimit said:
Well, probably the same gullible idiots that bought into Lance Armstrong so I'm holding my breath..
What US fans are excited about Horner? All the US fans I know are laughing at what seems to be an obvious doper winning in the era of "clean cycling". The same way they laughed at Froome.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Im excited about the worlds. Really hope Horner gives the middle finger to everyone and puts in another mutant performance.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
Would an unlimited amount of doping enable JRod and Valverde to recover fully from the Tour though?
Existing knowledge would say they could recover and have good legs at the start of the race but for that to persist into the third week was surprising. You only have to look at Froome twelve months ago. I've said in another thread that it's a mystery to me. It's easier to explain Froome and Nibali than Valverde/Rodriguez (for their double GTs) and Horner (spend three months overseas and improve into the third week).

Some other names that did the Tour-Vuelta:

Moreno (medium Tour)
Roche (medium Tour)
Fuglsang
Kreuziger
Pinot (soft Tour)
Anton
Nieve

They all make sense, the other two... Off the top of my head it's the best consecutive GT performance since Contador 2011 who was ordinary in the Pyrenees and still had one "shocker" in the third week. Further back would be Menchov and Sastre in 2008.
 
sublimit said:
Well, probably the same gullible idiots that bought into Lance Armstrong so I'm holding my breath..
The majority will not of course. Just like the Italians, Spanish, British, Belgian, ..... It's easy to overlook certain things when it's your guy who's the beneficiary, not so much when he's getting stomped.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
the sceptic said:
Im excited about the worlds. Really hope Horner gives the middle finger to everyone and puts in another mutant performance.
Le breton said:
Ah, but nobody ever will do as well as Vino in London 2012 in that respect :D
Horner would be Vino's ideal successor.

I secretly hope Pat "not on my watch" McQuaid is still president when it happens.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
On the final climb the big hitters were generally closer at the top than at the bottom. The final climb is the most meaningful as it's the only climb of the day when the big hitters are almost guaranteed to not be riding tempo.

Overall though, a winner from a break almost certainly rides harder that day than the big hitters do, but they don't do it day after day.

The mythical 6w/kg threshold for believability come from LeMond's performances on the final climbs of stages in GTs, which is another reason to focus on final climbs.
You are wrong on this completely. Lemond never was able to hold 6.0+ on longer climbs like Alpe d'Huez. The best of his era were around 5.6. Armstrong was 6.53 during a time trial and Pantani was over 7.0+ during a stage. The 6+ w/kg comes from a comment made by known doping Dr.Ferrari on what was required to have a chance to win the Tour de France.

If you want to use 6.0 as a point of believability, there is already a lot of margin set in.

6.0/5.6 = 7.14%

Here is a comparison to Lance and Pantani:

6.53/5.6 = 16.6%
7.0/5.6 = 25%
 
Jul 15, 2012
226
1
0
Nicko. said:
Bump.

Is the Froome juice expensive/exotic/very delicate to administer?
Are RS supplying/financing only Horner, a total PR disaster? Why?
If not, can Horner pick up his own tab? How?



Second bump.

Who can explain the logic in:
1. Horner is on the Froome juice (fair)
2. Froome is using something that is rare/exclusive/expensive/undetectable (fair)
3. Only Horner gets the good stuff from RS (why? not a keeper)
3b. Or Horner gets the good stuff on his own (how? new stuff is not off the shelf)
4. Dodging an USADA test creates a hoolabaloo (why flee? undetectable...)

Again, not arguing clean, but asking what & how.
GreasyMonkey said:
Judging by the reported actions and inconsistencies in the RatShack BS, I would suggest that he is not on some undetectable substance, more than likely a nice un-thawed BB from a Siberia freezer with some EPO/beetroot juice to balance things out...
Dazed and Confused said:
Juicing Horner is a no risk situation for Radioshack at this point.
hrotha said:
Horner might be what you'd call a "test driver", making sure the stuff works properly before using it on the rest of the team for more important objectives next year.
sittingbison said:
Wouldn't be surprised if Horner is a well reimbursed guinea pig testing out a new program for the heavy hitters within Radio Shack for next year. Watch the performance, check the results, see if he gets caught... explainable as a rogue old guy trying for a final pay check. Horner knows how to play that game, when to speak up or keep schtumm.
wansteadimp said:
Bend, Oregon is not a million miles from Beaverton, Oregon where Mo Farah and Rupp are training with Salazar, maybe Horner is getting the good stuff from the athletes?
Good input.
He's on traditional stuff+dodging 'real' (non-UCI) tests.
Or he's grasping the last chance to make the big bucks, as an expendable test pilot.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Nicko. said:
Good input.
He's on traditional stuff+dodging 'real' (non-UCI) tests.
Or he's grasping the last chance to make the big bucks, as an expendable test pilot.
Imo he definitely deliberately dodged that Last test.
usada wouldn,t test him on that day if they werent oN to something
there's A whole shipload of productS including eg. aicar of which only few Know how long they remain detectable
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
2
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
What US fans are excited about Horner? All the US fans I know are laughing at what seems to be an obvious doper winning in the era of "clean cycling". The same way they laughed at Froome.
There are some, mostly not on this forum, but out on the main site commenting on the articles. Appear to be generally uninformed about doping and cycling. I assume it's the same guys who used to be over at Velonews that also think Jens is clean :p
 
Beech Mtn said:
There are some, mostly not on this forum, but out on the main site commenting on the articles. Appear to be generally uninformed about doping and cycling. I assume it's the same guys who used to be over at Velonews that also think Jens is clean :p
Agree 100%. On the main site the likes about Horner are outnumbering the dislikes by a fair margin. It's the reverse for any comments that doubt his performance in the Vuelta. It's like a flashback to Lance of 1999-2005. Such naivety.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Zweistein said:
You are wrong on this completely. Lemond never was able to hold 6.0+ on longer climbs like Alpe d'Huez. The best of his era were around 5.6. Armstrong was 6.53 during a time trial and Pantani was over 7.0+ during a stage. The 6+ w/kg comes from a comment made by known doping Dr.Ferrari on what was required to have a chance to win the Tour de France.

If you want to use 6.0 as a point of believability, there is already a lot of margin set in.

6.0/5.6 = 7.14%

Here is a comparison to Lance and Pantani:

6.53/5.6 = 16.6%
7.0/5.6 = 25%
In Vayer's Not Normal, his best ever was Luz Ardiden for about 40 min in 1990 @ ~5.69w/kg ...at the end of the Tour that year. However, he did 5.88w/kg for 41:43 @ Alpe d'Huez the following year, finishing 2 min behind Bugno and Indurain [record that year]. It seems [by Vayer's assessment] that 30 min and beyond pushed him below 6w/kg.

That said, I think Lemond's numbers might be underestimated by Vayer. I had Greg Lemond's comeback book and I can recall a paragraph where he stated that he was usually around 148 lbs [67kg] at the end of a tour. Vayer's calculations put him at ~70.5kg, but maybe with his propensity to put on weight there is some merit to the assumption.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
vrusimov said:
In Vayer's Not Normal, his best ever was Luz Ardiden for about 40 min in 1990 @ ~5.69w/kg ...at the end of the Tour that year. However, he did 5.88w/kg for 41:43 @ Alpe d'Huez the following year, finishing 2 min behind Bugno and Indurain [record that year]. It seems [by Vayer's assessment] that 30 min and beyond pushed him below 6w/kg.

That said, I think Lemond's numbers might be underestimated by Vayer. I had Greg Lemond's comeback book and I can recall a paragraph where he stated that he was usually around 148 lbs [67kg] at the end of a tour. Vayer's calculations put him at ~70.5kg, but maybe with his propensity to put on weight there is some merit to the assumption.
The sad part was that I remember reading that before the TDF Lemond was telling his wife to get the champagne ready because he was killing it on all his training times. He was fit. Then he goes to the tour and gets shredded. I kind of doubt that Lemond was that heavy at the end of the tour becuase he had good training and riders lose weight through the whole thing. His racing weight from what I have seen was 140-145.
 
Benotti69 said:
EnacheV said:
Who decided Lemond is the climax of what humans are capable in terms of numbers?
Aldo Sassi i think is one.
Yes indeed, it was the late Aldo Sassi who theorised 6.2 W/kg was the limit of the human mechanism (without pharmaceutical assistance).

In his book, The Secret Race (chapter 6), Tyler Hamilton claims Ferrari preached "6.7 watts per kilogram was the magic number, because that was what it took to win the Tour."

The Kenyan Runners study showed elite runners derived a 5% performance boost from EPO while juiced, with a residual 3% boost four weeks after stopping doping. Somebody remind me, what is the half-life of EPO, and how long is that TdF thing?


Froome (rhymes with z-o-o-o-o-m) advertised 6.5 W/kg. Am I the only one thinks it a bit too coincidental that 6.2+5%=6.51?
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Zweistein said:
The sad part was that I remember reading that before the TDF Lemond was telling his wife to get the champagne ready because he was killing it on all his training times. He was fit. Then he goes to the tour and gets shredded. I kind of doubt that Lemond was that heavy at the end of the tour becuase he had good training and riders lose weight through the whole thing. His racing weight from what I have seen was 140-145.
Well I'm not sure he would be Horner's weight [140 lbs] but I don't think that 155 lbs at Tours end is quite right for him. Lemond had a rather large trunk and was built not unlike Anquetil. His blood disorder prior to the disastrous Val Louron stage did him in. I think he had enough time cushion and condition to not get dropped by Indurain on Alpe d'Huez if he had been healthy. His performance in the final time trial rather confirms this.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
StyrbjornSterki said:
Yes indeed, it was the late Aldo Sassi who theorised 6.2 W/kg was the limit of the human mechanism (without pharmaceutical assistance).

In his book, The Secret Race (chapter 6), Tyler Hamilton claims Ferrari preached "6.7 watts per kilogram was the magic number, because that was what it took to win the Tour."

The Kenyan Runners study showed elite runners derived a 5% performance boost from EPO while juiced, with a residual 3% boost four weeks after stopping doping. Somebody remind me, what is the half-life of EPO, and how long is that TdF thing?


Froome (rhymes with z-o-o-o-o-m) advertised 6.5 W/kg. Am I the only one thinks it a bit too coincidental that 6.2+5%=6.51?
But is it the limit of the human mechanism in a fresh state and not fatigued from weeks of racing with declining blood values?
 
vrusimov said:
...........
That said, I think Lemond's numbers might be underestimated by Vayer. I had Greg Lemond's comeback book and I can recall a paragraph where he stated that he was usually around 148 lbs [67kg] at the end of a tour. Vayer's calculations put him at ~70.5kg, but maybe with his propensity to put on weight there is some merit to the assumption.
Whether LeMond was 67 or 70.5 kg, that would hardly make a difference in watts/kg when the necessary power output for climbing in a given time, say AdH in 41:43, is normalized to the cyclist's weight, i.e. expressed in watts/kg., which is what Portoleau always calculates for Vayer.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS