Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Vuelta-chris horner

How is chris horner doing so well in the vuelta.the guy is a fantastic domestique and has long successful career but never been a GC contender in the grand tours.

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

50 comments

Avatar
SideBurn | 10 years ago
0 likes

I see what you mean daddyELVIS; given the company that he has kept it would take an iron will to not dope. But he seems ambivalent to the issue and follows the familiar not doping = not getting caught ideology.
But the company he has kept must have put him under the spotlight for many years, USADA in particular... better to be born lucky than rich?

Avatar
Gkam84 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Just been reading this http://journalvelo.com/opinion/chris-horners-power-files-revealed-is-he-...

Seems, no matter what he weights, his power to weight doesn't go above the suspicious level that everyone seems to spout, but no-one knows where it came from...

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to Gkam84 | 10 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

Just been reading this http://journalvelo.com/opinion/chris-horners-power-files-revealed-is-he-...

Seems, no matter what he weights, his power to weight doesn't go above the suspicious level that everyone seems to spout, but no-one knows where it came from...

close to 6.2 on final climb at over 40 years old!! What could he push out at his peak?? He must have been the worlds best cyclist at one time. Imagine what he could have done the other day if he'd have been doped!

Avatar
SideBurn | 10 years ago
0 likes

I have been trying to back up my re-testing statement above; but can't.
My thoughts are that the people queuing up to grass themselves up and contribute to the USADA case against LA must have done so with some sort of encouragement ie admit or we will re-test. Chris seems to have been rubbing shoulders with many of the disgraced riders; surely USADA would have spoken to him and given him the same choice? I am speculating.
BUT anyone remember this from the 2010 TdF
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/lequipe-publishes-list-of-uc...
Chris Horner managed to finish 9th and scored -0- on the list = no suspicion at all.. but so did Zabriskie
Cavendish -2-
Wiggins -5-
Lance -4-
Basso -3-
He is either lucky or determined to be clean?
He has had plenty of opportunity to dope and must have raised suspicion? Time will, hopefully, tell.

Avatar
Low Speed Wobble | 10 years ago
0 likes

@Gkam84 - what's the approved abbreviation for Directeur Sportif 'around these parts' then?

Avatar
Ghedebrav replied to Low Speed Wobble | 10 years ago
0 likes
Low Speed Wobble wrote:

@Gkam84 - what's the approved abbreviation for Directeur Sportif 'around these parts' then?

DS meaning domestique comes from the fantasy game, I think. It's an accepted shorthand on these forums.

Directeur sportif is also abbreviated to DS; whichever one it is will usually be clear from the context.

Hope that helps  4

Avatar
daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes

What do his past results prove? That's like saying Armstrong didn't dope in 2005 because he'd won the Tour every year since 99.

Horner has publically stated what his stance on doping is - if you pass the test on the day, then you're clean, no going back. Part of the game is passing the test. He still believes LA should have his 7 Tour wins (BTW, I agree with him on that point).

Avatar
SideBurn replied to daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:

What do his past results prove? That's like saying Armstrong didn't dope in 2005 because he'd won the Tour every year since 99.

Horner has publically stated what his stance on doping is - if you pass the test on the day, then you're clean, no going back. Part of the game is passing the test. He still believes LA should have his 7 Tour wins (BTW, I agree with him on that point).

Source?

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to SideBurn | 10 years ago
0 likes
SideBurn wrote:
daddyELVIS wrote:

What do his past results prove? That's like saying Armstrong didn't dope in 2005 because he'd won the Tour every year since 99.

Horner has publically stated what his stance on doping is - if you pass the test on the day, then you're clean, no going back. Part of the game is passing the test. He still believes LA should have his 7 Tour wins (BTW, I agree with him on that point).

Source?

Hopefully this link works, took me a while to find this! It's quite long, but very interesting and informative. The part I was referring to is in the Armstrong section at the end. After reading this, I'm sure you'll agree Horner is a fully-paid up member of the omerta crewe, as reinforced by JV's recent twitter comments. Doesn't proves he's doping now, or ever has doped, but it gives a good insight into his views:

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:
SideBurn wrote:
daddyELVIS wrote:

What do his past results prove? That's like saying Armstrong didn't dope in 2005 because he'd won the Tour every year since 99.

Horner has publically stated what his stance on doping is - if you pass the test on the day, then you're clean, no going back. Part of the game is passing the test. He still believes LA should have his 7 Tour wins (BTW, I agree with him on that point).

Source?

Hopefully this link works, took me a while to find this! It's quite long, but very interesting and informative. The part I was referring to is in the Armstrong section at the end. After reading this, I'm sure you'll agree Horner is a fully-paid up member of the omerta crewe, as reinforced by JV's recent twitter comments. Doesn't proves he's doping now, or ever has doped, but it gives a good insight into his views:

hopefully works this time:
http://m.cyclingnews.com/features//exclusive-interview-chris-horner-on-h...

Avatar
northstar replied to daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:
SideBurn wrote:
daddyELVIS wrote:

What do his past results prove? That's like saying Armstrong didn't dope in 2005 because he'd won the Tour every year since 99.

Horner has publically stated what his stance on doping is - if you pass the test on the day, then you're clean, no going back. Part of the game is passing the test. He still believes LA should have his 7 Tour wins (BTW, I agree with him on that point).

Source?

Hopefully this link works, took me a while to find this! It's quite long, but very interesting and informative. The part I was referring to is in the Armstrong section at the end. After reading this, I'm sure you'll agree Horner is a fully-paid up member of the omerta crewe, as reinforced by JV's recent twitter comments. Doesn't proves he's doping now, or ever has doped, but it gives a good insight into his views:

It'd be easier to count the people who aren't part of the pro cycling omerta crew.

Avatar
Some Fella | 10 years ago
0 likes

I think we need to talk about Pozzovivo.
 39

Avatar
tomisitt | 10 years ago
0 likes

Um...I suspect most of us know enough to know that a DS is a Directeur Sportif. AFAIK, Horner isn't one.

Avatar
Gkam84 replied to tomisitt | 10 years ago
0 likes
tomisitt wrote:

Um...I suspect most of us know enough to know that a DS is a Directeur Sportif. AFAIK, Horner isn't one.

I would have let that comment go, because with 15 posts, I thought you were new to the site, but I see you've been around over two years.

So you should know by now, around these parts, DS is a shortened form of Domestique....

Avatar
tomisitt replied to Gkam84 | 10 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:
tomisitt wrote:

Um...I suspect most of us know enough to know that a DS is a Directeur Sportif. AFAIK, Horner isn't one.

I would have let that comment go, because with 15 posts, I thought you were new to the site, but I see you've been around over two years.

So you should know by now, around these parts, DS is a shortened form of Domestique....

Really? Why would anyone abbreviate "domestique" to DS when DS is already an acknowledged abbreviation for Directeur Sportif? Random.

Avatar
Simon E replied to Gkam84 | 10 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

So you should know by now, around these parts, DS is a shortened form of Domestique....

I wasn't aware of this as I don't look at the fantasy league on this site.

DS = Directeur Sportif in the rest of the world.

Despite having the opportunity during the long interview with Matt Rendell, Horner never said he was racing clean. And interestingly, at the press conference even Valverde, an experienced and recidivist doper, seemed to be left wondering at Horner's performance. That certainly rang an alarm bell for me!

Avatar
Some Fella replied to Simon E | 10 years ago
0 likes
Simon E wrote:

And interestingly, at the press conference even Valverde, an experienced and recidivist doper, seemed to be left wondering at Horner's performance. That certainly rang an alarm bell for me!

Takes one to know one.

Avatar
Gkam84 | 10 years ago
0 likes

I give up. None of you even seem to know what Horner has won, else you wouldn't be asking why he hasn't won smaller tours.

Also, his grand tour results, as a DS are right up there

Avatar
bashthebox | 10 years ago
0 likes

There's a statute of limitations on retests - 8 years I think? Armstrong's samples from '99 tested positive after the limitations were exceeded.

Avatar
SideBurn | 10 years ago
0 likes

Lots of people called LA out; it cost them money and or their careers...
The problem was, as LA and others said, hundreds of negative tests for LA along with some discredited positives. This is hard (if wrong) evidence of clean riding. All other evidence was, as LA said verbal evidence from discredited sources.
Chris Horner would have also been tested, maybe not as much as Lance; but why have his negative tests not now been re-tested as positives? Because he is/was clean?

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to SideBurn | 10 years ago
0 likes
SideBurn wrote:

Chris Horner would have also been tested, maybe not as much as Lance; but why have his negative tests not now been re-tested as positives? Because he is/was clean?

erm, because they've not been re-tested as far as I'm aware.

Avatar
SideBurn replied to daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:
SideBurn wrote:

Chris Horner would have also been tested, maybe not as much as Lance; but why have his negative tests not now been re-tested as positives? Because he is/was clean?

erm, because they've not been re-tested as far as I'm aware.

I thought they were all re-tested; that is why the s**t hit the fan? Anyone know? Surely to test some but not others would be a bit fishy?
The whole thing stinks enough without selective re-testing...

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to SideBurn | 10 years ago
0 likes
SideBurn wrote:
daddyELVIS wrote:
SideBurn wrote:

Chris Horner would have also been tested, maybe not as much as Lance; but why have his negative tests not now been re-tested as positives? Because he is/was clean?

erm, because they've not been re-tested as far as I'm aware.

I thought they were all re-tested; that is why the s**t hit the fan? Anyone know? Surely to test some but not others would be a bit fishy?
The whole thing stinks enough without selective re-testing...

If you're talking about the 'reasoned decision', it was a case based on witness statements.

Avatar
SideBurn replied to daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:
SideBurn wrote:
daddyELVIS wrote:
SideBurn wrote:

Chris Horner would have also been tested, maybe not as much as Lance; but why have his negative tests not now been re-tested as positives? Because he is/was clean?

erm, because they've not been re-tested as far as I'm aware.

I thought they were all re-tested; that is why the s**t hit the fan? Anyone know? Surely to test some but not others would be a bit fishy?
The whole thing stinks enough without selective re-testing...

If you're talking about the 'reasoned decision', it was a case based on witness statements.

Googling the issue suggests that some retesting has been done, Beijing Olympics for example but Chris did not ride Beijing they chose dopers instead. It is not clear how much retesting has been done.

Avatar
Gkam84 | 10 years ago
0 likes

So Horner is obviously doping in your eyes, but to me, he's just having a good tour.

Lance's first couple of tours, yes, I would have defended him, but it became clearer as his career went on.

Where are Horner, has always been around, doing the same job as Ritchie Porte has been doing for Wiggo and Froome.

No he's got no-one to work for, he's having his chance and taking it with both hands.

So if Porte goes and shows like this next year when Wiggo won't be taking on a grand tour. Does that make him an obvious doper?

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to Gkam84 | 10 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

So if Porte goes and shows like this next year when Wiggo won't be taking on a grand tour. Does that make him an obvious doper?

Hilarious  24

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde replied to Gkam84 | 10 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

So Horner is obviously doping in your eyes, but to me, he's just having a good tour.

Lance's first couple of tours, yes, I would have defended him, but it became clearer as his career went on.

Where are Horner, has always been around, doing the same job as Ritchie Porte has been doing for Wiggo and Froome.

No he's got no-one to work for, he's having his chance and taking it with both hands.

So if Porte goes and shows like this next year when Wiggo won't be taking on a grand tour. Does that make him an obvious doper?

In many of the big cases we don't actually have positive tests - LAs case in particular and Balco. As I have posted above the thought is that the testing regimes are not good enough, and so many athletes pass the tests.

Besides, as we know from the Tour, they don't test for all types of PEDs all the time. Sometimes it is blood doping, sometimes it's for blood PEDs and sometimes just urine.

The science behind it shows that it is easier to evade a test, than be caught. Makes you realise how dumb it is to be caught.

Given that in a poll of Olympic athletes, when asked the question would you use a PED if you knew you could get away with it most answered 'yes'. You'd be a mug not to be using them.

I am skeptical about the 'Sky Train', and especially Horner. Yes, a positive result helps, but until testing catches up with doping we live in a world where the benefits of cheating are great, and the chances of being caught slim.

You don't rise from the shadows to become a GC contender over night either. You talk about shadows, but the Schleck's never cast a great shadow over their team - physically or metaphorically. Why has Horner not dominated a small tour, or taken the mantle in the time period from 2012 Tour? Even before, when Andy was injured I can only remember him in passing.

His ability in this Vuelta really doesn't pass the scratch test. Unfortunately for every incredible performance it raises the suspicion on the likes of Froome and co. Though I admit the Vuelta seems to bring with it less credible performances in a country which has had no drug testing scandal, but has been known as a great place for dopers to get their fixes....Even the results of the Fuentes case were burned to prevent further testing.

Avatar
Gkam84 | 10 years ago
0 likes

daddyELIVS, do us all a favour....go find some proof, or stop spouting trash.

Reading your comments from many threads, you see to think that every single rider is doping, you must love the sport  24

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to Gkam84 | 10 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

daddyELIVS, do us all a favour....go find some proof, or stop spouting trash.

Reading your comments from many threads, you see to think that every single rider is doping, you must love the sport  24

I do love the sport, but I'm not daft enough to think that the majority (including some of my favourite riders) are clean all the time. I'm certain many riders either lose weight using banned substances, train using band substances, or race using band substances, or do a combination of these, perhaps all 3. My belief is that doping in sport needs real debate because it's a very complicated area, not as simple as doping bad, clean good. But spouting that riders are clean when they obviously are not adds nothing to the debate.

BTW, would you have said the same thing to anyone who called LA out, back in the day?

Avatar
SideBurn | 10 years ago
0 likes

His performance could be explained by saying he is not now racing against dopers?
Just because he is American and linked to Bruyneel doesn't make him a doper.
Like Lance said we have to just, 'have faith'

Pages

Latest Comments