Will Horner get a new contract for 2014

andyp

Horner has an offer from Trek, so if he can't find another team paying what he thinks he's worth, he can take that up.

rayjay

Horner has an agent and his hanging out for the best deal. Trek are his safety net. But he knows he will be riding for Andy and Frank and he wont get tour leadership. If he Stays at Trek he can almost certainly kiss the tour goodbye

frenchfighter

From all his comments it is clear that he needs to make as much money as he can from riding his bike as he is not very intelligent. I feel a little sorry for him but also understand the team`s reluctance at hiring such an old guy although I`m sure he will be good for one year...regardless of how he does it.

joelsim

As stated by others, there is no point in risking a large salary on an old bloke whose performance recently is not normal. There's only one way that can go. He's no marketing dream either.

Would you employ him?

Le Commentateur

Or put slightly differently, would you gamble with the livelihoods of dozens of riders, mechanics and other team staff on a 41-year-old whose performance recently is not normal.

joelsim

And he's A Mercan. Which rules out it being a good thing to any European (audience).

jerry3571

Joelsim wrote:

And he's A Mercan. Which rules out it being a good thing to any European (audience).

That depends on the markets the sponsor is intersted in. A lot of big teams have interest in the English speaking countries like BMC, Cannondale, Trek or others who want to expand in to North America, Oz or here.

His performance was a bit too good and older riders in the past like to have a last Hoorah and then seem to get busted.

Thought Horner would get a ride and it seems strange that pro riders dope to get results to secure a contract but Horner has got a big result with no benefits. Very strange.

joelsim

Yes it does but it rules out most of the European teams and sponsors.

No surprise it's just Trek to make an offer I don't think. Just way too much scepticism about him, coupled with his age, the near certainty that he is up to no good especially after LA, the fact he has little or no charisma, and no appeal at all in many important territories. Doesn't make a great business case really.

joelsim

And of course as a GT winner his salary expectations will no doubt be large.

jerry3571

I think it's a sign of the times really. I quite like Chris Horner; seems quite a smiley chap.

rayjay

I quite like Horner as well and he has had some good results. He has had a injury's and may have well made a bigger impact. To start accusing Horner of doping in a sport full of dopers is just prejudice for the sake of it. I don't see to many of you being suspicious about Froome for instant. Horner's wins have a lot more credibility than Froomes . Horner has proved himself a great climber, he has not all of a sudden started performing way above what he has done before. I'm going to sit back have some popcorn and a drink and see if the fish bite.

ddraver

jerry3571 wrote:

I think it's a sign of the times really. I quite like Chris Horner; seems quite a smiley chap.

Agreed, but I also agree with Frenchie (!!!) that the doesnt seem like the sharpest tool in the box.Trek have enough risk with the Schlecks that adding a bit more won't trouble them. I reckon they re praying that Brian Cookson is as good at covering up doping scandals as Hein Verbruggen was... :P

Talking about marketing that's also a pretty good match too, Schelcks for Europe, Horner for US....they just need someone British for us lot now..

inseine

rayjay wrote:

I quite like Horner as well and he has had some good results. He has had a injury's and may have well made a bigger impact. To start accusing Horner of doping in a sport full of dopers is just prejudice for the sake of it. I don't see to many of you being suspicious about Froome for instant. Horner's wins have a lot more credibility than Froomes . Horner has proved himself a great climber, he has not all of a sudden started performing way above what he has done before. I'm going to sit back have some popcorn and a drink and see if the fish bite.

I agree that Horner shouldn't be prejudged and I quite like him too. That's where your arguement stops being logical. If the sport is full of dopers surely it's logical, rather than prejudiced, to say there's a good chance he's doping too? Why is he more credible than Froome? You're just taking the attitude you accuse others of. Well done, I bit

ddraver

...and that's why rayjay is blocked....

Paul 8v

ddraver wrote:

...and that's why rayjay is blocked....

Do not feed the troll!

Le Commentateur

Next year's salary is not a reward for this year's result; it's an advance on future results – and at 41 it's fair to question what he could achieve.

rayjay

morstar

Do you know what I don't get?

Some people come from the angle that 'they are all still doping'. I don't agree with this but I understand the argument.

However,

How come those same followers of cycling take this position, still follow the sport and yet jump all over certain riders as dirty cheats. This position is so full of holes it's untrue. If you think they all cheat, you have to hate them all if you ever take the position that you hate rider x for cheating.

If you really believe that they are all cheats and yet are happy to still watch the sport, then stop picking and choosing who are the good dopers and bad dopers. You are judging riders by their success at evading detection.

Even if CH did dope in the past, they genuinely all did back then (with isolated exceptions) so it's irrelevant to todays riding.

rayjay

I never said I thought Horner was clean. But I agree with morstar , you cannot pick and choose.
I understand pro sports and the fact that athletes will take PEDs. Its never been a shock to me.
The times up some of the climbs this year by so called clean riders have been quicker than that of known doped riders so I doubt that we have a clean sport. I just think the drugs have got better. Athletes have always been ahead of the testers, just because we caught LA the sport is suddenly clean?

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

The times up some of the climbs this year by so called clean riders have been quicker than that of known doped riders so I doubt that we have a clean sport. I just think the drugs have got better.

The problem with comparing times up climbs is that it completely ignores the context of the race. If you want to compare riders across generations, compare their peak perfomances on similar climbs, not their times on the same climb. Races are not raced in the same way every time.

So saying Froome was nearly as fast as Armstrong up Ax3 is indication of nothing. That was Froome at his best, while Armstrong was caught and dropped by Roberto Laiseka - would that happen if it was a peak performance?

Here's a little question
Another sport: athletics - 2012 Olympics. Two different men's events.
1500m semi-finals: The runner who came dead last in the second semi was two seconds faster than the winner of the first (the eventual gold and silver winners were in the slower heat)
5000m: Mo Farah's gold medal winning time in the final was 12 seconds slower than the slowest qualifier in the heats.
What do these timings tell you about doping in those events?

rayjay

In the case of Ax3 they rode up the previous mountain on that stage in record time. We are talking about the fastest times recorded going up these climbs. The tactics have changed from Armstrongs days. But the main contenders still get sheltered to the climbs and the fact that the times are quick only suggests one thing. Running races are very short compared to a three week tour so your comparison is not valid IMO. The stats are the facts and it does not suggest a clean race IMO.

ddraver

What stage of the Vuelta did Horner do Ax 3 Domaines on?

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

In the case of Ax3 they rode up the previous mountain on that stage in record time. We are talking about the fastest times recorded going up these climbs. The tactics have changed from Armstrongs days. But the main contenders still get sheltered to the climbs and the fact that the times are quick only suggests one thing. Running races are very short compared to a three week tour so your comparison is not valid IMO. The stats are the facts and it does not suggest a clean race IMO.

The shorter the race, the less variation there should be in times, due to less need for tactics. The comparision is completely valid as it shows that races are not uniformly run - why is this obvious to athletics fans but not to many cycling followers. These climbs are not raced as time trials.
You say the previous mountain on that stage was done in record time - well it's only ever been used once on an Ax3 stage. What were the two times? And why do you think that Quintana attacking on that climb had no effect on the relative times?

thomthom

...

rayjay

RichN95 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

In the case of Ax3 they rode up the previous mountain on that stage in record time. We are talking about the fastest times recorded going up these climbs. The tactics have changed from Armstrongs days. But the main contenders still get sheltered to the climbs and the fact that the times are quick only suggests one thing. Running races are very short compared to a three week tour so your comparison is not valid IMO. The stats are the facts and it does not suggest a clean race IMO.

The shorter the race, the less variation there should be in times, due to less need for tactics. The comparision is completely valid as it shows that races are not uniformly run - why is this obvious to athletics fans but not to many cycling followers. These climbs are not raced as time trials.
You say the previous mountain on that stage was done in record time - well it's only ever been used once on an Ax3 stage. What were the two times? And why do you think that Quintana attacking on that climb had no effect on the relative times?

Beg to differ. You are straw clutching. If you want to believe it was a clean tour then that is your choice. You could make the same points about Armstrongs times up Ax3 etc etc. We are not talking about a short or long running race. We don't ask athletes to run day after day for 3 weeks solid. Your comparison is not valid IMO. those times are fast and the fastest of those are by convicted dopers apart from the riders mentioned.

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

Beg to differ. You are straw clutching. If you want to believe it was a clean tour then that is your choice. You could make the same points about Armstrongs times up Ax3 etc etc. We are not talking about a short or long running race. We don't ask athletes to run day after day for 3 weeks solid. Your comparison is not valid IMO. those times are fast and the fastest of those are by convicted dopers apart from the riders mentioned.

So you think that:

a) climbs are always raced at the same pace - regardless of race circumstances, the position of the stage in the race, the GC position, who attacks when, who controls the pace and for whom
b) Armstrong's fastest time up Ax3, when he sat in Ullrich's wheel almost all the way up and was caught and dropped by Laiseka (who finished 28th that year) with the stage won by the break, was a peak performance from him

I will leave you with your willfull ignorance

(And why were they so much slower up Alpe d'Huez? A climb were Armstrong did do some of his best performances)

rayjay

I don't call you ignorant because you disagree with my opinions. I never said climbs are raced at the same pace. I would like to see you suck Ulrich's wheel. You think its easy just to suck a wheel and then take off and win. Have you ever rode up any of the climbs in the tour. I have and I have seen the tour on many occasions and when you talk about wheel sucking you are talking about a rider working his or her ass off. The tempo set by these athletes is incredible and its not easy in any way. IMO you show a complete lack of understanding about pro sports and the effort it takes. When I see a riders doing times quicker than some of the best doped climbers in the world then that makes me suspicious. Simple.

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

I don't call you ignorant because you disagree with my opinions.

I'm not calling you ignorant because you disagree with my opinions. I'm calling you that because you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

rayjay wrote:

I never said climbs are raced at the same pace.

Then why do you keep thinking that climb times are indicative of anything. Look at peak performances on different climbs - not varying performances on the same climb.

rayjay wrote:

I would like to see you suck Ulrich's wheel.

I could do it easily if he went slow enough. On this occasion, he went slow enough for Laiseka to bridge across to him and drop him by 40 seconds, I don't think Armstrong (who is a better cyclist than me) would have had to be at 100% to hang in there. Of course the effort is great - but what effort were they making compared to their best (not mine).

rayjay wrote:

When I see a riders doing times quicker than some of the best doped climbers in the world then that makes me suspicious. Simple.

You can be suspicious but if you only view limited selected data with a desire to be suspicious then you will only ever be suspicious.

tailwindhome

rayjay wrote:

I never said I thought Horner was clean. But I agree with morstar , you cannot pick and choose.
I understand pro sports and the fact that athletes will take PEDs. Its never been a shock to me.
The times up some of the climbs this year by so called clean riders have been quicker than that of known doped riders so I doubt that we have a clean sport. I just think the drugs have got better. Athletes have always been ahead of the testers, just because we caught LA the sport is suddenly clean?

I don't get the argument that if] you believe x is doping you must believe y is doping.

That makes no sense

FocusZing

TailWindHome wrote:

rayjay wrote:

I never said I thought Horner was clean. But I agree with morstar , you cannot pick and choose.
I understand pro sports and the fact that athletes will take PEDs. Its never been a shock to me.
The times up some of the climbs this year by so called clean riders have been quicker than that of known doped riders so I doubt that we have a clean sport. I just think the drugs have got better. Athletes have always been ahead of the testers, just because we caught LA the sport is suddenly clean?

I don't get the argument that if] you believe x is doping you must believe y is doping.

That makes no sense

If x is caught taking peds yet consistently loses to y, knowing the performance advantages peds give then y is likely taking peds too. This would have to be similar types of specialist, not a climber with a sprinter.

I would like to know the discrepancy in performance between pro clean riders. They all train hard, want to win, are the evolved cycling elite.