Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[the big ring]

I think people make a mistake when they point to wattages of entire climbs. The argument has been made that the power levels are down, so the Tour must be clean. They point to times on climbs and power derived from those times. But road racing is not a time trial. Rogers and Porte do not have to ride a 450W tempo for an entire climb. They only need to discourage people from attacking. That can be done by riding a stiff pace and easily reeling in anyone who attacks. It only takes a few times to convince the other teams that attacking is useless. The best they can do is stay with the group and hope the situation changes during another stage.

I don't agree with the assertion that Sky was not very good, everyone else sucked.

Are you writing this in reply to my post? Or the assertion in general. I think the power values had er value in that they set the tone for the tour - namely:

Sky: when we ride (or say we are riding) at the maximum plausible clean power on the climbs, by default, noone can sustain an attack as as they will automatically look implausible / doped.

Personally I think Sky rocked the tour this year, and rode within themselves (except Froome) at all times on the climbs, where accurate enough estimations of power can be determined. When it came to the TT, they were able to open the throttle and pummel people with impunity, because it's much harder to reliably calculate power output and point out abnormal performances.

 

[the big ring]

Do more people think he looks awful on his bicycle ? That man is no cyclist, I'm sorry.

Not a fan of him at all.

I watched a guy with one leg ride up a bloody steep hill one day - that was the epitome of looking awful on the bike, but I was damn impressed.

I don't care what someone looks like on the bike anywhere near as much as whether it was an honest, clean effort.

 

[will10]

Yes but there weren't many big mountain stages this year, and I believe the other main GC teams (liquigas and BMC primarily) were particularly weak. If someone had made Sky hurt on the climbs they may have struggled the next day cracks would have opened up. Without any concerted pressure, they were allowed to ride within themselves for too much of the time. Cav's shifts on the front did show how he had improved that area of his riding but maybe also underlined the lack of potency in this years peloton.

We had this line of thinking during the Tour. Porte and Rogers' climbing was superior to anything we have seen from them before. People kept saying Liquigas or BMC should blow it up to try to isolate Wiggins. That's not going to work when Porte and Rogers are climbing better than all but five of the best GC guys. So you destroy the peloton until there's only ten guys left. There are still four Sky riders. What then?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

One of my good friends is friends with Chris Froome and his brother, it might not count for much but he is known as a totally straight-up and genuine guy. I would be completely shocked if he doped.

People on this forum have met or known Isidro Nozal (who came similarly out of nowhere to nearly win the 2003 Vuelta, leading from stage 4 to the penultimate day), Patrik Sinkewitz (who has a pretty good - and much more consistent than Froome's - palmarès mostly in hilly Classics and short stage races) and Tyler Hamilton (who has top 5ed the Tour, won Olympic gold medals and a variety of TTs and short stage races of high prestige). They were - and likely still are - lovely guys, and people come back with nothing but nice things to say about them.

All three of them have been caught doping. Twice. (Nozal 50%+ in 2005, EPO in 2009; Sinkewitz for testo in 2007 and HGH in 2011; Hamilton for homologous blood transfusions in 2004 and for DHEA in 2009)

Fair point, I don't know much about wattages. I don't think it was lack of effort from the other teams, especially in Cadels case, more that the other teams were less prepared and conditioned than Sky. Some of Sky's riders are not that good (or haven't been in the past) which I can see invites doping talk but they definitely got the past out of them and had their approach down pat in PN, let alone Romandie and the Dauphine. When did BMC or Liqugas have a proper go at a stage race, with their tour leader, before the it started? did Cadel want the Dauphine GC?

The problem is, at what point do we accept that the other teams are just inferior? After all, when Sky were bossing early season stage races it was all "everybody's preparing for the Tour". And then we got to the Tour and everybody was still in preparation mode? Sky just walloped everybody all season without a step out of place, and every single other team completely flunked their prep? If it was a couple of leaders getting it wrong I'd say ok, but it was everybody.

Or another way: Wiggins' 2012 on CQ is now almost 4 times what he managed in 2009, more than double what he managed in 2011, and is now higher than any numbers Alberto Contador, Cadel Evans or Alejandro Valverde have ever put out - and between those guys they've won the CQ Ranking of the year three times (2 for Valverde and 1 for Evans). There's only Gilbert's 2011 left for him to target. The last time Bradley Wiggins had an off day was in the last week of the 2011 Vuelta.

Do more people think he looks awful on his bicycle ? That man is no cyclist, I'm sorry.

Not a fan of him at all.

I'm not a fan of Froome in the slightest (I'm probably the ringleader of the tormentors here in fact), but while he does look pretty ridiculous when climbing, I don't feel that this should be a factor.

Juan Mauricio Soler looked awful going uphill, but was a great climber who excited many. Fernando Escartín was nicknamed the Crab for his ridiculous side-swinging climbing style, but it was effective. Bernhard Kohl looked like a novelty nodding dog when he climbed, but it worked for him. Cadel Evans' climbing style is pretty good in the saddle, but when he gets out of it it's like he's trying to bash the floor with the drops. Paco Mancebo tried to wrench his way up mountainsides while riding side-saddle. Not everybody can dance on the pedals like Contador or climb as fluidly as Moncoutié, especially with a tall spindly frame like Froome's.

 

["Jeff"]

I don't care what someone looks like on the bike anywhere near as much as whether it was an honest, clean effort.

I'm not a fan of Froome in the slightest (I'm probably the ringleader of the tormentors here in fact), but while he does look pretty ridiculous when climbing, I don't feel that this should be a factor.

Juan Mauricio Soler looked awful going uphill, but was a great climber who excited many. Fernando Escartín was nicknamed the Crab for his ridiculous side-swinging climbing style, but it was effective. Bernhard Kohl looked like a novelty nodding dog when he climbed, but it worked for him. Cadel Evans' climbing style is pretty good in the saddle, but when he gets out of it it's like he's trying to bash the floor with the drops. Paco Mancebo tried to wrench his way up mountainsides while riding side-saddle. Not everybody can dance on the pedals like Contador or climb as fluidly as Moncoutié, especially with a tall spindly frame like Froome's.

Well nice list, don't forget Santiago Botero or Robert Alban.

Of course the results matter and thats good for him, but for him only. We have to watch it . There have been a truckload of riders who were awful to watch but Froome's style looks so awkward. His disrespect to Wiggins and his anthics in the past Tour de France didnt help either. And than after the finish he acts like an innocent weezel. No, I wont shed one tear when he retires.

 

[will10]

Froome's body was built to handle 100W less than he puts out these days. He hits the gas, the legs pump out 500W and the body can't take it, so he climbs very ungainly all of a sudden.

 

[blackcat]

People on this forum have met or known Isidro Nozal (who came similarly out of nowhere to nearly win the 2003 Vuelta, leading from stage 4 to the penultimate day), Patrik Sinkewitz (who has a pretty good - and much more consistent than Froome's - palmarès mostly in hilly Classics and short stage races) and Tyler Hamilton (who has top 5ed the Tour, won Olympic gold medals and a variety of TTs and short stage races of high prestige). They were - and likely still are - lovely guys, and people come back with nothing but nice things to say about them.

All three of them have been caught doping. Twice. (Nozal 50%+ in 2005, EPO in 2009; Sinkewitz for testo in 2007 and HGH in 2011; Hamilton for homologous blood transfusions in 2004 and for DHEA in 2009)

The problem is, at what point do we accept that the other teams are just inferior? After all, when Sky were bossing early season stage races it was all "everybody's preparing for the Tour". And then we got to the Tour and everybody was still in preparation mode? Sky just walloped everybody all season without a step out of place, and every single other team completely flunked their prep? If it was a couple of leaders getting it wrong I'd say ok, but it was everybody.

Or another way: Wiggins' 2012 on CQ is now almost 4 times what he managed in 2009, more than double what he managed in 2011, and is now higher than any numbers Alberto Contador, Cadel Evans or Alejandro Valverde have ever put out - and between those guys they've won the CQ Ranking of the year three times (2 for Valverde and 1 for Evans). There's only Gilbert's 2011 left for him to target. The last time Bradley Wiggins had an off day was in the last week of the 2011 Vuelta.

I'm not a fan of Froome in the slightest (I'm probably the ringleader of the tormentors here in fact), but while he does look pretty ridiculous when climbing, I don't feel that this should be a factor.

Juan Mauricio Soler looked awful going uphill, but was a great climber who excited many. Fernando Escartín was nicknamed the Crab for his ridiculous side-swinging climbing style, but it was effective. Bernhard Kohl looked like a novelty nodding dog when he climbed, but it worked for him. Cadel Evans' climbing style is pretty good in the saddle, but when he gets out of it it's like he's trying to bash the floor with the drops. Paco Mancebo tried to wrench his way up mountainsides while riding side-saddle. Not everybody can dance on the pedals like Contador or climb as fluidly as Moncoutié, especially with a tall spindly frame like Froome's.

Francisco Mancebo too.

And to your ringleader of the tormentors. I am ringleader of the promoters. And I think he dopes like the rest of them. I just think he is the most talented of a doping class. So there.

 

[No_Balls]

One of my good friends is friends with Chris Froome and his brother, it might not count for much but he is known as a totally straight-up and genuine guy. I would be completely shocked if he doped.

I belive they say that about Ullrich too.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Francisco Mancebo too.

And to your ringleader of the tormentors. I am ringleader of the promoters. And I think he dopes like the rest of them. I just think he is the most talented of a doping class. So there.

I mentioned Paco.

As I noted on the Pro Road Racing forum, even you think he's doping, it's just that we come down on opposite sides of the "Carl Lewis style great talent who also dopes" vs "Ben Johnson style chemically created monster" debate.

 

[Fergoose]

UK TV interviewing Bobby Julich about Chris Froome (Mon 20/08, 5mins in), who he is one of the riders on Team Sky who Julich has to "look after".

Julich joined the team in November 2010 and states he "almost had to Google Froome as he'd never heard of him".

He then goes on to explain the transformation in Froome by saying they "learnt he has a huge motor" but suggests he wasn't expending his energy wisely. Which is the same argument Brailsford used when he woke up during the last Vuelta and found actually he would bother resigning Froome.

"time and time again we'd see this beautiful, amazing result followed up by two days where he could barely walk up the stairs. We learnt to control that."

Further gains by Froome were gained by "working on his confidence and structure" and attributes this to Tim Kerrison.

Julich isn't bullish about Froome's chances at the Vuelta given his hard schedule but thinks he has a chance of pulling it off.

Of note is that at no time is Froome's recent history of bilharzia even mentioned by Julich as a possible explanation for improvements in performance. I'm pretty confident we can rule out any suggestion of pre-2011 health issues explaining Froome's decidedly ordinary performances if Julich isn't even mentioning it as a factor. If that was the reason, surely it'd be the first thing Julich would bring up?

I think even his most fervent fans would struggle to point to pre-Vuelta 2011 or pre-bilharzia results that Froome had that could be described as "beautiful, amazing results".

If anyone can explain how managing his energy more efficiently means that he can now sustain a far higher peak than ever before for three weeks (and 3 months) that'd be braw too. This Vuelta could be in the bag for Froome already.

 

[Cycle Chic]

UK TV interviewing Bobby Julich about Chris Froome (Mon 20/08, 5mins in), who he is one of the riders on Team Sky who Julich has to "look after".

Julich joined the team in November 2010 and states he "almost had to Google Froome as he'd never heard of him".

He then goes on to explain the transformation in Froome by saying they "learnt he has a huge motor" but suggests he wasn't expending his energy wisely. Which is the same argument Brailsford used when he woke up during the last Vuelta and found actually he would bother resigning Froome.

"time and time again we'd see this beautiful, amazing result followed up by two days where he could barely walk up the stairs. We learnt to control that."

Further gains by Froome were gained by "working on his confidence and structure" and attributes this to Tim Kerrison.

Julich isn't bullish about Froome's chances at the Vuelta given his hard schedule but thinks he has a chance of pulling it off.

Of note is that at no time is Froome's recent history of bilharzia even mentioned by Julich as a possible explanation for improvements in performance. I'm pretty confident we can rule out any suggestion of pre-2011 health issues explaining Froome's decidedly ordinary performances if Julich isn't even mentioning it as a factor. If that was the reason, surely it'd be the first thing Julich would bring up?

I think even his most fervent fans would struggle to point to pre-Vuelta 2011 or pre-bilharzia results that Froome had that could be described as "beautiful, amazing results".

If anyone can explain how managing his energy more efficiently means that he can now sustain a far higher peak than ever before for three weeks (and 3 months) that'd be braw too. This Vuelta could be in the bag for Froome already.

I saw the interview and you thought exactly what I did.....Donkey to Racehorse sprung to mind.

 

[Franklin]

Duking it out side by side with AC

Can we now bury the nonsense "it was a weak field in the Tdf"? Hinault-Lemond indeed

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Duking it out side by side with AC

Can we now bury the nonsense "it was a weak field in the Tdf"? Hinault-Lemond indeed

Me thinks more like Riis-Ullrich.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I think more of Pantani (= AC, doped up since youth) vs. Ullrich (Froome the Diesel).

I side with Froome of course.

 

[Franklin]

I think more of Pantani (= AC, doped up since youth) vs. Ullrich (Froome the Diesel).

I side with Froome of course.

Your bias is strong here, I seriously wonder it's grounds.

We don't know anything about how either Marco or Alberto was using doping in the junior and amateur ranks.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Said it yesterday; I doubt Froome took HIV risks in africa to gain some small prize money in an obscure bush race...

OTOH, AC was linked to blood doping as soon as he hit the pro scence (Fuentes). Plus, always on dirty teams, w/dirty DSes in a historical (dope) dirty country. And three times caught doper...

Where am i biased?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Where am i biased?

Retorical I assume?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

No. ..........

 

[Runitout]

Said it yesterday; I doubt Froome took HIV risks in africa to gain some small prize money in an obscure bush race...

OTOH, AC was linked to blood doping as soon as he hit the pro scence (Fuentes). Plus, always on dirty teams, w/dirty DSes in a historical (dope) dirty country. And three times caught doper...

Where am i biased?

Where are the three times he was caught? I only recall one.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Fuentes, and the good ol 2 in 1 (Steak w/plasticzisers & clen).

 

[Franklin]

Fuentes, and the good ol 2 in 1 (Steak w/plasticzisers & clen).

I assume your claim of AC doping as a junior or amateur is more than bias? Odd because I can't find a link.

Then the evidence:

- Fuentes: No conclusive evidence without DNA
- Clen: Almost every expert concludes it's contaminated food/supplements
- plasticizers: unaccepted test so no admissable evidence.

I'm sure AC is a charger, but your bias that Froome is clean since his arrival at the pro's is amusing (based in what exactly?), besides Froome's teams are hardly better

And the proof of Marco doping as a juvenile?

 

[sittingbison]

...
- Fuentes: No conclusive evidence without DNA
- Clen: Almost every expert concludes it's contaminated food/supplements
- plasticizers: unaccepted test so no admissable evidence.
...

This surprises me Franklin, because the very first time this argument was brought forth was after the CAS hearing, in explaining the presence of clen given the steak story was discredited. AC never suggested it, his lawyers never suggested it, Spanish authorities never suggested it, UCI never suggested it and Ashenden never suggested it. Ever.

As to the plasticizers, I think a certain obfuscation went on there, Ashenden was primed to give evidence, and a screaming match resulted during CAS. The inadmissibility was entirely debatable.

 

[No_Balls]

I assume your claim of AC doping as a junior or amateur is more than bias? Odd because I can't find a link.

Then the evidence:

- Fuentes: No conclusive evidence without DNA
- Clen: Almost every expert concludes it's contaminated food/supplements
- plasticizers: unaccepted test so no admissable evidence.

I'm sure AC is a charger, but your bias that Froome is clean since his arrival at the pro's is amusing (based in what exactly?), besides Froome's teams are hardly better

And the proof of Marco doping as a juvenile?

Foxxys method in doping issues is "stick with the supposed good guys as long as possible". He have worked with lies and misinformation in debate before so nothing new there.

Time to clean up in the clinic. There are self proclaimed doping hunters in here who dont even put their noses in threads concerning Sky.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

And the proof of Marco doping as a juvenile?

No proof but his teamdoc was Sturla, who was Bugno's doc when he lead the 1990 Giro from start to finish...

 

[pmcg76]

Taking into account previous performances and results, I would contend that Froome is the rider who has undergone the biggest transformation of any cyclist in the last 30 years. Forget Chiappucci, Riis, Armstrong or any of these guys who seemingly came from nowhere. Froome outdoes then all in terms of lack of results/performances prior to the big breakthrough. Best stage race result prior to the Vuelta 11 for Froome, 4th in the SunTour!!!!

When I see him riding shoulder to shoulder with Contador, I still just think WTF. I simply cannot get my head around how a guy can improve so much overnight. How can anyone not be super suspicious of the biggest transformation in the last 30 years of Pro cycling.