You quoted my argument, and don't try to twist it into 'i'm right, you're wrong' argument. If you want to continue sounding like a broken record, and say Froome was fatigued, what a poor thing, and so on, fine. Last time I check, Froome was a pro road cyclist. If you want to play naïve, fine, it's up to you. Next question?
And I have already proven those arguments wrong, yet you completely ignore my arguments.
According to your logic: Froome placed 2nd at the Tour while working for Wiggins but didn't use too much energy in doing so. He than went to the Vuleta where he placed 4th, 10 minutes back. How does a rider that is able to place 2nd at the tour with minimal efforts then place 10 minutes back in the Vuleta? I guess you could say Contador, Purito, and Valverde were just stronger than he was, but wait, Froome beat Valverde at the tour by 40 minutes. So much for that argument.
Here's what actually happened: Froome placed 2nd at the tour while working for Wiggins. He then went to the Vuelta as leader and was one of the big favorites to win it. It started off good with Froome hanging in there with the other contenders then it got worse and worse. And Froome lost more and more time. Eventually he fell out of contention and we didn't see him at any key moments in the race. What happened was, while placing 2nd at the tour while working for Wiggins he used too much energy. And as they got further into the Vuelta and the racing got harder his form declined. He showed a clear trend of downward moving form and fatigue.
And the reason I keep saying he was fatigued is because this isn't that complicated. There really isn't that much too it, for everybody but you this isn't even an issue.