Aged almost 42, Chris Horner wins Vuelta d'Espana for biggest cycling win of his career

GenericID wrote:

That's what puzzles me. Horner took time out of Nibali whenever Nibali came off the defensive and attacked.

Had he ridden defensively, Nibali could realistically have taken the lead, but even if they had gone into the crit with Nibali down by 3 seconds Astana could have forced a split in the peloton and won on the last day.

Bad tactics in my opinion.

Do you have any idea how bike racing works?

Forced a split on that circuit (not a crit, btw)? That's utterly ridiculous. No way in hell they could've done that on a course like that.

Don't talk about tactics when you clearly don't understand them yourself.

Do you have any idea how bike racing works?

Spain has two? AEPSAD and CCSSD?(SADA is Suriname)

GenericID wrote:

SADA(?) = Aepsad

I think you'll find that the CCSSD make the rules (or at least interpret WADA's rules) while Aepsad do the actual hands on stuff.

One thing about Chris Horner is he knows how to read a race and is a master tactician. That helped him win the Vuelta.

The missed testing thing was nothing. The Spanish agency made mistake, and someone who thought they had a big story leaked it before all the facts were in. Here is a copy of Horner's update of his whereabouts and acknowledgement email from USADA.

http://www.radioshackleopardtrek.com/news/anti-doping-testers-wrong-updated

I don't doubt that Horner doped during his career. I thought that he was the luckiest guy on earth when the reasoned decision was released without implicating him.

However, at some point, we just have to let go of the suspicion and take it for face value ... and just enjoy the sport ... and enjoy the win. Then if someone gets busted then they get what they deserve from the fans and press.

He's being tested during the Vuelta, so until he turns up positive, I'm enjoy the win as a fan of cycling.

No way this is "clean." NO WAY. Stats speak for themselves...no grand tour winner over 36 years of age, yet Horner does it all of a sudden at 41 or 42? Really? Grand tours have been going on more than 100 years, and no one over 36 has won.

Yet a contemporary of Armstrong, Hincapie, Leipheimer, Julich, Hamilton all of a sudden at 42 and clean wins a Grand Tour?

Also, to do it by surviving and then riding away from everyone on the Angrilu after three weeks of racing?

I've never been as surprised by a cycling result as this one.

The victory of Horner is something really exceptional, since never there was some athlete over 40 able to win at international level in cycling. It may be like Haile Gebrselassie in running, still one of the best when very much older than his "official" 40 years.

But what did impress in more strong way, was not his victory, because in cycling (different from athletics) there are not "measured" performances, and you can win because are the best at the moment, against, for example, a poor field, or using some particular situation created by the competition (for example, earning 10:00 escaping with a Group of cyclists not considered good for the final classification, like happened many times in Tour de France and Giro d'Italia, and after staying at the top of the race you can have the team at your disposal and discover you can also take care of the general classification).

What did impress are the objective values Horner showed on the mountains. His VAM (which is the velocity used for climbing a mountain combined with the difference of altitude) was something as 684, when scientists consider about 630 the humen limit. His VO2 max was over 104, while Eddy Merckx, the higher known till today, was about 93.

These values are very much higher than the top values of Lance Armstrong, during the better shape of his life (and we know whatLance used for reaching these values...).

And all this from an athlete 42 years old !

So, of course the most part of people have doubt he's doped, since is not possible to explain some exploit like this, starting from the "normal" ideas there are about doping.

However, since we don't have some proof, we must look at Horner like at a "clean" cyclist. And, in any case, which kind of doping could he find, for destroying while 42 all the technical data of Lance Armstrong ?

So, I know now I go to provoke again a big "earthquake" among the posters, there is another possibility :

DOPING ALWAYS IS OVERRATED, BECAUSE ALL CYCLISTS USED THE SAME SYSTEM, so there is the idea without doping is not possible to go so fast, or to recovery so well after every stage.

You know my personal position about doping (I speak about BLOOD DOPING only, not steroids) for the best distance runners from Kenya and Ethiopia : I CONTINUE TO REPEAT THIS DOESN'T WORK WITH THE BEST, who have a paticulat situation living and training in altitude, WHEN THEY ARE ABLE TO FOLLOW A HARD AND SCIENTIFIC TRAINING.

I continue to say that with doping, the best talented athletes under the aerobic side CAN'T OVERTAKE THE RESULTS THEY CAN REACH WITH THEIR TRAINING, if their training has continity at very high level.

The physiological parameters we can change with training can bring the athletes to a level where doping can't work anymore.

If you compare the physiological parameters of a top CLEAN athlete (running for example Marathon in 2:04) and of a DOPED athlete (there was some case like Goumri banned for the biologicalpassport) running 2:05, YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF DIFFERENCES : in the first case, we have blood with very low viscosity, and a presence of 20% of capillaries more than in the second case.

This means that, in the first case, athletes have their max transportation of Oxygen because of the low viscosity, increasing the velocity of the blood circulation ; in the second case, because of the viscosity, the circulation is slower, but the levels of Hematocryte is higher.

Practically, it's like to have to transport items from the producer to the users : in the first case, you give the users less material more frequently, in the second case more material less frequently.

In every case of athletes improving their PB using doping, the jump of quality was a big increase in the training intensity. Having higher aerobic support, they didn't need to work in that direction increasing the volume, but were already ready for putting DIRECTLY more quality.

That's the reason because we are able to recognize, among the athletes, looking at long periods of their training, WHO USES DOPING and WHO DOESN'T USE. If I see some athlete able to have for a long period of time a great volume of LACTIC WORKOUTS, without losing his shape, and at the same time I never see in his training a real aerobic support (for example, Boulami never ran longer than 1 hour at easy pace, and never used long intervals for maintaining high level of aerobic power, but was able for longer than 3 months to train with continuity increasing the level of his lactic workouts, and this was not possible without strong aerobic support : in this case, the assumption of EPO was evident, also before his positive test in Zurich 2002), this athletes uses some blood doping in order to have high aerobic power, provoking by the possibility to transport more Oxygen WITH A REDUCED SPEED OF BLOOD CIRCULATION, due to the high viscosity.

But you can have the same big increase in the training intensity if, before, you are able to increase the VOLUME OF AEROBIC POWER in your training, producing physiological effects BETTER than what you can achieve with doping (for example, an increase of 25% in the total volume of blood).

At the end, the real problem is that, when you propose to an endurance athlete (may be runner or cyclist) an increase of the volume of training, and inside this to build the ability for increasing the VOLUME OF INTENSIVE TRAINING, runners and cyclists refuse to try, because MENTALLY they think not possible to recover this type of training WITHOUT USING SOME EXTERNAL HELP.

When they decide to use some drug, finally they feel themselves able to recovery, and go to increase their training. THIS IS THE REASON OF THEIR IMPROVEMENT : so we can look at every type of blood doping as THE REASON BECAUSE THEY ACCEPT TO WORK MORE, but when they finally are able to do this, automatically they increase their performances.

This means that, IF SOMEBODY IS ABLE TO TRY TO INCREASE HIS TRAINING WITHOUT DOPING, because mentally doesn't fear to be destroyed by his training and doesn't put mental barriers to himself, we can have not only the same results of people using doping, BUT BETTER because this type of athletes have higher self confidence and more tranquillity, knowing they are totally clean and don't fear any kind of control.

May be Horner is simply a cyclist who was mentally free to try more hard training without being conditioned, and was able to discover, day after day,that his body could recover while before he didn't think this possible.

Many times, with top Champions, is the self confidence making the difference. New situation, incredible motivation, will to explore himself for overtaking the old personal limits.

The future can give more indications about this abnormal situation. But, in any case, Horner's victory is something all people, thinking Always of doping, are to think about.

in your example renato you have the clean 2-04 guys beating the 2-05 dopers?

what sort of mix of dopers and clean guys are filling the top 10 in elite marathons?

you think the top 5 are clean and 6-10 are dirty?

Renato Canova wrote:

His VO2 max was over 104, while Eddy Merckx, the higher known till today, was about 93.

What is your source for the VO2 max of 104?

Also, probably not a good idea to compare to Eddy Merckx since he was one of the dirtiest bike riders ever.

I get your argument that some runers/cyclists improve more from doping and I agree with that. Where I don't agree is that you can't improve the most talented runners with doping.

Look at it this way: maybe Chris Horner is clean, then there is a chance he is among the most talented cyclists of all times. But you also need to look at his performances in the mid 2000's where he had 0 chance against a drugged up field.

oh please wrote:

Stats speak for themselves...no grand tour winner over 36 years of age, yet Horner does it all of a sudden at 41 or 42? Really? Grand tours have been going on more than 100 years, and no one over 36 has won.

Yet a contemporary of Armstrong, Hincapie, Leipheimer, Julich, Hamilton all of a sudden at 42 and clean wins a Grand Tour?

This is not intended as a defence either way but there have been occasionally guys in their 40s who have gotten close to winning a grand tour. For example the French cyclist, Raymond Poulidor was right up there on the podium in his 40s having towards the end of a very long cycling career that spanned the eras of Anquetil and Mercx.

Another example from cyling although albeit not in a Grand Tour is Francesco Moser who had a crack at the hour world at the age of 42 in 1994 and just missed out on Chris Boardman's mark. Chris Boardman was the 1992 Olympic champion in track cycling.

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

I don't doubt that Horner doped during his career. I thought that he was the luckiest guy on earth when the reasoned decision was released without implicating him.

Horner didn't ride for US Postal/Discovery/Radio Shack during the Armstrong years. He was mostly racing on domestic teams. Even if he were the dirtiest guy on the planet there's no reason to think he'd be connected with the Armstrong case.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Horner didn't ride for US Postal/Discovery/Radio Shack during the Armstrong years.

They rode together in the 2010 Tour for Radioshack. Not sure if LA was still doping at that Tour, his results were bad, really bad.

GenericID wrote:

That's what puzzles me. Horner took time out of Nibali whenever Nibali came off the defensive and attacked.

Had he ridden defensively, Nibali could realistically have taken the lead, but even if they had gone into the crit with Nibali down by 3 seconds Astana could have forced a split in the peloton and won on the last day.

Bad tactics in my opinion.

Nibali didn't lose through tactics Horner was stronger in the mountains simple as that.

That was a circuit, not a crit.

GenericID wrote:

That's what puzzles me. Horner took time out of Nibali whenever Nibali came off the defensive and attacked.

Had he ridden defensively, Nibali could realistically have taken the lead, but even if they had gone into the crit with Nibali down by 3 seconds Astana could have forced a split in the peloton and won on the last day.

Bad tactics in my opinion.

Now that Chris Horner has shown that age or lack of racing does not really matter, former multiple Vuelta winners Denis Menchov (35) and Roberto Heras (39) are probably already planning a comeback in next year's edition. Heck, when does Jan Ullrich's ban end? He might decide to come back and win Tour de France for the next two years - he will only be 40 next year, after all.

No, I think ALL Marathon runners under 2:05 are clean, and the same 95% of runners between 2:05 and 2:06.

And I say, too, if there is a Marathon running 2:06 using blood doping, give him one of the top Marathon coaches (not necessary Renato Canova, also if coaches really knowing how to train Marathon in modern, right and scientific way are very few...) with a good Group, since alone nobody can improve at the same level, AND THIS ATHLETE CAN IMPROVE OF 1 MINUTE QUITTING DOPING.

For me, with doping athletes create a mentality not adapted for training inthe right way, so at the end the final result is worse than what they can do completely clean, but motivated to train harder (and better).

Too many times some doping gives athletes the idea they can run fast cutting volume, and good results come automatically.

I believe in training, and athletes and coaches using doping believe in doping. But, if you believe in doping, you don't believe in training and don't know where training can bring you, nd how training can change you.

So, never is possible to compare the training system of doped athletes (and doper coaches) with the training system of whom believes in training, and NOTHING really scientific here is about the effects of blood doping.

I continue to think that, starting to explain the effects of doping vs training don't produce advantages (of course, continuing to use a very strong antidoping system), can bring the athletes to think of blood doping in different way, reducing to use if they know they take this type of PEDs for nothing.

Horner was implicated in Levi Beerheimer's affidavit as rider 15 for using EPO before the 2005 Tour of Switzerland.

See statement 74 here-

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer%2c+Levi%2c+Affidavit.pdf

This source comes from the data of his Team, when they do physiological tests (as the most part of cyclists do).

At the moment I'm in Brazil for a course, and I don't have the precise data of VAM and other. But in Italian newspaper "Gazzetta dello Sport" there was a detailed article with all the physiological data, showing NEVER in the past some other cyclist had the same values.

About Eddy Merckx, I think everybody agrees he was the best all time, together with Fausto Coppi.

I think in the years 60-70 there was different type of doping in cycling : amphetamines, especially, and the beginning of some steroid. BUT, OF SURE, NOTHING CONNECTED WITH BLOOD.

The first cyclist changing his blood at the end of every season, in order to clean his circulatory system after using during the season amphetamines in high quantity, was Jacques Anquetil, but this procedure had nothing to do with the Finnish system of the self-transfusion, starting at the end of 60 years (Vaatainen, Paivarinta and other distance runners were the first using during a top comptition, European Championships 1971 in Helsinki).

Anquetil, later, died of cancer (such as Laurent Fignon) : nobody knows for sure if there was connection with the practice he had at the end of every season, or, in the case of Fignon, if there is some connection with doping, but the suspicion exists.

So, the fact is Merckx was the best all time.

Supposing he was doped, this is a better reason for looking at Horner's data as something unbelievable, because IF HE'S CLEAN, HE HAS VALUES VERY MUCH HIGHER THAN THE BEST RIDER ALL TIME, CLEAN OR DOPED.

About the fact Horner never was able to have top results before, don't do the mistake to think everything happened in the life of an athlete must be connected with his talent and his training. Of course, good results depends on these two elements, because it's not possible to reach any top results without big talent and good, hard training.

But the opposite is not true. How many talented athletes there are, not interested in training, not having professional mentality, competing as amateur only ?

Professionalism is a way to organise the life in order to achieve the best results, and this includes the fact to put your sport activity at the center of your life for all the time you want to be at the top. It seems Horner was really not interested in this type of life, but competed for fun more than for profession, and of curse his training was very poor (such as his motivation), and for that reason he didn't obtain good results before.

In fact, in any case it's not possible to do at 42 what you were not able to do at 28, if the application in training was the same.