131313 said:For me, euro grand tours are simply WWF in spandex.
Yep. Spot on.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
131313 said:For me, euro grand tours are simply WWF in spandex.
Moose McKnuckles said:I always enjoy watching the Brits complain about the Americans until they need American assistance in beating world powers like Argentina over some meaningless islands.
Have some tea and crumpets and STFU.
lstomsl said:Merckx index said:So there you have it. Believe me or not, physiological a well trained 41 year old is not at their prime but they about as close to it as a 24 or 25 year old. We don't get many 24 year old tour winners either but we have had them and from a strictly biological standpoint Horners performance is no less believable than that.
You really need a new point of reference since you appear to be stuck in the early 80s. Have you been living behind the Iron Curtain?Moose McKnuckles said:I always enjoy watching the Brits complain about the Americans until they need American assistance in beating world powers like Argentina over some meaningless islands.
Have some tea and crumpets and STFU.
Zweistein said:lstomsl said:No, the average age of a tour de France winner is 28 years old. Before hardcore doping emerged there were a lot of very young winners.
Lemond 25
Fignon 23
Hinault 24
Merckx 24
Aimar 24
Gimondi 23
Anquetil 23
Gaul 26
Koblet 26
Robic 26
Bartali 24
Lapapie 23
Maes 22
Spiecher 26
ect.
If someone has stage racing talent, it shows itself early. This concept of maturing into a GC rider in your 30s or with Horner your 40s is bunk. Before hardcore dope, people could spot a potential GC rider from a mile away.
131313 said:Well, the thing is that you two different things going on with someone like, say Ullrich coming back to cycling. First, they've been getting older. But they've also become detrained from not riding. "Freshness" from not racing a ton is a lot different that freshness from sitting on the couch and gaining 20 lbs. If you really want to look at the the loss in performance of a clean rider (at least a guy most believe to be clean), take a look at Ned Overend. His time up Mt. Evans is within a minute or so of his fastest time...at age 55...
No one knows for sure what the loss in vo2 over time in an individual athlete (though there's certainly a range). But besides loss of muscle mass, keep in mind that functional vo2 is expressed in output/weight, so one way to mitigate this loss is simply to lose body fat. I can tell you with 100% certainty Horner is more lean than he ever was before.
For the 234234 time, just so no one's head explodes...I'm saying he's not doping. I'm just saying the age thing is a bit of a red herring. Old guys dope. Young guys dope. And I still maintain Nibali's zero to hero in 3 weeks performance is even more ridiculous that Horner's, and certainly the most "ridiculous" performance of this race.
For me, euro grand tours are simply WWF in spandex.
Don't be late Pedro said:You really need a new point of reference since you appear to be stuck in the early 80s. Have you been living behind the Iron Curtain?
alspacka said:That "legendary" speech is absolutely revolting.
Zweistein said:anyone have a link?
darwin553 said:He went from average, to super average and now simply awesome and all from about his early to mid 30s and now to his early 40s. You can't tell me that doesn't defy nature as it should be the other way around!
Yes, the whole of Britain is putting their hopes in a rider most people don't know, in a sport most don't follow.Moose McKnuckles said:I do find it hilarious that Brits have to place their sporting hopes on a Kenyan who lives in Monaco.
If that is the case then what is he on that is so much better and why is no one else on his team on it? If this is something quite advanced it would be surprising that someone not (previously) doping would have the contacts that most other teams and riders don't.Hugh Januss said:Unless he went from not doping to ready to do what was necessary to fook it we're all in.
Please don't compare yourself to a seasoned professional rider. It is a specious observation and one that many use as an argument for why Horner has suddenly found the peak of his physiology at age 41. He is not you and you are not him. Finally mountain-biking ain't professional road racing.Juan Speeder said:Spot on.
Here's something I have data on. In the state in which I live and race xc mtb, the two fastest guys are both 41, and I'm one of them. Myself and the other contender have battled back and forth for over the last 15 years and yet no young, up-and-comer has ever come close to our performance.
41 isn't old and I've not seen a drop in my performance due to my age.
I fully accept Chris Horner's performance as legit.
Please tell me who said that???Don't be late Pedro said:Yes, the whole of Britain is putting their hopes in a rider most people don't know, in a sport most don't follow.
You guys keep on giving it the whole 'he always had talent' line. I am sure it is giving all the Brits quite a chuckle. In a sport where many in the clinic say everyone is doping and pretty much always has done, it was Sky that made everyone dope?
Lets face it, a rider you like has won a GT and for you to justify it you spend all your time blaming Sky. The reality is that you look like a hypocrite hence the need to deflect. Keep digging Moose.
alspacka said:
go crazy said:I like reading threads in The Clinic because it's funny to watch the same posters who are blind to Froome (99% chance doper) now be soooo convinced that Horner (99% chance doper) is cheating.
go crazy said:I like reading threads in The Clinic because it's funny to watch the same posters who are blind to Froome (99% chance doper) now be soooo convinced that Horner (99% chance doper) is cheating.
Actually, yes. I am talking about the elite racers. The very best in the world at the elite races with the very highest level of completion at the 100 mile distance. At least every bit as much as the Vuelta is an elite race. even though it is third tier as a grand tour and only third level riders (ie ones that have no real shot at the Giro or Tour) truly target it as a primary goal. Comparing 100 mile racers to marathoners would be like comparing someone who can win a grand tour to a US crit rider. Sure the crit riders got raw speed but they'll never win a GT training for crits. The 2 hour marathoners (many of whom believe it or not are DOPERS ) would get blown out of the water at the 100 mile distance as well.
Although I have only provided anecdotes it is backed up by scientific research and I told you where you can find it if you are interested. I don't really give a **** if anyone here believes it or not and I'm not gonna waste my time digging for it. Somebody asked for information on performance decline with age and I provided it.
And I am fully aware that there are many differences between running 100 miles and riding a grand tour. Many more than even the very helpful people here have mentioned. It is not a perfect comparison but on the other hand I think it is a better way to gauge general athletic performance decline with age then cycling as it doesn't have the confounding factors of aerodynamics, team tactics, contract issues, etc. if cyclists would do 20 hour time trials it might be a better comparison.
Well, the thing is that you [have] two different things going on with someone like, say Ullrich coming back to cycling. First, they've been getting older. But they've also become detrained from not riding. "Freshness" from not racing a ton is a lot different that freshness from sitting on the couch and gaining 20 lbs.
If you really want to look at the the loss in performance of a clean rider (at least a guy most believe to be clean), take a look at Ned Overend. His time up Mt. Evans is within a minute or so of his fastest time...at age 55...
No one knows for sure what the loss in vo2 over time in an individual athlete (though there's certainly a range). But besides loss of muscle mass, keep in mind that functional vo2 is expressed in output/weight, so one way to mitigate this loss is simply to lose body fat. I can tell you with 100% certainty Horner is more lean than he ever was before.
I'm just saying the age thing is a bit of a red herring.
vrusimov said:Please don't compare yourself to a seasoned professional rider. It is a specious observation and one that many use as an argument for why Horner has suddenly found the peak of his physiology at age 41. He is not you and you are not him. Finally mountain-biking ain't professional road racing.
Spot onZweistein said:lstomsl said:No, the average age of a tour de France winner is 28 years old. Before hardcore doping emerged there were a lot of very young winners.
Lemond 25
Fignon 23
Hinault 24
Merckx 24
Aimar 24
Gimondi 23
Anquetil 23
Gaul 26
Koblet 26
Robic 26
Bartali 24
Lapapie 23
Maes 22
Spiecher 26
ect.
If someone has stage racing talent, it shows itself early. This concept of maturing into a GC rider in your 30s or with Horner your 40s is bunk. Before hardcore dope, people could spot a potential GC rider from a mile away.
...and doing it the "Clint Eastwood" way : Dirty, on his own, with no back up and against all odds - USA has just found a new Hero to worshipBroDeal said:The Brits are angry that America now has a Froome of its own, and one who is a heck of a lot less suspicious I might add.
Merckx index said:Actually, at age 55 he finished about two and half minutes slower than his fastest time about twenty-five years earlier. I would question, though, whether he trained specifically for such a climb during his salad days as a mountain bike racer. Also, keep in mind that just as Horner supporters like to point to wind and other factors that make it difficult to estimate power from climbing time, gauging how much a rider has declined by comparing times on this climb over the years is also difficult. Two years earlier, Overend finished 5th in a race that was won in a time almost two minutes slower than his time at age 55.
In any case, hill climbs like these are actually textbook illustrations of performance decline with age. The winner in that year (2010) was 23 years old, and except for Overend, everyone in the top 9 was under 40. After Overend, the oldest in the top 20 was 43.
You can see the same thing in another climb Overend has competed in, Mt. Washington. In this past year’s race, the top 10 finishers ranged in age from 22-38, and if you look at the results at various age groups, times fall off clearly with age. Indeed, if one were to believe Isto, why would there even be age groups? Why would they be needed? Why is there such a thing as Masters, e.g., if merely by keeping oneself “fresh” one can reduce the effect of age to “miniscule”?