La Gazzetta on Horner

RichN95.

Richmond Racer wrote:

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.

I know they do. A friend of mine used to get tested by UKAD on behalf of New Zealand.

But the bulk of their testing is done at races in the US - it keeps costs down. The more of those you do, the more you will be tested.

gpreeves

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?

It might have been in the Clinic, I read this there yesterday when trying to find out their take on Horner. This was said:

"Years - 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 (up to June 30)
T. Duggan - 9, 7, 13, 6
Bookwalter - 9, 5, 13, 8
L. Euser - 2, 5, 14, 9
Horner - 7, 6, 16, 8"

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

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.

I know they do. A friend of mine used to get tested by UKAD on behalf of New Zealand.

But the bulk of their testing is done at races in the US - it keeps costs down. The more of those you do, the more you will be tested.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but these stats are for OOC tests. Besides, those stats for H12013 wouldnt reflect his participation on US races - the only US stage race he's ridden was Utah, and that was outside the Jan-Jun period.

joelsim

The facts:

41 years old (and 11 months)
No palmares to speak of comparatively
Rider-15
Support of LA many times in the past
Winning convincingly against better riders
Smiling throughout the climbs when everyone else was grimacing
At no stage in 3 weeks did he look in trouble
End of career so not got anything to lose
No hair (look what it did to Samson)
Injured all year, so no competitive racing. Surely that cannot be a good thing. Every sportsman who has been out for a few months is always lacking 'match fitness'
Change of hotel to not stay with his teammates at the last minute, before the final stage
The fact that random drug tests are, at best, completely innefectual
His interview after the race, in which he completely avoided the question about doping saying that he loved cycling...and went on for ages, presumably to avoid another question

Verdict: Dodgy as f**k. It's just a matter of time before it comes out (IMHO). How can he possibly be innocent, there's more chance of winning the lottery?

frenchfighter

LBL 06 results

1 Alejandro Valverde (Spa) Caisse D’Epargne-Illes Balears 6.21.32 (41.202 km/h) DOPER
2 Paolo Bettini (Ita) Quick Step - Innergetic Fuoriclasse
3 Damiano Cunego (Ita) Lampre-Fondital DOPER
4 Patrik Sinkewitz (Ger) T-Mobile Team DOPER
5 Michael Boogerd (Ned) Rabobank DOPER
6 Martin Perdiguero M.Angel (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems No idea
7 Frank Schleck (Lux) Team CSC DOPER
8 Christopher Horner (USA) Davitamon - Lotto
9 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) Liquigas 0.04 DOPER
10 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC 0.07 DOPER

RichN95.

Richmond Racer wrote:

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but these stats are for OOC tests. Besides, those stats for H12013 wouldnt reflect his participation on US races - the only US stage race he's ridden was Utah, and that was outside the Jan-Jun period.

But he's been injured. So he's spent more time in the US than usual.
And OOC tests are done at races. Anything that isn't a part of the official post race testing protocol goes into these figures.
He may be being targeted, but just because he's been tested more it doesn't necessarily mean he is.

morstar

Joelsim wrote:

The facts:

41 years old (and 11 months) Meaning?
No palmares to speak of comparatively How often has he been able to ride for himself on GC
Rider-15 Nearly everybody doped during his earlier career (you argue they still all do) if we accept the peloton has cleaned up to some extent, most dopers from the past are now riding clean/er
Support of LA many times in the past This bothers me but he knows LA and maybe can't see past friendship
Winning convincingly against better riders Lots of replies already as to relative condition of riders and schedules + define better
Smiling throughout the climbs when everyone else was grimacing seriously?
At no stage in 3 weeks did he look in trouble didn't watch the whole race so can't comment
End of career so not got anything to lose mfin gives a great post regarding possible motivation but opportunities to do wrong arise every day and are generally not taken
No hair (look what it did to Samson)
Injured all year, so no competitive racing. Surely that cannot be a good thing. Every sportsman who has been out for a few months is always lacking 'match fitness' Apart from athletes that train more than they race like marathon runners or boxers
Change of hotel to not stay with his teammates at the last minute, before the final stage dunno why he did this but I don't believe the final stage was key to his win so what are you suggesting
The fact that random drug tests are, at best, completely innefectual Same for everybody and yet the peloton has cleaned up
His interview after the race, in which he completely avoided the question about doping saying that he loved cycling...and went on for ages, presumably to avoid another question I can see lots of reasons not to engage with a line of questioning that you don't like. Froome engaged as he understands the responsibility he holds, personally, I think I'd be in the f**k off camp myself if somebody was raining on my parade with insinuations

Verdict: Dodgy as f**k. It's just a matter of time before it comes out (IMHO). How can he possibly be innocent, there's more chance of winning the lottery? Have you aver considered he was the natural talent that was denied success by better doping responders

"The Facts" is a generous statement as much of what you list is conjecture.

I'm beginning to sound like a doping apologist which I'm not but anyway...

thomthom

...

6wheels

Joelsim,

You missed one point, CHorner second fastest time ever up the Angliru, which includes all the doping years.

Nevertheless, doping or not, I always enjoy the cycling on TV.

kamil1891

another one is 425w for 16mins+ and there is no chance he weighs more than 63kg (looks more like 60kg compared to other riders)... :-)

timoid.

kamil1891 wrote:

another one is 425w for 16mins+ and there is no chance he weighs more than 63kg (looks more like 60kg compared to other riders)... :-)

Ferrari says 56kg. He would know.

thegreatdivide

Joelsim wrote:

The facts:

41 years old (and 11 months)
No palmares to speak of comparatively
Rider-15
Support of LA many times in the past
Winning convincingly against better riders
Smiling throughout the climbs when everyone else was grimacing
At no stage in 3 weeks did he look in trouble
End of career so not got anything to lose
No hair (look what it did to Samson)
Injured all year, so no competitive racing. Surely that cannot be a good thing. Every sportsman who has been out for a few months is always lacking 'match fitness'
Change of hotel to not stay with his teammates at the last minute, before the final stage
The fact that random drug tests are, at best, completely innefectual
His interview after the race, in which he completely avoided the question about doping saying that he loved cycling...and went on for ages, presumably to avoid another question

Verdict: Dodgy as f**k. It's just a matter of time before it comes out (IMHO). How can he possibly be innocent, there's more chance of winning the lottery?

Well that's that then.

Bo Duke

He's certainly a cheeky chap if that's the case, sneaked in and rode like a loony for 3 weeks then ran off with the prize. How come his team mates never saw him snorting before the stages or the other 100 riders said to him 'what are you on?'

morstar

6wheels wrote:

Joelsim,

You missed one point, CHorner second fastest time ever up the Angliru, which includes all the doping years.

Nevertheless, doping or not, I always enjoy the cycling on TV.

The leaderboard is full of times from more recent rides including the other podiums from this vuelta so by that logic CH beat other doped riders. I'd suggest this was a fast ascent with favourable conditions.
Wiggins was only 2 mins slower in 2011 and he is acknowledged as not strong on steep stuff and if I recall got his gearing wrong on the day.
Add in that it is a climb becoming more popular and this suggests it wasn't used regularly in the super charged years.

morstar

Let's not forget CH was also gifted significant chunks of time twice in this race that he won by seconds. First uphill finish he was allowed to go whilst the other GC riders watched each other and just before the TT when he got 45 seconds or so on Nibali, he had been let go. When Nibs eventually countered, the gap remained consistent.

Another thing I'll add about controls, when rides have looked truly ridiculous, Landis, DiLuca, Ricco, Rasmussen, Vino, LA, etc. the system has generally worked despite all the arguments it doesn't.

I'm still not defending CH with blind faith but there remains a complete lack of evidence (even circumstantial) of any wrong doing.

bigcgilmour

Not to go off in a tangent, but when did Cunego post positive?

blazing_saddles

morstar wrote:

Let's not forget CH was also gifted significant chunks of time twice in this race that he won by seconds. First uphill finish he was allowed to go whilst the other GC riders watched each other and just before the TT when he got 45 seconds or so on Nibali, he had been let go. When Nibs eventually countered, the gap remained consistent.

Another thing I'll add about controls, when rides have looked truly ridiculous, Landis, DiLuca, Ricco, Rasmussen, Vino, LA, etc. the system has generally worked despite all the arguments it doesn't.

I'm still not defending CH with blind faith but there remains a complete lack of evidence (even circumstantial) of any wrong doing.

Does it? The controls only caught two thirds of those riders you name and then, only once. (OK, DDL twice)

The redacted rider article seems to have caused quite a backlash in the Cyclingnews comments section.
"A butthurt reporter"? Maybe, but one, for once for once asking a tough question of one of only two riders who could be number 15.
Besides, it would only have taken a single, two letter word to answer, but instead Chris has chosen to take the longer, winding route of avoidance.

An amusing fluff piece:
http://marijndevries.nl/?lang=en

Richmond Racer

bigcgilmour wrote:

Not to go off in a tangent, but when did Cunego post positive?

He hasnt. He's up to his chamois in the Mantova case (when that goes to court in Dec, IIRC), mind you.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/ ... KI20130719

morstar

Blazing Saddles wrote:

morstar wrote:

Let's not forget CH was also gifted significant chunks of time twice in this race that he won by seconds. First uphill finish he was allowed to go whilst the other GC riders watched each other and just before the TT when he got 45 seconds or so on Nibali, he had been let go. When Nibs eventually countered, the gap remained consistent.

Another thing I'll add about controls, when rides have looked truly ridiculous, Landis, DiLuca, Ricco, Rasmussen, Vino, LA, etc. the system has generally worked despite all the arguments it doesn't.

I'm still not defending CH with blind faith but there remains a complete lack of evidence (even circumstantial) of any wrong doing.

Does it? The controls only caught two thirds of those riders you name and then, only once. (OK, DDL twice)

The redacted rider article seems to have caused quite a backlash in the Cyclingnews comments section.
"A butthurt reporter"? Maybe, but one, for once for once asking a tough question of one of only two riders who could be number 15.
Besides, it would only have taken a single, two letter word to answer, but instead Chris has chosen to take the longer, winding route of avoidance.

The system caught all of those riders! LA got caught in 99' and Rasmussen effectively fell foul of whereabouts rulings.
Let me say again, I have my doubts but nothing yet puts a definite notch on a bed post and my burden of proof is far lower than the anti doping authorities. I have already answered regarding his response to being asked about doping. Still provides absolutely no evidence. Froome engaged with the questions and got asked endlessly more. Wiggins called everybody a rude word and didn't get asked many more. Horner took the middle road. Proves nothing.
I have doubts but all three GT winners are very different characters with totally different backgrounds, personalities and riding styles and yet all of these traits have been used to build cases for their 'proven' doping. Frankly, it's ridiculous.
In forum land, winning a bike race proves you're a doper.
Somebody made a great post in the TdF about kicking out the top 3 after every stage if winning proves you're doping.

wallace_and_gromit

morstar wrote:

Another thing I'll add about controls, when rides have looked truly ridiculous, Landis, DiLuca, Ricco, Rasmussen, Vino, LA, etc. the system has generally worked despite all the arguments it doesn't.

Not so sure about this. Other than DiLuca, weren't all of the above victims of unusual circumstances?

Landis - positive for testosterone, whereas his 2006 ride to Morzine was fueled by a transfusion.

Ricco - positive for CERA, when the testers were able to get a test in place whilst the riders still thought there was no test, so the usual precautions re blood-thinning and half life weren't observed.

Rasmussen - sacked for lying to his team, rather than being booted out for a failed test. With a better cover story, he'd have been able to avoid being sacked, I think. (Ironically, he's been quite successful in his case for wrongful dismissal by Rabo.)

Vino - interchanged blood bags prior to a transfusion. Very rare. Lucky for both him and Kaschekin (sp?) they were the same blood group.

Lance - the double whammy of Landis fessing up and the rest of his team-mates confirming Landis' evidence only because armed federal agents were knocking on doors due to the potential mis-use of Federal funds. (A quirk of USPS being a Federal agency).

Richmond Racer

morstar, to be strictly accurate Wiggins did get asked questions after his sweary explosion, questions that he answered more calmly and rationally. The piece was also published in the Guardian 5 days later, which also helped to calm things down.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... dope-drugs

The atmosphere in which Froome found himself - leading the first post-USADA Tour, after phenomenally dominant displays on Ax 3 Domaines and Ventoux, stirred up by Vayer's ridiculous report and a Le Monde that seems determined to try to prove that the Tour is stil a dirty circus, whatever's the real truth - that was a MUCH more febrile, angry, distrustful, internet and press-led kangaroo court atmosphere than Wiggins faced the year before.

And frankly in comparision with either or them, Horner can count himself bloody lucky because during the Vuelta he had absolutely none of that, faced with a primarily Spanish media who generally dont like to address the D word too much because of where that path can lead, including back to the Spanish demi-god Indurain

wallace_and_gromit

Richmond Racer wrote:

...Spanish media who generally dont like to address the D word too much because of where that path can lead, including back to the Spanish demi-god Indurain

I'd agree with this except for your woefully undercooked view of Indurain's status. He is far higher up the food chain than a mere demi-god!

blazing_saddles

The system that "caught" LA in 1999 is the same system that let him off, unsanctioned.
LA was eventually caught by a different system.
The right questions being put to the right people, by folks with the power to punish perjury.
That's the system that also produced redacted rider 15.
Redacted rider 15 is either Chris Horner or Gregory Rast and it's more likely to be Horner, given their comparative circumstances in 2005.

DB put this question to Horner who has chosen to avoid giving an answer.
Is this an unacceptable question to put to a rider who turns 42 next month and has just
achieved his greatest ever result?
Is it acceptable to castigate a journalist for asking the question, because Horner had just achieved this result?
If the question is legitimate, does his inability to offer a simple, straightforward answer, cast Horner in a darker light?

Of course this does not constitute evidence, but does it not smack of good, old fashioned Omerta.

morstar

LA got caught full stop in '99. He only escaped through politics.

As for effectiveness of testing, police catch criminals based on mistakes and evidence and lucky breaks. We don't dismiss those convictions. Many criminal cases rely on multiple crimes eventually producing mistakes and errors on the criminals behalf. Dope testing is similar.

I have provided a list of some of the highest profile riders caught by doping tests, these can't be dismissed!

We're going off topic, though. I'm not saying there isn't some doubt but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!!

If CH had missed the test. I wouldn't be here arguing, that would be enough to plant a big enough seed of doubt for me not to argue in his support. Another bit of evidence would see me believing he did cheat. As I say, my burden of proof is low but currently there is nothing.

simon_e

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Is it acceptable to castigate a journalist for asking the question, because Horner had just achieved this result?
If the question is legitimate, does his inability to offer a simple, straightforward answer, cast Horner in a darker light?

Of course this does not constitute evidence, but does it not smack of good, old fashioned Omerta.

+1.

If, after all the years of lies and sh*t, Horner can't give straight answers (honest or otherwise) to simple questions it makes it more difficult to resolve the difficult position many viewers find themselves in. If he's clean he is IMVHO not doing his case any favours by being evasive.

wallace_and_gromit

morstar wrote:

LA got caught full stop in '99. He only escaped through politics.

Good point - I was thinking of the unofficial restrospective EPO tests in 2005 on the 1999 samples.

wallace_and_gromit

morstar wrote:

As for effectiveness of testing, police catch criminals based on mistakes and evidence and lucky breaks. We don't dismiss those convictions. Many criminal cases rely on multiple crimes eventually producing mistakes and errors on the criminals behalf. Dope testing is similar.

I have provided a list of some of the highest profile riders caught by doping tests, these can't be dismissed!

I wasn't dismissing them. I was just highlighting that there were unusual circumstances involved that aren't parts of the standard testing landscape. Though I will concede testing positive for something relatively minor when you've also been taking something more hardcore shows the standard testing procedures aren't 100% dodgable.

mike6

Simon E wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Is it acceptable to castigate a journalist for asking the question, because Horner had just achieved this result?
If the question is legitimate, does his inability to offer a simple, straightforward answer, cast Horner in a darker light?

Of course this does not constitute evidence, but does it not smack of good, old fashioned Omerta.

+1.

If, after all the years of lies and sh*t, Horner can't give straight answers (honest or otherwise) to simple questions it makes it more difficult to resolve the difficult position many viewers find themselves in. If he's clean he is IMVHO not doing his case any favours by being evasive.

Quite. Why did he not say "I am not taking PEDs, I have never taken PEDs and I never will. Drug cheats should be banned for life". That is no to the are you cheating question. :evil:

dish_dash

mike6 wrote:

Simon E wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Is it acceptable to castigate a journalist for asking the question, because Horner had just achieved this result?
If the question is legitimate, does his inability to offer a simple, straightforward answer, cast Horner in a darker light?

Of course this does not constitute evidence, but does it not smack of good, old fashioned Omerta.

+1.

If, after all the years of lies and sh*t, Horner can't give straight answers (honest or otherwise) to simple questions it makes it more difficult to resolve the difficult position many viewers find themselves in. If he's clean he is IMVHO not doing his case any favours by being evasive.

Quite. Why did he not say "I am not taking PEDs, I have never taken PEDs and I never will. Drug cheats should be banned for life". That is no to the are you cheating question. :evil:

To derail this slightly. That is what both Froome and Wiggins have said. And that doesn't seem to stop the skeptics either... ultimately doping is part of the cycling narrative and without it or the discussion of it we'd actually have to watch and comment upon races and tactics, which as far as I can tell most "fan" esp on twitter don't do that much of...

frenchfighter

See what Wurf has to say:
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/09/cam-w ... d-the-win/