When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[Wallace]

You mean like what we are learning here? Your football doctor also deals with endurance athletes I suppose? I get he might know a lot about power and strength athletes. I recently turned 58. For the last 29 years I have pretty regularly tried my hand at the airport sprint and I think I won one. This year I have won 3. My recorded max speed is about the same as 10 years ago. I suppose that means everyone else is getting slower? as for geriatric studies, no one is becoming super athletes but it is clear from the studies that well trained endurance people decline at very different rates and people who are sedentary can increase VO2 even in 70 and 80 year olds and all benefit from strength training. The fitter ones tend to decline much slower.

Yes, fit people decline much slower than sedentary people--but they still decline. Starting at 30, and then picking up downhill speed at 35. As other posters here have pointed out, at the elite level, even a 1% decline is very significant.

And again, I'd caution against applying your own experience to the realities of professional European bike racers. You may be winning the occasional town-line sprint, but Erik Zabel was finished as a sprinter by the age of 33 and Mario Cipollini by 35 or 36. I'd assume that as a bike racer you've become tactically smarter and better able to pace and time your efforts. There's a lot to be said for old age and treachery, but neither are going to help you when you're up against professional bike racers sprinting at 70+ kph. Is that how fast you were going when you won your town line sprints?

 

[Merckx index]

But do we know if the cause of this decline is physical? Could it not be players getting (relatively) lazy after getting rich?

Players didn’t get that rich decades ago. The ratio of a MLB player’s income to that of an average worker has risen decade after decade for a very long time, but the age-related decline hasn’t changed noticeably during that period. I emphasize that baseball has detailed records going back far more than a century, to times when money would have offered very little motivation.

The only thing that may have changed is that there is some recent evidence that players reach a plateau in their early twenties, rather than improving steadily from then to their late twenties. But the later decline begins at the same age, and there is speculation that the early plateau reflects better early development. Which simply underscores, again, that the game is doing everything it can to maximize the performance of its players, and it still has had no noticeable effect on the aging process. The Angels have two of the worst contracts in history in Pujols and Hamilton, they have literally lost more than $20 million in value on them just this year, and are facing larger losses in the future. Trust me, if there were anything they could do to help those players return to the perfomance level they had a few years ago, they would be onto it.

Nowadays the average salary for a MLB player is about $1 million, quite a few are set for life by the time they are twenty-five, but they continue to produce for years after, until they get well into their 30s. And this is true in a wide range of other sports, basketball, football, boxing, e.g. You think Kobe Bryant is getting lazy? You think he wouldn’t like to play till he’s fifty? He may have enough money to retire many times over, but he will never have as many championships as he would like, and he would do anything to stay in the game as long as he can. I'm sure Manning would like to play ten more years, too, but it's not going to happen. Same with, say, Sergio Martinez, who found fame and fortune in the ring rather late, and now, when big money fights are finally opening up for him, he no longer has it. Even ageless wonders like B-Hop win more on smarts (and on careful selection of his opponents) than on speed and power, and even he wouldn't claim he's the fighter he was 10-15 years ago.

Since we’re throwing out personal anecdotes, I have followed my TT speed for several decades, and no question it has dropped as I have gotten older. I don't offer that as strong evidence of a decline, but neither do I regard anecdotal evidence of riders who have maintained their speeds at older ages as meaning very much.

 

[Oldman]

Yes, fit people decline much slower than sedentary people--but they still decline. Starting at 30, and then picking up downhill speed at 35. As other posters here have pointed out, at the elite level, even a 1% decline is very significant.

And again, I'd caution against applying your own experience to the realities of professional European bike racers. You may be winning the occasional town-line sprint, but Erik Zabel was finished as a sprinter by the age of 33 and Mario Cipollini by 35 or 36. I'd assume that as a bike racer you've become tactically smarter and better able to pace and time your efforts. There's a lot to be said for old age and treachery, but neither are going to help you when you're up against professional bike racers sprinting at 70+ kph. Is that how fast you were going when you won your town line sprints?

Your points are well taken. Horner at 42 doesn't necessarily represent an average genetic model, either. His particular skills have narrowed over the last few years to be more climbing specific. He's always been able to hang well in extremely high-paced US crits. For skeptical Continentals: they are as fast as anything in Erp. He still doesn't time trial well so whatever regime he's on appears to enhance his endurance efforts.
I did say "enhance". Not natural.
As for sprinters-there's generally a tipping point where they no longer wish to risk their life and drag themselves through GT's for the occasional sprint opportunity. Most pros quit due to fatigue of attitude IMO.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Nowadays the average salary for a MLB player is about $1 million, quite a few are set for life by the time they are twenty-five, but they continue to produce for years after, until they get well into their 30s. And this is true in a wide range of other sports, basketball, football, boxing, e.g. You think Kobe Bryant is getting lazy? You think he wouldn’t like to play till he’s fifty?

But Horner's career is an outlier for pro-athletes. For almost he basically raced half-seasons (if even that) for a decade before going pro. Way less travel, way less wear and tear.

Age is a red herring in his case, he's just had a weird career. I think he dopes because he is Chris Horner, Chris Horner has doped forever...not because he is old.

 

[acoggan]

What in the world does telomeres (extra bits at the end of a chromosome to prevent transcription errors) have to do with aging?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=telomere+shortening+and+aging

(BTW, you mean "do", not "does".)

And glial cells (they form sheaths around ganglia)?

Not glial cells - muscle satellite cells:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=muscle+satellite+cells

as for the increased efficiency via training, I have no problems with that. It's been measured, analyzed and published.

Well there you go.

What I simply can not believe is that the efficiency is unbound. That a pro cyclist can continue to improve his efficiency. Because that says that efficiency is unbound. The more training you do, the more efficient you become.

I have never made that claim. If you believe that I have, then your reading comprehension is no better than your understanding of physiology.

 

[acoggan]

Simple question, why are my running times getting slower as I get older? I train the same as I've always done, but need more days to recover after hard efforts. I'm over 30

Lots of reasons, but the simple answer is that while regular exercise can slow many age-related processes, it can't stop them entirely.

 

[Granville57]

That of course is why we have age groups, why riders in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s or so compete against others of about their own age, and not against riders in other groups.

Good post with some very good points, but there also another element to the above mentioned.

There are no shortage of "senior" age-group riders who are as fast, or faster, than their younger counterparts. I think those distinctions look good on paper (which is why race organizers often embrace them) but there are plenty of fast "old guys" who would just as soon not race against younger, less-experienced riders with questionable (perhaps riskier) bike-handling skills.

I think it's easy to oversimplify the age-category differences, so I'm just injecting some caution into that.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I have never made that claim. If you believe that I have, then your reading comprehension is no better than your understanding of physiology.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=2859&page=44

I ask:
What I don't understand is why the GE and DE increased by so much!? Were the cyclists training improperly prior to the study? Did the study begin at the end of a large rest period (i.e., winter)? Does this mean that significant gains in GE and DE can be realized through a specific training regimen? Is there a reason that a cyclist can't train themselves to reach the theoretical maximum efficiency?

And lastly, why weren't these gains seen in the other studies I looked at (especially the one with a sampling of pro riders)?

You respond:
All good questions. I could speculate, but all it would be is just that: speculation.

You further respond:
While the mechanism(s) may remain uncertain, IMO it seems quite clear that efficiency does, in fact, increase with endurance exercise training. Indeed (and to take exception to your analogy above), from both teleological as well as theoretical points of view, this is actually the expected response...the only reason it seems "fantastical" (to some, anyway) is because you have people like Ashenden claiming that is an immutable "holy grail" (despite co-authoring papers reporting that efficiency changes in response to other interventions, i.e., altitude exposure, no less!).

*Everyone* knows I'm an idiot, so you'll have to help me parse this. My limited ability to read and comprehend reduces this to: "Yes, the pro cyclists in the Hopker study showed an increase in efficiency due to training. In fact, that's what I expected, though I won't explain why or what those mechanisms are".

John Swanson

 

[Oldman]

Good post with some very good points, but there also another element to the above mentioned.

There are no shortage of "senior" age-group riders who are as fast, or faster, than their younger counterparts. I think those distinctions look good on paper (which is why race organizers often embrace them) but there are plenty of fast "old guys" who would just as soon not race against younger, less-experienced riders with questionable (perhaps riskier) bike-handling skills.

I think it's easy to oversimplify the age-category differences, so I'm just injecting some caution into that.

This is at risk of topic-stretching but the opposite affect holds true. I don't race anymore because of the sheer amount of strong, unskilled Masters riders in every age group. The younger guys at least have to earn their way up in category to be in the event.
And the oversimplification was my earlier point. The aging scenario doesn't apply to every individual equally. Chris has clearly identified the program that maximizes his abilities where he was unable to do that before. The underlying natural talent was always there as any that raced against him would acknowledge.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Good post with some very good points, but there also another element to the above mentioned.

There are no shortage of "senior" age-group riders who are as fast, or faster, than their younger counterparts. I think those distinctions look good on paper (which is why race organizers often embrace them) but there are plenty of fast "old guys" who would just as soon not race against younger, less-experienced riders with questionable (perhaps riskier) bike-handling skills.

I think it's easy to oversimplify the age-category differences, so I'm just injecting some caution into that.

In Australian masters cycling, they no longer have age-based racing, it's graded now. Due to the vast differences between riders within the same 5 year span.

Championships, etc, yes, but those A graders drop the C graders inside the first hill or side wind turn.

 

[Granville57]

This is at risk of topic-stretching but the opposite affect holds true.

Thanks for the response

I suspect that both are actually true, depending on who one talks to.

I had in mind three specific, regional individuals who really can't race anymore (or who have at least lost the will to) due to pretty severe accidents they suffered at the hands of younger riders, and I've seen similar sentiments expressed on these boards as well.

There's probably no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to such things, as I've no doubt that others share your own perspective as well.

 

[Kicker661]

You may be winning the occasional town-line sprint, but Erik Zabel was finished as a sprinter by the age of 33 and Mario Cipollini by 35 or 36.

In the below i refer to Elite athletes, not average humans.

A quick look at world powerlifting records shows ages from mid 20s to early 30s.

A look at pro bodybuilding which is an endurance sport and guys are at the end of their career mid 30s regardless of compounds and amounts used.

Endurance cross country skiers peak around 30-35 mark.

Olympic endurance athletes are mostly in the 30-35 mark.


Four decades ago a midlife crisis happened late 30s.

Today we tell ourselves a midlife crisis is mid 40s to 50s


If you are an elite athlete and at 42yrs of age you are smashing the 32yr old version of yourself you either never peaked during your prime years because you stuffed around or you are on compounds that you did not use previously.

 

[Dr. Juice]

In cycling your prime as a climber should be 27 -33 years of age (plus or minus 1 year).
Close to your best until 35 and then a constant decrease, not linear and not the same for everybody. In the case of Horner, he wasn't on the best program for himself during his prime and he is a long-burner. Both factors combined and he beats his 32 year old counterpart. But he won#t repeat his perfomance of last year. Every piece of the puzzle fitted. He can put in a decent performance and another good one next year, then it's over.

 

[Master50]

Yes, fit people decline much slower than sedentary people--but they still decline. Starting at 30, and then picking up downhill speed at 35. As other posters here have pointed out, at the elite level, even a 1% decline is very significant.

And again, I'd caution against applying your own experience to the realities of professional European bike racers. You may be winning the occasional town-line sprint, but Erik Zabel was finished as a sprinter by the age of 33 and Mario Cipollini by 35 or 36. I'd assume that as a bike racer you've become tactically smarter and better able to pace and time your efforts. There's a lot to be said for old age and treachery, but neither are going to help you when you're up against professional bike racers sprinting at 70+ kph. Is that how fast you were going when you won your town line sprints?

Ha 70 + !! no I certainly was not going that fast. More like 61but I used to max at about 63 so I have slowed a little. The most dangerous sprinter in masters racing was one of the oldest at least until it killed him. Tactics do play a huge role but to see this guy, often 15 years older than the lean muscular guys he would beat. I know it has been covered earlier in this endless thread but there is that one thing about CH that always leaves me wondering and it is his climbing style. He stands, he has always been a standing climber. His greatest weapon climbing is when it gets steep. steep is the only place I stand and the cost is huge but it is the only way to deliver the necessary power. CH can stand for 30 minutes. He has always had that one particular trait. We all generally reserve standing for the big power moments but he has always been training that particular ability. Again my naive and romantic nature cannot just discount that one thing. I'd like to think that one adaptation gives him an edge when it gets really steep which seemed a big feature of the Vuelta climbs last year. Once you start taking away a percent here for being old, another percent for his American tour talent the demand for compensation by doping tells me he can't hide that. This is why I keep asking. How? Given his decline with age, his reported lack of taken in Europe at the time we know the supercharge was on and then see him at 42 winning means 1 of 2 things. he has found a miracle dope that gives him a 4 to 6% boost just to be equal? Those kinds of gains may have been achievable during the period of max 50% HC but micro dosing and blood bags are not about %6 performance gains, they are about 1%. If we are talking 1% then fine I might accept that possibility as a level he can manage to hide but this thread makes him out to be such a donkey that he must be a super doper exceeding the miracle of Bjarn Riss. I recognize that most of this thread is really about probability and given the history of the sport I also get it is a good bet. Throw in the natural suspicion of his competitors also being assisted and then CH steps even higher on the super doper scale? Sorry it is too much for me to discount my belief the peloton is changing for the better and the fact that CH waited until his late racing career to start winning in Europe when it was obvious he was not playing the game in his first Euro vacations. I agree there is more than meets the eye but I am just not believing it is out of a bottle or Blood bag. At least not just that.

 

[Oldman]

Ha 70 + !! no I certainly was not going that fast. More like 61but I used to max at about 63 so I have slowed a little. The most dangerous sprinter in masters racing was one of the oldest at least until it killed him. Tactics do play a huge role but to see this guy, often 15 years older than the lean muscular guys he would beat. I know it has been covered earlier in this endless thread but there is that one thing about CH that always leaves me wondering and it is his climbing style. He stands, he has always been a standing climber. His greatest weapon climbing is when it gets steep. steep is the only place I stand and the cost is huge but it is the only way to deliver the necessary power. CH can stand for 30 minutes. He has always had that one particular trait. We all generally reserve standing for the big power moments but he has always been training that particular ability. Again my naive and romantic nature cannot just discount that one thing. I'd like to think that one adaptation gives him an edge when it gets really steep which seemed a big feature of the Vuelta climbs last year. Once you start taking away a percent here for being old, another percent for his American tour talent the demand for compensation by doping tells me he can't hide that. This is why I keep asking. How? Given his decline with age, his reported lack of taken in Europe at the time we know the supercharge was on and then see him at 42 winning means 1 of 2 things. he has found a miracle dope that gives him a 4 to 6% boost just to be equal? Those kinds of gains may have been achievable during the period of max 50% HC but micro dosing and blood bags are not about %6 performance gains, they are about 1%. If we are talking 1% then fine I might accept that possibility as a level he can manage to hide but this thread makes him out to be such a donkey that he must be a super doper exceeding the miracle of Bjarn Riss. I recognize that most of this thread is really about probability and given the history of the sport I also get it is a good bet. Throw in the natural suspicion of his competitors also being assisted and then CH steps even higher on the super doper scale? Sorry it is too much for me to discount my belief the peloton is changing for the better and the fact that CH waited until his late racing career to start winning in Europe when it was obvious he was not playing the game in his first Euro vacations. I agree there is more than meets the eye but I am just not believing it is out of a bottle or Blood bag. At least not just that.

Now you're making progress. I don't think many on this thread discounted his natural ability. The cause for the level of success at his age
is a valid topic of debate as it's unusual. Some will remember that Lajaretta raced 3 GTs a year for a decade...pre EPO and was a good climber. He was in his 40's when he retired I think so there are precedents. He wasn't a sprinter.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Given his decline with age, his reported lack of taken in Europe at the time we know the supercharge was on and then see him at 42 winning means 1 of 2 things. he has found a miracle dope that gives him a 4 to 6% boost just to be equal? Those kinds of gains may have been achievable during the period of max 50% HC but micro dosing and blood bags are not about %6 performance gains, they are about 1%. If we are talking 1% then fine I might accept that possibility as a level he can manage to hide but this thread makes him out to be such a donkey that he must be a super doper exceeding the miracle of Bjarn Riss.

Nobody is saying Horner lacks talent. He has been followed by doping rumors for the majority of his career, so it is hard to imagine he would suddenly have his best years while competing clean. Especially given well-known biopassport loopholes.

In the Vuelta, Horner had a standard hgb decline of about 10%. Then a miraculous rebound to baseline levels, accompanied by a suppressed reticulocyte count. Now I'm no expert, but from what I've read, a 10% increase in hgb is worth maybe 6% in power.

This has been clearly stated and agreed upon by multiple experts in the field, who are much smarter than me.
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/63542182838/analysis-horners-biopassport-data
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ers-published-biological-passport-values.aspx

Nobody is saying Horner lacks talent, nobody is saying he dopes like Riis. We're just saying he dopes because there is a lot of evidence that is true. He might be a talented clean rider, but how would anybody ever know?

 

[Futuroscope]

What Horner is doing is ridiculous, I can't believe some guys think he is clean. He is going to push it until he gets caught. Question is will he get popped before or after he retires?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Nobody is saying Horner lacks talent. He has been followed by doping rumors for the majority of his career, so it is hard to imagine he would suddenly have his best years while competing clean. Especially given well-known biopassport loopholes.

In the Vuelta, Horner had a standard hgb decline of about 10%. Then a miraculous rebound to baseline levels, accompanied by a suppressed reticulocyte count. Now I'm no expert, but from what I've read, a 10% increase in hgb is worth maybe 6% in power.

This has been clearly stated and agreed upon by multiple experts in the field, who are much smarter than me.
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/63542182838/analysis-horners-biopassport-data
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ers-published-biological-passport-values.aspx

Nobody is saying Horner lacks talent, nobody is saying he dopes like Riis. We're just saying he dopes because there is a lot of evidence that is true. He might be a talented clean rider, but how would anybody ever know?

Really? Apparently, his accomplishments are even less than the great Christopher Froome according to those who live on a certain island.

 

[Oldman]

What Horner is doing is ridiculous, I can't believe some guys think he is clean. He is going to push it until he gets caught. Question is will he get popped before or after he retires?

"Hence" the thread, as the Brits might say. I'd say no.

 

[Oldman]

Really? Apparently, his accomplishments are even less than the great Christopher Froome according to those who live on a certain island.

A certain introspective island. Part of the Empire.

 

[Race Radio]

Danielson put minutes into the "new generation" on one MTF. How is that any less suspicious than what Horner did in the vuelta last year?

If Danielson is really that good, why can he only do it when riding at home?

Pretending that Danielson's performance at Utah was equal to Horner's at the Vuelta is one of the many reasons why few here take your posts seriously.

 

[red_flanders]

Pretending that Danielson's performance at Utah was equal to Horner's at the Vuelta is one of the many reasons why few here take your posts seriously.

I see nothing in his/her post that says Danielson at Utah was equal to Horner at the Vuelta.

If there's "pretending" going on in this exchange it seems to be you pretending Sceptic said something he/she didn't.

This talking past one another stuff isn't getting anyone anywhere.

 

[kingjr]

I see nothing in his/her post that says Danielson at Utah was equal to Horner at the Vuelta.

If there's "pretending" going on in this exchange it seems to be you pretending Sceptic said something he/she didn't.

This talking past one another stuff isn't getting anyone anywhere.

How about this..

Danielson sucks everywhere except in the US, where he just beat Horner who according to you is better than Froome. Seems hard to believe he is clean.

See, the thing is I simply can't imagine that sceptic doesn't realise himself that sort of comparison doesn't hold up, so what is his intention here? Can you tell me?

 

[red_flanders]

See, the thing is I simply can't imagine that sceptic doesn't realise himself that sort of comparison doesn't hold up, so what is his intention here? Can you tell me?

Why don't you ask sceptic? I would certainly be giving un-informed speculation which is pointless.

 

[pmcg76]

Why don't you ask sceptic? I would certainly be giving un-informed speculation which is pointless.

Why defend Sceptic then, but when challenged, tell the person to ask Sceptic?