When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 89 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Finishing in the grupetto in Poland has let to a Vuelta podium spot before so I think you might be right.
I believe grupetto to podiums is the fashion nowadays and nothing like an Italian to follow fashion :D
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
The Hitch said:
Why Poland for Nibali? Burgos is a far more appropriate refference point as it took place at exactly the same time as Utah, and is of similar lenght.

Nibali was 3rd in Burgos.
Nice post. Anyway, it´s a usual clinic tactic to cherrypick while leaving out the context so it "proves" points made...
At the end, if we leave out all the "noise", the hard facts stand. And they favour a proven rider over a failure in europes first stint...
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
The Hitch said:
Why Poland for Nibali? Burgos is a far more appropriate refference point as it took place at exactly the same time as Utah, and is of similar lenght.

Nibali was 3rd in Burgos.
To reinforce your argument, Nibali was also 3rd in Burgos 2010. And so was Cobo in 2011. :D
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Guys use the following stat as you want. Either as proof Nibali is doping year long, or that he is just being consistent (what all great riders were before 1990).
But it´s ridiculous calling out the Tour of Poland as proof that he is a gruppetto rider, and thus being on the same dope level as the grandpa. Absurd!

Nibali finished 7 tours in the Top-10 this season.

No one, no one did that in the (at least) past 10 years. No Armstrong, no Horner, no Cobo, no Wiggins, no Froome, no Contador, no Evans, no Schleck, no JRod, no Sastre, you name it...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
§hit, i didn´t count the 3-day stage race "Vuelta a la Comunidad de Madrid".
Anyway, you are correct.
Still, Nibali was pretty much good all year. You know the point i made is still true. Pretty amazing to be one of two riders accomplishing that feat...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Zam_Olyas said:
Doping and consistent. Consistently doping.
Knew that was coming... just the cynics.

Nibali has no talent whatsoever, and thus risks his livelihood every stage race he enters. Just to earn a paycheck of 5.000 euro for finishing T-10 in Argentina. :rolleyes:
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Knew that was coming... just the cynics.

Nibali has no talent whatsoever, and thus risks his livelihood every stage race he enters. Just to earn a paycheck of 5.000 euro for finishing T-10 in Argentina. :rolleyes:
Who says he has no talents? Just because he is doping doesn't mean he has no talents.
 
Here is a question to foxxy.

I remember you writing during the 09 world champs how sick you felt watching Usain Bolt win the 100m live at the Berlin stadium with your daughter I think.
There are several posts easily accessed through google where you ridicule his explanations, call him the Lance of the track, and say performance proves he is guilty.

Which begs the question from me, why don't you trust Usain Bolt but you do trust and love and rejoice at every improvement of Froome?

Usain Bolt was more of a talent as a youngster, which is one of the catergories you use to identify dopers. He broke through quicker, -22 vs 25.

Neither has failed a drugs test.

Neither has been caught up in a doping investigations.

Both say they are clean.

You clearly don't believe cycling has better testing because Horner is able to get through so clearly the testing sucks in both sports.

So, what is the difference? How can you be disgusted on the one side with the one and so supportive of the other?
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
... and in the old days, finishing in the grupetto of GT´s (scroll down to 2 hrs 53 mins down on the winner) http://bikeraceinfo.com/giro/giro1990.html led to TdF wins http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France_1990. So what´s your point?... Hypocrite. :p
That's about as out to lunch a post as I've seen. At that point you're talking about a guy who already won the Tour twice and placed 2nd and 3rd before that.

Do you really not get what it means to be someone who rides in the grupetto? As in, can't make the finish times without the help of the grupetto?
 
Jul 11, 2013
291
0
0
The Hitch said:
Here is a question to foxxy.

I remember you writing during the 09 world champs how sick you felt watching Usain Bolt win the 100m live at the Berlin stadium with your daughter I think.
There are several posts easily accessed through google where you ridicule his explanations, call him the Lance of the track, and say performance proves he is guilty.

Which begs the question from me, why don't you trust Usain Bolt but you do trust and love and rejoice at every improvement of Froome?

Usain Bolt was more of a talent as a youngster, which is one of the catergories you use to identify dopers. He broke through quicker, -22 vs 25.

Neither has failed a drugs test.

Neither has been caught up in a doping investigations.

Both say they are clean.

You clearly don't believe cycling has better testing because Horner is able to get through so clearly the testing sucks in both sports.

So, what is the difference? How can you be disgusted on the one side with the one and so supportive of the other?
We all the reason. Starts with "F" ends with "Y" and has "ANBO" in the middle. Lance had plenty of those, Froome is entitled to some. Both blind.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
... and in the old days, finishing in the grupetto of GT´s (scroll down to 2 hrs 53 mins down on the winner) http://bikeraceinfo.com/giro/giro1990.html led to TdF wins http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France_1990. So what´s your point?... Hypocrite. :p
I understand your obsessed a little bit, but I dont share it, sorry. Maybe you should look up the results for the Tour de Suisse 1990, just a tip. Or are you saying Nibali is the new LeMond? Wow, that is a daring statement Foxxxxy.

Who shall we compare Horner to? Ullrich 1996? Nah, Horner proved he could climb before whereas Der Jannes, well...

Please say you can do better FB.
 
The Hitch said:
Here is a question to foxxy.

I remember you writing during the 09 world champs how sick you felt watching Usain Bolt win the 100m live at the Berlin stadium with your daughter I think.
There are several posts easily accessed through google where you ridicule his explanations, call him the Lance of the track, and say performance proves he is guilty.

Which begs the question from me, why don't you trust Usain Bolt but you do trust and love and rejoice at every improvement of Froome?

Usain Bolt was more of a talent as a youngster, which is one of the catergories you use to identify dopers. He broke through quicker, -22 vs 25.

Neither has failed a drugs test.

Neither has been caught up in a doping investigations.

Both say they are clean.

You clearly don't believe cycling has better testing because Horner is able to get through so clearly the testing sucks in both sports.

So, what is the difference? How can you be disgusted on the one side with the one and so supportive of the other?
The MASSIVE difference is that Jamaican sprinters are full of failed tests, whereas Sky ain't got one failed test or ex-teammate doping allegation.
And, with one or two minor exceptions, the wider British Cycling has a good record.
A smaller difference is that Froome hasn't broken multiple world records, but that's more arguable, dependant on perception of what has been going on in climbs etc
 
red_flanders said:
That's about as out to lunch a post as I've seen. At that point you're talking about a guy who already won the Tour twice and placed 2nd and 3rd before that.

Do you really not get what it means to be someone who rides in the grupetto? As in, can't make the finish times without the help of the grupetto?
It wasnt FoxxyBrown1111 who made stupid comparison, it was FGL with his Nibali and Tour of Poland reference. Foxxy only replied with LeMond example. Obviously he is not saying that LeMond was grupetto rider, he is just showing how stupid this Nibali-Tour of Poland link is.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Zam_Olyas said:
Who says he has no talents? Just because he is doping doesn't mean he has no talents.
Here is my Question for you to better understand: Do you think Nibali does dope year long (& thus risking millions of euros) to get T-10 results consistently, just to win 5.000 euros here and there; in the Tour San Luis for example?
Or isn´t it more likely that he don´t dope year long?
And if he doesn´t dope year long, isn´t it much likely he has more talents than guys like 41 year old Horner or Cobo who come out of the dark, win, and hide again?
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Here is my Question for you to better understand: Do you think Nibali does dope year long (& thus risking millions of euros) to get T-10 results consistently, just to win 5.000 euros here and there; in the Tour San Luis for example?
Or isn´t it more likely that he don´t dope year long?
And if he doesn´t dope year long, isn´t it much likely he has more talents than guys like 41 year old Horner or Cobo who come out of the dark, win, and hide again?
I would answer if you weren't condescending.
 
Valencia

Just reading Vande Veldes affidavit...at point 43.

Dr Del Moral's office in Valencia....now isn't that where Horner went after the final stage of the Vuelta ??

Banned for life - but where's Moral now and whats he doing ? anyone know ?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY