Log in:  

Register

Froome Talk Only

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 06:30

Parker wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

And Kelly didn't get on the podium of a monument until he was 27

Roglic spent three years riding at Continental level before turning pro.

Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica


If Froome's progress was so astronomical, why were Sky going to de-list him?
heart_attack_man
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: 18 Feb 2013 10:29

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 06:41

Parker wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
That Graph is fabulous. Cant see it enough. Wigan's doesn't even make top 5 of their predictions either and Froome, jeepers, that is embarrassing to place no higher achievement then pro conti podium..... :lol:

I hope Froome has that framed in his house.

It doesn't show predictions. It shows actual performances from 2010.


Brailsford never said that it shows actual performances from 2010.

Froome doesn't even fall into the 'potential' or 'future star' category. He isn't mentioned at all by Brailsford:

1. The guys on the left of the chart are being paid for what we believe they can do in the future. It’s quite difficult but people gamble. Someone like Edvald is obviously a great talent. It could be unbelievable if he goes on to fulfil all that potential, or it could be that he doesn’t quite. But you’re betting on the future.

You want to concentrate your coaching on these guys. They are your future. We found that last year, we probably didn’t give these guys – the likes of Swift, Stannard, Kennaugh – everything we could because of the challenges of setting up the team. Also the sickness at the Vuelta meant they missed out on the goal they had been working towards.

The key here is to get people who are ahead of the curve – performing at a higher level for their age. The ideal scenario is that they outperform their salary. A great example would be Richie Porte at Saxo Bank. He was seventh at the Giro as a neo-pro but there were guys who finished much lower than that getting paid a lot, lot more.

This is the area we want to invest in. We hired Alex Dowsett because we believe he has a lot of potential and he had a super season. We looked at Luke Rowe but felt he needed another year in the [British Cycling] academy. Rigoberto Uran has come in. He’s a young rider but he’s been around a while. He’s punchy so he gives us something we didn’t have, which is a rider for the Ardennes. This is where we concentrate our coaching and development.


Instead, Froome fall into the 'borderline' category. Nowhere near a GC contender:

5. Riders in this area are borderline for us. As you get older, the potential for improvement disappears and so it’s much more a judgement call. A rider might bring something to the team in terms of his personality that makes him a good guy to have around.


http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615
Bronstein
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 18:05

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 06:47

42x16ss wrote:
Bronstein wrote:
Parker wrote:
The Hitch wrote:
Ok, but if we follow your logic (which I agree with) then we also have to admit that Froome was both a) riding full gas and b) well rested compared to rivals and c) focusing entirely on that stage in the 2008 Alpe d'huez stage. And yet he only came 32nd and considered that some sort of great accomplishment.

A few years later he is very ill, so much so that he is just "hanging on" and is focusing on the gc the entire race, and has expanded a lot of energy riding harder throughout the race. And on the same mountain he rides both much better relative to his competition and faster objectively speaking.

Its cos everyone else stopped doping right?

No. Although that helps.

In 2008 he was a first year pro who had never done a stage race bigger than the Tour of Britain before riding on shoestring team with no coaching. And, according to him, he didn't eat properly. Even so he showed in that Tour that he could be climb and time trial well and was generally thought of as a future GC rider.

He didn't ride it again until his sixth season. The time you mention was his eighth season.

Now here's a little secret for you - you may notice it yourself as you learn more about the sport. Cyclists progress physically and mentally through the early years of their career. It's very unusual for any champion to be a world beater in their first season. In fact almost unheard of.


Climbing stages:
169th
73rd
142nd
46th
115th
125th
136th
30th

He finished 11'41" behind the winner on Alpe d'Huez. The riders who finished immediately after him were largely domestiques (Ten Dam, Lopez, Vansummeren, Popovych, Astarloza, etc).

All Froome showed in 2008 was that he wasn’t entirely out of his depth. Let’s look at what some other first year pros achieved:

Jan Ulrich: National TT Champion, 2nd Tour de Limousin at 21

Alberto Contador: 1st Tour de Pologne ITT, 4th Vuelta Castilla y Leon at 22


Andy Schleck: National TT Champion, 3rd National RR, 7th GP de Wallonie, 9th 4 Days of Dunkirk at 20

Cadel Evans: 1st Tour of Austria + 2 stages, 1st Brixia Tour + stage, 6th Giro dell Appenino, 8th Bayern Rundhfart at 23

Vincenzo Nibali: 2nd stage 6 Tour de Suisse, 4th National TT, 6th Milan-Torino at 20

Nairo Quintana: mountain class. Volta Catalunya, 15th Vuelta Castilla y Leon at 21

THIS is what talent looks like.

At 20, not 22 ;)
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,997
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 08:56

Bronstein wrote:
Parker wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
That Graph is fabulous. Cant see it enough. Wigan's doesn't even make top 5 of their predictions either and Froome, jeepers, that is embarrassing to place no higher achievement then pro conti podium..... :lol:

I hope Froome has that framed in his house.

It doesn't show predictions. It shows actual performances from 2010.


Brailsford never said that it shows actual performances from 2010.

Froome doesn't even fall into the 'potential' or 'future star' category. He isn't mentioned at all by Brailsford:

1. The guys on the left of the chart are being paid for what we believe they can do in the future. It’s quite difficult but people gamble. Someone like Edvald is obviously a great talent. It could be unbelievable if he goes on to fulfil all that potential, or it could be that he doesn’t quite. But you’re betting on the future.

You want to concentrate your coaching on these guys. They are your future. We found that last year, we probably didn’t give these guys – the likes of Swift, Stannard, Kennaugh – everything we could because of the challenges of setting up the team. Also the sickness at the Vuelta meant they missed out on the goal they had been working towards.

The key here is to get people who are ahead of the curve – performing at a higher level for their age. The ideal scenario is that they outperform their salary. A great example would be Richie Porte at Saxo Bank. He was seventh at the Giro as a neo-pro but there were guys who finished much lower than that getting paid a lot, lot more.

This is the area we want to invest in. We hired Alex Dowsett because we believe he has a lot of potential and he had a super season. We looked at Luke Rowe but felt he needed another year in the [British Cycling] academy. Rigoberto Uran has come in. He’s a young rider but he’s been around a while. He’s punchy so he gives us something we didn’t have, which is a rider for the Ardennes. This is where we concentrate our coaching and development.


Instead, Froome fall into the 'borderline' category. Nowhere near a GC contender:

5. Riders in this area are borderline for us. As you get older, the potential for improvement disappears and so it’s much more a judgement call. A rider might bring something to the team in terms of his personality that makes him a good guy to have around.


http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615


And nowadays we know that Brailsford hadn't a clue who will perform well and who won't. It looks like Team Sky perform well despite of the mastermind not because of him :lol:
User avatar miguelindurain111
Junior Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 26 Jun 2017 13:03

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 10:22

heart_attack_man wrote:
Parker wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

And Kelly didn't get on the podium of a monument until he was 27

Roglic spent three years riding at Continental level before turning pro.

Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica


If Froome's progress was so astronomical, why were Sky going to de-list him?


Because they'd spent a couple of years trying to bring out his potential and it just wasn't happening for reasons unknown. Maybe.

Potential is a funny thing, its certainly no guarantee of success. Some people reach their potential. some people don't....
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 12:27

brownbobby wrote:
Because they'd spent a couple of years trying to bring out his potential and it just wasn't happening for reasons unknown. Maybe.

Potential is a funny thing, its certainly no guarantee of success. Some people reach their potential. some people don't....


And some don't have any! Potential is something that is obvious, but that somehow doesn't translate into results. Think Schleck, Ulrich, Zulle, Tejay van Gerderen, mini Phinney, countless sprinters, Hincapie at Roubaix, etc, etc. Froome was a serious nobody with no potential.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 12:51

ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
Because they'd spent a couple of years trying to bring out his potential and it just wasn't happening for reasons unknown. Maybe.

Potential is a funny thing, its certainly no guarantee of success. Some people reach their potential. some people don't....


And some don't have any! Potential is something that is obvious, but that somehow doesn't translate into results. Think Schleck, Ulrich, Zulle, Tejay van Gerderen, mini Phinney, countless sprinters, Hincapie at Roubaix, etc, etc. Froome was a serious nobody with no potential.

John Swanson


No potential?? Seriously?

I think that's going a bit far. No scratch that, its a ridiculous statement.

You don't reach the WT with 'no' potential. No amount of chemical assistance can bridge that gap.

Don't get me wrong, im not necessarily suggesting he ever showed or even had the potential to go on and achieve what he has since without some 'assistance' along the way, but claiming he had 'no' potential is just silly.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 13:21

brownbobby wrote:No potential?? Seriously?

I think that's going a bit far. No scratch that, its a ridiculous statement.

You don't reach the WT with 'no' potential. No amount of chemical assistance can bridge that gap.

Don't get me wrong, im not necessarily suggesting he ever showed or even had the potential to go on and achieve what he has since without some 'assistance' along the way, but claiming he had 'no' potential is just silly.


So what you're saying is that everyone on a WT team has "potential". Potential for what? For most, reaching the WT was the fulfillment of their potential. I think a better term would be minimum level of talent. Everyone at the WT has the minimum required level of talent. And that described Froome. Until he inexplicably started winning GTs. Before that he had no potential beyond what he had already achieved.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 13:51

brownbobby wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
Because they'd spent a couple of years trying to bring out his potential and it just wasn't happening for reasons unknown. Maybe.

Potential is a funny thing, its certainly no guarantee of success. Some people reach their potential. some people don't....


And some don't have any! Potential is something that is obvious, but that somehow doesn't translate into results. Think Schleck, Ulrich, Zulle, Tejay van Gerderen, mini Phinney, countless sprinters, Hincapie at Roubaix, etc, etc. Froome was a serious nobody with no potential.

John Swanson


No potential?? Seriously?

I think that's going a bit far. No scratch that, its a ridiculous statement.

You don't reach the WT with 'no' potential. No amount of chemical assistance can bridge that gap.

Don't get me wrong, im not necessarily suggesting he ever showed or even had the potential to go on and achieve what he has since without some 'assistance' along the way, but claiming he had 'no' potential is just silly.


the use of 'potential' is using the WT as a base...not an end point
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,502
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 13:53

brownbobby wrote:
heart_attack_man wrote:
Parker wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

And Kelly didn't get on the podium of a monument until he was 27

Roglic spent three years riding at Continental level before turning pro.

Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica


If Froome's progress was so astronomical, why were Sky going to de-list him?


Because they'd spent a couple of years trying to bring out his potential and it just wasn't happening for reasons unknown. Maybe.

Potential is a funny thing, its certainly no guarantee of success. Some people reach their potential. some people don't....


the scientists at GSK and non-psuedo scientist and contributor to this forum know exactly why he didn't reach his potential

he "just lost the fat"

so, SKY spent two years unsuccessfully trying to get him to lose weight????? :lol:
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,502
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 15:54

Parker wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
That Graph is fabulous. Cant see it enough. Wigan's doesn't even make top 5 of their predictions either and Froome, jeepers, that is embarrassing to place no higher achievement then pro conti podium..... :lol:

I hope Froome has that framed in his house.

It doesn't show predictions. It shows actual performances from 2010.


You are deluding yourself if you believe Froome didn't jump out of the ground at the 2011 Vuelta - This is the same rider who had no contract for 2012 and was being hawked around to other teams with little or no interest - How and why he 'jumped out of the ground' is another discussion point.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,506
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

16 Nov 2017 16:41

ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:No potential?? Seriously?

I think that's going a bit far. No scratch that, its a ridiculous statement.

You don't reach the WT with 'no' potential. No amount of chemical assistance can bridge that gap.

Don't get me wrong, im not necessarily suggesting he ever showed or even had the potential to go on and achieve what he has since without some 'assistance' along the way, but claiming he had 'no' potential is just silly.


So what you're saying is that everyone on a WT team has "potential". Potential for what? For most, reaching the WT was the fulfillment of their potential. I think a better term would be minimum level of talent. Everyone at the WT has the minimum required level of talent. And that described Froome. Until he inexplicably started winning GTs. Before that he had no potential beyond what he had already achieved.

John Swanson


Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.

I was responding to your direct, unqualified statement of 'no potential'. I can come closer to agreeing with your revised term 'minimum level of talent'.

No talent refers to someone like me, with a Vo2 max in the low 70's i had 'no' potential of ever getting anywhere near the WT. No amount of doping would ever bridge the gulf between my natural talent and that needed to even just survive in the WT.

My point was this, people who make it to WT level certainly have potential as a cyclist. With a VO2 max in the mid 80's Froome certainly had potential. The potential that put him within a range where with the right development, and the right response to a doping programme, he could become one of the worlds best cyclists.

Note that i still believe, on the balance of probability, that he was a particularly high responder to some form of doping in order to make the jump to where he has eventually ended up. I don't believe and have never said that he showed the potential to become what he has become naturally.

I guess we're perhaps arguing the same point, i'm just less scathing about his natural talent, or lack thereof.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

17 Nov 2017 00:57

brownbobby wrote:Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.


Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Re:

17 Nov 2017 02:16

ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:No potential?? Seriously?

I think that's going a bit far. No scratch that, its a ridiculous statement.

You don't reach the WT with 'no' potential. No amount of chemical assistance can bridge that gap.

Don't get me wrong, im not necessarily suggesting he ever showed or even had the potential to go on and achieve what he has since without some 'assistance' along the way, but claiming he had 'no' potential is just silly.


So what you're saying is that everyone on a WT team has "potential". Potential for what? For most, reaching the WT was the fulfillment of their potential. I think a better term would be minimum level of talent. Everyone at the WT has the minimum required level of talent. And that described Froome. Until he inexplicably started winning GTs. Before that he had no potential beyond what he had already achieved.

John Swanson

This ^^^

To get to the WT you have to be a seriously good rider. I have raced against active WT pros and even against most Pro Conti riders they can just about do whatever they want, and I only raced against them over the summer when they’re coming out of the off season.

I’ve seen Jay McCarthy bridge a 20sec gap to a 5 man break of 2 Drapac riders and 3 strong Conti/NRS guys in a couple of minutes, riding an entire peloton off the wheel in the process, barely breaking a sweat - in November! He just rode them down and went straight to the front of the group like it was another interval.

Just getting to the WT places you in the top 2-3 percent...
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,940
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

17 Nov 2017 02:47

Let's just say: "potential to win GT's."

How many young pros now have this expectation/burden thrust upon them? A very select few. And they are all unequivocally seen/watched through the ranks before even turning pro. Of those select few, most do not fulfill this potential.

Froome - like the vast majority of WT riders - had precisely zero potential to win a GT before 2011. He was nowhere near that select few who have that expectation/burden/paycheck thrust upon them.

And that is why there is 1200+ pages on this thread.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 856
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Re:

17 Nov 2017 08:20

The Hegelian wrote:Let's just say: "potential to win GT's."

How many young pros now have this expectation/burden thrust upon them? A very select few. And they are all unequivocally seen/watched through the ranks before even turning pro. Of those select few, most do not fulfill this potential.

Froome - like the vast majority of WT riders - had precisely zero potential to win a GT before 2011. He was nowhere near that select few who have that expectation/burden/paycheck thrust upon them.

And that is why there is 1200+ pages on this thread.


well summarised
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,502
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

17 Nov 2017 08:32

ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.


Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson


OK, as you wish lets use your friend Google as the Arbiter here:

"having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future"

So using the terminology which you yourself borrowed from Google, we can probably agree that he never showed the potential to become a multiple GT winner, but what we now know without doubt, is that Chris Froome has won 4 Tours and 1 Vuelta. The act of someone achieving something by default proves that the potential to achieve was there. Therefore what we also now know without doubt is that Chris Froome did always have the potential to win a GT.

So i stand by my original refutal of your statement that Froome had no potential

Of course the above is really just bickering over terminology; the golden question, the one which has generated 1256 pages and rising on this thread, is to what means and length did he resort to fulfil this potential.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

17 Nov 2017 09:13

brownbobby wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.


Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson


OK, as you wish lets use your friend Google as the Arbiter here:

"having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future"

So using the terminology which you yourself borrowed from Google, we can probably agree that he never showed the potential to become a multiple GT winner, but what we now know without doubt, is that Chris Froome has won 4 Tours and 1 Vuelta. The act of someone achieving something by default proves that the potential to achieve was there. Therefore what we also now know without doubt is that Chris Froome did always have the potential to win a GT.

So i stand by my original refutal of your statement that Froome had no potential

Of course the above is really just bickering over terminology; the golden question, the one which has generated 1256 pages and rising on this thread, is to what means and length did he resort to fulfil this potential.


you're confusing google with language

the important part is 'future'....you're applying in retrospect to our hapless hero....
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,502
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

17 Nov 2017 09:47

gillan1969 wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.


Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson


OK, as you wish lets use your friend Google as the Arbiter here:

"having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future"

So using the terminology which you yourself borrowed from Google, we can probably agree that he never showed the potential to become a multiple GT winner, but what we now know without doubt, is that Chris Froome has won 4 Tours and 1 Vuelta. The act of someone achieving something by default proves that the potential to achieve was there. Therefore what we also now know without doubt is that Chris Froome did always have the potential to win a GT.

So i stand by my original refutal of your statement that Froome had no potential

Of course the above is really just bickering over terminology; the golden question, the one which has generated 1256 pages and rising on this thread, is to what means and length did he resort to fulfil this potential.


you're confusing google with language

the important part is 'future'....you're applying in retrospect to our hapless hero....


Google wasnt my choice, but it was used by others to try and illustrate a point. I'm not confused but maybe i'm confusing others :lol:

The original debate was around a statement of no potential, which in the context of what we now know was a historical assumption, not a future forecast. Retrospect is the only absolute proof or disproof of historical assumptions. Therefore retrospect is being correctly and justifiably applied here.

This is becoming a circular argument with no likelihood of any meaningful conclusion.

Shall we move on :Neutral:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

17 Nov 2017 10:11

brownbobby wrote:
gillan1969 wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
ScienceIsCool wrote:
brownbobby wrote:Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.


Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson


OK, as you wish lets use your friend Google as the Arbiter here:

"having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future"

So using the terminology which you yourself borrowed from Google, we can probably agree that he never showed the potential to become a multiple GT winner, but what we now know without doubt, is that Chris Froome has won 4 Tours and 1 Vuelta. The act of someone achieving something by default proves that the potential to achieve was there. Therefore what we also now know without doubt is that Chris Froome did always have the potential to win a GT.

So i stand by my original refutal of your statement that Froome had no potential

Of course the above is really just bickering over terminology; the golden question, the one which has generated 1256 pages and rising on this thread, is to what means and length did he resort to fulfil this potential.


you're confusing google with language

the important part is 'future'....you're applying in retrospect to our hapless hero....


Google wasnt my choice, but it was used by others to try and illustrate a point. I'm not confused but maybe i'm confusing others :lol:

The original debate was around a statement of no potential, which in the context of what we now know was a historical assumption, not a future forecast. Retrospect is the only absolute proof or disproof of historical assumptions. Therefore retrospect is being correctly and justifiably applied here.

This is becoming a circular argument with no likelihood of any meaningful conclusion.

Shall we move on :Neutral:


we could :) ...but for some of us time has indeed stood still...because we lived with (or actually more descriptively without, so absent was he from results) the froome with no potential...indeed i have lived with him since 2006 when he raced against my mtb peers at the commie games (again, funnily enough, showing no potential - think he got lapped :surprised: ).....no bell curve for our hapless hero...quite literally from zero to hero.........
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,502
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], burning and 17 guests

Back to top
cron