Netserk said:Or perhaps it's just easier to get away with more dope in the Vuelta?
Would an unlimited amount of doping enable JRod and Valverde to recover fully from the Tour though?
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!
Netserk said:Or perhaps it's just easier to get away with more dope in the Vuelta?
goggalor said:
It's funny how (unironically) excited American fans are for Horner. Will they ever learn?
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.
sublimit said:Well, probably the same gullible idiots that bought into Lance Armstrong so I'm holding my breath..
Wallace and Gromit said:Would an unlimited amount of doping enable JRod and Valverde to recover fully from the Tour though?
the sceptic said:Im excited about the worlds. Really hope Horner gives the middle finger to everyone and puts in another mutant performance.
sublimit said:Well, probably the same gullible idiots that bought into Lance Armstrong so I'm holding my breath..
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
sniper said:Horner would be Vino's ideal successor.
I secretly hope Pat "not on my watch" McQuaid is still president when it happens.
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.
robow7 said:All I know is:
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?
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.
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.
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
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%
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.
Yes indeed, it was the late Aldo Sassi who theorised 6.2 W/kg was the limit of the human mechanism (without pharmaceutical assistance).Benotti69 said:Aldo Sassi i think is one.EnacheV said:Who decided Lemond is the climax of what humans are capable in terms of numbers?
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.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.
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?
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.
drfunk000 said:What duration is associated with the W/kg numbers that are indicative of doping?