La Vuelta 2013 (24 Aug - 15 Sept) **SPOILERS**

[rich p]

If Horner doesn't get exposed then we'll never know for sure if it's a phenomenon of a cleaner peloton and a bloke who has defied age-related decline or that he's doping as Leipheimer indicated.
Nibali is puzzlingly average in this race (despite being in Red!!!). Blaming the effort in the Giro seems lame or misplaced when he has had more time to get refreshed than Roche, Rodriguez and ValvPiti. It's normally assumed that you'd struggle doing two consecutive GTs as Froome did last year. He was off the pace in the Tour of Poland too. Maybe his heart isn't in it this year after the Giro?
I believe the wattage figures aren't extraordinary in this Vuelta so maybe the rest are indeed under-performing. Not many would have put Nico in their top 5 after the TdF and his mediocre history.
If Horner was 31 not 41 I'd have no problem with it, but his age, coupled with lack of recent stellar results, plus his defence of Armstrong, plus winning lots of races in his youth against juiced up riders, plus Rider 15 testimony from Leipheimer makes me sceptical..

 

[smutchin]

There's a piece on Inner Ring about Horner that's worth reading: http://inrng.com/2013/09/vuelta-chris-horner-performance-age/

I'm with Flying Monkey on this one. It's hard to make any meaningful assessment of his performance, with or without any power data, but even so, it stinks.

 

[Hont]

The way I see it is Horner has to be proved to have doped before I will be sceptical.

That is of course your perogative, but you don't need proof to be sceptical.

However good the drug testing is, it's a long way from infallible. The fact remains that a man of nearly 42 is capable of high intensity performances superior to much younger men, many of whom have doping history themselves.

I don't believe that anyone who rode the Giro would still be tired from that effort if they properly managed their training in the interim.

 

[thom]

That is of course your perogative, but you don't need proof to be sceptical.

However good the drug testing is, it's a long way from infallible. The fact remains that a man of nearly 42 is capable of high intensity performances superior to much younger men, many of whom have doping history themselves.

You can be sceptical (there is a flag in my mind too), but have an argument to back it up - just saying he is old for me doesn't sound like you've thought about it much.

I don't believe that anyone who rode the Giro would still be tired from that effort if they properly managed their training in the interim.

What I'm saying is that if we are in a post doping world, we don't know what it takes to perform at both the Giro and the Vuelta, so you might believe that but I think you have to accept it is possibly wrong. Indeed, even when doping was rife, how many riders managed it ?

 

[smutchin]

Not many would have put Nico in their top 5 after the TdF and his mediocre history.

I was really expecting him to blow up on the final climb yesterday, but the fact that he managed to stay near the leaders does put the overall standard of the race into some perspective. I mean, I like Nico Roche, but he is not a thoroughbred climber, never has been.

I wonder if Wiggo is looking on and imagining he should have gone for this one rather than the Giro.

 

[thom]

came across this today, worth a read, he talks to and about Horner

Cam Wurf’s Vuelta Diary – New buddy in the bunch

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/09/cam-wurfs-vuelta-diary-new-buddy-in-the-bunch/

"He spoke about how people are questioning him on his perceived sudden rise to the top of the sport. Perhaps people should look a little more closely at what’s gone on over the past few years and the type of riders who are now at the head of the biggest races. They are the guys with pure class, talent and great work ethic; the best part both young an old. Rising phenomenons like Sagan, and now the old dogs with plenty of tricks like Horner. It really was great for me to have this little impromptu chat with Chris as we scaled the first cat 3 climb of the day. I certainly was pleased to hear that he lit up the race on the final climb and has set up an absolutely mouth watering duel with another of the pure class, Vincenso Nibali."

 

[Flying_Monkey]

The background arguments in favour of scepticism are very much the same as the general arguments against Lance: the teams he has ridden for, the coaches he has trained under, and let's not forget the open secret that he refused to testify in the Armstrong inquiry and is alleged to be Rider 15 of those whose names were redacted (i.e. the riders that Levi Leipheimer reported had told him they doped in 2005).

What I am not convinced in any way by are the arguments of those in Horner's favour, i.e. he's a nice guy, he comes across as humble in interviews and he wears funny T-shirts. People want to believe, especially Americans right now, for obvious reasons. I don't know that he's doping, but if you aren't in any way sceptical of an almost 42-year old who has never finished higher than 9th in any GT kicking the arses of riders in their late twenties at the peak of their physical condition, not just on one day, but day after day, then I don't what you would be sceptical of...

 

[rich p]

I'm sceptical of those who aren't sceptical

 

[thom]

What I am not convinced in any way by are the arguments of those in Horner's favour, i.e. he's a nice guy, he comes across as humble in interviews and he wears funny T-shirts. People want to believe, especially Americans right now, for obvious reasons. I don't know that he's doping, but if you aren't in any way sceptical of an almost 42-year old who has never finished higher than 9th in any GT kicking the arses of riders in their late twenties at the peak of their physical condition, not just on one day, but day after day, then I don't what you would be sceptical of...

Being sceptical is one thing, to question his performance is more than reasonable and any sceptic would be happy to look at the points on either side of the argument - saying "No I don't believe his performances", this is no longer scepticism in my book.

 

[The Couch]

...I wonder if Wiggo is looking on and imagining he should have gone for this one rather than the Giro.

Have you seen Wiggo climbing the Angliru (a.k.a. almost falling of his bike) in 2011?

Being sceptical is one thing, to question his performance is more than reasonable and any sceptic would be happy to look at the points on either side of the argument - saying "No I don't believe his performances", this is no longer scepticism in my book.

Still... I don't really believe his performances

 

[thom]

Have you seen Wiggo climbing the Angliru (a.k.a. almost falling of his bike) in 2011?

Still... I don't really believe his performances

get stuffed you complacent fantasist - just because you're winning the league doesn't mean we have to settle for your victor's justice !

 

[Crackle]

The way I see it is Horner has to be proved to have doped before I will be sceptical (edit might have better said "very sceptical"). There are arguments that can explain his performance for me.
1) He is a seasoned pro who knows his body and just as long distance runners in the 40's can steadily put in high quality performances, so might Horner. Over the past few years he regularly puts in top 20 Grand Tour performances (unlike Cobo).
2) The drug testing is better than ever - I really think they will find out the majority of people
3) We say his performance looks dodgy but I don't see anyone looking at data (which can be interpreted in various ways of course) the important thing is
4) This is the only Grand tour he has done this year. Why is it not possible for him to have nailed his preparation for this year and that to have put him physically on a par with younger guys at the very end of this race. 3 weeks of racing is about endurance - old guys can have very high capacity in this regard - it is not the explosive first week that he has been outstanding as such - he just seems to be a steady performer while other levels of performance drop off. Take a look at his competitors in the top 10. 4 of them did the Giro, 4 did the Tour and the other is Konig who is breaking through as a GC rider.

ITA 1 NIBALI, Vincenzo Giro
USA 2 HORNER, Christopher
ESP 3 VALVERDE BELMONTE, Alejandro Tour de France
ESP 4 RODRIGUEZ OLIVER, Joaquin Tour de France
IRL 5 ROCHE, Nicolas Tour de France
ITA 6 POZZOVIVO, Domenico Giro
FRA 7 PINOT, Thibaut Tour de France
CZE 8 KONIG, Leopold
ESP 9 SANCHEZ GONZALEZ, Samuel Giro
EST 10 KANGERT, Tanel Giro

We have to judge him against this and not the past. Bike racing has changed.
To say his performance is not normal is palpably true for the Vuelta: we maybe only have last year of Contador's comeback as a comparable "clean" race for comparison so nobody really knows what normal is any more and we ought to be open to the possibility that this is it.

I'd agree with all of this, it pretty much matches the rationalization I've done in my head but still, I'm not enjoying watching it and still I have my doubts.

 

[The Couch]

get stuffed you complacent fantasist - just because you're winning the league doesn't mean we have to settle for your victor's justice !

You've got me... indeed if Horner would be scrapped from the results my score would be even better... it is all part of my elaborate plan to kick all of your behinds some more

 

[thom]

I'd agree with all of this, it pretty much matches the rationalization I've done in my head but still, I'm not enjoying watching it and still I have my doubts.

Another thing is the psychological aspect. I think @smutchin mentioned earlier that Nibali said his attitude was to take things as they come in this race and then see how hard to try when it came to the final week.
This to me does not sound like he is as motivated as at the Giro. Horner on the other hand will see this as perhaps his only chance to win a Grand Tour - he is more motivated than ever.
I grant you, it is fair to have a question mark but I think it is very unfair to say the only explanation is he is doping. People may not understand how Horner is doing so well (he has clearly used that to his advantage to be able to have his current race position) but just because we don't understand does it mean we can conclude that he is doping.
I'm really sorry to be banging on about it because the racing is pretty exciting, so I am done with the matter.

 

[Booyaa]

The background arguments in favour of scepticism are very much the same as the general arguments against Lance: the teams he has ridden for, the coaches he has trained under, and let's not forget the open secret that he refused to testify in the Armstrong inquiry and is alleged to be Rider 15 of those whose names were redacted (i.e. the riders that Levi Leipheimer reported had told him they doped in 2005).

What I am not convinced in any way by are the arguments of those in Horner's favour, i.e. he's a nice guy, he comes across as humble in interviews and he wears funny T-shirts. People want to believe, especially Americans right now, for obvious reasons. I don't know that he's doping, but if you aren't in any way sceptical of an almost 42-year old who has never finished higher than 9th in any GT kicking the arses of riders in their late twenties at the peak of their physical condition, not just on one day, but day after day, then I don't what you would be sceptical of...

I am sceptical of him, it might just be the right time at the right place for him and this is a one off, I doubt it though... What I don't understand though is people not in the least bit sceptical, and like with Lance in previous years, I could never understand why anyone believed he was clean, to me, it was so obvious. I would be happy to be wrong on this but it just seems to good to be true for such an old (in top cycling terms) man to be beating just about everyone else so comfortably.