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

[raindog]

'ere we go - even the flat bits go uphill today

 

[thom]

You've got to set this against his age and previous results and it's looking more and more unlikely that this is credible. Today will tell us for certain, perhaps yesterday Nibali was bluffing slightly, leaving the race responsibility to Horner today, we'll see.

There is no benchmark from the past. Too many successful riders were doped back then so you would know for sure he was dirty had his record been better.

 

[smutchin]

I've been very careful not to leap to conclusions about Horner, but the longer this race has gone on, the harder it has become to give him the benefit of any doubt.

Even Froome had his off moments in the Tour de France.

 

[Noodley]

I'm gonna start boo-ing when he's on the screen

 

[thom]

I saw a quote that this is the first grand tour since 1951 or something, where 2 riders have both held the GC lead for 3 separate stints. That to me says Horner has had some days worse than Froome - he took yellow on stage 8 of the TdF and held it to the end.
Look we all know this story - as @rich p said, it would be better to have a positive test result and this we may well have in due course.

 

[Crackle]

There is no benchmark from the past. Too many successful riders were doped back then so you would know for sure he was dirty had his record been better.

I get that but the decline of muscle mass per decade and VO2 max. must surely mean that Horner simply cannot be putting in his best performances in his 40's, look at Evans over the last two years. I appreciate there's more to it than VO2 max, recovery etc plays a part. but either, Horner is an exception to the rule or it's not credible, I'm tending to the latter.

 

[VamP]

Speculation seems rife and it doesn't seem to matter which athlete we are talking about any more. As long as they are performing better than their previous race or season then it seems reason enough to suspect them of cheating. All because of one lying cheating scumbag that fooled more than most!

As long as there is competition there will be cheats, but to call someone a cheat based on hearsay and rumour, or even past results, is far from reasonable.

For Horner to be doping, to the extent that some suggest, there would be zero chance of him passing doping tests and his bio passport would be significantly changed from when he was clean.

If he tests positive then the guy is everything he is currently accused of, but until that time then it is no more than mud slinging.

In fact for some they believe they cannot be wrong - if Horner tests positive then he is a cheat and if he doesn't then he is a clever or lucky cheat. Clean doesn't seem to be a possible scenario.

You put a lot of faith in tests. The guys caught at the Giro were stupid. Horner has had decades of practice of keeping ahead of the tests. This is what he said as recently as last December:

"I understand and I'm clear on how much information is out there on what Lance is said to have done but I'm also clear on the fact that he's passed all of his tests,” Horner told Cyclingnews. “Are you supposed to go back and erase those memories? I remember the 2005 Tour de France and Lance was the best guy there and he past all the tests and won the Tour. I'm not going to debate if he won, he was there, he won and passed the tests."


You still want to compare him to Froome or Nibali or Wiggins? Those guys have record of achievement, talent and most importantly, an outspoken commitment to racing clean.

I am happy to give most people the benefit of the doubt. But a guy with no past credentials at GT level, oldest ever, ever, huge Lance apologist, and with a lifetime record of cheating? Forget the power number guesstimates - take a step back and look at the bigger picture. In what way is it even remotely possible that he might be clean?

 

[thom]

I get that but the decline of muscle mass per decade and VO2 max. must surely mean that Horner simply cannot be putting in his best performances in his 40's, look at Evans over the last two years. I appreciate there's more to it than VO2 max, recovery etc plays a part. but either, Horner is an exception to the rule or it's not credible, I'm tending to the latter.

Thing is, I don't think anyone here is a sport scientist and the fact is none of us have accurate measures of Horner's performance data, I don't know how to begin to evaluate is rigorously anyway. But it is well known that senior endurance runners can retain a high level of performance into their 40's.

Look, I'm done with this for today - I think we all hate this state of not knowing conclusively one way or another and I respect people being suspicious and sceptical but I'm just of the mind to allow for other legitimate explanations for now and that no amount of debate will allow conclusion one way or the other.

@VamP I've seen reports of Horner both defending and attacking Lance btw.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

You put a lot of faith in tests. The guys caught at the Giro were stupid. Horner has had decades of practice of keeping ahead of the tests. This is what he said as recently as last December:

"I understand and I'm clear on how much information is out there on what Lance is said to have done but I'm also clear on the fact that he's passed all of his tests,” Horner told Cyclingnews. “Are you supposed to go back and erase those memories? I remember the 2005 Tour de France and Lance was the best guy there and he past all the tests and won the Tour. I'm not going to debate if he won, he was there, he won and passed the tests."


You still want to compare him to Froome or Nibali or Wiggins? Those guys have record of achievement, talent and most importantly, an outspoken commitment to racing clean.

I am happy to give most people the benefit of the doubt. But a guy with no past credentials at GT level, oldest ever, ever, huge Lance apologist, and with a lifetime record of cheating? Forget the power number guesstimates - take a step back and look at the bigger picture. In what way is it even remotely possible that he might be clean?

Testing during the Armstrong era was practically useless in detecting EPO and other ahead of the game drugs. That's why Armstrong, and many others, have since tested positive from samples taken over a decade ago - using new testing techniques.
As per his stance on doping, well i'd suggest this tells you nothing. Armstrong's outspoken view on doping was similar to the guys you mention - Froome, Wiggins and Nibali. The difference being is that he proven to be a cheat and sometime after eventually confessed. People still say that Sky are running the biggest doping scam since Postal but that doesn't mean that it is so. History has made sceptics of many - too many in my opinion.

To muddy the waters further you could argue that if he was taking a substance that is not illegal, as yet, then he would not be breaking any rules. Ethics aside, it would be the same as taking Caffeine - a known performance enhancer.

My real gripe is that this thread has about 30% posts about racing and 70% about doping.

 

[thom]

My real gripe is that this thread has about 30% posts about racing and 70% about doping.

It is my complaint too. And I've written about 40% of the doping posts... so sorry about that.

 

[rich p]

Yeah, a lot of them from you Pedro
Anyway, I take your point!
Live now on TV and a lump to go before they hit the Angilru - here we go

 

[rich p]

fab scenery

 

[rich p]

and fab overhead shot of a griffon vulture!!!

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Fantastic commentary too. Has one of them released a book recently?

 

[rich p]

Fantastic commentary too. Has one of them released a book recently?

Sweepstake on how long before Carlton Kirby mentions, " Feeling the hurt" or "The hurt is on"
I reckon with 12.6 km to the finish!