La Gazzetta on Horner

12357…10

Comments

  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,451
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    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

    What a load of tosh.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    He spends more time out of the saddle then the Colombians!
    Contador is the Greatest
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,451
    So anyone who climbs out of the saddle is a doper?

    That's very scientific.
  • philbar72
    philbar72 Posts: 2,229
    its been his climbing style for all of his career. he must weigh ounces and have double the glycogen reserves the other riders have.

    I climb like him but only on shallow pitches of 5-10% and only for a few hundred yards at a time. I then slump back into the saddle and get on with it. This style of climbing really does tear up your glycogen reserves though. its supposedly best to spin up in the saddle, thats the most efficient way....

    all seems a little odd...
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Did we all read the Ferrari comments?

    And why he might climb out of saddle...
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    andyp wrote:
    So anyone who climbs out of the saddle is a doper?

    That's very scientific.

    No not that - I find it very surprising from a physiological standpoint.

    Although a lot of the `great dopers` spent ridiculous amounts of time out the saddle. Not proof at all but it would be an unsurprising benefit if he was found to be guilty.

    Go to 10mins in:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og76z4kGMQU
    None of that leading bunch of dopers sits down for over 1 min. Then it is only momentary before moving out the saddle again for another minute plus. Some of those people are very heavy.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    iainf72 wrote:
    Did we all read the Ferrari comments?

    And why he might climb out of saddle...

    Yep. How does he know how small his pelvis is? Presumably he worked closely with him in the past as I couldnt tell from watching and I looked closely after you posted that link.

    --
    http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/vue ... -stage-18/

    Official data. 425 watts for 6km. He needs to weigh over 67kg for those w/kg to be legit.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    frenchfighter wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Did we all read the Ferrari comments?

    And why he might climb out of saddle...

    Yep. How does he know how small his pelvis is? Presumably he worked closely with him in the past as I couldnt tell from watching and I looked closely after you posted that link.

    --
    http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/vue ... -stage-18/

    Official data. 425 watts for 6km. He needs to weigh over 67kg for those w/kg to be legit.

    I suspect when he look at someone he see's them slightly differently to you or I.

    Would they? How long was the effort in minutes? Isn't that what it boils down to?

    Again, I don't know if he's doping or not, but all this pseudo science is just being wheeled out to confirm a bias based around not caring for someone.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    iainf72 wrote:
    Did we all read the Ferrari comments?

    And why he might climb out of saddle...

    Linky please.
    _
  • gpreeves
    gpreeves Posts: 454
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Did we all read the Ferrari comments?

    And why he might climb out of saddle...

    Linky please.

    http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=140
  • gpreeves
    gpreeves Posts: 454
    iainf72 wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Did we all read the Ferrari comments?

    And why he might climb out of saddle...

    Yep. How does he know how small his pelvis is? Presumably he worked closely with him in the past as I couldnt tell from watching and I looked closely after you posted that link.

    --
    http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/vue ... -stage-18/

    Official data. 425 watts for 6km. He needs to weigh over 67kg for those w/kg to be legit.

    I suspect when he look at someone he see's them slightly differently to you or I.

    Would they? How long was the effort in minutes? Isn't that what it boils down to?

    Again, I don't know if he's doping or not, but all this pseudo science is just being wheeled out to confirm a bias based around not caring for someone.

    The time of the effort is critical, but there are many other factors that can "affect a rider's ability to produce a given power output - things like tactics and weather and preceding stages" (Ross Tucker)

    Contrary to popular belief, there is no handy table that lists various times next to the required power outputs for a performance to be considered suspicious.

    The Science of Sport link below says as much - "There is no dividing line in the sand, no specific point at which you can say "got you". A rider at 6 W/kg may be doping, and one at 6.2W/kg (depending on the situation) may not, but there is a theory underpinning it."

    http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/looking-back-on-letour-post-collection.html

    We should probably leave the scientific discussions to the experts. Myself included, most of what is said on this topic is little more than regurgitation from uncited sources. I'm no fan of Horner, but the least he deserves is a trial by experts.
  • inseine
    inseine Posts: 5,788
    frenchfighter wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Did we all read the Ferrari comments?

    And why he might climb out of saddle...

    Yep. How does he know how small his pelvis is? Presumably he worked closely with him in the past as I couldnt tell from watching and I looked closely after you posted that link.

    --
    http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/vue ... -stage-18/

    Official data. 425 watts for 6km. He needs to weigh over 67kg for those w/kg to be legit.

    I agree that is a lot of power but there really is no scientific 'legit' level.
    http://cyclinganddesign.blogspot.fr/
  • inseine
    inseine Posts: 5,788
    philbar72 wrote:
    its been his climbing style for all of his career. he must weigh ounces and have double the glycogen reserves the other riders have.

    I climb like him but only on shallow pitches of 5-10% and only for a few hundred yards at a time. I then slump back into the saddle and get on with it. This style of climbing really does tear up your glycogen reserves though. its supposedly best to spin up in the saddle, thats the most efficient way....

    all seems a little odd...


    Even if your a pro, and your riding in the Vuelta, both of which i doubt, this really has very little to do with Horner.
    http://cyclinganddesign.blogspot.fr/
  • petemadoc
    petemadoc Posts: 2,331
    Horner missed a dope test immediately after the Vuelta. Hotel switch leads to confusion, all above board and he will not be penalised.

    A non-story or is the the intelligence test that ex dopers speak of?
  • knedlicky
    knedlicky Posts: 3,097
    gpreeves wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Official data. 425 watts for 6km.
    How long was the effort in minutes?
    The time of the effort is critical
    Just a point of information, not taking sides - the time is on the graph in the SRM link. It was 16 mins 37 secs.
  • gpreeves
    gpreeves Posts: 454
    knedlicky wrote:
    gpreeves wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Official data. 425 watts for 6km.
    How long was the effort in minutes?
    The time of the effort is critical
    Just a point of information, not taking sides - the time is on the graph in the SRM link. It was 16 mins 37 secs.

    Fair point. The main intended argument of my post is that we (on this forum, the genuine experts might have an inkling) have no idea what power to weight ratio can be considered "credible" over 16 mins 37 secs, or any other time period.

    I think Iain was referring specifically to FF stating the power output with respect to the distance ridden rather than the time of the effort.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    :D yes he does LOL
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    While we say that Cadel Evans has passed his best at 36, we have to accept that Chris Horner is living the dream at 42... if you believe in fairy tales... I don't... he smiles in the same way as Riis, have you noticed?
  • dougzz
    dougzz Posts: 1,833
    philbar72 wrote:
    its been his climbing style for all of his career. he must weigh ounces and have double the glycogen reserves the other riders have.

    I climb like him but only on shallow pitches of 5-10% and only for a few hundred yards at a time. I then slump back into the saddle and get on with it. This style of climbing really does tear up your glycogen reserves though. its supposedly best to spin up in the saddle, thats the most efficient way....

    all seems a little odd...
    The very method that the 'net experts' used to established Chris Froome as a doper just a couple of months back
  • philbar72
    philbar72 Posts: 2,229
    I'm not pronouncing myself as an expert. My reason for climbing like that is because after a while I get knackered. It's easier to spin and sit down after a while. That's just the way I work...

    Anyhow I digress. So far there has been no more news....
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    PeteMadoc wrote:
    Horner missed a dope test immediately after the Vuelta. Hotel switch leads to confusion, all above board and he will not be penalised.

    A non-story or is the the intelligence test that ex dopers speak of?


    Seems to have been a cock-up in the part of the Anti-Doping. Changed his whereabouts on ADAMS for the Monday, the day before, to a different hotel from the team hotel. The Spanish AD guys went to be an OOC test at the request of USADA, went to the team hotel, couldnt find him, then tried to guess whether he was in another hotel.

    I'd still ask the question why his team didnt know details of Horner's alternative hotel...

    What is also interesting is that according to USADA data recently published, they've dramatically upped the testing on Horner. Compared to very low number of tests in previous years, they tested him 16 times in 2012, and 8 times from Jan-Jun this year.

    By comparison (according to Daniel Friebe), Taylor Phinney was tested 6 times last year by USADA, and Talansky x 1, Stetina x 3 and Phinney x 4 between Jan-Jun this year.
  • MrTapir
    MrTapir Posts: 1,206
    PeteMadoc wrote:
    Horner missed a dope test immediately after the Vuelta. Hotel switch leads to confusion, all above board and he will not be penalised.

    A non-story or is the the intelligence test that ex dopers speak of?

    He said he updated the ADAMS system so surely they can check that out? The story does strike me as clutching at straws a bit.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    I'd still ask the question why his team didnt know details of Horner's alternative hotel...

    Perhaps they did? Even if they did, if he'd not updated his whereabouts it would be a failed test surely.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • MrTapir
    MrTapir Posts: 1,206
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    PeteMadoc wrote:
    Horner missed a dope test immediately after the Vuelta. Hotel switch leads to confusion, all above board and he will not be penalised.

    A non-story or is the the intelligence test that ex dopers speak of?

    What is also interesting is that according to USADA data recently published, they've dramatically upped the testing on Horner. Compared to very low number of tests in previous years, they tested him 16 times in 2012, and 8 times from Jan-Jun this year.

    By comparison (according to Daniel Friebe), Taylor Phinney was tested 6 times last year by USADA, and Talansky x 1, Stetina x 3 and Phinney x 4 between Jan-Jun this year.

    Whats that compared with someone like Froome or Nibali?
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    MrTapir wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    PeteMadoc wrote:
    Horner missed a dope test immediately after the Vuelta. Hotel switch leads to confusion, all above board and he will not be penalised.

    A non-story or is the the intelligence test that ex dopers speak of?

    What is also interesting is that according to USADA data recently published, they've dramatically upped the testing on Horner. Compared to very low number of tests in previous years, they tested him 16 times in 2012, and 8 times from Jan-Jun this year.

    By comparison (according to Daniel Friebe), Taylor Phinney was tested 6 times last year by USADA, and Talansky x 1, Stetina x 3 and Phinney x 4 between Jan-Jun this year.

    Whats that compared with someone like Froome or Nibali?


    No idea. Can only compare against riders covered by other national anti-doping agencies, if and when those agencies publish their testing info.

    Observation made by Friebe is that the number of USADA tests on Horner is a lot, for them
  • dish_dash
    dish_dash Posts: 5,643
    iainf72 wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    I'd still ask the question why his team didnt know details of Horner's alternative hotel...

    Perhaps they did? Even if they did, if he'd not updated his whereabouts it would be a failed test surely.

    On a symantics note surely it would have been a missed test = whereabouts violation, rather than a failed test.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    All a moot point anyway as the Shack waived around proof of Horner's changes in ADAMS
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    Richmond Racer wrote:

    What is also interesting is that according to USADA data recently published, they've dramatically upped the testing on Horner. Compared to very low number of tests in previous years, they tested him 16 times in 2012, and 8 times from Jan-Jun this year.

    By comparison (according to Daniel Friebe), Taylor Phinney was tested 6 times last year by USADA, and Talansky x 1, Stetina x 3 and Phinney x 4 between Jan-Jun this year.
    It could just be that those three spend less time in the US than Horner - who did almost all the big US races in 2012 and spends little of his off time in Europe.
    I've seen it said somewhere (don't know where) that some of the better known domestic pros have had a similar increase. Target testing? Maybe. Extra testing in an Olympic year? Maybe. More testing to boost figures to make it look like they're doing something? Maybe. Who knows the reason.

    And how did this Horner story get into the media so quickly? Who leaked it? Did someone want to be seen to be testing him, rather than just testing? Did someone just want to p!ss on his chips?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    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]

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/is- ... d-decision

    Horner has a fair point at the end - these big mouthed people should have been all over the Vuelta like they were at the Tour.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    frenchfighter wrote:
    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]

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/is- ... d-decision

    Horner has a fair point at the end - these big mouthed people should have been all over the Vuelta like they were at the Tour.

    He does have a point. I thought Wiggins did himself no favours with his little outburst in 2012 but the more you put yourself in these guys shoes, the more frequently the relentless insinuation and one topic questioning deserves a big "f**k you" response.

    The more partisan it becomes with rider and media being at loggerheads, the more likely a return to Omerta! That would be a worrying development.

    I'm not too sure what the solution is but I'd suggest press conferences restrict doping questioning to a certain percentage of total questioning. The onus is then on journalists to ask pertinent doping questions and not just relentlessly badger riders. Somebody who just phones a guy up can't really expect to be graced with chapter and verse.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    RichN95 wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:

    What is also interesting is that according to USADA data recently published, they've dramatically upped the testing on Horner. Compared to very low number of tests in previous years, they tested him 16 times in 2012, and 8 times from Jan-Jun this year.

    By comparison (according to Daniel Friebe), Taylor Phinney was tested 6 times last year by USADA, and Talansky x 1, Stetina x 3 and Phinney x 4 between Jan-Jun this year.
    It could just be that those three spend less time in the US than Horner - who did almost all the big US races in 2012 and spends little of his off time in Europe.I've seen it said somewhere (don't know where) that some of the better known domestic pros have had a similar increase. Target testing? Maybe. Extra testing in an Olympic year? Maybe. More testing to boost figures to make it look like they're doing something? Maybe. Who knows the reason.

    And how did this Horner story get into the media so quickly? Who leaked it? Did someone want to be seen to be testing him, rather than just testing? Did someone just want to p!ss on his chips?



    National AD agencies can - and do - request other agencies to conduct OOC tests on their behalf. That's what happened in this case - USADA requested the AEA to conduct the test on Horner.

Categories