Horner win good or bad?

wonderfullife

As the title says, is this a good or bad thing for the sport?

My own opinion is Horner winning the Vuelta is probably the last result cycling wanted (or needed) right now in terms of the general public. Especially since the prevailing cycling news story for the general public in 2013 is Lance Armstrong.

Whilst there is categorically no suggestion of doping or wrongdoing involved here, the general public will take one look at his age, another look at his nationality, and draw their own conclusions.

Cycling fans, on the other hand, will be very aware that Levi Leipheimers sworn testimony implicated Horner in doping practices circa 2005.

Cycling, like any sport, can always do with more participants in the sport and i hate to say it but a 41 year old winning a Grand Tour will do nothing to add to the perception of the sport out there. It won't really matter that he's clean either, especially given the general public now view "clean" as "not caught yet".

Mods - I haven't once implied Horner is doing anything but still think it's a worthwhile discussion. Levi Leipheimers testimony can be read here: http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer,+Levi,+Affidavit.pdf

Cookie_Monster

Can't say I care to much. The coverage of the Vuelta over here was criminally bad, despite 5 sports channels only got a 30 mins (22-24 with ads) highlights which were also dreadful, mixed up out of sync mess. Combined with the crappiest music and worst graphics since the early 90's I just gave up.

Compared to the TdF which had the last 2 hours delayed every day at 5pm, live overnight and highlights around 8pm as well...

Beasty

Thread serves no purpose other than to encourage speculation

OP you seem to have suddenly taken an unhealthy interest in this rider having not made a single post on the race itself