La Gazzetta on Horner

morstar

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:

I do agree with this. But it still doesn't prove anything. Conversely, I have suggested reasons why one might not engage on the topic.

Also there is a risk that press behaviour encourages Omerta if they fuel a them vs us mentality by primarily only pursuing doping questions as they did at the TdF.

RichN95.

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:

On the other hand he may have doped once, a long time ago outside the statute of limitations (as it the case with Rider 15), regreted it and wants to put it all behind him. If that were the case, do you want to live in a world of retribution for all sins or one where people have the opportunity to put their mistakes behind them.

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

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:

On the other hand he may have doped once, a long time ago outside the statute of limitations (as it the case with Rider 15), regreted it and wants to put it all behind him. If that were the case, do you want to live in a world of retribution for all sins or one where people have the opportunity to put their mistakes behind them.

In which case, I would agree it's a tough call between the risky USADA route; not knowing whether you are going to end up with a slap on the wrist as the Garmin boys did, or the order of the hypocritical boot, as Leipheimer received.
Even going the Garmin route would have significantly raised suspicion levels.
However, opting for the default, Omerta setting has the same effect, while containing no suggestion of reform.

Speaking of Garmin and morstar's comment on a successful, working system.
Not one of those riders, Hincapie, Leipheimer, Andreu et al ever got caught by said system.

morstar

Blazing Saddles wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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:

On the other hand he may have doped once, a long time ago outside the statute of limitations (as it the case with Rider 15), regreted it and wants to put it all behind him. If that were the case, do you want to live in a world of retribution for all sins or one where people have the opportunity to put their mistakes behind them.

In which case, I would agree it's a tough call between the risky USADA route; not knowing whether you are going to end up with a slap on the wrist as the Garmin boys did, or the order of the hypocritical boot, as Leipheimer received.
Even going the Garmin route would have significantly raised suspicion levels.
However, opting for the default, Omerta setting has the same effect, while containing no suggestion of reform.

Speaking of Garmin and morstar's comment on a successful, working system.
Not one of those riders, Hincapie, Leipheimer, Andreu et al ever got caught by said system.

Maybe not, but in the USPS / Disco heyday, all the riders that left to ride for themselves got busted very quickly, Hamilton, Heras, Landis...

I'm not arguing the system is flawless but it isn't as toothless as it is portrayed. The UCI, sorry, USPS protective umbrella seemed very effective at stopping riders from being caught which covers a large part of those riders careers you use as examples.

joelsim

morstar wrote:

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...

You are, yes.

They are pretty decent hypotheses, and all added up, there is far more than an element of doubt about this performance.

You are right in the fact that I believe there is still doping in the peloton, albeit at a much lower level than the glory years. Funnily enough I do think many of the teams are anti-doping these days as it clearly has less of an effect than it did in the fifteen years from the early nineties meaning that non-dopers can at least be competitive on the whole these days.

morstar

Joelsim wrote:

morstar wrote:

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...

You are, yes.

They are pretty decent hypotheses, and all added up, there is far more than an element of doubt about this performance.

You are right in the fact that I believe there is still doping in the peloton, albeit at a much lower level than the glory years. Funnily enough I do think many of the teams are anti-doping these days as it clearly has less of an effect than it did in the fifteen years from the early nineties meaning that non-dopers can at least be competitive on the whole these days.

So, I knock down all your straw men and you come back with 'yes I am a doping apologist'?

What type of win is acceptable? I'm genuinely fascinated to know.

blazing_saddles

morstar wrote:

Maybe not, but in the USPS / Disco heyday, all the riders that left to ride for themselves got busted very quickly, Hamilton, Heras, Landis...

I'm not arguing the system is flawless but it isn't as toothless as it is portrayed. The UCI, sorry, USPS protective umbrella seemed very effective at stopping riders from being caught which covers a large part of those riders careers you use as examples.

That would be the same umbrella which Horner sat under, would it not?

morstar

Blazing Saddles wrote:

morstar wrote:

Maybe not, but in the USPS / Disco heyday, all the riders that left to ride for themselves got busted very quickly, Hamilton, Heras, Landis...

I'm not arguing the system is flawless but it isn't as toothless as it is portrayed. The UCI, sorry, USPS protective umbrella seemed very effective at stopping riders from being caught which covers a large part of those riders careers you use as examples.

That would be the same umbrella which Horner sat under, would it not?

Most riders doped in that era. I accept that, don't like it, but accept it. The sport is different now (but not dope free). Riders from that era still win stuff, many of them will have long since stopped doping.

morstar

Change of tack...

To quote Brailsford; "we're not in the business of ruling stuff out, we're in the business of ruling stuff in".

So, how could a 41 year old win a GT? I believe the age is the fundamental issue here.

Does the course suit the riders strengths? Yes.
Does he have an opportunity to exploit not being seen as a threat and gain time? Yes
Is the TT squad Strong enough to limit losses? Yes
Where will the GT battle be decided? End of stage climbs. Does this suit? Yes.
What form do key opponents have? Two have ridden the most brutal TdF in years where even transition stages were monstered. One looked very average a few weeks prior.
Will the stages be hard all day every day? No. ( evidence: Tony Martin nearly winning a stage because the peloton doesn't get organised. Contrast with the brutal TdF where every day was fast).
Does the previous point suit our 42 year old? Yes. Lack of accumulated fatigue makes it far more likely a strong but older rider will be able to compete far more effectively. Anecdotally, imagine an old timer in your club who can still monster the climbs with the best but can't sustain a brutal ride pace for endless hours.

The more I think about how plausible it is for a 41 year old to win the more I think the age issue was massively countered by the less brutal nature of the race and the fact that JRod and AV had ridden an incredibly hard TdF. CH himself stated the TTT was the hardest stage. He wouldn't have been able to climb at the front if the race had been harder all day every day as that is when the fatigue would have taken its toll.

We all have doubts, the result is a statistical outlier but there is as much evidence to suggest everything went in Horner's favour as there is that he doped.

3 possible outcomes. He doped and gets caught. You all get to say I told you so. He never tests positive but did dope or didn't dope so never tests positive and this gets debated until people get bored.

frenchfighter

Jaan Kirsipuu:
Amazing how Hormers was able to win Vuelta. He is pensioner after all. As far as I remember Horner - he was riding for FDJ for few years before disappearing to America - he was fatty, very different from now. Total transformation. Previously Horner was not anything special, ITT was more or less, but nothing else

http://sport.postimees.ee/2052928/chris ... -pensionar


@GianniMeersman
Spijtig dat twitter nog niet bestond in 1999, toen VDB de Vuelta reed
(Too bad twitter did not exist in 1999 when VDB rode the Vuelta)

---

Saw someone take this angle. Clever. Working backwards.
http://intern.srm.de/index.php/us/srm-b ... nigsetappe
(The data we have for Chris Horner's weight might be too high (or the weight we have for other riders is too low)
1) 380w / 5.9w/kg = 64.4kg
2) 352 w / 5.5w/kg = 64kg
3) 355w / 5.6w/kg = 63.4kg
4) 356w / 5.6w/kg = 63.6kg
Those weights given he looked like this.

I think we need to sell 63kg which makes his Vuelta numbers all the more ridiculous.

Crankbrother

If Horner had been on the Garmin team no-one would be kicking up this fuss ... Which is ironic given Garmin have more convicted dopers in their current squad than any current WT team ...

I'm giving up on all the 'blah' ... It was a cracking race that went to the last 5km of the penultimate (and queen) stage and Horner rode well and gave good soundbyte ... Other than Fabu's spring-cleaning and LBL it's been the best cycling so far this year ...

tailwindhome

Crankbrother wrote:

If Horner had been on the Garmin team no-one would be kicking up this fuss .....

On the other hand if he'd been a Sky rider you'd have been sh1tting yourself to call foul....

ademort

FWIW i read the daily report of each days stage on Sky Sports. Of course i didnt believe for one minute that Horner could just have come into the form of his life. I also made a comment in the comments part at the bottom of each page. I suggested every day that Horner is def on something and no way could he ride like that without being on drugs. Surprisingly they never once published my comments. TBH its as plain as the nose on your face he def used something, but what. Only time will tell.

RichN95.

Crankbrother wrote:

If Horner had been on the Garmin team no-one would be kicking up this fuss ...

Yeah, but he's not, is he?

andyp

ademort wrote:

FWIW i read the daily report of each days stage on Sky Sports. Of course i didnt believe for one minute that Horner could just have come into the form of his life. I also made a comment in the comments part at the bottom of each page. I suggested every day that Horner is def on something and no way could he ride like that without being on drugs. Surprisingly they never once published my comments. TBH its as plain as the nose on your face he def used something, but what. Only time will tell.

The UCI should hire you if you can tell who's doping simply by watching TV. That's a rare talent and would save them a fortune in expensive legal fees.

ademort

Its called common sense. Sorry to be a party poeper but i will never believe especially having read some of the stats that Horner won CLEAN.

joelsim

morstar wrote:

Change of tack...

To quote Brailsford; "we're not in the business of ruling stuff out, we're in the business of ruling stuff in".

So, how could a 41 year old win a GT? I believe the age is the fundamental issue here.

Does the course suit the riders strengths? Yes.
Does he have an opportunity to exploit not being seen as a threat and gain time? Yes
Is the TT squad Strong enough to limit losses? Yes
Where will the GT battle be decided? End of stage climbs. Does this suit? Yes.
What form do key opponents have? Two have ridden the most brutal TdF in years where even transition stages were monstered. One looked very average a few weeks prior.
Will the stages be hard all day every day? No. ( evidence: Tony Martin nearly winning a stage because the peloton doesn't get organised. Contrast with the brutal TdF where every day was fast).
Does the previous point suit our 42 year old? Yes. Lack of accumulated fatigue makes it far more likely a strong but older rider will be able to compete far more effectively. Anecdotally, imagine an old timer in your club who can still monster the climbs with the best but can't sustain a brutal ride pace for endless hours.

The more I think about how plausible it is for a 41 year old to win the more I think the age issue was massively countered by the less brutal nature of the race and the fact that JRod and AV had ridden an incredibly hard TdF. CH himself stated the TTT was the hardest stage. He wouldn't have been able to climb at the front if the race had been harder all day every day as that is when the fatigue would have taken its toll.

We all have doubts, the result is a statistical outlier but there is as much evidence to suggest everything went in Horner's favour as there is that he doped.

3 possible outcomes. He doped and gets caught. You all get to say I told you so. He never tests positive but did dope or didn't dope so never tests positive and this gets debated until people get bored.

There are a few possible outcomes

1) He doped and gets caught
2) He doped and doesn't get caught
3) He doped and doesn't get caught for a few years

There's not 1% of my mind that thinks he didn't dope. The interview after the race was the nail in the coffin. There's more chance of Jesus appearing in Tesco in Scunthorpe tomorrow lunchtime to feed people with fish than CH not having doped.

Pross

I still don't understand why people watch the sport when they are absolutely convinced the performances can't be believed. I can understand why people feel that way but not why you would keep watching when you do.

oneof1982

Joelsim wrote:

There's not 1% of my mind that thinks he didn't dope. The interview after the race was the nail in the coffin. There's more chance of Jesus appearing in Tesco in Scunthorpe tomorrow lunchtime to feed people with fish than CH not having doped.

Stop sitting on the fence......

tailwindhome

Pross wrote:

I still don't understand why people watch the sport when they are absolutely convinced the performances can't be believed. I can understand why people feel that way but not why you would keep watching when you do.

See thread I've just bumped up.

AFX's response is a top post....

joelsim

Pross wrote:

I still don't understand why people watch the sport when they are absolutely convinced the performances can't be believed. I can understand why people feel that way but not why you would keep watching when you do.

Not all performances. My head tells me that both Froome and Nibs are clean. But Horner is simply implausible, it's like Basel beating Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.

21 times.

joelsim

Quite right, Chapeau to Chris.

And his doctor. They had us all fooled for a moment.

joelsim

TailWindHome wrote:

Pross wrote:

I still don't understand why people watch the sport when they are absolutely convinced the performances can't be believed. I can understand why people feel that way but not why you would keep watching when you do.

See thread I've just bumped up.

AFX's response is a top post....

He's quite right. We watch it because it's fascinating, including the doping, but it doesn't stop us from having an opinion on implausible happenings.

Cycling is the closest you can get to survival of the fittest, the building block of life.

And what is most intriguing is no one can foresee who is going to win the race on any given day.

dougzz

Joelsim and ademort, given your expertise in this matter can you explain what he's on. Doping has always been about improving performance, is it now about eternal life? Seriously, how do you make such absolute judgments from a TV screen.

ademort

Look at past events. Go back in time. All those times when somebody has managed to beat the odds. Done something unbelieveable and its never been repeated. In a nutshell this is Horners performance in the Vuelta. What was he on you ask. Well i dont know but as always it will all come out sooner or later. The stats do it for me and for most other people as well. The odds of Horner winning the Vuelta CLEAN must be HUGE.

Crankbrother

TailWindHome wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

If Horner had been on the Garmin team no-one would be kicking up this fuss .....

On the other hand if he'd been a Sky rider you'd have been sh1tting yourself to call foul....

You keep beating that drum but if you ever read my posts you would see that what I am saying is that Wiggis/Froome should not get a free pass (and even lauded as 'anti-doping) just because they ride for a British team ... Especially given the sudden, consistent (and scarily similar) rise to the top of many stage races ...

Questioning is not accusation or witch-hunting, which is what we're getting here ... Some nitwits have even decided that shooting a cyclist in the head for being a bit faster than another is a good idea ...

blazing_saddles

Enough of Gazzetta on Horner, here's what his home town paper has to say:

http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/201 ... 99998/1226

MrTapir

I'd like to read a secret pro blog on the matter. We've had one saying that there was absolutely no suspicion about Froome's Tour win, Cameron Wurf has said the same thing about Horner's win. Maybe he has to as he is writing under his own name. It would be good to hear an anonymous view from inside the peloton.

dish_dash

MrTapir wrote:

I'd like to read a secret pro blog on the matter. We've had one saying that there was absolutely no suspicion about Froome's Tour win, Cameron Wurf has said the same thing about Horner's win. Maybe he has to as he is writing under his own name. It would be good to hear an anonymous view from inside the peloton.

Indeed. My question to Cameron is: Given that you also rode the Giro, did you view anyone's performance as suspicious and would you have openly blogged about it?

MrTapir

dish_dash wrote:

MrTapir wrote:

I'd like to read a secret pro blog on the matter. We've had one saying that there was absolutely no suspicion about Froome's Tour win, Cameron Wurf has said the same thing about Horner's win. Maybe he has to as he is writing under his own name. It would be good to hear an anonymous view from inside the peloton.

Indeed. My question to Cameron is: Given that you also rode the Giro, did you view anyone's performance as suspicious and would you have openly blogged about it?

Maybe he's the new Chris Horner! "No i didnt see anything". It reminds me of that bit in Chopper where Keithy "does himself a mischief" and everyone turns away: "Jimmy was watching an ant, and I was watching Jimmy"