Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
You could argue Nicholas Roche has used the genetic advantage thing all his career.
I've heard his dad be very evasive when asked about doping - but being evasive is no evidence that you've doped only evidence that you know people have but may not want to name names. At Horners age we all know he must have been aware of doping but that's not evidence of having taken part.
Perhaps what Horners win shows is that the competition aren't what we thought they were now everything's clean. 🙂
It matters because the same rules apply at all levels of the sport, not just to pros, and I don't want to compete in a sport where doping is accepted or expected. The pros can't get away with setting the wrong example for non pro racing, because you will end up with more Dan Staites.
Like WWF?
What have pandas got to do with this? 🙂
but being evasive is no evidence that you've doped only evidence that you know people have but may not want to name names. At Horners age we all know he must have been aware of doping but that's not evidence of having taken part
I agree, but Rendell's question was directly about Horner's performance in this tour. Looking someone in the eye and saying you didnt dope might not convince everybody, but completely dodging the question won't convince anybody. Whatever you think of Froome's performance, he stuck his neck out by referencing being clean ("this jersey will stand the test of time") in his winning speech.
Oh **** me. The Clinic Forum must be going mental.
The thing is, not a single one of the STW doping cynics has a clue whether Horner doped or not, you won't until he fails a test or there is overwhelming evidence against him ( he hasn't and there isn't). But you go on and on about how he must have because blah, blah, blah. The same thing over and over again. Give the man credit and if in the future its shown that he was using PED's criticise then. for the moment enjoy pro cycling for what it is or walk away.
just out of interest - no axe to grind either way
This was Monday evening. I'm guessing that any drug that would've benefited him in the GC would have to have been working on or before Sunday dinnertime (unless they were preparing him for a teamTT against Nibali into Madrid)
What drug would have still been detectable by Monday evening ?
Oh, just seen it was Monday morning 😳 - question stands, I guess
re-edit: Duuuuh, I'm a day out. He needed the benefit on Saturday dinnertime and missed a test Monday am
Oh, and IMO the answer to doping is to insist that all samples can be kept and tested indefintely into the future, with known clean controls taken at the same times and stored under the same conditions - or have they adopted this already ? (that x years rule was always kack)
Yep, they're storing samples now. Problem is that Lance has shown that it's more profitable to have doped and been caught than to never have doped.
A great ride from a man in his 40's us old boys still have plenty of juice,if you know how to look after your body! How many of you can still wear the same jeans size you wore 20yrs ago?
Yeah, but LA is a major exception in financial terms and I suspect he really wanted to be sen to win rather than get rich (of course he was seen to win repeatedly but to now be formally recognised as a cheat must really hurt - god, I hope so)Problem is that Lance has shown that it's more profitable to have doped and been caught than to never have doped
UCI should ratify a form of words to be added to the record books when a name is expunged - a separate list just showing "disqualified, DOPER" or "DRUG CHEAT" with no hint of where they finished maybe ? (they can add an asterisk to some small print lower down that says some mealy-mouthed disclaimer but that would be good)
I still wear the jeans I wore 26 years ago. The style is a little dated but the belt is on the same hole.
1936 vertical metres/hour. That says more than a test ever will.
How many of you can still wear the same jeans size you wore 20yrs ago?
30 years for me, in fact I may be a little lighter at 48 than I was at 18.
Problem is that Lance has shown that it's more profitable to have doped and been caught than to never have dopedYeah, but LA is a major exception in financial terms and I suspect he really wanted to be sen to win rather than get rich
I'm not sure any of his doping cohorts, hincapie, leipheimer et al suffered financially from fessing up
Armstrong has over 125 million dollars in assets and about 127 million in law suits to fend off according to a TV programme I saw recently.
How many of you can still wear the same jeans size you wore 20yrs ago?
I can but I cannot ride as fast. I am older and less fit as that is simply what happens with age.
It's just not credible what he did given his past form and the analysis of some of the climbs, he's not just been quicker than the best of the peloton in this year's race, he's been significantly better than some of the best riders going off previous year's times
Here a few thoughts Passed performance
He was 9 th in a grand tour riding for some else
Indurain was 10 th in the 1990 tour. If you watch it really looks like he would have one if he had not been ridding for Delgado. Also Horner needed a Tour with next to no time trialing
What the doubters really saying
Are you saying that Valverde and Rodriguz doped last year and not this year
Are you saying Chris use to dope but now dopes less and got faster. Which would seem odd. Or are you saying he was always clean and just started doping this year? He seems to have been used twice in the past as a bench mark for plausible power out put
Or are you just saying I'll randomly fling mud about as he annoyed me
Annoyed final thought
I suppose the solution is to tell riders to finish in the order of the world rankings or something. That would save shutting all the roads as well.
I'm not sure Big Mig should be used as an example of why someone else didn't dope.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-indurain-and-banesto-were-conconi-clients
And didn't Delgado effectively get caught, then let off for taking a masking agent?
Just to beat that with a completely daft example:I'm not sure Big Mig should be used as an example of why someone else didn't dope.
(granted he had an injury but) The amount of time Horner had to prepare for this single long tour only really compares to a couple of riders, and Lance in particular. Maybe that's what made the difference, assuming a level playing field in the actual race (all on or all off the juice) ?
Who knows whether either or both was off his tits on epo for all that training or if just the length of time was the key, or of course there could be no parallel to draw at all
Clean or not clean, it was still a brilliant vuelta and gives me hope as I'm 35!
Cycling is seen as a drug sport because the agencies are looking for it. Football is seen as clean but they don't do the same level of testing.
It would be interesting if all footballers had to give their whereabouts every day and submit to the amount of tests as cycling.
There's not a lot more the authorities can do in cycling to make it cleaner but when he misses a drug test it does raise my suspicions. I find it strange his team manager couldn't get him on the phone and arrange a blood test at short notice, Madrid isn't that big.
Does Dr Fuentes own a hotel in Madrid by any chance? Lol
Or are you just saying I'll randomly fling mud about as he annoyed me
I am fairly sure the reasons have been articulated. Its rather ironic that you are the one flinging the mud here with that very weak point/claim 😕
The amount of time Horner had to prepare for this single long tour only really compares to a couple of riders,
So i could take a 56 year old then and with enough time they could win it?
I dont think we will know for sure but it is a remarkable achievement by and elder statesmen with little previous so it is bound to raise the suspicions. Its not conclusive though i think you would need to be a bit naive to not consider it.
Oh, I'm considering it - riding for his professional life, near enough to retirement that being caught might not really hurt him (esp as you can always write a book 🙄 ), major step up in results (though I don't suppose he's had a team really work for him before)
It just seems so blatant that it can't be true, or else he's on something brand new that they have no idea about and knows he won't be found out for ages, if at all
Hmm, so blatant it can't be true. The double bluff.
It would be interesting if all footballers had to give their whereabouts every day and submit to the amount of tests as cycling.
Why only soccer? Any professional sport.
I think 41 is quite young !!!
Looks like USADA has cleared Horner of the missed test and confirmed that the Spanish official went to the wrong hotel.
(granted he had an injury but) The amount of time Horner had to prepare for this single long tour only really compares to a couple of riders, and Lance in particular. Maybe that's what made the difference, assuming a level playing field in the actual race (all on or all off the juice) ?
Did you read that link up there? The one which mentioned he's only really had 4 weeks of proper training after getting the injury fixed. You can't just ignore that.
Under what circumstances would someone have to win for the STW experts [u]not[/u] think they are doping? .
American
Ex team mate of Armstrong
Ridden for Bruyneel
Rides for a team that has its roots in an Armstrong owned team
Never saw nuffing and not one of those who fessed up
Nearly 42 years old and in the form of his life beating off big hitters still in nappies when he turned pro.
.
.
.
Stinks to high heaven!
So..... my money is on him being clean! Only a complete and utter imbecile would put enough drugs in a 42 year old engine to make it perform like that, with that suspect a past, in this present suspicious climate and think it was a good idea that no one would doubt. And if you are that moronic I doubt you would have the wherewithal to dope cleverly enough not to get caught.
maybe it's the "not racing" that matters most - and who knows what "[b]not really[/b] training" involved in terms of level of effortDid you read that link up there? The one which mentioned he's [b]only really[/b] had 4 weeks of proper training after getting the injury fixed. You can't just ignore that
The bloke is also skinny as a rake; they say noticeably more than before
that's the bit I like least of all in thisNever saw nuffing
Under what circumstances would someone have to win for the STW experts not think they are doping? .
less suspicious than this I would say - you?
FWIW I am usually saying what you are but these results are suspicious. As in out the norm for him , his training/rest/injury and a person of his age,
maybe it's the "not racing" that matters most - and who knows what "not really training" involved in terms of level of effort
right so it s no longer the training he did for the tour but the rest he had oh and being skinny
I fear you may be clutching at straws a tad here.
taxi25 - Member
The thing is, not a single one of the STW doping cynics has a clue whether Horner doped or not, you won't until he fails a test or there is overwhelming evidence against him ( he hasn't and there isn't). But you go on and on about how he must have because blah, blah, blah
Ive never understood why people join a thread to say they disagree with the point of the thread. Why read 5 pages to post you dont like the point of the conversation? I'm on the fence, have posted why I might believe and why I might not, and have returned to the thread because I've appreciated peoples points and counterpoints which have given me something to think about.
Cycling is seen as a drug sport because the agencies are looking for it.
interesting when 100m sprinters positive tests are reported in the media its almost apologetic in tone, and when tennis players fail the press and everybody accepts its accidental. If its a cyclist the assumption is they are a cheat and its indicative of the whole sport.
The bloke is also skinny as a rake
Like this?
[img] 
[/img]
convert - it's a double bluff.
Cycling is seen as a drug sport because the agencies are looking for it.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. The fact that there are plentiful records of drugs use in cycling stretching back to the 19th century might have something to do with it.
Ive never understood why people join a thread to say they disagree with the point of the thread
A public spirited need to help the hard of thinking?
I'm not sure that's entirely true. The fact that there are plentiful records of drugs use in cycling stretching back to the 19th century might have something to do with it.
But I think the point he's making is that all sports have the same history, particularly sports where endurance and recovery are key. The biggest thing is that cycling is far more visible. For example on the current violations list in the UK there are (not exhaustive list BTW):
46 athletes total
8 rugby
6 athletics
2 bobsleigh
2 football
1 cycling
1 wheelchair basketball
The cyclist is Marcel Six who refused to take a test due to a domestic "emergency". Whether this was doping test avoidance is irrelevant, he got a ban anyway.
It shows that in the UK at least, there's no large doping problem in cycling. Even in France there have been 400 investigations in total for doping since 2010, and only 35 resulted in any action against cyclists. Australia has 45 sanctioned athletes and 2 are cyclists.
Cycling being the sport of dopers is a populist myth created by a press that has an easy target and isn't interested in looking at other sports when the lazy story is easily written.
So 400 investigations and 35 actions in France. How many investigations in the UK?
Doping isn't a criminal offence in the UK as far as I know but it is in every country serious about drugs repression. The British police never investigate, the French police/gendarmes do; in the Uk it's left to British Cycling officials who keep everything hush hush. Remember the Hayles >50% and the offical's comment? Given the official didn't follow Hayles 24/7 he had no idea if Hayles was doping or not but was very keen to say he was certain Hayles wasn't. The medals tables for the Olympics are a good proxy for the countries where athletes dope most if you compare known historic practices with medals. I don't think London was any different.
The BBC did a programme on the Atlanta games where there were only 2 positives because an IOC official "accidentally" shredded the rest of the results which would have been embarrassing for the host nation.
A rider in a European team told me Horner weighs 60kg, therefore he has great power to weight...a key part of his success.
I think that he has always been good, but now its a (more) level playing field and the real talent shines through.
Edukator - They don't reveal that in the UK. In France there is full disclosure of every single investigation and the outcome. I guess they view clearing people to be as important as finding them guilty. That was 400 investigations in total BTW, not just against cyclists. Of the 43 against cyclists, 35 were sanctioned in some way. That said, we know Bassons got a ban for missing a test at an MTB event so there's some latitude in there too.
In France there is full disclosure of every single investigation and the outcome
No there isn't, it's generally only the dealers that are named and prosecuted. Try to find who Christophe Dupouey was selling to when he was prosecuted for dealing performance enhancing drugs, you'll fail.
Edukator - I mean full disclosure of who is being investigated and what the outcome has been. Try and find most other federations doing that. There aren't many.
Fantombiker - Member
A rider in a European team told me Horner weighs 60kg, therefore he has great power to weight...a key part of his success.I think that he has always been good, but now its a (more) level playing field and the real talent shines through.
Problem with this is the team are telling everyone he's heavier than that (62/3kg IIRC) because that makes his W/Kg figure look more credible...
I'd have thought it possible to work out if the published weight, and hence w/kg, was credible based on his performance on the climb as VAM and w/kg are linked. Appreciate there are lots of variables and estimations that go into these calculations, though 3kg is a big chunk of weight!
A public spirited need to help the hard of thinking?
your pithy comment completely undermined by the very next post from Atlaz. If you dont like the debate dont join it. Do you tell groups of people having a conversation that theyre stupid face to face, or just on the internet?
Graeme Obree sets new world speed record for prone cycling at age 48... any suspicions - lol
I don't think they've put marmalade sandwiches on the banned list yet (though it's possible Citalopram might be)
pas normal
He was 9 th in a grand tour riding for some else
Which rider was it he was riding for? Oh.
(apologies for the late rise Junky:Junkyard - lazarus
right so it s no longer the training he did for the tour but the rest he had oh and being skinny
I fear you may be clutching at straws a tad here.
Nah, I think I've tried to be balanced - give it a go 😉
see, I actually said "[b]time to prepare[/b]", not "the training" and I also said "[b]Who knows whether either or both was off his tits on epo for all that training[/b] [i](I admit, I used the word there, but then even 4 weeks out of compo and fully fit must be quite a luxury)[/i] [b]or if just the length of time was the key[/b]" though I also said "[b]who knows what "[i]not really training[/i]" involved in terms of level of effort[/b]"
however, knock yourself out, I don't care that much - as you'll remember, I also said "[b]no axe to grind either way[/b]"
Apparently Horner has published all his power data and biological passport data on his website. Fair play to him though will probably just be fuel to the fire.
The cynic would say publishing data just means that Horner has confidence in nothing being detected from the data, not necessarily that all variables to refute/ establish cheating are covered. So long as you keep things under accepted limits no-one can complain. Now... how these generally accepted limits of physiology and performance presumably set to someone much younger in their prime relate to that of a much older man who knows???
I do feel sorry for anyone riding clean as you can't win either way!!!
Apparently he's not published the data for the period immediately before or during the Vuelta. Although this might not be the truth as I've not had a chance to check.
A quick look at Google news reveals that as yet he's yet to be signed by any team. You'd think they'd all be falling over themselves to sign such an exceptional grand tour winner...
Unless they know something that we don't, or don't want to risk a future embarrassment.
Problem is no matter what he does some folk will just be suspicious * like they will with Froome
Personally I doubt anyone knows the passport stuff well enough to say either way - well not on here anyway.
IIRC even Wiggos passport had some suspicion in the TdF so even if there is none some will think that is suspicious
I think I've tried to be balanced - give it a go
Doffs cap 😀
* I am one and no matter what happens it remains an incredible feat for an elder peleton rider with limited pedigree. Given the ignoble history of the sport he will be under doubt IMHO
Interesting article, perhaps worthy of consideration....
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/09/what-effect-does-age-really-have-on-cycling-performance/
At the end of the day no one really knows what's possible, would the Olympians of 100 years ago (bad example maybe....) have considered today's records feasible, I doubt it.
The reality is that only minimal physiological declines occur before about 50 years of age, particularly when we’re talking about an athlete’s musculature. Any declines in athletic potential and performance that happen until that point are largely due to a drop in the athlete’s VO2max.
One wonders why no physically demanding sport has 48 year old world champions then and why the vast majority retire in mid to late 30's if not earlier - look at gymnasts?
FWIW was there not an awesome female rider in her 50's French perhaps Olympian?? Anyone know for certain
Golf does not count OK!
junkyard, do you mean jeannie longo?
Good rider.
On drugs.....
Did you keep reading, it had a few theories which seemed plausible, ish.
Peaty is an amazing example of what's possible when most would have retired, he's still beating young 'uns despite being old enough to have fathered 'em. DH racing at that level is a mixture of extreme skillz, fitness and raw power but also a huge shed load of head **** thrown in for good measure, to be still mastering it at his age speaks volumes about the man I reckon.
cheers aa I did and that did not work as an example then did it
Anyone know of any example of a 40 + athlete dominating ?
Malcolm Elliot perhaps?
Anyone know of any example of a 40 + athlete dominating ?
Looking at what he dominated, a lot of the better riders there were off form having had quite long seasons and using the Vuelta a way of finding some form for the worlds. He'd targeted this race and was well rested. He took his chance very well and if that had been the Giro or the Tour he'd be way down.
Rather intriguing that he's not got a team for next year though.
Was about to post...then remembered its a modern metaphor for pissing in to the wind.
Anyone know of any example of a 40 + athlete dominating ?
I'm doing my first tri on Sunday, so I'll let you know. Hopefully it'll be what you want to hear. 🙂
DD, over 40?
#lookinggoodforanoldman
😉
DD, over 40?
#lookingroughforanoldman
😉
Could it be a case of seeing the effect of rest of the field coming off the drugs? If he's been clean all the while and used to running clean, as well as being relatively fresh from his early season injury, maybe that was just enough to tip the balance and enable him to take advantage over the rest as they acclimatise to being clean. You can't just come off drugs without suffering some form of negative physical and mental affect, and will take time for them to get used to their natural performance potential and adjusting their training accordingly. Since the processes to detect drug use have been found out to be completely and utterly ineffective, maybe the ultimate test to determine those who have been riding clean is to look at those who before have not finished anywhere and are suddenly being promoted up the field.
There has been some over 40 boxing champions, George Foreman and Bernard Hopkins spring to mind, although I suspect boxing isn't a shining example of clean sports.
How old was Redgrave when he won his last gold?
Anyone know of any example of a 40 + athlete dominating ?
Are ultra-athletes of various disciplines not generally in the Horner age range? It is probably a better comparison that to gymnasts and suck like as above but still... winning a grand tour requires a great deal of speed not just endurance
Ultra running is an interesting one. A developing sport that anecdotally suits the older athlete.
But that spandex loving Spanish guy is 25, last years winner of the Western States was 29. But then Matt Carpenter set the Leadville record at 42 (?).
How much of the thinking that older geezers and geezerettes are good at it is down to who the sport is popular with?
I think there is some truth to this as runners naturally migrate towards the longer distances (5k, through 10k, half marathon to marathon) as their careers progress. There do seem to be limits to this though. Gabreselassie is still bloody quick at 40, I think 3rd in the Great North Run recently, but then he is one of the greatest of all time!
Edit: I suspect ultrarunning is not a great basis on which to draw conclusions as it's a bit too niche.