Will Horner get a new contract for 2014
Comments
-
Horner's mistake is timing ... An American GT winner in the same year as Armstrong's confession was never going to go down well ...
Trek have been stung with LA, Contador and Heras all being sanctioned ... Salvoldelli is the only one flying under the radar for some reason ...
Even before Floyd got busted he was public enemy number one for being another US winner ...0 -
Another question is which expert advised Horner that there was nothing to fear in publishing his profiles. If the 'signature' is as obvious as is suggested by Cinema Paradiso why on earth would Horner publish?...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
I suppose he'd arguably nothing to lose. The interpretation of the data is to a great degree ambiguous. If the experts can find something then he's either done for anyway or it is too ambiguous to be considered positive. The article talks about suspicion and a need for enhanced scrutiny of future data rather than a smoking gun.Macaloon wrote:Another question is which expert advised Horner that there was nothing to fear in publishing his profiles. If the 'signature' is as obvious as is suggested by Cinema Paradiso why on earth would Horner publish?
If his people are confident the data is comfortably ambiguous then there is absolutely nothing to lose by releasing it and it gets chalked up as a good thing that he was happy to publish it.
That's all assuming he was actually doping! Alternatively he's clean and nothing to hide.0 -
morstar wrote:I suppose he'd arguably nothing to lose. The interpretation of the data is to a great degree ambiguous. If the experts can find something then he's either done for anyway or it is too ambiguous to be considered positive. The article talks about suspicion and a need for enhanced scrutiny of future data rather than a smoking gun.
If his people are confident the data is comfortably ambiguous then there is absolutely nothing to lose by releasing it and it gets chalked up as a good thing that he was happy to publish it.
That's all assuming he was actually doping! Alternatively he's clean and nothing to hide.
If this is the consensus view of the panel-experts, has one of the precogs just issued a minority report?...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Did any of you find Vaughters' twitter this week saying he would rather 'give Leipheimer a second chance' than hire Horner? Het Nieuwsblad was reporting it, but I didn't find the tweet.
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/SportWereld/cn ... 6_007951500 -
FJS wrote:Did any of you find Vaughters' twitter this week saying he would rather 'give Leipheimer a second chance' than hire Horner? Het Nieuwsblad was reporting it, but I didn't find the tweet.
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/SportWereld/cn ... 6_00795150
He deleted it after a couple of days. But I read it at the time. It seemed clear what he was meaning. I remember someone tweeting him after the Vuelta asking him what he thought of Horner's performance, and his reply was that he wasnt going there (ie give his thought) and certainly not on Twitter.0 -
By ambiguous I mean it's not a binary outcome. It is an interpreted result and therefore subjective. Now that doesn't mean it can't be very conclusive but I'd make a presumption that in this case it isn't. Hence, no DQ as of yet, CH happy to put results on line and an expert commenting on suspicious indications rather than strong indications.Macaloon wrote:morstar wrote:I suppose he'd arguably nothing to lose. The interpretation of the data is to a great degree ambiguous. If the experts can find something then he's either done for anyway or it is too ambiguous to be considered positive. The article talks about suspicion and a need for enhanced scrutiny of future data rather than a smoking gun.
If his people are confident the data is comfortably ambiguous then there is absolutely nothing to lose by releasing it and it gets chalked up as a good thing that he was happy to publish it.
That's all assuming he was actually doping! Alternatively he's clean and nothing to hide.
If this is the consensus view of the panel-experts, has one of the precogs just issued a minority report?
Even with a strong result, I'll bet there's lawyers who'd love to argue a case like this.0 -
I was idly wondering which team would hire him and came up with this short list;
- Lampre-Merida
- Lotto-Belisol
- AG2R
- Saxo Bank
- IAM
Any others? BMC might possibly give him a three year, $5 million contract but maybe Andy Rihs is quite that daft.0 -
Katusha and Astana are two teams who would have the necessary cash to spare.andyp wrote:I was idly wondering which team would hire him and came up with this short list;
- Lampre-Merida
- Lotto-Belisol
- AG2R
- Saxo Bank
- IAM
Any others? BMC might possibly give him a three year, $5 million contract but maybe Andy Rihs is quite that daft.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Do either of them need another GC rider though? But yes, I agree, both could probably afford him.0
-
They don't need a number 1 leader that's for sure. And both have some decent second string riders. But he'd be useful to have around if the money's not an issue.andyp wrote:Do either of them need another GC rider though? But yes, I agree, both could probably afford him.
If he's asking to lead at the Tour though, his options are probably even more limited than you suggest.Twitter: @RichN950 -
It's amazing that he says he has always been a clean rider. Same with Cadel. They were both around right through the period when 95% of riders doped.0
-
They may have been around but they weren't doing much.Joelsim wrote:It's amazing that he says he has always been a clean rider. Same with Cadel. They were both around right through the period when 95% of riders doped.
Evans was initially a successful mountain biker and then switched to the road. He did OK as at Mapei but then was the forgotten man at T-Mobile. He didn't get to ride the Tour until 2005 at the age of 28.
Horner came to Europe in the late 90s and flopped at FdJ. He then went back to America and didn't return until late 2004 aged 33.
They were both sidelined for most of the Armstrong years.
Of course you weren't there either. You got into the sport a couple of years ago and spent that time solely reading books about doping.
'What do they know of doping, who only doping know?'Twitter: @RichN950 -
Joelsim wrote:It's amazing that he says he has always been a clean rider. Same with Cadel. They were both around right through the period when 95% of riders doped.
Plus that bloke Boardman (who's bike you ride): what are the chances that all 3 riders could fall into that entirely made-up figure of 5% non-doping pro's?
I was also racing a lot during that period, but, ironically, my lack of success was probably down to too much doping. I took "recreational drugs" because my recreation was cycling - but it turns out they weren't performance enhancing.
Where was Tygart then, eh?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
They may have been around but they weren't doing much.Joelsim wrote:It's amazing that he says he has always been a clean rider. Same with Cadel. They were both around right through the period when 95% of riders doped.
Evans was initially a successful mountain biker and then switched to the road. He did OK as at Mapei but then was the forgotten man at T-Mobile. He didn't get to ride the Tour until 2005 at the age of 28.
Horner came to Europe in the late 90s and flopped at FdJ. He then went back to America and didn't return until late 2004 aged 33.
They were both sidelined for most of the Armstrong years.
Of course you weren't there either. You got into the sport a couple of years ago and spent that time solely reading books about doping.
'What do they know of doping, who only doping know?'
Cyclingnews: There has been a lot of stuff on Twitter you may or may not have been aware of over the last few weeks. A lot of it speculation, a lot of it unfair but one of the points was the claim you are a redacted name, number 15 in the USADA report. Do you know anything about that?
Horner: No I don’t know anything about that. I’d have to read up on it or something.
Cyclingnews: I can give you the quote very quickly as I know you’re pressed for time. It’s in Levi Leipheimer’s affidavit, and it says…
Horner: Daniel, Daniel, I’m getting ready to drive right now. So there’s nothing I’m going to know on that. You’ll have to get hold of me another time because I’m on the phone and they’re going to give me a ticket if I’m driving with it on the phone.
Cyclingnews: Can I just ask one last question?
Horner: I’m driving with the phone and I’m going to get a ticket.
An hour later, Cyclingnews called Horner for a second time:
Horner: I’m busy right now. We’ll have to try another time. Thanks.
Cyclingnews: Are you free later on this evening?
Horner: No. I’ve just got home from doing the Tour of Spain, Daniel. I got three kids here and I’m done with the interviews. I’ve already done 200 or something like that. How come you didn’t come to Spain? I’ll let you go, I’m going to spend some time at home. Bye, bye.
[Horner hangs up]
He doesn't know anything about him supposedly being Rider 15. Eh?
"I understand and I'm clear on how much information is out there on what Lance is said to have done but I'm also clear on the fact that he's passed all of his tests. Are you supposed to go back and erase those memories? I remember the 2005 Tour de France and Lance was the best guy there and he passed all the tests and won the Tour. I'm not going to debate if he won, he was there, he won and passed the tests."
Last December.
I mean, Christ on a bike...0 -
RichN95 wrote:They may have been around but they weren't doing much.
Evans was initially a successful mountain biker and then switched to the road.
After som proper consultation with the lads Ferrari and Rominger..
I still believe Cadel won that Tour clean but calling him out, and especially Horner, as clean prior and during the doping era (which is before and after Armstrong rode as well..) is bit sweet and naive all things considered.0 -
Look. I don't know if Horner or Evans is doping, and neither do you. Although, I would have more faith in Evans than Horner.Joelsim wrote:Stuff....
However, your input on this forum has so far been almost entirely doping related and your knowing sceptism. By your own admission you have only been following cycling a couple of years and you have read just about every doping related book going. You've kind of brainwashed yourself into thinking you see the truth about doping, as many have before. Take a step back and learn a little more about the actual sport and the context that gives your doping reading as well as a bit about how the media operate before you think you know it all.
Like I say: What do they know of doping who only doping know.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Rominger's just an agent. He works for IMG (who run the Tour de Suisse and Romandie). He represents many cyclists.ThomThom wrote:RichN95 wrote:They may have been around but they weren't doing much.
Evans was initially a successful mountain biker and then switched to the road.
After som proper consultation with the lads Ferrari and Rominger..
I still belive Cadel won that Tour clean but calling him out, and especially Horner, as clean prior and during the doping era (which is before and after Armstrong rode as well..) is bit sweet and naive all things considered.
Sure he could probably arrange a meeting with Ferrari if you really him to, but equally he may warn against it.
Ferrari just did some tests on Evans a long time ago. There's nothing beyond that (although Rominger and Ferrari may have had some tax fiddle going on). Evans was a Sassi man - the anti-Ferrari.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Joelsim wrote:It's amazing that he says he has always been a clean rider. Same with Cadel. They were both around right through the period when 95% of riders doped.
Didn't you just answer your own question? 5% didn't dope, so therefore it's possible they didn't.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Well put Rich.RichN95 wrote:
Look. I don't know if Horner or Evans is doping, and neither do you. Although, I would have more faith in Evans than Horner.Joelsim wrote:Stuff....
However, your input on this forum has so far been almost entirely doping related and your knowing sceptism. By your own admission you have only been following cycling a couple of years and you have read just about every doping related book going. You've kind of brainwashed yourself into thinking you see the truth about doping, as many have before. Take a step back and learn a little more about the actual sport and the context that gives your doping reading as well as a bit about how the media operate before you think you know it all.
Like I say: What do they know of doping who only doping know.
Joelsim, I'm afraid you do come across as a bit evangelical. It is clear you've studied the subject but you lack context to your reading.
I (and I suspect many others) fell in love with sport first and then found out the uncomfortable truth. If, like me you're anti doping, you then have to find a way to reconcile your love for the sport with the fact the sport is dirty. For some it will be easier than others, I found it difficult.
I understand completely that doping was a huge part of the sport culminating in a peak of epo use during the 90's and early 00's. Since then, the doping has decreased and most importantly, the culture that facilitated a doping free for all has been removed.
Has doping stopped? No.
Will doping ever be eradicated completely? Not unless blood testing becomes totally foolproof.
Would that stop cheating? No, new ways to bend the rules would be found.
Your insinuation that they all still dope does not ring true with me and your constant hammering the cheating message home makes you sound like a newly reformed smoker. We're not naive! We know there is always going to be another doping bust so stop ramming it down our throats.
If you are so convinced they are all doping and knew this when you came to the sport, once again I ask you, why do you care? One doper beat another bunch of dopers.0 -
morstar wrote:
Well put Rich.RichN95 wrote:
Look. I don't know if Horner or Evans is doping, and neither do you. Although, I would have more faith in Evans than Horner.Joelsim wrote:Stuff....
However, your input on this forum has so far been almost entirely doping related and your knowing sceptism. By your own admission you have only been following cycling a couple of years and you have read just about every doping related book going. You've kind of brainwashed yourself into thinking you see the truth about doping, as many have before. Take a step back and learn a little more about the actual sport and the context that gives your doping reading as well as a bit about how the media operate before you think you know it all.
Like I say: What do they know of doping who only doping know.
Joelsim, I'm afraid you do come across as a bit evangelical. It is clear you've studied the subject but you lack context to your reading.
I (and I suspect many others) fell in love with sport first and then found out the uncomfortable truth. If, like me you're anti doping, you then have to find a way to reconcile your love for the sport with the fact the sport is dirty. For some it will be easier than others, I found it difficult.
I understand completely that doping was a huge part of the sport culminating in a peak of epo use during the 90's and early 00's. Since then, the doping has decreased and most importantly, the culture that facilitated a doping free for all has been removed.
Has doping stopped? No.
Will doping ever be eradicated completely? Not unless blood testing becomes totally foolproof.
Would that stop cheating? No, new ways to bend the rules would be found.
Your insinuation that they all still dope does not ring true with me and your constant hammering the cheating message home makes you sound like a newly reformed smoker. We're not naive! We know there is always going to be another doping bust so stop ramming it down our throats.
If you are so convinced they are all doping and knew this when you came to the sport, once again I ask you, why do you care? One doper beat another bunch of dopers.
Fair comments.
I don't think they all dope, although I do think it is still more widespread than many on here think.
I think it's a far more level playing field for non dopers than it has been for many years, yes I am pretty new to the sport but I have read an awful lot and watched a lot. Much still to learn for sure.
I do think that on the scale of doping, CH's Vuelta win was on a level with Mr Riis in his glory year. I just don't think the testing is ever going to be good enough to catch the majority.
The other important thing to note is that we are all speculating who is or isn't. The peloton will know as they always have done. That probably makes it even harder for CH to get a contract.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Fair comments.
I don't think they all dope, although I do think it is still more widespread than many on here think.
I think it's a far more level playing field for non dopers than it has been for many years, yes I am pretty new to the sport but I have read an awful lot and watched a lot. Much still to learn for sure.
I do think that on the scale of doping, CH's Vuelta win was on a level with Mr Riis in his glory year. I just don't think the testing is ever going to be good enough to catch the majority.
The other important thing to note is that we are all speculating who is or isn't. The peloton will know as they always have done. That probably makes it even harder for CH to get a contract.
Good stuff. But what I don't get about HornerGate is that his published blood results don't appear to show anything like the dramatic haematocrit levels achieved by Bjarne. If this is correct - and given that everyone from Veloclinic to a BP expert has poured over the numbers it's a fair shout - it would appear that Horner wasn't blood doping on an epic scale. So where did the epic performance enhancement come from, if not his blood?...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
What I'm finding interesting about the fallout from Horner's win is that there was no outcry over Hesjdal's win .. He had never came close to winning anything, certainly on not a 1 week stage race and did he post his blood values/data?
Horner eventually rode for an Armstrong/Bruyneel related team and for that he can't catch a break ... and yes, his defence of the status quo is questionable but it was a veiled reference to the state of racing during that period ... For an elderly pro who never earned the big contract, of course he is going to not stir the pot ... Yet he had enough about him to shame Hincapie doing his 'lap of honour' ...
His post Vuelta interviews were soundbite gold ... He won virtually on his own, and said so instead of sound-biting false modesty (or citing/blaming lack of support) ...
edit: if I was a DS I wouldn't give him a contract ... his moment/value is with the only continuous sponsor, Trek ... He's burnt that bridge, so tough ...0 -
Part of me wants him to never return but part of me wants him to return and a. See if he can come close to Vuelta performance and b. Get busted.Contador is the Greatest0
-
Macaloon wrote:Joelsim wrote:Fair comments.
I don't think they all dope, although I do think it is still more widespread than many on here think.
I think it's a far more level playing field for non dopers than it has been for many years, yes I am pretty new to the sport but I have read an awful lot and watched a lot. Much still to learn for sure.
I do think that on the scale of doping, CH's Vuelta win was on a level with Mr Riis in his glory year. I just don't think the testing is ever going to be good enough to catch the majority.
The other important thing to note is that we are all speculating who is or isn't. The peloton will know as they always have done. That probably makes it even harder for CH to get a contract.
Good stuff. But what I don't get about HornerGate is that his published blood results don't appear to show anything like the dramatic haematocrit levels achieved by Bjarne. If this is correct - and given that everyone from Veloclinic to a BP expert has poured over the numbers it's a fair shout - it would appear that Horner wasn't blood doping on an epic scale. So where did the epic performance enhancement come from, if not his blood?
I guess the levels of yesteryear aren't possible any more, when Riis won and rode away on the Hautacam, Virenque and Dufaux et al were pumped up to 54 and Bjarne still rode away like they were standing still.
It was similar on the last couple of stages of the Vuelta, Horner stuffing Nibs, J-Rod, Valverde etc. Possibly just a lower level thing. The general feeling I get is that the tests can be beaten easily even with the passport, be it microdosing, masking, saline solution or whatever they are doing these days. He did still exhibit a 3 point increase over his score earlier in the year, and at a time when he'd been racing so it should really have been lower shouldn't it?
Oh I dunno. Personally I can't give him the benefit of the doubt, whereas I can with Nibali and Froome. They have both exhibited good form over the last two years rather than over a month or so.0 -
No I cannot agree with that statement as my opinion is that Armstrong is the only one to match the scale of improvement as that shown by Bjarne Riis.Joelsim wrote:I do think that on the scale of doping, CH's Vuelta win was on a level with Mr Riis in his glory year. I just don't think the testing is ever going to be good enough to catch the majority.
I know this forum will tell me of the many others but (from memory) those others were climbers anyway as they reached new performance levels.
Where as the two I mentioned were not capable of climbing in the lead peloton or that their TT's were no better than an average Pro.
Back on Topic then and I have to say that the metronome riding of CH, out of the saddle was too much like Armstrong's six week period Ghost's and in the final week I only glanced at the Highlight programs with a complete lack of interest with the Vuelta result's.
I'm waiting to see if Cookson has the ability to see these Freak performances and maybe to do something about them. :?:Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
As far as I can see, Horner's GT win was by the smallest margin in years, with no individual stage gain over his main rivals of >1 minute ...
Compare that to some of the others and you're right ... the British dude in charge should be looking into this ... and in theory his travel expenses claim should be minimal ...0 -
Cobo beat Froome by 13 seconds just two years ago. And Hesjedal won the Giro last year by 16 seconds.Crankbrother wrote:As far as I can see, Horner's GT win was by the smallest margin in years, with no individual stage gain over his main rivals of >1 minute ...Twitter: @RichN950 -
Crankbrother wrote:As far as I can see, Horner's GT win was by the smallest margin in years, with no individual stage gain over his main rivals of >1 minute ...
Compare that to some of the others and you're right ... the British dude in charge should be looking into this ... and in theory his travel expenses claim should be minimal ...
You find Horner more believable than Froome or Wiggins or both?
Why?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Crankbrother wrote:As far as I can see, Horner's GT win was by the smallest margin in years, with no individual stage gain over his main rivals of >1 minute ...
Compare that to some of the others and you're right ... the British dude in charge should be looking into this ... and in theory his travel expenses claim should be minimal ...
As Aigle's in Switzerland, are you suggesting that Cancellara's up to something...or IAM? :shock:0
