When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[Moose McKnuckles]

It would be good if you knew more about cycling than the British Honours system.

IF that is the case, I suggest you don't go on about something you clearly know nothing about.

Thanks for the suggestion, but everything I said is 100% correct. All those people received knighthoods.

 

[King Boonen]

Thanks for the suggestion, but everything I said is 100% correct. All those people received knighthoods.

I don't think he was implying you were wrong about the Knighthoods.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Its never stopped Moose before, I doubt it will now. He is just rabidly anti-British

I'm not anti-British, I'm anti-fanboyism. It's just that the intersection between the two gets large sometimes, just like it did with the Americans during the reign of Armstrong.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Except you're just the opposite of a fanboy, aren't you? You have the opposite opinions to them so you hop up and down and slam them for not hating the same riders you do. There's the rub really, the endless cycle of 'fanboy' and 'hater' in this forum clouds the real issues as cycling fans berate each other for having different interpretations of events.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Except you're just the opposite of a fanboy, aren't you?

Why, yes. Thank you.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Why, yes. Thank you.

So you are a fangirl? Fair enough.

 

[Tangled Tango]

When is the smackdown?

When Lance sings to the Truth and Reconciliation Comittee

Is it really possible that anyone will believe a word that comes out of Lance's mouth?

 

[King Boonen]

Is it really possible that anyone will believe a word that comes out of Lance's mouth?

If he has the proof to back it up they will.

Otherwise no, very easy to dismiss.

 

[Galic Ho]

So you think Horner is clean?

Oh he does. Read his comment on the article.

 

[Galic Ho]

When is the smackdown?

When Lance sings to the Truth and Reconciliation Comittee

Dear God, please make this happen!

I cannot wait for Lance to lay the smack down on every doper he knows. Cycling might have a chance if that happens. I'd so love him to walk in and burn the convoluted lie pedaled out by those who turned on him that cycling has been clean since 2006.

Bottle is living proof that's made up. Bottle and Horner were clearly the guinea pigs for Lance's comeback program. So much so that in 2009 I thought Horner and not Lance deserved the final Tour team spot on Astana that is how strong he was riding as a helper. If only he hadn't injured his leg that Giro.

Yeah, Lance has dirt on a lot of people. Will be talk honestly? Yeah, don't make me laugh. I won't count on it. But if he did, this whole giant charade and masquerade ball that is pro cycling would finally find the light of a new day.

 

[the sceptic]

Oh he does. Read his comment on the article.

not sure why everyone thinks Horner is doping.

The vuelta had a weak field. All the best climbers werent there, or they missed their peak.

 

[EnacheV]

not sure why everyone thinks Horner is doping.

The vuelta had a weak field. All the best climbers werent there, or they missed their peak.

you can't be clean and beat CN forum's chouchou

 

[therhodeo]

Lance is a vindictive *******. No way you can take anything he says as truth without considering that he could just be lashing out and paying back for his fall. Wouldn't be the first person who decided to take as many people down with them as they go.

 

[D-Queued]

Bend Newspaper not too kind to their local guy

http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20130919/FREE/309199998/1226

I requested an interview with Horner this week following his momentous win, and he agreed, with a caveat: No questions about doping or about former teammates who have confessed to it. The Bulletin could not agree to such an interview.

Horner's burned a few bridges at home apparently.

Have to love all of the detail in the Bruyneel associations.

Dave.

 

[BroDeal]

Bend Newspaper not too kind to their local guy

http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20130919/FREE/309199998/1226

Who knew that Daniel Bensen worked for the Bend Bulletin?

 

[red_flanders]

Horner's burned a few bridges at home apparently.

Have to love all of the detail in the Bruyneel associations.

Dave.

After sealing the overall win, controversy swirled Monday as Horner could not be located by anti-doping control officers following his victory. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency cleared Horner of any wrongdoing, saying it was due to a timing issue between the U.S. and Spain.

Interesting paragraph, bringing up "controversy" when there was only incompetence. Saying he was "cleared" in this context is kind of like saying Horner was cleared of charges he beat his wife and failing to mention that the authorities went to the wrong house.

Story was published 100% to find a way to suggest he doped without saying it because they don't have enough to do so.

All fine and dandy, but literally not a word about the race, how it was won, etc. etc. Just doping and nothing else. Kind of a shame that's where we are and have been with the sport for way, way too long.

 

[Christian]

I was thinking today, Horner's sudden success and lack thereof for most of his career has spiked obvious suspicions about doping.

But what do people think, has Horner been doping his entire career or just started in the last years?

And if he has been doping his entire career, what makes the difference now? A new product or a new technique that we don't know about?

In other words, what was the cause of his lack of success his whole career? Not doping, the wrong doping, or factors that are unrelated to the sport, such as inability to adapt to European teams?

Sorry if this has been discussed before, I have not followed this thread before.

 

[Galic Ho]

not sure why everyone thinks Horner is doping.

The vuelta had a weak field. All the best climbers werent there, or they missed their peak.

Yeah I forgot about that. Purito and Valverde had the Tour in their legs. Nibali was focusing on the Worlds. My bad, I must have forgotten. We should thank our lucky stars Bruyneel's advice in that interview with cyclingnews a few weeks back didn't materialise; Andy Schleck doing the Vuelta. Man, if someone of his calibre, who Horner use to domestique for had of raced...damn. Would have been truly Alien-esque levels of uber awesomeness.

 

[131313]

Interesting paragraph, bringing up "controversy" when there was only incompetence. Saying he was "cleared" in this context is kind of like saying Horner was cleared of charges he beat his wife and failing to mention that the authorities went to the wrong house.

Story was published 100% to find a way to suggest he doped without saying it because they don't have enough to do so.

All fine and dandy, but literally not a word about the race, how it was won, etc. etc. Just doping and nothing else. Kind of a shame that's where we are and have been with the sport for way, way too long.

A couple of things:

-the Bend Bulletin wrote plenty of articles about Horner and the Vuelta that went into details about the race, the rest of which had no mention of the "d" word.

-I don't think the "wrong hotel" thing is as clear cut as it seems. I think it's entirely possible they changed hotels last minute in the hopes that the system fell through a bit (they perfectly understand the whereabouts system). So, saying he was "cleared of any wrongdoing" seems reasonable to me without going into the entire thing in detail

-if they really wanted to write a hit piece on Horner, they would have mentioned that "it's been suggested that his name is redacted in the Armstrong decision published by USADA". They didn't go there, at all. They actually said "he was not mentioned in the USADA reasoned decision", omitting the fact that there were names redacted. I actually think that's a pretty big oversight, making Horner look a little better than he actually should.

So, I think the article is more than fair.

 

[131313]

I was thinking today, Horner's sudden success and lack thereof for most of his career has spiked obvious suspicions about doping.

But what do people think, has Horner been doping his entire career or just started in the last years?

And if he has been doping his entire career, what makes the difference now? A new product or a new technique that we don't know about?

In other words, what was the cause of his lack of success his whole career? Not doping, the wrong doping, or factors that are unrelated to the sport, such as inability to adapt to European teams?

Sorry if this has been discussed before, I have not followed this thread before.

The people making that claim have a very limited understanding of both Horner's career and how pro cycling actually works. Horner has gotten results his entire career, from the very beginning, from his very first year as a pro, and from his first year in Europe.

He underperformed in Europe his first trip there because he simply wasn't cut out for being an American living in Europe on a Euro team. This is a lot bigger deal than people realize, and he's hardly alone with this. Since he was ostracized by the Lance brigade, he ended up on a team where no one spoke English, and he struggled with everything. That's not the case any longer, since an American can now race in Europe and train with people who speak English, with directors who speak English, etc. Even so, 3rd in GP Ouest-France in his second year as a pro, first year in Europe? You don't do that unless you're an exceptional talent.

In his second go-round in Europe, he was always successful--he was just in a position that he was always working as a top domestique. Part of this is that he's a stage race guy who's not a great TT guy. That seriously limited his options. 14th in the tour when you're completely working for another rider is a real result. 2012 Tirreno was literally the first sizable stage race he was a designated leader, and he was 2nd to Nibali.

Horner didn't suddenly become fast, he's always been fast. And again, like Rasmussen said, he's probably not doping, well, any more than he used to.

 

[Fatclimber]

Lance is a vindictive *******. No way you can take anything he says as truth without considering that he could just be lashing out and paying back for his fall. Wouldn't be the first person who decided to take as many people down with them as they go.

I hear he's even accusing Horner of being fat

 

[D-Queued]

I was thinking today, Horner's sudden success and lack thereof for most of his career has spiked obvious suspicions about doping.

But what do people think, has Horner been doping his entire career or just started in the last years?

And if he has been doping his entire career, what makes the difference now? A new product or a new technique that we don't know about?

In other words, what was the cause of his lack of success his whole career? Not doping, the wrong doping, or factors that are unrelated to the sport, such as inability to adapt to European teams?

Sorry if this has been discussed before, I have not followed this thread before.

Please recall the white bags on Postal confirming that doping used to be organized by the role(s) played.

1. The GC Leaders - doped most scientifically to maximize optimal performance with minimal risk
2. The Super-DOMS - doped to the gills
3. The others - who knows

Tyler Hamilton has confirmed as much, and also outlined that 80% of the peloton could be expected to have doped.

We should amend the above doping scale by the prominence of the team. Teams like ONCE, Festina, Telekom and US Postal have demonstrated that only a few standouts, and only on occasion (e.g. Frankie, VdV) may not have been doping at a particular time or in a specific year.

So to answer your question, you can answer these questions:

1. Was Horner on a dominant team?
2. What role did he play on the team?

Dave.

 

[Scott SoCal]

A couple of things:

-the Bend Bulletin wrote plenty of articles about Horner and the Vuelta that went into details about the race, the rest of which had no mention of the "d" word.

-I don't think the "wrong hotel" thing is as clear cut as it seems. I think it's entirely possible they changed hotels last minute in the hopes that the system fell through a bit (they perfectly understand the whereabouts system). So, saying he was "cleared of any wrongdoing" seems reasonable to me without going into the entire thing in detail

-if they really wanted to write a hit piece on Horner, they would have mentioned that "it's been suggested that his name is redacted in the Armstrong decision published by USADA". They didn't go there, at all. They actually said "he was not mentioned in the USADA reasoned decision", omitting the fact that there were names redacted. I actually think that's a pretty big oversight, making Horner look a little better than he actually should.

So, I think the article is more than fair.

A lot of things are entirely possible. The USADA has proven not to be timid in going after cheats. Hard to believe they would back up for Horner.

So, I think the article is more than fair

Perhaps. To me, the writer comes off as more than a little miffed that Horner dared set doping question parameters. He then goes on to...

find a way to suggest he doped without saying it because they don't have enough to do so.

Fair? If you believe he's a doper, yes.

At any rate, I'd like to welcome Chris Horner to the big leagues. A cool dude when he was a doping loser. Not so cool when he's a doping winner.

 

[Christian]

Thanks for the constructive answers, I appreciate it!

 

[red_flanders]

A couple of things:

-the Bend Bulletin wrote plenty of articles about Horner and the Vuelta that went into details about the race, the rest of which had no mention of the "d" word.

That's great, I'm glad to hear it and should have looked around the site more before commenting.

-I don't think the "wrong hotel" thing is as clear cut as it seems. I think it's entirely possible they changed hotels last minute in the hopes that the system fell through a bit (they perfectly understand the whereabouts system). So, saying he was "cleared of any wrongdoing" seems reasonable to me without going into the entire thing in detail

It's certainly possible that he was trying to evade, but there isn't any evidence of that and it does seem very odd that he'd try and evade a test after the race was over having (likely) been tested and (presumably) passed them on the preceding two days.

The reports of him "missing" a test were clearly off target, so to create the implication that there was "controversy" (in truth there was just incompetence) and to imply he may have done something wrong and was "cleared" seems a pretty clear attempt to make it sound far more suspicious that it was. Didn't care for that bit as clearly there was never an issue and the only controversy was uninformed people reporting incorrectly.

-if they really wanted to write a hit piece on Horner, they would have mentioned that "it's been suggested that his name is redacted in the Armstrong decision published by USADA". They didn't go there, at all. They actually said "he was not mentioned in the USADA reasoned decision", omitting the fact that there were names redacted. I actually think that's a pretty big oversight, making Horner look a little better than he actually should.

OK, that's true.

So, I think the article is more than fair.

I think they used the article to clearly suggest there is something untoward. I think that's OK on a forum as it's pretty easy disbelieve the performance given the circumstances but I think a writer has a different level of expectation.

Anyway, not surprising given the history of the sport. They've brought it on themselves. Still I'd have like to have seen better from the writer.