Will Horner get a new contract for 2014
Comments
-
Apart from the fact that humans are all different and react to drugs, illnesses, fatigue etc all differently this is perfectly true.0
-
FocusZing wrote: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 can understand that.
The logic breaks down if we let x = Froome and y = Horner “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
What are the performance advantages of PEDs (currently with the Bio passport)? Specific figures. What percentage increase in power on a half hour climb? In the increase the same for everyone? And how far down the field would the winner finish if they lost that power?FocusZing wrote:If x is caught taking peds yet consistently loses to y, knowing the performance advantages peds give then y is likely taking peds too.
Or is this just something you plucked out of the ether?
But you just said we know the performance advantages.FocusZing wrote: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.
So your theory is based on what something we know but don't actually know.Twitter: @RichN950 -
TailWindHome wrote:FocusZing wrote: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 can understand that.
The logic breaks down if we let x = Froome and y = Horner
Yes:-). They would have to be similar Ullrich/Armstrong, similar age and speciality.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
What are the performance advantages of PEDs (currently with the Bio passport)? Specific figures. What percentage increase in power on a half hour climb? In the increase the same for everyone? And how far down the field would the winner finish if they lost that power?FocusZing wrote:If x is caught taking peds yet consistently loses to y, knowing the performance advantages peds give then y is likely taking peds too.
Or is this just something you plucked out of the ether?
But you just said we know the performance advantages.FocusZing wrote: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.
So your theory is based on what something we know but don't actually know.
I am no expert and don't profess to be, it's just my observations from pro cycling's history and reading accounts of caught pros. Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis...
I was just running through the logic to answer the question. I like the fact people still want to follow pro cycling and stick up for it.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
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 don't call you ignorant because you disagree with my opinions.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.
Your reply shows who is ignorant. Its better to just agree to disagree instead of a desperately trying to make a point you cannot prove. When I look at the times up the climbs of the tour and all the best times are by doped riders then anyone matching or going quicker raises suspicions, what don't you understand about that point.
You could easily have said the same thing about the Armstrong era and if you did you would have been wrong.
I'm sure my 10 year old son could keep up with Ulrich if he went slow enough but I doubt you could hold onto Ulrichs wheel on a stage of the tour. Glad to see you admit that Armstrong is a better rider than you. . I have seen these riders up close doing so called wheel sucking and they are busting their asses off. I don't think you have a clue how hard they race for 5 hours. Doped, they are still amazing athletes. 0 -
Fwiw, I would like to distance myself from the idea that x doping means y is also.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
My frustration is those who argue all cycling is doped and still bang on about so and so being a dirty cheat. The implication that some are bad cheats and some good cheats by someone taking this position is wrong.
If your default position is that all riders dope, you are either comfortable with that so why make value judgements about riders, or, you despise the fact that they all dope. In which case you shouldn't post from a fan perspective.0 -
morstar wrote:The implication that some are bad cheats and some good cheats by someone taking this position is wrong.Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charming motherfuckin' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I think we need a top bio scientists to ask.
I think most top guys are on a certain amount of dope but there other results which make the eyes pop out. Horner's Vuelta far exceeds his past exploits in the same way Possovivo's TT seemed suspiscious, so much so, the commentators thought the TT timings were out.
Past riders who did exceptional rides would be Stephan Schumacher suddenly becoming a TT specialist. Pantani's climbing, Riis' Tour de France win, Gewiss's win with Furlan, Argentin, Berzin getting a 123, Landis's Tour de France winning breakaway etc etc many times over.
Doping has been around since cycle racing's conception so a new dawn is not realistic. The only reason the riders have slowed is due to the bio passport and more rigerous testing. Riders dope to try to get the most out of their bodies; it's a tougher game now but as Hamilton says the Team's Docs are streets ahead of the Testers.
Just hope that if Horner has pulled a stunt then he can make it stick; if not retirement beckons.
“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein
"You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
-Jacques Anquetil0 -
These teams have such a strong anti-doping stance that they wont risk hiring him for €750,000, but for €150,000... its ok.0
-
RichN95 wrote:
You do realise it's not 2003 any more, don't you?FocusZing wrote:
I am no expert and don't profess to be, it's just my observations from pro cycling's history and reading accounts of caught pros. Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis...
I was thinking about retorting, but it's not that important to me. Like I said I like the fact people still follow, every other sport (entertainment) has their issues. Hey that's why people follow it for the intrigue.0 -
rayjay wrote:Your reply shows who is ignorant. Its better to just agree to disagree instead of a desperately trying to make a point you cannot prove. When I look at the times up the climbs of the tour and all the best times are by doped riders then anyone matching or going quicker raises suspicions, what don't you understand about that point.
Look. Go away and learn about when then have previously raced Ax3, where the stage came in the race, what the GC situation was, who attacked when. Better still actually watch them.
Then you will understand that races are all different and these times (particularly the ones on short climbs) are dependent on many circumstances.
If all these infamous dopers where riding Ax3 as fast as they could, why has the largely unheralded Laiseka got the record? Answer that.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:rayjay wrote:Your reply shows who is ignorant. Its better to just agree to disagree instead of a desperately trying to make a point you cannot prove. When I look at the times up the climbs of the tour and all the best times are by doped riders then anyone matching or going quicker raises suspicions, what don't you understand about that point.
Look. Go away and learn about when then have previously raced Ax3, where the stage came in the race, what the GC situation was, who attacked when. Better still actually watch them.
Then you will understand that races are all different and these times (particularly the ones on short climbs) are dependent on many circumstances.
If all these infamous dopers where riding Ax3 as fast as they could, why has the largely unheralded Laiseka got the record? Answer that.
" go away". Don't think so.
1. Laiseka 22:57, 2001 most likely doped
2. Armstrong 22:59, 2001 doped
3. Froome 23:14, 2013 ?
4. Ulrich 23:17, 2003 doped
5. Zubeldia 23:19, 2003 doped
6. Ulrich 23:22, 2001 doped
7. Armstrong 23:24, 2003 doped
8. Vinokourov 23:34, 2003 doped
Reasons to be suspicious. its right before your eyes.
If you applied your logic in the Armstrong era you would have been wrong. So how do you know your not wrong now? You don't. That's a fact. 0 -
rayjay wrote:" go away". Don't think so.
1. Laiseka 22:57, 2001 most likely doped
2. Armstrong 22:59, 2001 doped
3. Froome 23:14, 2013 ?
4. Ulrich 23:17, 2003 doped
5. Zubeldia 23:19, 2003 doped
6. Ulrich 23:22, 2001 doped
7. Armstrong 23:24, 2003 doped
8. Vinokourov 23:34, 2003 doped
Reasons to be suspicious. its right before your eyes.
If you applied your logic in the Armstrong era you would have been wrong. So how do you know your not wrong now? You don't. That's a fact.
I know I'm not wrong because Roberto Laiseka has the fastest time up Ax3. He never finished in the Tour top 20 on GC. Him having the fastest time shows that the performances from those dopers were not peak performances.
My point is that a clean rider can go as fast as a doped rider if that rider is not operating at maximum capacity. I am arguing against the use of selective times with no context as evidence, not Froome specifically. My point is about abuse of statistics not cycling.
My logic would not have been wrong about Armstrong as his peak performances matched all that had gone before and there were plenty of times faster - not just one. Your logic, however, has LeMond as a doper as he holds the record for the fastest TT over 20km.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:rayjay wrote:" go away". Don't think so.
1. Laiseka 22:57, 2001 most likely doped
2. Armstrong 22:59, 2001 doped
3. Froome 23:14, 2013 ?
4. Ulrich 23:17, 2003 doped
5. Zubeldia 23:19, 2003 doped
6. Ulrich 23:22, 2001 doped
7. Armstrong 23:24, 2003 doped
8. Vinokourov 23:34, 2003 doped
Reasons to be suspicious. its right before your eyes.
If you applied your logic in the Armstrong era you would have been wrong. So how do you know your not wrong now? You don't. That's a fact.
I know I'm not wrong because Roberto Laiseka has the fastest time up Ax3. He never finished in the Tour top 20 on GC. Him having the fastest time shows that the performances from those dopers were not peak performances.
My point is that a clean rider can go as fast as a doped rider if that rider is not operating at maximum capacity. I am arguing against the use of selective times with no context as evidence, not Froome specifically. My point is about abuse of statistics not cycling.
My logic would not have been wrong about Armstrong as his peak performances matched all that had gone before and there were plenty of times faster - not just one. Your logic, however, has LeMond as a doper as he holds the record for the fastest TT over 20km.
Blimey, this is like the arguements I used to have when Armstrong was doing his stuff. I used to argue, how did LA and his buddies win so much without getting caught. Everyone used to say I was Trolling. Lots of people here won't pass through the looking glass and admit that pro cycling is a corrupt sport and always has been for over a century.
Humans are essentially tricky creatures who bend the rules to fit their own needs. As long as there is a winner in a race there will always be cheating. I've known of funny goings on in BCF races let alone at the top table. Come on, cycling has travelled to far to think otherwise. Even comedians joke about cycling and drug abuse, i have heard 3 jokes in the last 2 weeks. It's time leave Neverland.“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein
"You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
-Jacques Anquetil0 -
If i believed that Jerry, I wouldn't watch
Oh and please can we not have the Armstrong won and he doped ergo EVERYONE WHO WINS is a doper argument? Pretty please? Froome beat a child and an ex doper who does nt have it any more. When he's dominated the Tour for 7 years against all comers then I ll start taking notice of what Armstrong didWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
No, this is nothing like the arguments you had. Because my point is that no conclusions can be made by using a small amount of highly selective data shorn of context to arrive at a conclusion - fairly basic science. You think I'm saying whether someone is clean or not - which shows you had completely misunderstood.jerry3571 wrote:Blimey, this is like the arguements I used to have when Armstrong was doing his stuff. I used to argue, how did LA and his buddies win so much without getting caught. Everyone used to say I was Trolling. Lots of people here won't pass through the looking glass and admit that pro cycling is a corrupt sport and always has been for over a century.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
No, this is nothing like the arguments you had. Because my point is that no conclusions can be made by using a small amount of highly selective data shorn of context to arrive at a conclusion - fairly basic science. You think I'm saying whether someone is clean or not - which shows you had completely misunderstood.jerry3571 wrote:Blimey, this is like the arguements I used to have when Armstrong was doing his stuff. I used to argue, how did LA and his buddies win so much without getting caught. Everyone used to say I was Trolling. Lots of people here won't pass through the looking glass and admit that pro cycling is a corrupt sport and always has been for over a century.
I think its got to be right to be suspicious of anybody who is riding faster than a leaderboard of confirmed dopers. Obviously there are variations in conditions for particular climbs but its a bit naive, given all we know, to not even question these performances. I hope Froome is riding clean and I'm inclined to think he is, but questions need to be asked whether he (or anyone else) likes it or not.0 -
On the other hand, does anyone know of any athletic sports where records are getting slower? Improvements in training, technology etc will push the limits of what a human can do. I would imagine a contemporary top of the line clean rider would beat a doped up rider from say the 80's. Too many factors to make any judgements and not enough historic data from clean riders at the top level. It's all just guesswork and unless there is any proof the discussion will just go round in circles...0
-
BigMat wrote:I think its got to be right to be suspicious of anybody who is riding faster than a leaderboard of confirmed dopers. Obviously there are variations in conditions for particular climbs but its a bit naive, given all we know, to not even question these performances. I hope Froome is riding clean and I'm inclined to think he is, but questions need to be asked whether he (or anyone else) likes it or not.
Questions do need to be asked. But questions need to be asked as to the value and validity of the data which you are using to derive your conclusions every bit as much as they need to be asked of Froome (or whoever) himself. Lots of people are keen to do the latter, barely anyone the former. To find scandal only one need be done, but to reach truth both are necessary.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:rayjay wrote:" go away". Don't think so.
1. Laiseka 22:57, 2001 most likely doped
2. Armstrong 22:59, 2001 doped
3. Froome 23:14, 2013 ?
4. Ulrich 23:17, 2003 doped
5. Zubeldia 23:19, 2003 doped
6. Ulrich 23:22, 2001 doped
7. Armstrong 23:24, 2003 doped
8. Vinokourov 23:34, 2003 doped
Reasons to be suspicious. its right before your eyes.
If you applied your logic in the Armstrong era you would have been wrong. So how do you know your not wrong now? You don't. That's a fact.
I know I'm not wrong because Roberto Laiseka has the fastest time up Ax3. He never finished in the Tour top 20 on GC. Him having the fastest time shows that the performances from those dopers were not peak performances.
My point is that a clean rider can go as fast as a doped rider if that rider is not operating at maximum capacity. I am arguing against the use of selective times with no context as evidence, not Froome specifically. My point is about abuse of statistics not cycling.
My logic would not have been wrong about Armstrong as his peak performances matched all that had gone before and there were plenty of times faster - not just one. Your logic, however, has LeMond as a doper as he holds the record for the fastest TT over 20km.
I understand your view and its a good point, But how do you know Laiseka was not doping? You don't.
I say we move on. Your points are good I just am not convinced. Cheers rayjay0 -
I don't know he wasn't doping. He most likely was. But that's not my point.rayjay wrote:
I understand your view and its a good point, But how do you know Laiseka was not doping? You don't.
I say we move on. Your points are good I just am not convinced. Cheers rayjay
I will try an spell it out for you in different terms.
If Spain play Wales at football, Spain will win 9 times out of ten. However, on the occasion Wales win it is logical to assume that Spain did not play to their full potential. Therefore, if I want to consider what Spain's peak performance is you would not consider this match.
Now replace Spain with Armstrong and Wales with Laiseka then you have the same scenario.
It was not Armstrong at his peak. It wasn't one for the highlight real. Froome's performance was probably his peak. They are not comparable. Only a large selection of results are comparable.
Another football analogy: Earlier this season Cardiff City beat Manchester City 3-2. And Manchester City later beat Manchester United 4-1.
By your method of determining relative performances based on a solitary data point, Cardiff City are clearly far better than Manchester United. But they are not - as will be borne out over a season's worth of results. Of course the circumstances of each match were not equivalent and that must be considered. That is my point.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Good post Rich.0
-
RichN95 wrote:
I don't know he wasn't doping. He most likely was. But that's not my point.rayjay wrote:
I understand your view and its a good point, But how do you know Laiseka was not doping? You don't.
I say we move on. Your points are good I just am not convinced. Cheers rayjay
I will try an spell it out for you in different terms.
If Spain play Wales at football, Spain will win 9 times out of ten. However, on the occasion Wales win it is logical to assume that Spain did not play to their full potential. Therefore, if I want to consider what Spain's peak performance is you would not consider this match.
Now replace Spain with Armstrong and Wales with Laiseka then you have the same scenario.
It was not Armstrong at his peak. It wasn't one for the highlight real. Froome's performance was probably his peak. They are not comparable. Only a large selection of results are comparable.
Another football analogy: Earlier this season Cardiff City beat Manchester City 3-2. And Manchester City later beat Manchester United 4-1.
By your method of determining relative performances based on a solitary data point, Cardiff City are clearly far better than Manchester United. But they are not - as will be borne out over a season's worth of results. Of course the circumstances of each match were not equivalent and that must be considered. That is my point.
Why didn't you use athletics as a more comparable (based more towards cardiovascular ability) obvious analogy?
You are comparing the Oxford English dictionary with the Bible.0 -
rayjay wrote:RichN95 wrote:rayjay wrote:Your reply shows who is ignorant. Its better to just agree to disagree instead of a desperately trying to make a point you cannot prove. When I look at the times up the climbs of the tour and all the best times are by doped riders then anyone matching or going quicker raises suspicions, what don't you understand about that point.
Look. Go away and learn about when then have previously raced Ax3, where the stage came in the race, what the GC situation was, who attacked when. Better still actually watch them.
Then you will understand that races are all different and these times (particularly the ones on short climbs) are dependent on many circumstances.
If all these infamous dopers where riding Ax3 as fast as they could, why has the largely unheralded Laiseka got the record? Answer that.
" go away". Don't think so.
1. Laiseka 22:57, 2001 most likely doped
2. Armstrong 22:59, 2001 doped
3. Froome 23:14, 2013 ?
4. Ulrich 23:17, 2003 doped
5. Zubeldia 23:19, 2003 doped
6. Ulrich 23:22, 2001 doped
7. Armstrong 23:24, 2003 doped
8. Vinokourov 23:34, 2003 doped
Reasons to be suspicious. its right before your eyes.
If you applied your logic in the Armstrong era you would have been wrong. So how do you know your not wrong now? You don't. That's a fact.
OK, I'll give it ago and I'm no Sky fan.
To my recollection, of course I could be wrong, the first two times were achieved riding solo.
Froome had Porte "leading him out" for the first 4 kms.
Now to 2003. Kind of backs up Rich's point. Armstrong still manages to get a top 8 time, the stage after his Cap Decouverte dehydration collapse.
Aix Trois was the middle day of his worst 3 consecutive Tour days. It was also raced in temperatures well in excess of 40C.
Now I'm not saying this is proof Froome is clean, just that climbing times without variables are not evidence of the opposite."I'm tired... but I think everybody's tired. Today was a hard day. After the effort of yesterday... I expended a lot yesterday. The fact of the matter is that I started Saturday at probably 72.5kg and finished the time trial at 66.5kg, so something definitely went wrong... With dehydration like that... One, you can't do a maximum effort, and and two, you can't recover in one day.""Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I've followed this thread fairly closely, yet I fail to understand how Froome's time up Ax 3 has a bearing on Horner's 2014 contract. Are some of you people Republican Congressmen? Maybe we need an off-season doping latrine where the incontinent can relieve themselves....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
