La Gazzetta on Horner

morstar

prawny wrote:

Mechanism wrote:

I'd like to throw a bit more made-up science into the mix by wondering how a 42 year old's maximum heart rate affects things.

The (220 - age) equation gives a maximum of 178, roughly 8% lower than the 193 of a 27 year old.

Yeah but the 220 - age equation is bunk. Mine is (was anyway) 205 and I'm 30, therefore I would have won the Vuelta.

I'm 42 (not 41 and a big bit) and my max HR is 186. Reached multiple times in the last few months. Do I get a GT win too?

philbar72

Mechanism wrote:

I'd like to throw a bit more made-up science into the mix by wondering how a 42 year old's maximum heart rate affects things.

The (220 - age) equation gives a maximum of 178, roughly 8% lower than the 193 of a 27 year old.

that method is meaningless and wrong. Mine is 187 and i am 41.

mechanism

morstar wrote:

prawny wrote:

Mechanism wrote:

I'd like to throw a bit more made-up science into the mix by wondering how a 42 year old's maximum heart rate affects things.

The (220 - age) equation gives a maximum of 178, roughly 8% lower than the 193 of a 27 year old.

Yeah but the 220 - age equation is bunk. Mine is (was anyway) 205 and I'm 30, therefore I would have won the Vuelta.

I'm 42 (not 41 and a big bit) and my max HR is 186. Reached multiple times in the last few months. Do I get a GT win too?

Ok ok, I did say it was made-up science. You both get contracts with Trek.

morstar

mike6 wrote:

morstar wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Given that Valverde and Rodriguez rode the Tour and 3 weeks before the start of the Vuelta Nibali was a fat man with no form in the Tour de Pologne, there was always likely to be a surprising winner of this race. Nibali's improvement was much more 'curious' to me than the fact that Horner, a decent climber with no grand tours in his legs this year, managed to beat a bunch of guys who've been racing hard all year, on a course he was always going to like. The position of Nicholas Roche (I'm a fan but he's not a 5th place GT rider all things being equal) should give some indication as to how truly competitive this race was.

This is very significant context to this race. As I've said on the other Horner thread, I've been watching cycling long enough to be prepared for a positive test but I don't think we can just assume doping because the result is a statistical outlier. Competitive sport throws them up now and again. The other GC riders did not bring their A games full stop. It's a surprise that CH was the rider to capitalise but maybe he benefits from a cleaner sport more than most. Maybe he has been denied superstardom during the epo era by better responders.
The only counter argument that stands up is where have his recent GT results been but conversely, how many opportunities has he had to ride for himself on GC in a GT?
There are many arguments being applied selectively to different riders.
Until a positive or a mountain of circumstantial evidence (beyond hearsay) crops up I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.

I think if it had been a top one day race it would have been easier to understand. A one off great performance, but over three weeks it is more difficult to accept.
As I get older, 61 now, I can still turn in some decent, for me anyway, performances, but I do not recover anywhere near as quickly. I certainly cant put them back to back like I could in my 30s.

You could also argue that with his lack of racing how was Horner so "race fit"? Nibs had not raced much recently so he cant have been tired.

I completely accept it is a statistical outlier as a result and I am not stupid enough to rule out doping. However, we can't just rule out every winner as a doper just for their winning which is what is currently happening.

Simple truth is we have no understanding of what more mature elite athletes are capable of in PRO cycling as there is no frame of reference. Data from the 80's and 90's and 00's is useless due to acknowledged widespread doping. Maybe doping is itself career limiting or favours a younger physiology.

At 42 I am as fit as I've ever been. Seems hard to sustain at times and the maximum potential isn't what it was... But ultimately this is meaningless data as I'm not performing at an elite level or even close to my own physiological potential as I only train between 5 and 10 hours per week rather than 25 or 30 +. Unless anybody on here is an elite athlete, our own experiences are largely irrelevant.

morstar

Mechanism wrote:

morstar wrote:

prawny wrote:

Mechanism wrote:

I'd like to throw a bit more made-up science into the mix by wondering how a 42 year old's maximum heart rate affects things.

The (220 - age) equation gives a maximum of 178, roughly 8% lower than the 193 of a 27 year old.

Yeah but the 220 - age equation is bunk. Mine is (was anyway) 205 and I'm 30, therefore I would have won the Vuelta.

I'm 42 (not 41 and a big bit) and my max HR is 186. Reached multiple times in the last few months. Do I get a GT win too?

Ok ok, I did say it was made-up science. You both get contracts with Trek.

Awesome, not my first choice but beggars can't be choosers.

prawny

morstar wrote:

Mechanism wrote:

morstar wrote:

prawny wrote:

Mechanism wrote:

I'd like to throw a bit more made-up science into the mix by wondering how a 42 year old's maximum heart rate affects things.

The (220 - age) equation gives a maximum of 178, roughly 8% lower than the 193 of a 27 year old.

Yeah but the 220 - age equation is bunk. Mine is (was anyway) 205 and I'm 30, therefore I would have won the Vuelta.

I'm 42 (not 41 and a big bit) and my max HR is 186. Reached multiple times in the last few months. Do I get a GT win too?

Ok ok, I did say it was made-up science. You both get contracts with Trek.

Awesome, not my first choice but beggars can't be choosers.

I think I'd rather stay in insurance. Less likely to attract hate

tailwindhome

Is believable a binary thing or is it acceptable to have degrees of believability?

Can I be more suspicious of Horner than of Froome, and in turn more suspicious of Froome than Wiggins?



Oh and

RichN95 wrote:

cougie wrote:

Haile Gebrselassie is meant to be 40 - but apparently his early sponsors couldn't pin him down to a year - its possible he's 43 or older - he did pretty well on Sunday. It's all go for the 40+ year olds.

He looks about 50. And has done for most of his career.
I'm old enough to remember Yifter the Shifter at the 1980 Olympics. He looked about 60.

Roger Milla,

(No relation)

Pirahna

philbar72 wrote:

that method is meaningless and wrong. Mine is 187 and i am 41.

Mine is 187 and I'm 50.

Pirahna

philbar72 wrote:

that method is meaningless and wrong. Mine is 187 and i am 41.

Mine is 187 and I'm 50.

DeadCalm

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Given that Valverde and Rodriguez rode the Tour and 3 weeks before the start of the Vuelta Nibali was a fat man with no form in the Tour de Pologne, there was always likely to be a surprising winner of this race. Nibali's improvement was much more 'curious' to me than the fact that Horner, a decent climber with no grand tours in his legs this year, managed to beat a bunch of guys who've been racing hard all year, on a course he was always going to like. The position of Nicholas Roche (I'm a fan but he's not a 5th place GT rider all things being equal) should give some indication as to how truly competitive this race was.

Not the first time you have mentioned this.............

Erm, yes it is. I'm pretty sure I haven't posted anything since the Vuelta started. Real life has intruded on my forum waffling time the last month.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

without being aware of what happened next.
A week later, Nibali rode Burgos and on the final, Queen stage finished 48 seconds down on the eventual winner,
Nairo Quintana.

A fat Chris Froome rode the US pro Challenge and abandoned. If he wins tonight, or the World champs, in a week or so, are you going to find that curious?

Sudden and dramatic improvements in form are curious irrespective of who has them. However, that wasn't really the point I was trying to make and it was clumsy of me.

However, Nibali went from useless to pretty decent in no time at all. To do that legitimately he would have had to work really hard. He simply hasn't had the time between the Tour of Poland and the Vuelta to put in the work and be properly rested and recovered in time. It is not therefore surprising to me that he was beatable. In fact, given where he was three weeks before the start of the Vuelta it is surprising to me that he did as well as he did.

Bo Duke

Mechanism wrote:

morstar wrote:

prawny wrote:

Mechanism wrote:

I'd like to throw a bit more made-up science into the mix by wondering how a 42 year old's maximum heart rate affects things.

The (220 - age) equation gives a maximum of 178, roughly 8% lower than the 193 of a 27 year old.

Yeah but the 220 - age equation is bunk. Mine is (was anyway) 205 and I'm 30, therefore I would have won the Vuelta.

I'm 42 (not 41 and a big bit) and my max HR is 186. Reached multiple times in the last few months. Do I get a GT win too?

Ok ok, I did say it was made-up science. You both get contracts with Trek.

I think you mean Star Trek?

slowbike

So are we concluding that CH only won the race because nobody else could be arsed and didn't come into the race on form?

RichN95.

Slowbike wrote:

So are we concluding that CH only won the race because nobody else could be arsed and didn't come into the race on form?

It's not the only reason, but it's a factor. He's the third Vuelta winner in a row who hadn't done the Giro or Tour.

rick_chasey

The short of it is:

He's 5 years older than the previous oldest gt winner.

He has no history of gt top 5s, let alone podiums.

This sseason was blighted by injury before the Vuelta.

It wasn't a stellar starting lineup but it wasn't bad either.

He's old enough that he was around during the bad old days so some of the mud thrown will always stick.


Now here's a question: who enjoyed the Nibs vs Horner battle, and was it better than a scenario sans Horner; I.e. one where nibs strolls away with it?

dsoutar

Hmmm - you've got a point there...

secretsqirrel

Rick Chasey wrote:

Now here's a question: who enjoyed the Nibs vs Horner battle, and was it better than a scenario sans Horner; I.e. one where nibs strolls away with it?

I wanted Nibs to win

I wanted one of these
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/astana/giro-special-edition-short-sleeve-jersey-by-nalini-ec053890
in red.

prawny

Rick has a very good point, I didn't enjoy watching Nibs walk the Giro and after the team time trial my eyebrow was raised. He seems to have improved quite a lot after going to Astana.

And what were the other alternatives? Valverde? No ta, I'd rather Armstrong come back and win it. At least he's got a bit of charisma (tongue wedged firmly in cheek there, but I do have a strong irrational dislike for Valve)

rolf_f

prawny wrote:

And what were the other alternatives? Valverde? No ta, I'd rather Armstrong come back and win it. At least he's got a bit of charisma (tongue wedged firmly in cheek there, but I do have a strong irrational dislike for Valve)

How about Ooowackhim Rodriguez? He's good fun when he isn't feeling a bit puffed.

philbar72

prawny wrote:

Rick has a very good point, I didn't enjoy watching Nibs walk the Giro and after the team time trial my eyebrow was raised. He seems to have improved quite a lot after going to Astana.

Not really, he's always been a good climber that can attack but isn't quite as good as the likes of rodriguez on super steep finishes. His pacing judgement has always been a little suspect and he tends to go into the red a little too much for my liking.

one thing that has improved quite measureably is his TT'ing. he did a lot of work on that over the winter. he's still not up there with Froome and the specialist TTers, but is markedly improved.

Richmond Racer

philbar72 wrote:

prawny wrote:

Rick has a very good point, I didn't enjoy watching Nibs walk the Giro and after the team time trial my eyebrow was raised. He seems to have improved quite a lot after going to Astana.

Not really, he's always been a good climber that can attack but isn't quite as good as the likes of rodriguez on super steep finishes. His pacing judgement has always been a little suspect and he tends to go into the red a little too much for my liking.

one thing that has improved quite measureably is his TT'ing. he did a lot of work on that over the winter. he's still not up there with Froome and the specialist TTers, but is markedly improved.

Agree - he's really grafted at it. I've become a real fan of his this year.

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

He has no history of gt top 5s, let alone podiums.

To turn that argument around, if I'd said a man who came 9'th in the TdF won the Vuelta, would you find it outlandish?

Speaking of the old days, does anyone know how Nibz defamation law suit panned out?

prawny

Richmond Racer wrote:

philbar72 wrote:

prawny wrote:

Rick has a very good point, I didn't enjoy watching Nibs walk the Giro and after the team time trial my eyebrow was raised. He seems to have improved quite a lot after going to Astana.

Not really, he's always been a good climber that can attack but isn't quite as good as the likes of rodriguez on super steep finishes. His pacing judgement has always been a little suspect and he tends to go into the red a little too much for my liking.

one thing that has improved quite measureably is his TT'ing. he did a lot of work on that over the winter. he's still not up there with Froome and the specialist TTers, but is markedly improved.

Agree - he's really grafted at it. I've become a real fan of his this year.

Yeah probably, just can't take to him. That's not saying I like Horner either. Thinking about it, I'm not mad keen on anyone who is likely to be at the sharp end of a GT, they're like the F1 drivers of the peloton. Give me a mad escapist or a classics guy any day.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

Now here's a question: who enjoyed the Nibs vs Horner battle, and was it better than a scenario sans Horner; I.e. one where nibs strolls away with it?

When I eventually got into it I realy enjoyed it. Stage 20 was as good a day's viewing as I've seen all year.

But then we all love a good pantomime.


On your post you leave out one point which causes me to view his performance with suspicion - he's got nothing to lose by doping.


Presumably if he failed a test we would have heard by now.

frenchfighter

In case you missed the email:

http://www.radioshackleopardtrek.com/si ... mail-1.jpg

blazing_saddles

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He has no history of gt top 5s, let alone podiums.

To turn that argument around, if I'd said a man who came 9'th in the TdF won the Vuelta, would you find it outlandish?

Speaking of the old days, does anyone know how Nibz defamation law suit panned out?

You might want to re-think that line of argument, Iain.

Daniel Navarro.
Janez Brajkovic
Tom Danielson
Chris Horner
Christopher Le Mevel
Ale Valverde
Mikel Astarloza

frenchfighter

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He has no history of gt top 5s, let alone podiums.

To turn that argument around, if I'd said a man who came 9'th in the TdF won the Vuelta, would you find it outlandish?

Speaking of the old days, does anyone know how Nibz defamation law suit panned out?

Not on its own. But in context it is quite different. Non?

Spiny_Norman

Blazing Saddles wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He has no history of gt top 5s, let alone podiums.

To turn that argument around, if I'd said a man who came 9'th in the TdF won the Vuelta, would you find it outlandish?

Speaking of the old days, does anyone know how Nibz defamation law suit panned out?

You might want to re-think that line of argument, Iain.

Daniel Navarro.
Janez Brajkovic
Tom Danielson
Chris Horner
Christopher Le Mevel
Ale Valverde
Mikel Astarloza

Or on yet another angle, if I told you that a man who finished on the podium in a pretty lumpy TdF was in serious contention to repeat the trick in the Vuelta, was always there or thereabouts, and only finished 3 minutes down on GC, what would you conclude about the level of competition in that Vuelta?

Looking at the GC, I can't help thinking that it's Nibs who's the anomaly. We know that anyone doing the TdF, especially if they're working hard at the top of the standings, is going to be overcooked by the sharp end of the Vuelta. That offers a possible explanation for how most of the likely contenders were beaten by Horner, even if it doesn't totally explain everything. But Nibali - he's had much longer to get over the Giro, we know that double can be done, and he looked so dominant in the spring. That made him seem an obvious favourite, and evidently he wasn't back to his best form, but scanning down the rest of the field, are there really that many surprises?

coopster_the_1st

Apart from his age outlier, and that he has nothing to lose, it was Horner's climbing style that raises the suspicion to me.

No other rider in the whole race climbed like he did (mostly out of the saddle, lower cadence and looking easy IMO). Everyone else did short bursts out of the saddle before sitting back down again

It was all a bit too much Gewiss in 1994 Fleche Wallonne or back to the climbing styles of the late 90's and early 00's(Armstrong/Pantani).

This also feels very similar to Cobo winning in 2011

Pross

He was always out of the saddle but wouldn't say he was low cadence. He had lower gearing than everyone for the Angliru.