La Gazzetta on Horner
Comments
-
Offering support to one person doesn't obligate someone into condemning others.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?Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Offering support to one person doesn't obligate someone into condemning others.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?
Of course not. But it does impact how we read and interpret their writing. Wonder also what Wurf's view on his Italian teammate is?0 -
My last hurrah on this subject...
Totally accept people have doubts about this win. I completely understand why and also have some myself. Many people have stated all the reasons they have doubts and many (not all!) of these are good reasons to have doubts but the major issue I have is that people keep adding at the end of this that these things effectively prove he doped.
They don't! Stop saying these things proved he doped but rather that is what you base your belief on and there is no debate.
Anyhow, I believe I have consistently countered many opinions here with examples, evidence or scenarios to support my position. This has been largely missing from the 'hang im' brigade.
One of the key factors used against him is his palmares. Seeing as cycling is a team sport and I'm sure nobody will argue that CH has done more support work than team leader riding can somebody be bothered to actually support their argument by compiling CH's performances only when he has actually been a team leader. Also, what role was he riding in when he achieved his highest placings in major races.
That would give far more context to his actual abilities than conveniently dismissing his entire history on a bike when much has been dedicated to others.0 -
News just in: Horner to sign for Vini Fantini next season0
-
And Vayer to the National Enquirer.0
-
But that's the problem, what stats. He's got 15 different weights on this thread alone, there are no proper stats, just a lot of assumption and guess work. You may be right, he might be on something, but I just don't get the absolute certainty. Yes he's old, but one thing to return to is no one gets what clean(er ?) cycling really looks like because we've never really seen it, maybe we are now, maybe I'm just a naive fool.ademort wrote: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.0 -
Crankbrother wrote: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 ...
Who is giving Sky a free pass?
To characterise your approach and posting as 'questioning' whereas everyone else is 'witch hunting' is disingenuousSome nitwits have even decided that shooting a cyclist in the head for being a bit faster than another is a good idea ...
There are 'outliers' in every area of life - this forum is no different......
My view still remains that your opinion would be completely reversed if Horner were a Sky rider. You evidently disagree.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
1 Chris Horner Vuelta a España 2013 41y, 327d
2 Firmin Lambot Tour de France 1922 36y, 131d
3 Henri Pelissier Tour de France 1923 34y, 181d
4 Fiorenzo Magni Giro d´Italia 1955 34y, 180d
5 Cadel Evans Tour de France 2011 34y, 160d
6 Toni Rominger Giro d´Italia 1995 34y, 69d
7 Gino Bartali Tour de France 1948 34y, 7d
8 Lance Armstrong Tour de France 2005 33y, 309d
9 Lucien Buysse Tour de France 1926 33y, 310d
10 Fausto Coppi Giro d´Italia 1953 33y, 260d“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Has Lance won the TdF?TailWindHome wrote:1 Chris Horner Vuelta a España 2013 41y, 327d
2 Firmin Lambot Tour de France 1922 36y, 131d
3 Henri Pelissier Tour de France 1923 34y, 181d
4 Fiorenzo Magni Giro d´Italia 1955 34y, 180d
5 Cadel Evans Tour de France 2011 34y, 160d
6 Toni Rominger Giro d´Italia 1995 34y, 69d
7 Gino Bartali Tour de France 1948 34y, 7d
8 Lance Armstrong Tour de France 2005 33y, 309d
9 Lucien Buysse Tour de France 1926 33y, 310d
10 Fausto Coppi Giro d´Italia 1953 33y, 260d
Must have slipped my mind, I'll go and check the record books ;-)0 -
morstar wrote:
Has Lance won the TdF?TailWindHome wrote:1 Chris Horner Vuelta a España 2013 41y, 327d
2 Firmin Lambot Tour de France 1922 36y, 131d
3 Henri Pelissier Tour de France 1923 34y, 181d
4 Fiorenzo Magni Giro d´Italia 1955 34y, 180d
5 Cadel Evans Tour de France 2011 34y, 160d
6 Toni Rominger Giro d´Italia 1995 34y, 69d
7 Gino Bartali Tour de France 1948 34y, 7d
8 Lance Armstrong Tour de France 2005 33y, 309d
9 Lucien Buysse Tour de France 1926 33y, 310d
10 Fausto Coppi Giro d´Italia 1953 33y, 260d
Must have slipped my mind, I'll go and check the record books ;-)
Not my list but I take your point.
From Pro Cycling Stats, some other interesting stuff there too
http://www.procyclingstats.com/news/do_ ... _get_older“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
oops wrong thread“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
So, with the possible exception of Evans (sceptical myself), the other oldies from recent times are known dopers. And they are still giving away at least 7 years?
Right.0 -
Riding against other dopers in an era of open doping....Joelsim wrote:So, with the possible exception of Evans (sceptical myself), the other oldies from recent times are known dopers. And they are still giving away at least 7 years?
Right.
If anything, that lends weight to the argument he could be clean! The doping era may well have shortened careers. We don't know what clean cycling looks like.
Nice to see you're finally coming round.0 -
Sorry, I'm back. Find the issue fascinating.
There are two issues here:
1) Do you believe a 41 yo can win a GT clean (however you define clean)?
2) If the answer to 1 is yes. Do you believe CH could be that rider?
I believe the answer to question 1 is yes. Evidence, there are examples of top tier sports people winning or performing at elite level into their 40's. In this particular case, the key competition was not in peak form and did provide a head start. Also, absolute decline in performance in early 40's is not as severe as younger folk may believe. It is simply harder to maintain. We are talking about a statistical outlier for a 40 something to win but it's not impossible.
IMPORTANTLY, one of the major reasons you don't see lots of 40 year olds competing at the sharp end of elite sports is not physiological. There are huge motivational factors. Somebody who is capable of winning in their 40's will almost certainly have already had a long (and likely lucrative) career of competition. Most athletes are simply ready to stop by mid - late 30's after 20 years of competition at a high level. To ignore the psychological factors is to mis-understand life.
On the doping impact on age and performance...
Again 2 points. We don't know what the long term effects of doping are but I doubt they're positive. Secondly, some maths...
If a typical 30 year old cyclist at their peak has a theoretical max performance of 10, suppose a 40 year old has a max performance of 9. Supposing doping provides a 10% increase in max performance then an absolute gap in capabilities has increased from 1 to 1.1. Same relative gap but bigger in absolute terms. Doping favours the younger rider.
Point 2, I'll leave to peoples opinions.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:
My view still remains that your opinion would be completely reversed if Horner were a Sky rider. You evidently disagree.
I only dislike the aspects of the SKY team that bring out the worst in TV viewing (strangling races) and pro-British sentiment (hence my coining of the phrase Wigginswankers) ...
Oh, and the fact they ruined Rapha ...0 -
morstar wrote:Sorry, I'm back. Find the issue fascinating.
There are two issues here:
1) Do you believe a 41 yo can win a GT clean (however you define clean)?
2) If the answer to 1 is yes. Do you believe CH could be that rider?
I believe the answer to question 1 is yes. Evidence, there are examples of top tier sports people winning or performing at elite level into their 40's. In this particular case, the key competition was not in peak form and did provide a head start. Also, absolute decline in performance in early 40's is not as severe as younger folk may believe. It is simply harder to maintain. We are talking about a statistical outlier for a 40 something to win but it's not impossible.
IMPORTANTLY, one of the major reasons you don't see lots of 40 year olds competing at the sharp end of elite sports is not physiological. There are huge motivational factors. Somebody who is capable of winning in their 40's will almost certainly have already had a long (and likely lucrative) career of competition. Most athletes are simply ready to stop by mid - late 30's after 20 years of competition at a high level. To ignore the psychological factors is to mis-understand life.
On the doping impact on age and performance...
Again 2 points. We don't know what the long term effects of doping are but I doubt they're positive. Secondly, some maths...
If a typical 30 year old cyclist at their peak has a theoretical max performance of 10, suppose a 40 year old has a max performance of 9. Supposing doping provides a 10% increase in max performance then an absolute gap in capabilities has increased from 1 to 1.1. Same relative gap but bigger in absolute terms. Doping favours the younger rider.
Point 2, I'll leave to peoples opinions.
1) Highly unlikely in a race against 150 or so riders in their twenties. A one-off race against a few other riders, yes. But a GT over 3 weeks, day in, day out, there is a tiny tiny probability of this happening. Not once during the race did he show any cracks, even Froome showed some cracks in the Tour having trained all year under SKY's performance training plan. Horner had been injured for much of the year (I know what you'll say here about freshness, but it goes against conventional thinking on best training practices).
2) N/A. But if it were, CH wouldn't be near the top of my list.0 -
Joelsim wrote:
1) Highly unlikely in a race against 150 or so riders in their twenties. A one-off race against a few other riders, yes. But a GT over 3 weeks, day in, day out, there is a tiny tiny probability of this happening. Not once during the race did he show any cracks, even Froome showed some cracks in the Tour having trained all year under SKY's performance training plan. Horner had been injured for much of the year (I know what you'll say here about freshness, but it goes against conventional thinking on best training practices).
There's never 150 or so riders racing for GC though. TdF was absolutely brutal, think Cannondale ripping up a transition stage where GC guys would have expected an easy ride, echelons stage, the fact that the minor placings were fought to the bitter end. The very thing that made this years TdF so great was the fact that riders tried all sorts of different tactics to unthrone CF made for a brutal race. The Vuelta? Total opposite, could only just reel in one rider. Even an exceptional talent like TM should have been easy pickings for a fast peloton. Left everything to the last climbs which I have already explained why lack of cumulative fatigue suited the older riders.
Conventional wisdom? Conventional wisdom would suggest that for an endurance event, you'd train more than race. I've already given examples. Racing throughout the season in cycling is cultural. LA didn't race all year because he knew this (regardless of doping he was very effective at preparing solely with the biggest goal in mind).
Still no evidence or narrowing down of CH's palmares when he was in a team leader (or had a free) role. I would have thought people would be trying to build a case using at least the available evidence seeing as the burden of proof lies with the accusers.
My view is obviously subjective but I think I've made a far stronger case than the accusers and yet the burden of proof doesn't even lie with the defence. Have your doubts and opinions and by all means share them. Don't dress them up as facts. I learn by having my beliefs challenged. So far, this thread has produced very little in the way of convincing evidence or supposition, that is the only reason I'm still arguing. The 'facts' presented are so holey you can drive a car through them. His age is the one single fact that makes his win outside of the normal realms. We have no frame of reference for what he has achieved as historical doping nullifies any comparison.
Watch with an open mind. I watch sport to be inspired by the unlikely. When it presents itself, it is understandable to be wary, but you have to at least entertain the possibility it is a fair contest.0 -
morstar wrote:Joelsim wrote:
1) Highly unlikely in a race against 150 or so riders in their twenties. A one-off race against a few other riders, yes. But a GT over 3 weeks, day in, day out, there is a tiny tiny probability of this happening. Not once during the race did he show any cracks, even Froome showed some cracks in the Tour having trained all year under SKY's performance training plan. Horner had been injured for much of the year (I know what you'll say here about freshness, but it goes against conventional thinking on best training practices).
There's never 150 or so riders racing for GC though. TdF was absolutely brutal, think Cannondale ripping up a transition stage where GC guys would have expected an easy ride, echelons stage, the fact that the minor placings were fought to the bitter end. The very thing that made this years TdF so great was the fact that riders tried all sorts of different tactics to unthrone CF made for a brutal race. The Vuelta? Total opposite, could only just reel in one rider. Even an exceptional talent like TM should have been easy pickings for a fast peloton. Left everything to the last climbs which I have already explained why lack of cumulative fatigue suited the older riders.
Conventional wisdom? Conventional wisdom would suggest that for an endurance event, you'd train more than race. I've already given examples. Racing throughout the season in cycling is cultural. LA didn't race all year because he knew this (regardless of doping he was very effective at preparing solely with the biggest goal in mind).
Still no evidence or narrowing down of CH's palmares when he was in a team leader (or had a free) role. I would have thought people would be trying to build a case using at least the available evidence seeing as the burden of proof lies with the accusers.
My view is obviously subjective but I think I've made a far stronger case than the accusers and yet the burden of proof doesn't even lie with the defence. Have your doubts and opinions and by all means share them. Don't dress them up as facts. I learn by having my beliefs challenged. So far, this thread has produced very little in the way of convincing evidence or supposition, that is the only reason I'm still arguing. The 'facts' presented are so holey you can drive a car through them. His age is the one single fact that makes his win outside of the normal realms. We have no frame of reference for what he has achieved as historical doping nullifies any comparison.
Watch with an open mind. I watch sport to be inspired by the unlikely. When it presents itself, it is understandable to be wary, but you have to at least entertain the possibility it is a fair contest.
Therein lies the problem. There isn't once cell in my brain that thinks he did it without doping unfortunately. It just isn't possible, it's like Cardiff winning the Premier League out of the blue. It's implausible on every level.
'very effective at preparing...' - quite!0 -
For me personally i can accept the fact that a relative unknown may win a classic race, one day wonder , in the right place at the right time or some other form of luck. However i just cannot believe that Horner won clean. Look at his palmares. In a one day race anything can happen but over 3 weeks, sorry its not a case of if, but what was he on and when will they find out.ademort
Chinarello, record and Mavic Cosmic Sl
Gazelle Vuelta , veloce
Giant Defy 4
Mirage Columbus SL
Batavus Ventura0 -
We're going round in circles now so I think this thread is nearing its end until the day that something does come up.
Two things, Nice taking a quotation out of context Joelsim, I specifically state "regardless of doping..." and you ignore that bit and imply doping! The fact that LA doped is a given.
His palmares, if this is justification, why won't somebody actually do the leg work to make this argument stand up. What are his palmares when riding for himself? I genuinely don't know but I know he's only had limited opportunity as team leader. If he got 6ths and 10ths in major races whilst riding in support of others that is very different to only getting 6ths and 10ths riding as a leader. What were Wiggins road palmares like? We accept (or I do) the track focus.
Somebody could put some meat on the bones of that argument if they wanted to. It could make a compelling argument that the performance is exceptional by his own standards. Without deeper analysis it's a bit like saying a football defender is rubbish because they don't score many goals.
I think I'm done now, agree to disagree time.0 -
If he was that good he would have been a leader many years ago, wouldn't he?
He also rode for an Armstrong team in those times and if you believe what you read (from many sources), doing it LA's way was a prerequisite. So he has history...quite apart from Rider 15. To then stun everybody as he has this year, with no hint of cracking and always looking like he had something in reserve, is at the very least very dodgy indeed. Coupled with his dreadful interview at the end of the Vuelta where he absolutely ignored the question and rambled on about loving cycling...
Only one thing for it...Paxman.0 -
Pinotti on Horner. Good read.
I didn’t follow the Vuelta too much after I left, in terms of watching it on TV. But I did see the results. On the one hand, there were lots of new kids coming out and winning, like the guy from Argos Shimano [Warren Barguil]. There were three or four new names, breakaways coming to the finish.
On the other, you had the fight for the general classification when you have lots of experienced riders. Horner was on top of them, while Nibali was the youngest. That said, he has already done seven podiums in a Grand Tour.
I wasn’t really surprised that Horner ended up winning overall. When I saw him winning the mountain stage early on, I thought that maybe he would be a big surprise in the race.
Looking at the Vuelta route, the course was perfect for him as there was only one time trial. The other one was a team time trial where he gained time on everyone except Nibali. If you look at his performances in the last four or five years, he has been a very strong climber.
The thing is, he never had the opportunity to really show in the big races, only in the small races. As a rider you see some performances the public don’t recognise. I remember for example in the Basque country in 2009, which Contador won. Horner was riding to support Contador but you could see he was the second best rider in the race.
Then he crashed in Basque Country, injured his shoulder, and he came back in the 2009 Giro and was top five on every climb until he crashed on stage nine or ten, after the first rest day. He broke his leg or something.
He came back again in Vuelta 2009 and crashed again, breaking his pelvis, and came back and was top ten or twelve in Lombardy.
I never saw him being dropped on the climbs when he was in very good form. Also, I think the Vuelta is a little bit like the Giro – the level of the competitors is not so high as the Tour. It is the third Grand Tour and everybody focuses on the two before.
So a rider like Horner who was top ten in the Tour before is a bit similar to Hesjedal, in terms of riding well in that race and then winning another Grand Tour. It was kind of a surprise when Hesjedal won the Giro. But every rider who makes a top ten in the Tour can come to the Giro or the Vuelta and, if they have good condition, have a good parcours for them and good luck, I think they can win the race.
Don’t forget that when Horner was top ten in the Tour, he even had to wait for Armstrong one day, and he lost four or five minutes then.
The result was a surprise to many people, but it was a matter of circumstance, I think. Nibali was not at his top form after the Giro, and the course really suited a light climber like Horner. He was the strongest climber in the race. He lost time in the time trial, as you might expect, but made it up elsewhere. For me it was not really a big surprise.
Horner and Nibali and others will be doing the road race on Sunday; I’m not doing it, I was happy to just focus on the time trial. It will be interesting to see how they do. I’m not sure how it will go for them; I think the Vuelta was very demanding, very hard.
Experience and the ability to cope with bigger racing loads play a role in the end, but I wouldn’t be surprised if nobody from the top ten in the Vuelta is on the podium in Florence. It was a very hard three weeks for them, and will have taken a lot out of them. But we’ll see.
The performance in the Basque country was what I referred to earlier. Still haven't found the video I am after.
The next year he won the same race. He even won the TT at the end somehow...look at who he beat:
Stage 6 results
1 Chris Horner (RadioShack) 32:33
2 Alejandro Valverde (Caisse d'Epargen) + 0:08
3 Maxime Monfort (HTC-Columbia) + 0:13
4 Michale Rogers (HTC-Columbia) + 0:18
5 Beñat Intxausti (Euskaltel-Euskadi) + 0:21
6 Samuel Sánchez (Euskaltel-Euskadi) + 0:23
7 Marco Pinotti (HTC-Columbia) + 0:25
8 Joaquim Rodríguez (Katusha) + 0:33
9 Jean ChristophePeraud (Omega Pharma-L)
10 Andreas Kloden (RadioShack) + 0:34Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Pinotti on Horner.
If I were suspected of doping and someone were to speak up in my defence, I'm not sure I would want them to be reminding my accusers of my links to Armstrong, Contador and the 2009 Astana team.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
No idea how to analyse them but Chris Horner has put out his biological passport results. Kudos
http://www.chrishornerracing.com0 -
That doesn't stop half the internet from having opinion about what they tell us, so have a crack. (Hint: for 99% of people the data confirms the opinion they had before he released them, regardless of what that was)Mccaria wrote:No idea how to analyse them but Chris Horner has put out his biological passport results. KudosTwitter: @RichN950 -
Mccaria wrote:No idea how to analyse them but Chris Horner has put out his biological passport results. Kudos
http://www.chrishornerracing.com
The Hematocrit levels are OK. LA caused suspicion when his naturally low count of 39-41 reached 50. Horner seems to average 43. No large scale EPO use evident.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Pinotti on Horner.
If I were suspected of doping and someone were to speak up in my defence, I'm not sure I would want them to be reminding my accusers of my links to Armstrong, Contador and the 2009 Astana team.
Maybe, but if I could choose someone to speak up in my defence it would probably be PinottiSaracen Tenet 3 - 2015 - Dead - Replaced with a Hack Frame
Voodoo Bizango - 2014 - Dead - Hit by a car
Vitus Sentier VRS - 20170 -
One minor point here is the date of the passport - March 2013. Was the Vuelta in March? Eh?0
-
Joelsim wrote:One minor point here is the date of the passport - March 2013. Was the Vuelta in March? Eh?
Did you look at what had been posted underneath the March 2013 heading?0 -
Dude's putting all your token heroes to shame ... on and off the bike ...0
