Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1250 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I just watched this - Sunweb vid of TD in the last few stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLcZkrykEtI&feature=youtu.be

Think it's very relevant to what Froome (& Sky) did. Because Dumoulin was clearly spent - he seems basically not that confident of even riding defensively. Add that to Yates' massive implosion. And Pinot riding to the point of exhaustion. Everyone is basically completely hammered - kind of a universal level of tiredness which you might expect for week 3 of a super hard Giro.

But Froome is not only immune from this universal tiredness, he actually gets a lot better. So do Sky. To the extent that they can do whatever they will at exactly the point where there is everything to play for. I'm with Phillipa York on this point: it's b/s that they all just suddenly rode into good form.
Thanks for this, good video and fully agree with your summary and observations. I did like Dumoulin’s joke to his team to crank it out at 450-500w which would actually be normal for Sky.
 
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I just watched this - Sunweb vid of TD in the last few stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLcZkrykEtI&feature=youtu.be

Think it's very relevant to what Froome (& Sky) did. Because Dumoulin was clearly spent - he seems basically not that confident of even riding defensively. Add that to Yates' massive implosion. And Pinot riding to the point of exhaustion. Everyone is basically completely hammered - kind of a universal level of tiredness which you might expect for week 3 of a super hard Giro.

But Froome is not only immune from this universal tiredness, he actually gets a lot better. So do Sky. To the extent that they can do whatever they will at exactly the point where there is everything to play for. I'm with Phillipa York on this point: it's b/s that they all just suddenly rode into good form.
subweb and orica comfortably outdoing both sky and froome induvidually is not what most people could predict before the giro. notwithstanding it was happening until stage 19. it's pretty obvious sky could drill it much harder earlier in the race, but froome didn't have the power to finish it off. froome is the only guy with unbelievable uptick of form in stages 19&20, meanwhile I reckon their team effort quite plausible. elissonde was preparing specifically for the giro and that 1km catapulting pull on finestre, henao was being very very average throughout the whole giro, poels delivered a few solid stages but dissolved in others, de la cruz did nothing apart from finestre to be remembered as well. the general level of sky helpers was considerably higher than other teams had, so what they ultimately managed to explode the race once shouldn't amaze way too much. but froome going a 80 km solo is a completely different question...
 
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I just watched this - Sunweb vid of TD in the last few stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLcZkrykEtI&feature=youtu.be

Think it's very relevant to what Froome (& Sky) did. Because Dumoulin was clearly spent - he seems basically not that confident of even riding defensively. Add that to Yates' massive implosion. And Pinot riding to the point of exhaustion. Everyone is basically completely hammered - kind of a universal level of tiredness which you might expect for week 3 of a super hard Giro.

But Froome is not only immune from this universal tiredness, he actually gets a lot better. So do Sky. To the extent that they can do whatever they will at exactly the point where there is everything to play for. I'm with Phillipa York on this point: it's b/s that they all just suddenly rode into good form.
When they say 'riding into form', aren't they referring more to losing weight than improving power throughout the race? Looking at photos of Froome, he looks pretty clearly above his usual race weight in the first week, but back to how we are used to seeing him look in the third week.

Assuming everyone is losing some power throughout the race, then losing a bit of weight at the same time, would allow you to maintain or maybe even increase w/kg at threshold, while everyone elses is decreasing.

How that weight loss was achieved without power loss, is of course open to debate, but 'riding into form' in the third week is not a bs theory, if it is talking about maintaining or improving w/kg rather than absolute power at threshold.
 
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
The Hegelian said:
I just watched this - Sunweb vid of TD in the last few stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLcZkrykEtI&feature=youtu.be

Think it's very relevant to what Froome (& Sky) did. Because Dumoulin was clearly spent - he seems basically not that confident of even riding defensively. Add that to Yates' massive implosion. And Pinot riding to the point of exhaustion. Everyone is basically completely hammered - kind of a universal level of tiredness which you might expect for week 3 of a super hard Giro.

But Froome is not only immune from this universal tiredness, he actually gets a lot better. So do Sky. To the extent that they can do whatever they will at exactly the point where there is everything to play for. I'm with Phillipa York on this point: it's b/s that they all just suddenly rode into good form.
subweb and orica comfortably outdoing both sky and froome induvidually is not what most people could predict before the giro. notwithstanding it was happening until stage 19. it's pretty obvious sky could drill it much harder earlier in the race, but froome didn't have the power to finish it off. froome is the only guy with unbelievable uptick of form in stages 19&20, meanwhile I reckon their team effort quite plausible. elissonde was preparing specifically for the giro and that 1km catapulting pull on finestre, henao was being very very average throughout the whole giro, poels delivered a few solid stages but dissolved in others, de la cruz did nothing apart from finestre to be remembered as well. the general level of sky helpers was considerably higher than other teams had, so what they ultimately managed to explode the race once shouldn't amaze way too much. but froome going a 80 km solo is a completely different question...
I think Brailsford said that it was Elissonde's best ever ride for Sky, but I take your point about their collective horsepower, at least in relation to Sunweb. Michelton are a different kettle of fish these days - their climbing stocks were just about on par with Sky in the Giro, if not a little better.

But you know, the big point is about tiredness ~ and how it can be that Sky had everything just at the point where everyone else had nothing.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
The Hegelian said:
I just watched this - Sunweb vid of TD in the last few stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLcZkrykEtI&feature=youtu.be

Think it's very relevant to what Froome (& Sky) did. Because Dumoulin was clearly spent - he seems basically not that confident of even riding defensively. Add that to Yates' massive implosion. And Pinot riding to the point of exhaustion. Everyone is basically completely hammered - kind of a universal level of tiredness which you might expect for week 3 of a super hard Giro.

But Froome is not only immune from this universal tiredness, he actually gets a lot better. So do Sky. To the extent that they can do whatever they will at exactly the point where there is everything to play for. I'm with Phillipa York on this point: it's b/s that they all just suddenly rode into good form.
When they say 'riding into form', aren't they referring more to losing weight than improving power throughout the race? Looking at photos of Froome, he looks pretty clearly above his usual race weight in the first week, but back to how we are used to seeing him look in the third week.

Assuming everyone is losing some power throughout the race, then losing a bit of weight at the same time, would allow you to maintain or maybe even increase w/kg at threshold, while everyone elses is decreasing.

How that weight loss was achieved without power loss, is of course open to debate, but 'riding into form' in the third week is not a bs theory, if it is talking about maintaining or improving w/kg rather than absolute power at threshold.
But why does this only happen to Froome? And not TD? i.e. why does everyone apart from Froome experience a decrease in w/kg threshold? They're all riding the same parcours, all managing their nutrition etc. Dumoulin takes desserts and Froome doesn't?

Frankly, if you're in Italy it's probably better to take second if it means you get your share of tiramisu. Dumoulin will be happier in the long run. Maybe he'll eventually get his just deserts too.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
The Hegelian said:
I just watched this - Sunweb vid of TD in the last few stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLcZkrykEtI&feature=youtu.be

Think it's very relevant to what Froome (& Sky) did. Because Dumoulin was clearly spent - he seems basically not that confident of even riding defensively. Add that to Yates' massive implosion. And Pinot riding to the point of exhaustion. Everyone is basically completely hammered - kind of a universal level of tiredness which you might expect for week 3 of a super hard Giro.

But Froome is not only immune from this universal tiredness, he actually gets a lot better. So do Sky. To the extent that they can do whatever they will at exactly the point where there is everything to play for. I'm with Phillipa York on this point: it's b/s that they all just suddenly rode into good form.
When they say 'riding into form', aren't they referring more to losing weight than improving power throughout the race? Looking at photos of Froome, he looks pretty clearly above his usual race weight in the first week, but back to how we are used to seeing him look in the third week.

Assuming everyone is losing some power throughout the race, then losing a bit of weight at the same time, would allow you to maintain or maybe even increase w/kg at threshold, while everyone elses is decreasing.

How that weight loss was achieved without power loss, is of course open to debate, but 'riding into form' in the third week is not a bs theory, if it is talking about maintaining or improving w/kg rather than absolute power at threshold.
Did you even read what she wrote???
 
Sep 20, 2009
263
0
9,030
Having not commented for a number of years what I want to know what is he on? Is he the outlier who responds well to an asthma medication? Note that i think you should not be allowed to take asthma medication to compete in normal events and you have the para olympics for handicapped persons. Why has no one but Froome had a massive increase in results?
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
DFA123 said:
The Hegelian said:
I just watched this - Sunweb vid of TD in the last few stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLcZkrykEtI&feature=youtu.be

Think it's very relevant to what Froome (& Sky) did. Because Dumoulin was clearly spent - he seems basically not that confident of even riding defensively. Add that to Yates' massive implosion. And Pinot riding to the point of exhaustion. Everyone is basically completely hammered - kind of a universal level of tiredness which you might expect for week 3 of a super hard Giro.

But Froome is not only immune from this universal tiredness, he actually gets a lot better. So do Sky. To the extent that they can do whatever they will at exactly the point where there is everything to play for. I'm with Phillipa York on this point: it's b/s that they all just suddenly rode into good form.
When they say 'riding into form', aren't they referring more to losing weight than improving power throughout the race? Looking at photos of Froome, he looks pretty clearly above his usual race weight in the first week, but back to how we are used to seeing him look in the third week.

Assuming everyone is losing some power throughout the race, then losing a bit of weight at the same time, would allow you to maintain or maybe even increase w/kg at threshold, while everyone elses is decreasing.

How that weight loss was achieved without power loss, is of course open to debate, but 'riding into form' in the third week is not a bs theory, if it is talking about maintaining or improving w/kg rather than absolute power at threshold.
But why does this only happen to Froome? And not TD? i.e. why does everyone apart from Froome experience a decrease in w/kg threshold? They're all riding the same parcours, all managing their nutrition etc. Dumoulin takes desserts and Froome doesn't?

Frankly, if you're in Italy it's probably better to take second if it means you get your share of tiramisu. Dumoulin will be happier in the long run. Maybe he'll eventually get his just deserts too.
Sure, I'm not specifically defending Froome. Just that I've seen a few times people mentioning that it's not possible to deliberately peak for the third week of GT. Which isn't really true. In terms of absolute power it may be the case, but in terms of w/kg, you can definitely peak in the third week if you start the race 'heavy'. And I find quite an interesting strategic decision whether to come in to the race in peak condition (Yates/Armstrong) or aim to be at peak weight later in the race (Froome/Ullrich) - there are advantages and disadvantages to each strategy.

The advantages to not starting the race in prime condition, things like: stronger immune system, less long term stress on the body, in theory quicker recovery because you can better control stress hormones and things that influence fat and glycogen storage like cortisol, leptin, insulin etc... On the other hand, you have to work harder to keep up with rivals on the climb in the first week or so, which can compromise recovery to an extent and lead you have to play catch up later in the race, so it's a risky game. But then, you are less likely to blow up Yates/Pinot style and have a really bad day, because you are limiting the amount of time your body is in such an extreme, catabolic state. So it is a legitimate strategy to pursue, but I guess you have to be really confident that you will become better than your rivals to give them a few minutes headstart and all the psychological implications that has.

And if Froome started the race, for example, 2kg above prime race weight and finished at his peak race weight, then it standards to reason that he would improve relative to riders who started the race at prime weight and finished the same. Crashes were the other complicating factor for Froome which could have seen a relative improvement in the third week, but that's impossible to quantify or speculate on really, because we have no idea how much they did or didn't affect him.
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
DFA123 said:
The Hegelian said:
I just watched this - Sunweb vid of TD in the last few stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLcZkrykEtI&feature=youtu.be

Think it's very relevant to what Froome (& Sky) did. Because Dumoulin was clearly spent - he seems basically not that confident of even riding defensively. Add that to Yates' massive implosion. And Pinot riding to the point of exhaustion. Everyone is basically completely hammered - kind of a universal level of tiredness which you might expect for week 3 of a super hard Giro.

But Froome is not only immune from this universal tiredness, he actually gets a lot better. So do Sky. To the extent that they can do whatever they will at exactly the point where there is everything to play for. I'm with Phillipa York on this point: it's b/s that they all just suddenly rode into good form.
When they say 'riding into form', aren't they referring more to losing weight than improving power throughout the race? Looking at photos of Froome, he looks pretty clearly above his usual race weight in the first week, but back to how we are used to seeing him look in the third week.

Assuming everyone is losing some power throughout the race, then losing a bit of weight at the same time, would allow you to maintain or maybe even increase w/kg at threshold, while everyone elses is decreasing.

How that weight loss was achieved without power loss, is of course open to debate, but 'riding into form' in the third week is not a bs theory, if it is talking about maintaining or improving w/kg rather than absolute power at threshold.
Did you even read what she wrote???
Yes, I thought it was a poor article. It took a word uttered by one of the least articulate men ever to appeared on TV and turned it into a 1000 word article rehashing all of the same old rap sheet against Sky.

And, imo, it is misplaced to say that 'you don't ride yourself into form in a three week race'. Because there is no evidence that Froome was ever in bad form. He was never dropped hard, he only lost small amounts of time and was slightly away from his peak - something which could easily be explained by being 1-2kg heavier at the start than he was in the third week. Which, whether correct or not in this case, is a very valid line of questioning that the writer completely failed to consider.

Again, none of this is to say that I think Froome is riding clean. Far from it, but completely dismissing any alternative explanations for the improvement is just a horrible way to reach conclusions.
 
any explanations why froome won the giro are somehow or other are caused by doping. long ago, all debates reached the line where froome can do nothing normally.even the 2017 tour, taken quite marginally with a minimal advantage wasn't the way it's gotta be. any result from froome, whatever he finishes 1st, 10th or 100th can be explained by doping alone.

:D
 
dacooley said:
any explanations why froome won the giro are somehow or other are caused by doping. long ago, all debates reached the line where froome can do nothing normally.even the 2017 tour, taken quite marginally with a minimal advantage wasn't the way it's gotta be. any result from froome, whatever he finishes 1st, 10th or 100th can be explained by doping alone.

:D
So it seems :) And I kind of understand it, because he is the lightning rod for this generation - the Armstrong of the 2010s. And he had the infamous 2011 transformation, and Sky are such a shifty team in general. But I feel that when other possibilities are immediately dismissed out of hand, despite having some legitimacy, then it stops being a debate and becomes a witchunt. Hegel would not approve. ;)
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
veganrob said:
DFA123 said:
The Hegelian said:
I just watched this - Sunweb vid of TD in the last few stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLcZkrykEtI&feature=youtu.be

Think it's very relevant to what Froome (& Sky) did. Because Dumoulin was clearly spent - he seems basically not that confident of even riding defensively. Add that to Yates' massive implosion. And Pinot riding to the point of exhaustion. Everyone is basically completely hammered - kind of a universal level of tiredness which you might expect for week 3 of a super hard Giro.

But Froome is not only immune from this universal tiredness, he actually gets a lot better. So do Sky. To the extent that they can do whatever they will at exactly the point where there is everything to play for. I'm with Phillipa York on this point: it's b/s that they all just suddenly rode into good form.
When they say 'riding into form', aren't they referring more to losing weight than improving power throughout the race? Looking at photos of Froome, he looks pretty clearly above his usual race weight in the first week, but back to how we are used to seeing him look in the third week.

Assuming everyone is losing some power throughout the race, then losing a bit of weight at the same time, would allow you to maintain or maybe even increase w/kg at threshold, while everyone elses is decreasing.

How that weight loss was achieved without power loss, is of course open to debate, but 'riding into form' in the third week is not a bs theory, if it is talking about maintaining or improving w/kg rather than absolute power at threshold.
Did you even read what she wrote???
Yes, I thought it was a poor article. It took a word uttered by one of the least articulate men ever to appeared on TV and turned it into a 1000 word article rehashing all of the same old rap sheet against Sky.

And, imo, it is misplaced to say that 'you don't ride yourself into form in a three week race'. Because there is no evidence that Froome was ever in bad form. He was never dropped hard, he only lost small amounts of time and was slightly away from his peak - something which could easily be explained by being 1-2kg heavier at the start than he was in the third week. Which, whether correct or not in this case, is a very valid line of questioning that the writer completely failed to consider.

Again, none of this is to say that I think Froome is riding clean. Far from it, but completely dismissing any alternative explanations for the improvement is just a horrible way to reach conclusions.
Did you even watch the Giro :confused:
 
DFA123 said:
dacooley said:
any explanations why froome won the giro are somehow or other are caused by doping. long ago, all debates reached the line where froome can do nothing normally.even the 2017 tour, taken quite marginally with a minimal advantage wasn't the way it's gotta be. any result from froome, whatever he finishes 1st, 10th or 100th can be explained by doping alone.

:D
So it seems :) And I kind of understand it, because he is the lightning rod for this generation - the Armstrong of the 2010s. And he had the infamous 2011 transformation, and Sky are such a shifty team in general. But I feel that when other possibilities are immediately dismissed out of hand, despite having some legitimacy, then it stops being a debate and becomes a witchunt. Hegel would not approve. ;)
completely agree. his lightning-like transformation gave rise to that many entertaining speculations. labaratorian rat such as froome might've been easily grown out of any pro tour level rider. only imagine what god on a bike any truly talented gc rider would've been, providing he had come to sky. whoever could have won the tour in froome's shoes because the only thing you need is sitting on wheels and gently pedalling. while reading the thread, i often feel like froome even doesn't need to train. doping products give him such an overwhelming advantage that it's pretty much enough to appear at a start line of gt and save himself from the crashes. A race hasn't even started, but a win is already almost in the bag.
 
Froome's current cq score of 3498 (2 shy of 3500, awww) is surely the highest EVER? I remember Gilbert doing like 3200 prior to Lombardia 2011 and that was the highest then.

But hey remember back in 2013 when the line was that Sky only win because they always get lucky with the competition?
 
DFA123 said:
dacooley said:
any explanations why froome won the giro are somehow or other are caused by doping. long ago, all debates reached the line where froome can do nothing normally.even the 2017 tour, taken quite marginally with a minimal advantage wasn't the way it's gotta be. any result from froome, whatever he finishes 1st, 10th or 100th can be explained by doping alone.

:D
So it seems :) And I kind of understand it, because he is the lightning rod for this generation - the Armstrong of the 2010s. And he had the infamous 2011 transformation, and Sky are such a shifty team in general. But I feel that when other possibilities are immediately dismissed out of hand, despite having some legitimacy, then it stops being a debate and becomes a witchunt. Hegel would not approve. ;)

lol. "other possibilities?"

In what is pretty much considered the dirtiest sport in the world, where every champion doped, Froome has maybe surpassed even all the others (going back to the start of the EPO era easily) winning 3 gts in a row and dominating the Tour for years, putting out higher outputs than the doped riders but on an even more consistant basis.
Having been a nobody for the first half of his career, and being a serial liar.

There are no other possibilities than cheating. There may be variables as to why he wins a Tour by 5 mins and not 4.50 but thats it.
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
Froome's current cq score of 3498 (2 shy of 3500, awww) is surely the highest EVER? I remember Gilbert doing like 3200 prior to Lombardia 2011 and that was the highest then.

But hey remember back in 2013 when the line was that Sky only win because they always get lucky with the competition?
that's what they were really calling a primary reason why the tour and other big races were won? did to relate to 2012 or 2013 season?

In what is pretty much considered the dirtiest sport in the world, where every champion doped, Froome has maybe surpassed even all the others (going back to the start of the EPO era easily) winning 3 gts in a row and dominating the Tour for years
it's not quite correct, even doped froome has never been climbing at the level of the start of EPO era. somewhere he's on par with peak armstrong on climbs like mont ventoux / bonascre at best. pantani smashing alpe d'huez is the level froome is far off.
 
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
The Hitch said:
In what is pretty much considered the dirtiest sport in the world, where every champion doped, Froome has maybe surpassed even all the others (going back to the start of the EPO era easily) winning 3 gts in a row and dominating the Tour for years
it's not quite correct, even doped froome has never been climbing at the level of the start of EPO era. somewhere he's on par with peak armstrong on climbs like mont ventoux / bonascre at best. pantani smashing alpe d'huez is the level froome is far off.
Wait till he loses another 8 kg so that he weighs what Pantani weighed
 
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
The Hitch said:
Froome's current cq score of 3498 (2 shy of 3500, awww) is surely the highest EVER? I remember Gilbert doing like 3200 prior to Lombardia 2011 and that was the highest then.

But hey remember back in 2013 when the line was that Sky only win because they always get lucky with the competition?
that's what they were really calling a primary reason why the tour and other big races were won? did to relate to 2012 or 2013 season?

In what is pretty much considered the dirtiest sport in the world, where every champion doped, Froome has maybe surpassed even all the others (going back to the start of the EPO era easily) winning 3 gts in a row and dominating the Tour for years
it's not quite correct, even doped froome has never been climbing at the level of the start of EPO era. somewhere he's on par with peak armstrong on climbs like mont ventoux / bonascre at best. pantani smashing alpe d'huez is the level froome is far off.
Huh?

"Never been climbing at the level of the start of EPO"

You mean like 1 or 2 riders over the decade?

The whole Sky "cycling is clean now" lie is based entirely on the sleight of hand of acting like only the top riders ever doped. The guys who came 3rd and 4th and 5th doped. Froome rides faster. And more consistantly. Than the worlds greatest riders who were on unreal drugs.

Must be natural :cool:
 
The Hitch said:
lol. "other possibilities?"

In what is pretty much considered the dirtiest sport in the world, where every champion doped, Froome has maybe surpassed even all the others (going back to the start of the EPO era easily) winning 3 gts in a row and dominating the Tour for years, putting out higher outputs than the doped riders but on an even more consistant basis.
Having been a nobody for the first half of his career, and being a serial liar.

There are no other possibilities than cheating. There may be variables as to why he wins a Tour by 5 mins and not 4.50 but thats it.
But, but...... I've just been told

"the world cup will have more drugs than the Tour de France has seen in its 120 year history."

Is that person wrong???? :D
 
The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.
 
wansteadimp said:
The Hitch said:
lol. "other possibilities?"

In what is pretty much considered the dirtiest sport in the world, where every champion doped, Froome has maybe surpassed even all the others (going back to the start of the EPO era easily) winning 3 gts in a row and dominating the Tour for years, putting out higher outputs than the doped riders but on an even more consistant basis.
Having been a nobody for the first half of his career, and being a serial liar.

There are no other possibilities than cheating. There may be variables as to why he wins a Tour by 5 mins and not 4.50 but thats it.
But, but...... I've just been told

"the world cup will have more drugs than the Tour de France has seen in its 120 year history."

Is that person wrong???? :D
"it is considered"

I don't think it is. But that's because unlike the 10 people who still believe froome might have been clean, I've read a little about doping.

But around the world, mention doping to anyone and the sport they'll always mention is cycling.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS