When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[DarkWarrior]

That's exactly the message I got from your post, but aren't you just saying what everybody else is saying: that he didn't get big results for most of his career and suddenly started quite late in his career?

The reason WHY is an entirely other issue, and on that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment that he had limited opportunity in the past. I remember reading interviews with Horners back when he raced only in the USA, wondering why such a talented guy was not in Europe, and he would describe (back when he guarded his words much less) about how much it sucked in Europe, how he didn't like the people, etc.

I don't know if anyone is really doubting his talent, but history has shown us that even the MOST talented cyclists don't win GTs in their 40s.

I respect the logic in your post, but how many talented GC riders have raced into their 40's? I'm defining the subset of riders as those who had won a grand tour in their career or demonstrated the ability to at some point. I would argue that Horner had demonstrated the ability if the parcours suited him and he was allowed to ride for himself.

I do not believe that Horner is clean, but neither was his close competition. So was Horner's program superior? What would he have had access to that the others would not have?
Based on the results of the Vuelta, it's easier for me to believe that he succeeded on a somewhat level playing field than for me to believe that he had access to a superior program.

I don't believe that his age alone precludes him from winning depending on the competition and parcours and his ahem, preparation.

 

[Cookster15]

I respect the logic in your post, but how many talented GC riders have raced into their 40's?

To try and answer your question: - None because as you move into your 40's you lose not just Aerobic Capacity / VO2 Max / sustained power but also recovery compared with being in your late 20's / early 30s. Recovery is obviously crucial in Grand Tours.

So what Horner's defenders must be saying is he is more naturally talented than literally hundreds of Pros that come before him but faded well before they reached 40 - let alone nearly 42?

The question that needs answering here is how much does a late start to a Euro Pro career allow you to stay competitive at an older age ? This and Horners light racing schedule this season compared with Nibali etc seem to be the key reasons put forth by Horner's defenders. But considering Horner is fully 13 years older than the runner up in the Vuelta still leaves me highly skeptical.

Remember the Giro was in May so IMO 13 year younger Nibs had plenty of time (thanks to his age advantage) to recover then rebuild to Giro level form (unlike Cadel Evans who had half the time to get ready for the Tour). Yet it was Nibali not Horner who suffered worse in the last two mountain stages of this years Vuelta. The age gap in Nibali's favor is too big to discount doping as a significant reason for what we saw in the Vuelta.

I've tried to follow this thread on and off for a while now and I'm not sure anyone has answered this late start to Euro career question ? If it has been answered I apologise.

 

[D-Queued]

To try and answer your question: - None because as you move into your 40's you lose not just Aerobic Capacity / VO2 Max / sustained power but also recovery compared with being in your late 20's / early 30s. Recovery is obviously crucial in Grand Tours.

So what Horner's defenders must be saying is he is more naturally talented than literally hundreds of Pros that come before him but faded well before they reached 40 - let alone nearly 42?

The question that needs answering here is how much does a late start to a Euro Pro career allow you to stay competitive at an older age ? This and Horners light racing schedule this season compared with Nibali etc seem to be the key reasons put forth by Horner's defenders. But considering Horner is fully 13 years older than the runner up in the Vuelta still leaves me highly skeptical.

Remember the Giro was in May so IMO 13 year younger Nibs had plenty of time (thanks to his age advantage) to recover then rebuild to Giro level form (unlike Cadel Evans who had half the time to get ready for the Tour). Yet it was Nibali not Horner who suffered worse in the last two mountain stages of this years Vuelta. The age gap in Nibali's favor is too big to discount doping as a significant reason for what we saw in the Vuelta.

I've tried to follow this thread on and off for a while now and I'm not sure anyone has answered this late start to Euro career question ? If it has been answered I apologise.

Not believing for a second that Horner's escapades don't have an ulterior explanation, I am not sure I fully support what has been this conventional wisdom.

I know a few folks, not a universal truth, that are pretty damn fast in their 50s.

As noted, I do not believe for a second that Horner represents some outside dot on a statistical distribution. But, 40 and 50 year olds can be faster than you might think.

In other words, there may only be a marginal drop in performance as you reach 40+. However, to win Grand Tour you need more than a marginal benefit.

We all know how you can overcome both a marginal performance gap, or even a donkey-sized gap, and any margin of error, to assure a GT victory.

Dave.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I've tried to follow this thread on and off for a while now and I'm not sure anyone has answered this late start to Euro career question ? If it has been answered I apologise.

Execellent post.
To the point above: I also havn´t heard from anyone here about the reason he left the europe circus first time (when in his 20s), so that he needed a 2nd stint in his high 30s to be competitive.
The most obvious answer then must be: Because of lack of results with FDJ in 3 seasons, he simply wasn´t offered a contract for the 2000 season. So he had to wait until his mid 30s to get another offer in europe (from Saunier BTW ).

But even if we accept excuses of his defenders (language problems, him clean others not, etc.), it can´t be explained how a 41 year old has his best form ever while still being injured/taped. At best he was a DeGreef like talent: T-20 in GT´s yes, but overall contender never ever.

 

[wansteadimp]

Execellent post.
To the point above: I also havn´t heard from anyone here about the reason he left the europe circus first time (when in his 20s), so that he needed a 2nd stint in his high 30s to be competitive.
The most obvious answer then must be: Because of lack of results with FDJ in 3 seasons, he simply wasn´t offered a contract for the 2000 season. So he had to wait until his mid 30s to get another offer in europe (from Saunier BTW ).

But even if we accept excuses of his defenders (language problems, him clean others not, etc.), it can´t be explained how a 41 year old has his best form ever while still being injured/taped. At best he was a DeGreef like talent: T-20 in GT´s yes, but overall contender never ever.

I think you've missed the point here.

Cookster15's point (I think) is there a chance that not having the grind of the European scene in his early years given Horner some sort of longevity due to having less miles in the legs?

My guess, probably, enough to make him a GT winner at 41, hell no.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I think you've missed the point here.

Cookster15's point (I think) is there a chance that not having the grind of the European scene in his early years given Horner some sort of longevity due to having less miles in the legs?

My guess, probably, enough to make him a GT winner at 41, hell no.

But he used his legs in the US, didn´t he?

 

[Race Radio]

Might find out some of those redacted names sooner rather then later

 

[coinneach]

Might find out some of those redacted names sooner rather then later

Good.....it'll be interesting to see if the clinic got any of them wrong!
But should make for more honest discussion of the past.
We can but hope

 

[MizunoMX20]

Might find out some of those redacted names sooner rather then later

When?

10ccccccccc

 

[webvan]

Interesting, hard to imagine USADA not "interviewing" Horner if he was #15...would be pretty hard for them to explain, no?

 

[131313]

Execellent post.
To the point above: I also havn´t heard from anyone here about the reason he left the europe circus first time (when in his 20s), so that he needed a 2nd stint in his high 30s to be competitive.
The most obvious answer then must be: Because of lack of results with FDJ in 3 seasons, he simply wasn´t offered a contract for the 2000 season. So he had to wait until his mid 30s to get another offer in europe (from Saunier BTW ).

But even if we accept excuses of his defenders (language problems, him clean others not, etc.), it can´t be explained how a 41 year old has his best form ever while still being injured/taped. At best he was a DeGreef like talent: T-20 in GT´s yes, but overall contender never ever.

It gets annoying to try to answer questions like this when the question is phrases in these terms. I'm not a "defender" of Horner. I think he's as doped now as he ever was. I also know why he left Europe though, and explained it above. It's not a big secret. And, as I mentioned before, the path for an American rider to Europe wasn't as easy as it is now. At that time there were 2 ways, ride for Postal or ride for a Euro team. Lance blackballed him from Postal, so his option was to go for a Euro team. After dominating the US racing scene, he then got an opportunity to go back--as a top domestique. And he was really, really good at it. And frankly, his form in the 2007 TDF wasn't really different than at the Vuelta this year. He's a couple of kilos lighter, and he was the team leader in an easier race on a course that suited him--that's the difference.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Hey, no problem. He has some GT talent. Like De Greef has. But no 41 year old injured rider can win clean, cleanish or micro doped. This guy took it hardcore BB-wise, All-in-do-or-die, like in the ToC (no testing) to reach the doped records of much younger riders in their prime.

There is no doubt he doped on another level, while it seems Nibali and Co. still took a look in their future. They can´t risk a possible ban like him.

 

[ElChingon]

...
To the point above: I also havn´t heard from anyone here about the reason he left the europe circus first time (when in his 20s), so that he needed a 2nd stint in his high 30s to be competitive.
The most obvious answer then must be: Because of lack of results with FDJ in 3 seasons, he simply wasn´t offered a contract for the 2000 season. So he had to wait until his mid 30s to get another offer in europe (from Saunier BTW ).

But even if we accept excuses of his defenders (language problems, him clean others not, etc.), it can´t be explained how a 41 year old has his best form ever while still being injured/taped. At best he was a DeGreef like talent: T-20 in GT´s yes, but overall contender never ever.

He left FdJ after a rut of bad injuries and bad luck (not many, or maybe just one, reaching for those neurons deep down at the moment). His goal was always to race the Tour de France, his breakout year (199-8 or 9) he was on path racing the Daphine (sp?) in first place when he had an accident and out of the race ruining his spot on the Tour team so after that pretty much he decided to go back to the states. Pile on the fact that he didn't really mesh with the French culture and missed home a lot, not to mention his USA based fast food diet. It was seen as a major set back to return to the USA as well all good cycling pro's go to Europe not USA to race the big races. Its true there were always rumors that Lance didn't want him on the USPS team but it has to be some others as well because in '97 Lance wasn't a part of it either, you'd think they would of tried to get him on board from the beginning but he never was, not sure but I think there's an interview where a reporter asks the same thing and Chris answers that he was as puzzled about never getting asked to join the team as anyone.

Chris ripped up the USA based cycling scene for many years, most memorable were his wins at the San Fran. Grand Prix where he raced against several Euro based top teams and won on that tough course. One year he didn't have the correct lap count of the finishing circuit and on the winning lap thought he still had a lap to go and didn't even raise his arms after crossing the finish, they had to stop him. Do remember an interview with another long time USA based rider that said he had talked to Chris about why he didn't go back to Europe, because he was ripping it up in the USA and would always (or most of the time) predict the race strategy. Then, Chris rang up his agent to feel the waters.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Hey, no problem. He has some GT talent. Like De Greef has. But no 41 year old injured rider can win clean, cleanish or micro doped. This guy took it hardcore BB-wise, All-in-do-or-die, like in the ToC (no testing) to reach the doped records of much younger riders in their prime.

There is no doubt he doped on another level, while it seems Nibali and Co. still took a look in their future. They can´t risk a possible ban like him.

Horner might be so old that he has not so much to lose (career-wise) but he also has not so much to gain. Not like he's going to score the big money long term contract or the big money endorsements now.

 

[roundabout]

There are rumors that he is angling for one. 2 years and 1.5 million per year has been mentioned

 

[roundabout]

His goal was always to race the Tour de France, his breakout year (199-8 or 9) he was on path racing the Daphine (sp?) in first place when he had an accident and out of the race ruining his spot on the Tour team so after that pretty much he decided to go back to the states.

He was 7th or 8th in the Midi Libre in 1998 and then broke his wrist (I think)

Or was it 1999. Probably 1999

 

[Le breton]

He was 7th or 8th in the Midi Libre in 1998 and then broke his wrist (I think)

Or was it 1999. Probably 1999

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/may98/midi98.html

Midi libre 1998!
Spring 1998, that was really the acme of EPO abuse, not to mention PFCs.
PFC?
Can't wait for De Las Cuevas memoirs, that should really be exhilarating, in particular his 1998 performances (Route du Sud, Dauphiné).
Mauro Gianetti probably never will speak of his tour de Romandie, but Armand yes, he might be crazy enough to tell us all what happened in those years.

 

[ElChingon]

He was 7th or 8th in the Midi Libre in 1998 and then broke his wrist (I think)

Or was it 1999. Probably 1999

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/may98/midi98.html

Midi libre 1998!
Spring 1998, that was really the acme of EPO abuse, not to mention PFCs.
PFC?
Can't wait for De Las Cuevas memoirs, that should really be exhilarating, in particular his 1998 performances (Route du Sud, Dauphiné).
Mauro Gianetti probably never will speak of his tour de Romandie, but Armand yes, he might be crazy enough to tell us all what happened in those years.

Thanks for the correction, I was trying to write without having to look things up too much. It was as if he luck never really lined up back then, but once he grew up a bit and went for broke, guess he made it back.

 

[131313]

Hey, no problem. He has some GT talent. Like De Greef has. But no 41 year old injured rider can win clean, cleanish or micro doped.

If you mean De Gendt then I agree...they're probably pretty similar riders. De Greef is a flat land TT guy.

This guy took it hardcore BB-wise, All-in-do-or-die, like in the ToC (no testing) to reach the doped records of much younger riders in their prime.

There is no doubt he doped on another level, while it seems Nibali and Co. still took a look in their future. They can´t risk a possible ban like him.

There's a lot of doubt in my eyes. If there were no Horner in the Vuelta, the Nibali would have won, putting out almost identically ridiculous power numbers as Horner. It's not like there was a big difference in their performance. The same Nibali who was riding in the gruppetto and causing splits in crosswinds (according to guys who were in the race) in Poland 3 weeks prior. So, while I agree Horner was on a full program, I don't agree it was something vastly superior to what Nibali was on.

Of course, that's the problem with doping--it obfuscates the whole reality of the athletic performance part of the equation.

 

[IndianCyclist]

I wonder what Walsh & Kimmage have to say about the performance of Horner.

 

[BYOP88]

I wonder what Walsh & Kimmage have to say about the performance of Horner.

I'm guessing Walsh doesn't believe it for one minute, but give Horner a Sky uniform and he'd be singing from the rooftops about how it was a great win for clean cycling, nach a mool.........

 

[The Hitch]

I wonder what Walsh & Kimmage have to say about the performance of Horner.

They've both made slightly ambiguous tweets which nevertheless made clear they have serious doubts.

 

[DarkWarrior]

To try and answer your question: - None because as you move into your 40's you lose not just Aerobic Capacity / VO2 Max / sustained power but also recovery compared with being in your late 20's / early 30s. Recovery is obviously crucial in Grand Tours.

So what Horner's defenders must be saying is he is more naturally talented than literally hundreds of Pros that come before him but faded well before they reached 40 - let alone nearly 42?

The question that needs answering here is how much does a late start to a Euro Pro career allow you to stay competitive at an older age ? This and Horners light racing schedule this season compared with Nibali etc seem to be the key reasons put forth by Horner's defenders. But considering Horner is fully 13 years older than the runner up in the Vuelta still leaves me highly skeptical.

Remember the Giro was in May so IMO 13 year younger Nibs had plenty of time (thanks to his age advantage) to recover then rebuild to Giro level form (unlike Cadel Evans who had half the time to get ready for the Tour). Yet it was Nibali not Horner who suffered worse in the last two mountain stages of this years Vuelta. The age gap in Nibali's favor is too big to discount doping as a significant reason for what we saw in the Vuelta.

I've tried to follow this thread on and off for a while now and I'm not sure anyone has answered this late start to Euro career question ? If it has been answered I apologise.

Great post, but I disagree that age alone precludes him winning. I think it's highly unlikely, but has there been a study done that quantifies age related performance decrement in elite level cyclists or endurances athletes?


The two strongest cyclists in the state directly to my west are in their early 40's and early 50's and still regularly compete and win 1/2 races and I believe them to be clean because they've achieved results consistently over the years. Also, Steve Tilford is another example of an older cyclist achieving results against elite level domestic competition and 131313 noted that Ned Overend has recently ridden with a minute of his best time on Mt. Evans.

None of the above is conclusive evidence to me that a 42 year old could win a GT, but it points strongly to older cyclists being able to achieve results against similarly talented cyclists.

It would be interesting to see Horner's baseline blood profile and Nibali's baseline blood profile and compare them to their Vuelta profiles to see what the difference was. Based on their performances in the Vuelta, I would say that we can infer that their profiles during the race were similar.

Of course, no one will ever see that data.

 

[Merckx index]

Great post, but I disagree that age alone precludes him winning. I think it's highly unlikely, but has there been a study done that quantifies age related performance decrement in elite level cyclists or endurances athletes?

I saw a study, which I can't find right now, that reported a 5% decrease in V02 max per decade after the peak years, which would be late 20s. That was for endurance athletes. For non-athletes it was more like 10%.

Of course that is an average, there will be outliers, but I think it highly unlikely that anyone is excused completely from the laws of aging. And at the highest levels, even a very small decline in performance is pretty critical.

As I discussed earlier, Overend's times on Mt. Evans have fluctuated significantly even among recent years, so it's hard to compare them from year to year. His best times don't compare to the record, held by TD in his late 20s. As I also pointed out, comparing times of riders of different ages in these hill climbs makes the age-associated decline very clear. The argument becomes, well, that is true for most people, but a few rare individuals can maintain essentially the same performance for decades. I think that has yet to be established rigorously. In the case of one individual, there may be other confounding factors over the years, whereas population data largely control for such effects. Even if it turned out Overend were some kind of extremely rare example, that would hardly be great support for the idea that Horner is, too.

I'm suspicious of the rested argument, too. Armstrong pioneered the notion of focussing solely on the TDF, which meant his racing schedule was relatively light, a few races in the spring, generally nothing after the Tour. Plus he had more than a year off when he was being treated for cancer, then another three years off after his first retirement. He clearly had the motivation, he wants to do Tris. Yet despite all this rest and a burning desire to keep racing, by 2010 he was resigned that he could no longer compete at the highest level.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I saw a study, which I can't find right now, that reported a 5% decrease in V02 max per decade after the peak years, which would be late 20s. That was for endurance athletes. For non-athletes it was more like 10%.

Of course that is an average, there will be outliers, but I think it highly unlikely that anyone is excused completely from the laws of aging. And at the highest levels, even a very small decline in performance is pretty critical.

As I discussed earlier, Overend's times on Mt. Evans have fluctuated significantly even among recent years, so it's hard to compare them from year to year. His best times don't compare to the record, held by TD in his late 20s. As I also pointed out, comparing times of riders of different ages in these hill climbs makes the age-associated decline very clear. The argument becomes, well, that is true for most people, but a few rare individuals can maintain essentially the same performance for decades. I think that has yet to be established rigorously. In the case of one individual, there may be other confounding factors over the years, whereas population data largely control for such effects. Even if it turned out Overend were some kind of extremely rare example, that would hardly be great support for the idea that Horner is, too.

I'm suspicious of the rested argument, too. Armstrong pioneered the notion of focussing solely on the TDF, which meant his racing schedule was relatively light, a few races in the spring, generally nothing after the Tour. Plus he had more than a year off when he was being treated for cancer, then another three years off after his first retirement. He clearly had the motivation, he wants to do Tris. Yet despite all this rest and a burning desire to keep racing, by 2010 he was resigned that he could no longer compete at the highest level.

Hard to know what to believe. TD was allegedly charging as far back as the Saturn days. He didn't win Langkawi or Redlands clean, aledgedly.

So who knows if his Mt Evans time is legit.