When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[BroDeal]

It's September.

We will have to see how many sign up here with a September join date to rationalize Horner's performance. I am betting there will be damned few.

 

[TomasC]

When is the smackdown?

When Lance sings to the Truth and Reconciliation Comittee

Given Lance's ego and the fact that Horner now has more GT wins than him, that shouldn't take long.

 

[hrotha]

But would that bring enough smackett down on Horner's candy *** to take away his Vuelta win? I don't think so, it would only prove he used to dope but he would probably pull the same stunt everyone else did and claim to be clean since 06 or 07 or whatever the year was when they all went clean. . .

Depends. Will Armstrong talk about 2009-2010?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

We will have to see how many sign up here with a September join date to rationalize Horner's performance. I am betting there will be damned few.

So you're predicting the "July Fans" will be active in September defending Horner?

I detect a slight logical flaw in your thinking!

 

[BroDeal]

Given Lance's ego and the fact that Horner now has more GT wins than him, that shouldn't take long.

Armstrong won't be saying much until his legal issues are resolved. He cannot tell the opposing attorneys, "Not only was I doping, I was also using bribes to cover it up."

 

[Benotti69]

When is the smackdown?

When Lance sings to the Truth and Reconciliation Comittee

Why would he do that? I would be surprised if Armstrong participated as it would incriminate himself further (yes it is possible) and others like Stapleton, Weisel and others in USA. If it was a 'real' T&R, but hardly likely with the UCI.

 

[Benotti69]

So you're predicting the "July Fans" will be active in September defending Horner?

I detect a slight logical flaw in your thinking!

"damned few"........no one is gonna defend Horner except the few left over 'july fans'

 

[BroDeal]

"damned few"........no one is gonna defend Horner except the few left over 'july fans'

It is too bad the July Froome fans cannot stick to their principles and take up the defense of Horner. I will not bet they have the integrity.

 

[del1962]

It is too bad the July Froome fans cannot stick to their principles and take up the defense of Horner. I will not bet they have the integrity.

Why would anyone defend rider 15 who thinks Lance still won all those races?

 

[EnacheV]

"damned few"........no one is gonna defend Horner except the few left over 'july fans'

beside having a crystal ball about who is doped you also have the perfect knowledge of forum users opinions i'm impressed

imo there are 5-10 old forum users that are pretty sad and angry at the whole cycling field, a few that are fans and think in terms of "the enemies of my beloved hero are doping" and the rest laugh reading the doping drivels.

 

[BroDeal]

Why would anyone defend rider 15 who thinks Lance still won all those races?

My sources tell me rider 15 is Wiggins, and Wiggins defended Armstrong.

 

[del1962]

My sources tell me rider 15 is Wiggins, and Wiggins defended Armstrong.

You haven't been consulting an octopus again, have you?

 

[Benotti69]

beside having a crystal ball about who is doped you also have the perfect knowledge of forum users opinions i'm impressed

i corrected someone who misread a post. BroDeal posted "damned few" then W&G made a 'cracking' post asking BroDeal did he think the 'July fans' of which there were lots would be defending Horner.

But you know this as you obviously read the posts correctly.

 

[BroDeal]

It must be quite the conundrum for you guys. On one hand there is Horner, who only said a few good words about Armstrong because his job depended on it. On the other hand is Wiggins, who went out of his way to defend Armstrong because he truly likes Armstrong and was not bother the least by his dope use. What to do? What to do?

 

[del1962]

It must be quite the conundrum for you guys. On one hand there is Horner, who only said a few good words about Armstrong because his job depended on it. On the other hand is Wiggins, who went out of his way to defend Armstrong because he truly likes Armstrong and was not bother the least by his dope use. What to do? What to do?

How did Horner's job depend on it after the reasoned decision?

Are you saying Radioshack would have sacked him if he hadn't said Lance in his opion still one the races.

 

[ElChingon]

The whole CN story smells of tabloid journalism, the RD came out in Oct. and they don't ask Chris one question about it (his name being implicated as it was) till now, ogh such cutting edge journalism! The fact that Chris's named was guessed back in Nov. by the masses and no one took any initiative till now means they (CN) really don't read much or go after any names that are not headline fodder, guess its too hard better to go after the same names everyone else is to keep the status quo. The list is still there, no need to stop at Chris's guessed name.

 

[BroDeal]

How did Horner's job depend on it after the reasoned decision?

Are you saying Radioshack would have sacked him if he hadn't said Lance in his opion still one the races.

Wiggins did not need a reasoned decision. He had Armstrong's teammates telling him Armstrong was a doper. Yet he still publicly protected Armstrong, even though his livelihood did not depend on it. Horner was just doin' what a man's gotta do.

 

[webvan]

The whole CN story smells of tabloid journalism, the RD came out in Oct. and they don't ask Chris one question about it (his name being implicated as it was) till now, ogh such cutting edge journalism! The fact that Chris's named was guessed back in Nov. by the masses and no one took any initiative till now means they (CN) really don't read much or go after any names that are not headline fodder, guess its too hard better to go after the same names everyone else is to keep the status quo. The list is still there, no need to stop at Chris's guessed name.

This...I suppose "Daniel" is none other than the "Managing Editor" of CN? Asking Horner is he's the redacted name in Levi's testimony is really a stupid question, how would Horner know anyway and if he did, why would he answer the question? The USADA statement is where Daniel" should have left it at, instead of bugging Horner on his cell while he was driving and then at home.

 

[sniper]

The whole CN story smells of tabloid journalism, the RD came out in Oct. and they don't ask Chris one question about it (his name being implicated as it was) till now, ogh such cutting edge journalism! The fact that Chris's named was guessed back in Nov. by the masses and no one took any initiative till now means they (CN) really don't read much or go after any names that are not headline fodder, guess its too hard better to go after the same names everyone else is to keep the status quo. The list is still there, no need to stop at Chris's guessed name.

+1

This...I suppose "Daniel" is none other than the "Managing Editor" of CN? Asking Horner is he's the redacted name in Levi's testimony is really a stupid question, how would Horner know anyway and if he did, why would he answer the question?

asking the cheater himself to detail his cheating is, sadly enough, the norm in present day sports journalism.
Just check the latest piece on Verbruggen, now on CN front page. I mean: How often do you want that guy to repeat that he's never, never, never done anything wrong? ffs.

The USADA statement is where Daniel" should have left it at, instead of bugging Horner on his cell while he was driving and then at home.

this very much.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

This...I suppose "Daniel" is none other than the "Managing Editor" of CN? Asking Horner is he's the redacted name in Levi's testimony is really a stupid question, how would Horner know anyway and if he did, why would he answer the question? The USADA statement is where Daniel" should have left it at, instead of bugging Horner on his cell while he was driving and then at home.

Surely the clown at 105 knows how to handle incoming calls by now.....

And yes, Benson is taken a very low route, but activity around his article would suggest the concept is working. A bit like Kittel and his cheap shots.

 

[del1962]

Horner's name was not mentioned in USADA's 1000-page report. He remains almost an exception: a veteran US rider relatively untouched by doping scandal. Guilt by association these days seems flimsy.

This is what Daniel Benson said in his december 2012 article

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/exclusive-interview-chris-horner-on-his-career-armstrong-and-pro-cycling

The one where Horner said

I remember the 2005 Tour de France and Lance was the best guy there and he past all the tests and won the Tour. I'm not going to debate if he won, he was there, he won and passed the tests.

I am suprised that Daniel Benson said what he did if he thought Horner's name was the redacted rider 15 at the time,

 

[DirtyWorks]

The whole CN story smells of tabloid journalism, the RD came out in Oct. and they don't ask Chris one question about it (his name being implicated as it was) till now, ogh such cutting edge journalism!.

What's going to generate more reads?
- another story about another one of the scumbags from the USADA action about the time of the USADA action?
- the recent winner of the just-concluded Vuelta implicated in doping via USADA actions.

If you are in the business of generating traffic for your advertisers then the obvious answer is the latter. CN's not totally out of the woods though. They've got DeCanio's rants as blog content from years ago and I believe Horner was implicated then along with a huge number of guys who later admitted to doping or providing. If the point was to really, actually implicate the guy, then they could have added that to the story.

In the end, winning fixes everything. No doubt there are some new Horner fans blindly defending the joker.

 

[DirtyWorks]

..Asking Horner is he's the redacted name in Levi's testimony is really a stupid question, how would Horner know anyway

Uhh, because someone would have said, "Dude, you are in Levi's USADA confession." Or, he would have taken the time to skim them maybe? It's pretty obvious.

and if he did, why would he answer the question?.

Because the lies can be hilarious and generally create traffic no matter what is quoted.

 

[darwin553]

You haven't been consulting an octopus again, have you?

But seriously, if Horner is no. 15 and was obliterated from the USADA reasoned decision because of a lack of evidence, well you would think that the circumstanial evidence after Vuelta has began to paint a picture that he should have been included.

 

[BroDeal]

But seriously, if Horner is no. 15 and was obliterated from the USADA reasoned decision because of a lack of evidence, well you would think that the circumstanial evidence after Vuelta has began to paint a picture that he should have been included.

USADA can include that right after UKADA issues a report implicating Froome based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of his ludicrous Tour performance.