When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

Page 98 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
zigmeister said:
This Horner thread has become a complete train wreck mods...get with it. Actually, that applies to most threads in the clinic. :D


Seriously, any talk of average speeds is completely stupid. You can't compare one set of stages, how the entire GT is designed, the distance, the various climbs/grades/weather/wind/competitors.

One of the worst ways to compare any race or ride in general, even for local group rides/training/racing...by average speeds. Too many variables.

Almost worst than saying the equipment is some % variable. Is it safe to say equipment has improved and performance has gone up, certainly, science can prove that piece to an extent. But even then, we still have track hour records where the weather/conditions on the track are very consistent, and guys even on older bikes, have times that are still incredible to this day, with "inferior" equipment compared to today's standards and marketing.

Unless you have written some massive mathematical formulas and can run extensive modelling like we are tracking hurricanes, you might have a chance to guess something...but that is bunk also.

The US Hurricane season was supposed to be one of the most active in recent history...yet, big bust...not even 1 storm has formed or come close to the US. The season is almost 2 months still from being over...but the "experts" and doomsdayers got it wrong with their science, match and super computer modelling again.
Zig
I completely agree. This is a perfect example of a thread that should have been closed. At best it represents wild speculation. I really wish the clinic was restricted to discussion of positive tests or real investigations but this constant trial by armchair dopes is exhaustive waste of time. There is no outcome or resolution, only he said she said. For the fans of the dark side there are plenty of real stories to discuss rather than endless discussion of every performance.

The clinic needs a doctor and a set of rules that stop this constant witch hunt and pseudo doping analysis. If anyone actually has evidence that CH or any rider is cheating then there should be no open discussion.

I might like to explore the doping practices of many of these clinic regulars. They must be on something?

No one has presented any evidence in 59 pages of discussion that would open an investigation on Chris H or F, never mind the countless pages devoted to CF alone. Not 1 shred of real evidence, only the inability of these posters to accept another possible idea and that is they raced clean. Just can't face the possibility that 1 rider in any race is the strongest. given the general opinion that all riders are dirty I fail to see the purpose of proving the winner is dirty if everyone he beat is too. I don't share that perspective and I have always maintained innocent without prof of wrongdoing.
Put my vote for greater restriction of the free for all discussions and it is too bad that more libel suits don't arise from these threads.
Hey a Sky rider is implicated in a Passport investigation. That is open for dissection now please close this and every other speculative thread. It might improve the quality of discussion here too.
 
Jun 29, 2009
127
0
0
therhodeo said:
Ok so tell me this. Posting these numbers. Ignorance, stupidity, or arrogance?
none of the above. rather, he is sending a challenge to Nibali, Uran, Evans, Froome, Quintana, Rodriguez and Valverde to post their own passport values to see who's had the lowest increase in hematocrit over their 3 a week tour
 
At 40 kph, rolling resistance and drive train friction combined account for ~12% of total system drag. The remaining 88% is consumed by aerodynamic drag, of which the bicycle accounts for only ~30% (in mass start trim). The rider himself is the remaining 70%.

Which makes the rider responsible for ~60% of total drag. So this alleged 1-2% improvement the equipment is responsible for necessarily must have come from only ~40% of the total friction profile.


But the chief problem with the "it is about the bike" answer is that it assumes a 2% increase in speed equals a 2% in performance.

It doesn't.


Aerodynamic drag increases with the square of the increase in velocity, but the energy required to overcome the added drag increases at the cube of the change. Which means any net change in rider speed occurs at the cube root of the gross change in effort. So a 2% increase in effort, at 35 kph, will net the rider about 0.88 kph more speed. To net a 2% increase in performance would require an (2^3=) 8% increase in effort, or 8% increase in efficiency, or a combination of the two.

This chart was prepared by Ranier Pivit


Based on Pivit's data, Froome's 2013 average output was ~23% higher than Lemond's 1990 average output. 2013 was 101 km shorter than 1990 and the same number of stages, a 5 km difference average stage length.

Horner's 2013 Vuelta average output was ~24% higher than Eddy Merckx's 1973 output. 1973 was 17 stages averaging 180 km. 2013 was 21 stages averaging 160 km.


It's easy to trivialize use of rider speed to indicate doping, but less so when you understand that 2013 Horner's 3.6 kph edge over 1973 Merckx is more than simply 3.6 kph, it's also an additional 24% more energy.

Look me in the eye and tell me you find it credible that a clean 41-year old Chris Horner could be a 24% stronger stage racer than a 28-year old Eddy Merckx.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
StyrbjornSterki said:
It's easy to trivialize use of rider speed to indicate doping, but less so when you understand that 2013 Horner's 3.6 kph edge over 1973 Merckx is more than simply 3.6 kph, it's also an additional 24% more energy.
this is the most ridiculous thing i heard in the last month, and i hear a lot. hahaha, i can't comment, it's like arguing 1+1=2 vs 1+1=24

i guess that if they make a flat or downhill 3500km TdF and speed will increase with 10kmp, this smart scientist will tell us that the energy increased by 200%.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Master50 said:
... bla bla ...
If you don´t like it, don´t come here & don´t read it. If you don´t like freedom of speech, then go to a country where there is no (plenty to choose from BTW, you´ll succeed).
There was also nothing than suspicions on LA until he finally got caught. I know guys like you would have loved if everything was thrown under the carpet forever... Didn´t work with LA, won´t with Horner. Sooner or later he´ll be banned.
 
Jul 11, 2013
291
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
If you don´t like it, don´t come here & don´t read it. If you don´t like freedom of speech, then go to a country where there is no (plenty to choose from BTW, you´ll succeed).
There was also nothing than suspicions on LA until he finally got caught. I know guys like you would have loved if everything was thrown under the carpet forever... Didn´t work with LA, won´t with Horner. Sooner or later he´ll be banned.
And if this was posted in the Chris Froome thread, you'd be saying the exact same thing right? :D:D:D

and BTW, Horner has the same chance as Froome at getting caught. They're probably both on something (equal chance I'd say), and it'll be a crapshoot in determining if there will be a way to retroactively find out what exactly is coursing through their veins. They may be on different stuff, but which one (or both) will get caught...who knows.

And as far as I see it, Horner so far has been shown to the be the far more transparent of the two. Doesn't make it any less probable his guilt versus Froome, but secret Badzilla guy is far more of a questionable character.
 
EnacheV said:
this is the most ridiculous thing i heard in the last month, and i hear a lot. hahaha, i can't comment, it's like arguing 1+1=2 vs 1+1=24

i guess that if they make a flat or downhill 3500km TdF and speed will increase with 10kmp, this smart scientist will tell us that the energy increased by 200%.
scientist :rolleyes:
 
Master50 said:
Zig
I completely agree. This is a perfect example of a thread that should have been closed. At best it represents wild speculation. I really wish the clinic was restricted to discussion of positive tests or real investigations but this constant trial by armchair dopes is exhaustive waste of time. There is no outcome or resolution, only he said she said. For the fans of the dark side there are plenty of real stories to discuss rather than endless discussion of every performance.

The clinic needs a doctor and a set of rules that stop this constant witch hunt and pseudo doping analysis. If anyone actually has evidence that CH or any rider is cheating then there should be no open discussion.

I might like to explore the doping practices of many of these clinic regulars. They must be on something?

No one has presented any evidence in 59 pages of discussion that would open an investigation on Chris H or F, never mind the countless pages devoted to CF alone. Not 1 shred of real evidence, only the inability of these posters to accept another possible idea and that is they raced clean. Just can't face the possibility that 1 rider in any race is the strongest. given the general opinion that all riders are dirty I fail to see the purpose of proving the winner is dirty if everyone he beat is too. I don't share that perspective and I have always maintained innocent without prof of wrongdoing.
Put my vote for greater restriction of the free for all discussions and it is too bad that more libel suits don't arise from these threads.
Hey a Sky rider is implicated in a Passport investigation. That is open for dissection now please close this and every other speculative thread. It might improve the quality of discussion here too.
There is nothing inappropriate about the thread: a 41 year old ex Armstrong team mate winning his first GT, mentioned in the USADA document, releases his blood profile which shows an increase in his levels during the last week of the race.....of course there is going to speculation.

Any of the above factors warrant consideration

Mind you, a lot of the speculation has been pretty r****sh

But you don't always know until you explore
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
If you don´t like it, don´t come here & don´t read it. If you don´t like freedom of speech, then go to a country where there is no (plenty to choose from BTW, you´ll succeed).
There was also nothing than suspicions on LA until he finally got caught. I know guys like you would have loved if everything was thrown under the carpet forever... Didn´t work with LA, won´t with Horner. Sooner or later he´ll be banned.
Freedom of stupidity is protected too I suppose. Yes I was sick of the entire LA perpetual accusations and for the most part it was a huge waste of time. That the investigation ever got traction is almost a miracle of its own. In no way did I ever wish that the LA thing get swept under but I admit I never believed he would fall.

As for your notion that if I don't like it I can avoid the discussion yes that is an option but I chose to occasionally call BS on the discussion which is also my prerogative but there is no reason I should stay away because I think the clinic is full of crap. It might be an even better reason to visit it regularly. That you find no reason to establish evidence but rather chase imaginary trails is very bothersome. It is lynch mob reasoning and it is unfair as well as against all I believe is right. You call it freedom to cast defamatory accusations against persons you just have a big feeling are cheating? I call it evil and I would bet this is not what you are teaching your children either. I bet you teach them innocent until proven guilty? Here we have guilty by suspicion and you defend it? This part of the forum is not a healthy place and perpetuates incivility and uncivilized discussion. There are enough real cases of cheating and much better examples of real doping discussion. This constant barrage of pointless discussion about did he or didn't he has not elevated 1 hard fact in 59 pages. What has been proven here? Nothing and look at the same discussion about Froome. NADA nothing but the same hash and rehash. You defend this?
 
StyrbjornSterki said:
At 40 kph, rolling resistance and drive train friction combined account for ~12% of total system drag. The remaining 88% is consumed by aerodynamic drag, of which the bicycle accounts for only ~30% (in mass start trim). The rider himself is the remaining 70%.

Which makes the rider responsible for ~60% of total drag. So this alleged 1-2% improvement the equipment is responsible for necessarily must have come from only ~40% of the total friction profile.


But the chief problem with the "it is about the bike" answer is that it assumes a 2% increase in speed equals a 2% in performance.
Where did you get these numbers?

Most major manufacturers have come up with the number of about 80% of the drag in cycling is the rider. Cervelo has put this in writing based of their wind tunnel testing for wheels.

Not sure drivetrain friction is classified as?

Rolling resistance etc..
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Master50 said:
Freedom of stupidity is protected too I suppose. Yes I was sick of the entire LA perpetual accusations and for the most part it was a huge waste of time. That the investigation ever got traction is almost a miracle of its own. In no way did I ever wish that the LA thing get swept under but I admit I never believed he would fall.

As for your notion that if I don't like it I can avoid the discussion yes that is an option but I chose to occasionally call BS on the discussion which is also my prerogative but there is no reason I should stay away because I think the clinic is full of crap. It might be an even better reason to visit it regularly. That you find no reason to establish evidence but rather chase imaginary trails is very bothersome. It is lynch mob reasoning and it is unfair as well as against all I believe is right. You call it freedom to cast defamatory accusations against persons you just have a big feeling are cheating? I call it evil and I would bet this is not what you are teaching your children either. I bet you teach them innocent until proven guilty? Here we have guilty by suspicion and you defend it? This part of the forum is not a healthy place and perpetuates incivility and uncivilized discussion. There are enough real cases of cheating and much better examples of real doping discussion. This constant barrage of pointless discussion about did he or didn't he has not elevated 1 hard fact in 59 pages. What has been proven here? Nothing and look at the same discussion about Froome. NADA nothing but the same hash and rehash. You defend this?
In 2009 Armstrong's Giro Hb/Hct values were the following:

Hb..........Hct.
14.8 - 43.5 [beginning]
13.6 - 40
13 - 38.2 [end]

This is consistent with what should happen to a rider over the rigors of a three week Grand Tour. What do we see at the Tour? The following:

Hb.........Hct.
14.3........42.8
14...........41.3
13.7.......40.7 [maximum plasma expansion]
14.4.......43.1[?]
14..........41[?]
14.5......43[?]


His passport isn't put under scrutiny until years later...tells you how lax and subjective the passport system really is.


Now there is nothing on Horner this year for GT data. He only rode one week races but a curious pattern that bears questioning is his Hb data for the Vuelta.

15.2 [start]
14.4
13.5 [maximum plasma expansion]
14.3[?]
14.6[?] [finish]
Compare this to Armstrong's 09 Giro. Then compare it to the Tour pattern. Why the Hb rise back up toward pre tour levels? That is a valid and reasonable question to ask when viewed against Armstrong's Giro pattern. It is similarly suspicious.

His reticulocyte fraction reaches a passport record low of .39, rises to .55 but stays suppressed below baseline values for the remainder of the Vuelta. Of course we don't know what post tour passport data looks like because a test was missed. Given the trajectory of his Hb rise, it is likely that the missed test would have shown his Hb very near where it started, like Armstrong Tour '09. Basically, in the hardest week of the tour, his Hb is rising, not falling or even flat-lining [Armstrong Giro '09]. Moreover, if the retic fraction shows lower in the missed test then you would have a serious cause to question. Alas we will never know because that test is non-existent.

Given the training time he missed due to injury after Tirreno-Adriatico, Volta Catalunya and knee surgery, it is fair to say that he is behind other riders in his preparation. Indeed, the Tour of Utah shows Danielson to be stronger than he is, losing 1:25 on the mountainous Park City stage. That was the middle of August.

He has done ~6.6w/kg for 10 minutes before in the middle of a tour. Can he do ~6.3w/kg for 43 minutes on the Angliru at the end of a tour? The second best time up the mountain and ahead of Contador [2008]?

In summary, we don't know what happened after his knee surgery at the end of May. We don't know how long it took to resume training, though Horner admits to couching it up for a month. What that means in regards to training is anyone's guess. However, his performance bears scrutiny because he did not exactly have the most propitious lead up to the Vuelta. He hurt himself on excessive gearing at TA, tried too many times to ride through it and ended up forfeiting a chunk of his season due to the inevitable surgery that followed. Pre-Vuelta interviews had him going out of his way to remind everyone that he was amongst the best at TA and was forcing the pace, though I seriously question that statement given what happened when Froome blew his doors off at the end of stage 4. Being amongst the best at TA hardly means being the best at the Vuelta after the way his season went.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
vrusimov said:
In 2009 Armstrong's Giro Hb/Hct values were the following:

Hb..........Hct.
14.8 - 43.5 [beginning]
13.6 - 40
13 - 38.2 [end]

This is consistent with what should happen to a rider over the rigors of a three week Grand Tour. What do we see at the Tour? The following:

Hb.........Hct.
14.3........42.8
14...........41.3
13.7.......40.7 [maximum plasma expansion]
14.4.......43.1[?]
14..........41[?]
14.5......43[?]


His passport isn't put under scrutiny until years later...tells you how lax and subjective the passport system really is.


Now there is nothing on Horner this year for GT data. He only rode one week races but a curious pattern that bears questioning is his Hb data for the Vuelta.

15.2 [start]
14.4
13.5 [maximum plasma expansion]
14.3[?]
14.6[?] [finish]
Compare this to Armstrong's 09 Giro. Then compare it to the Tour pattern. Why the Hb rise back up toward pre tour levels? That is a valid and reasonable question to ask when viewed against Armstrong's Giro pattern. It is similarly suspicious.

His reticulocyte fraction reaches a passport record low of .39, rises to .55 but stays suppressed below baseline values for the remainder of the Vuelta. Of course we don't know what post tour passport data looks like because a test was missed. Given the trajectory of his Hb rise, it is likely that the missed test would have shown his Hb very near where it started, like Armstrong Tour '09. Basically, in the hardest week of the tour, his Hb is rising, not falling or even flat-lining [Armstrong Giro '09]. Fascinating.

Given the training time he missed due to injury after Tirreno-Adriatico, Volta Catalunya and knee surgery, it is fair to say that he is behind other riders in his preparation. Indeed, the Tour of Utah shows Danielson to be stronger than he is, losing 1:25 on the mountainous Park City stage. That was the middle of August.

He has done ~6.6w/kg for 10 minutes before in the middle of a tour. Can he do ~6.3w/kg for 43 minutes on the Angliru at the end of a tour? The second best time up the mountain and ahead of Contador [2008]?

In summary, we don't know what happened after his knee surgery at the end of May. We don't know how long it took to resume training, though Horner admits to couching it up for a month. What that means in regards to training is anyone's guess. However, his performance bears scrutiny because he did not exactly have the most propitious lead up to the Vuelta. He hurt himself on excessive gearing at TA, tried too many times to ride through it and ended up forfeiting a chunk of his season due to the inevitable surgery that followed. Pre-Vuelta interviews had him going out of his way to remind everyone that he was amongst the best at TA and was forcing the pace, though I seriously question that statement given what happened when Froome blew his doors off at the end of stage 4. Being amongst the best at TA hardly means being the best at the Vuelta after the way his season went.
You post this porn in response to my post? I am not going to read this. I am an electrician and not a blood expert. You obviously miss my point. If this is some form of evidence of doping am happy to wait for the official announcement from USADA, WADA, or the UCI. If you are an actual expert then you are still talking to a cycling forum and not a doping panel.
 
Apr 14, 2010
1,368
0
0
Master50 said:
You post this porn in response to my post? I am not going to read this. I am an electrician and not a blood expert. You obviously miss my point. If this is some form of evidence of doping am happy to wait for the official announcement from USADA, WADA, or the UCI. If you are an actual expert then you are still talking to a cycling forum and not a doping panel. Provide them your expert testimony or shut up please :)
You definitely act the part of a sparky.
 
StyrbjornSterki said:
It's easy to trivialize use of rider speed to indicate doping, but less so when you understand that 2013 Horner's 3.6 kph edge over 1973 Merckx is more than simply 3.6 kph, it's also an additional 24% more energy.

Look me in the eye and tell me you find it credible that a clean 41-year old Chris Horner could be a 24% stronger stage racer than a 28-year old Eddy Merckx.
Excellent summary.

Given all the shady cycling characters quoted as having made decisions based on "looking into eyes" that phrase takes on a special kind kind of humour.

Well played!
 
Master50 said:
You post this porn in response to my post? I am not going to read this. I am an electrician and not a blood expert. You obviously miss my point. If this is some form of evidence of doping am happy to wait for the official announcement from USADA, WADA, or the UCI. If you are an actual expert then you are still talking to a cycling forum and not a doping panel.

To the bolded, the UCI would never have processed a positive result on either Armstrong, (they still haven't) or Contador without outside forces compelling them to do something they clearly didn't want to do.

USA Cycling isn't going to open a case on Horner. Wiesel has a decade+ of dopers, none of whom were ever sanctioned by the federation. Thom Wiesel isn't going suddenly start enforcing rules now.

If the UCI/USAC have a positive, they can handle it like JTL. He's can cross the thresholds for a positive and the federation refuses to open a case. WADA/USADA have no authority to open a case. So, Horner has never tested positive.

So, how is it that USADA were able to apply UCI rules to initiate a ban on Armstrong? They had so many people turn on Armstrong's machine it was only a matter of getting it all down on paper.

Horner is "never tested positive" at this point and all the double and triple meanings that phrase has taken on are appropriate.
 
vrusimov said:
In 2009 Armstrong's Giro Hb/Hct values were the following:

Hb..........Hct.
14.8 - 43.5 [beginning]
13.6 - 40
13 - 38.2 [end]

This is consistent with what should happen to a rider over the rigors of a three week Grand Tour. What do we see at the Tour? The following:

Now there is nothing on Horner this year for GT data. He only rode one week races but a curious pattern that bears questioning is his Hb data for the Vuelta.

15.2 [start]
14.4
13.5 [maximum plasma expansion]
14.3[?]
14.6[?] [finish]
Compare this to Armstrong's 09 Giro. Then compare it to the Tour pattern. Why the Hb rise back up toward pre tour levels? That is a valid and reasonable question to ask when viewed against Armstrong's Giro pattern. It is similarly suspicious.
Basso's Giro win also had a similar decline of Hct from 46 to 39% by the end. Any increase indicates blood manipulation. But if it was so easy to prove, WADA would have caught him. From performance alone, it is strongly indicated but how to prove is the question. I believe none of the top teams are going after Horner for signing inspite of the Vuelta win is a sign that everybody suspects.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts