Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.

What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.

they are generally one and the same...I think the issue with Froome is that its the differecne between the results/reward from a (assumed) pre-doping to doping. Previously he was good enough to win the anatomic jock, get a pro contract and then be 'good enough' to be judged the worst rider on the team and about to go back to life outside the pro ranks or perhaps a gig on the asian or american scene. Then...kapow!!! Other riders, who again are most probably on the juice, the delta (I think that might be the term) is far smaller...they were always more than capable of the anatomic jock....even Wiggins had the grace to knock in some olympic medals.....

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.

What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.

they are generally one and the same...I think the issue with Froome is that its the differecne between the results/reward from a (assumed) pre-doping to doping. Previously he was good enough to win the anatomic jock, get a pro contract and then be 'good enough' to be judged the worst rider on the team and about to go back to life outside the pro ranks or perhaps a gig on the asian or american scene. Then...kapow!!! Other riders, who again are most probably on the juice, the delta (I think that might be the term) is far smaller...they were always more than capable of the anatomic jock....even Wiggins had the grace to knock in some olympic medals.....

How do you know the delta?
How do you know what the athletes natural abilities are?
Wiggins got his medals doped up? Right?

So what's the logic here? You comparing an apparent fully Natty Froome to young European talent doping since they were 15?
Got it! :lol:

Honestly we will never know the real capabilities of any athlete. The only thing that matters is: 1. Motivation to put in the hard yards
2. Natural ability to respond to drugs
Froome is World No. 1 at that. This has been true for quite a while.

 

[wansteadimp]

Re: Re:

And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.

What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.

The point is to argue that he's not a fraud. It's a very common psychological reaction, even among the dopers themselves.

Thanks for telling me what i think. Unfortunately for you, I think he is obviously a fraud.

Why is he the biggest fraud though? Results alone? Are his results even better than the other top guys?

What is he doing different to every one else? Did he get the best advice on his programme at an earlier or later age than everyone else?

He's a blatant cheat but why is he any different to Valverde or Nibali?

 

[dacooley]

the implication is that both valverde and nibali demonstrated immense talent in their early years while froome was nowhere getting away from rhinos and discovering kenyan wilderness. most fans just don't want to see unthinkable froome-like breakthroughs which cause indignation. although, as far as using doping itself is concerned, froome is as a fraud as nibali or valverde. degree of doping influence on performance gets considered way bigger when it comes to froome. that's it.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re:

the implication is that both valverde and nibali demonstrated immense talent in their early years while froome was nowhere getting away from rhinos and discovering kenyan wilderness. most fans just don't want to see unthinkable froome-like breakthroughs which cause indignation. although, as far as using doping itself is concerned, froome is as a fraud as nibali or valverde. degree of doping influence on performance gets considered way bigger when it comes to froome. that's it.

It's no secret that Italy, Spain and France are the dope capitals when it comes to putting kids on dope.
To say they were talented at young age is myopic at best.
Was Valverde clean at 20? Nibali or Contador? Meh..

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

the implication is that both valverde and nibali demonstrated immense talent in their early years while froome was nowhere getting away from rhinos and discovering kenyan wilderness. most fans just don't want to see unthinkable froome-like breakthroughs which cause indignation. although, as far as using doping itself is concerned, froome is as a fraud as nibali or valverde. degree of doping influence on performance gets considered way bigger when it comes to froome. that's it.

It's no secret that Italy, Spain and France are the dope capitals when it comes to putting kids on dope.
To say they were talented at young age is myopic at best.
Was Valverde clean at 20? Nibali or Contador? Meh..

I was just trying to explain the way many folks see the whole thing. not that I thought froome is entitled being on top to a lesser extent than nibali, valverde, dimoulin or anyone else. of course not. as of today, he is rightfully and deservedly the best grand tour rider.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.

What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.

they are generally one and the same...I think the issue with Froome is that its the differecne between the results/reward from a (assumed) pre-doping to doping. Previously he was good enough to win the anatomic jock, get a pro contract and then be 'good enough' to be judged the worst rider on the team and about to go back to life outside the pro ranks or perhaps a gig on the asian or american scene. Then...kapow!!! Other riders, who again are most probably on the juice, the delta (I think that might be the term) is far smaller...they were always more than capable of the anatomic jock....even Wiggins had the grace to knock in some olympic medals.....

How do you know the delta?
How do you know what the athletes natural abilities are?
Wiggins got his medals doped up? Right?

So what's the logic here? You comparing an apparent fully Natty Froome to young European talent doping since they were 15?
Got it! :lol:

Honestly we will never know the real capabilities of any athlete. The only thing that matters is: 1. Motivation to put in the hard yards
2. Natural ability to respond to drugs
Froome is World No. 1 at that. This has been true for quite a while.

I've used the analgy before because it works....SAW gave us 'late' bananarma....pete burns...even donna summer...they dumbed down with rick, jason and kylie...but hey at least they were actors and if not hold a tune not offend the earholes...then they gave us big fun... three idiots who couldn't even hold a tune. Froome is big fun. Art lovers and wine buffs talk about provenenace...Froome, drugs or no drugs, has no provenance...and his gangly style mean he doesn't have a good nose, or a long finish...or smell of goosebeeries and passion fruit...he's a cheap table wine at a posh restaurant....you are the punter quaffing as though it's chateau rosthchilds
now....I'm off to watch him gangling about in the alps....

 

[macbindle]

I think the point is we create our own mythologies about sportsmen to enable us to invest emotionally. Without this emotional investment sport isnt so much fun. Just look at the mythologising and emotional investment of football club fans. It becomes part of their identity.

So in cycling we adorn certain riders with attributes like 'panache', but we still need villains. The British intruders fulfilled the requirements perfectly. Even their kit, bikes and bus were black. The bald-headed and bulgy-eyed Brailsford is reminiscent of Donald Pleasance's Bond villain, Blofeld.

You only have to look at the narratives weaved here about Sky, and the peer pressure to adopt them to realise this is pretty primitive stuff.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.

What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.

they are generally one and the same...I think the issue with Froome is that its the differecne between the results/reward from a (assumed) pre-doping to doping. Previously he was good enough to win the anatomic jock, get a pro contract and then be 'good enough' to be judged the worst rider on the team and about to go back to life outside the pro ranks or perhaps a gig on the asian or american scene. Then...kapow!!! Other riders, who again are most probably on the juice, the delta (I think that might be the term) is far smaller...they were always more than capable of the anatomic jock....even Wiggins had the grace to knock in some olympic medals.....

How do you know the delta?
How do you know what the athletes natural abilities are?
Wiggins got his medals doped up? Right?

So what's the logic here? You comparing an apparent fully Natty Froome to young European talent doping since they were 15?
Got it! :lol:

Honestly we will never know the real capabilities of any athlete. The only thing that matters is: 1. Motivation to put in the hard yards
2. Natural ability to respond to drugs
Froome is World No. 1 at that. This has been true for quite a while.

I've used the analgy before because it works....SAW gave us 'late' bananarma....pete burns...even donna summer...they dumbed down with rick, jason and kylie...but hey at least they were actors and if not hold a tune not offend the earholes...then they gave us big fun... three idiots who couldn't even hold a tune. Froome is big fun. Art lovers and wine buffs talk about provenenace...Froome, drugs or no drugs, has no provenance...and his gangly style mean he doesn't have a good nose, or a long finish...or smell of goosebeeries and passion fruit...he's a cheap table wine at a posh restaurant....you are the punter quaffing as though it's chateau rosthchilds
now....I'm off to watch him gangling about in the alps....

Is there anything of logic here? Just *** written across with random words making no sense.
:surprised:

 

[King Boonen]

Mod hat on:

Offensive comment removed and some replies. Thank you to the posters who did not stoop to that level, it makes things much easier for us.

Cheers,

KB.

 

[hrotha]

Gotta laugh at the ease with which some people who dismiss speculation on Froome's natural talent are so eager to speculate about riders in continental Europe being doped to the gills already at 15.

 

[dacooley]

Re:

Gotta laugh at the ease with which some people who dismiss speculation on Froome's natural talent are so eager to speculate about riders in continental Europe being doped to the gills already at 15.

all black-and-white hypotheses from "froome-like champion might have easily brought up out of a labaratory rat" to "from early yearsfroome had a tremendous talent all along, so his break-in was just a matter of time" are equally ludicrious. we have plenty of them.

 

[spalco]

Well, we don't even know what we don't know, that's what's so frustrating about all of this. Have Contador and Nibali been doping since their teenage years? It's not totally implausible, but it's impossible for us to know.

The big question about Froome that hasn't been answered imo, remains: If he was such a donkey to start with, what mega-fuel did he consume to become the dominant GT cyclist of this generation? Why don't others use the same stuff and how can he be such a better responder than anyone else?
If Brailsford had been able to choose anyone out of his "stable" to become the Golden Child, why the hell would he have chosen Froome?

It makes one feel better to think riders with traditional career curves and obvious talent in younger years are more likely to be clean - among current riders let's say Carapaz, Dumoulin, MvP, MAL. In the past "if it looks fishy it probably is fishy" has been a reasonable rule of thumb, but really it's all speculation anyway; just trying to find patterns in randomness and pretending to have control.

 

[JosephK]

Re:

Well, we don't even know what we don't know, that's what's so frustrating about all of this. Have Contador and Nibali been doping since their teenage years? It's not totally implausible, but it's impossible for us to know.

The big question about Froome that hasn't been answered imo, remains: If he was such a donkey to start with, what mega-fuel did he consume to become the dominant GT cyclist of this generation? Why don't others use the same stuff and how can he be such a better responder than anyone else?
If Brailsford had been able to choose anyone out of his "stable" to become the Golden Child, why the hell would he have chosen Froome?

It makes one feel better to think riders with traditional career curves and obvious talent in younger years are more likely to be clean - among current riders let's say Carapaz, Dumoulin, MvP, MAL. In the past "if it looks fishy it probably is fishy" has been a reasonable rule of thumb, but really it's all speculation anyway; just trying to find patterns in randomness and pretending to have control.

Good points, good questions. Froome's case is perplexing on so many fronts. It didn't look like he was going to be a favorite of Brailsford when Sky were considering trading him away in 2011, but then a few weeks later he shows himself to be the strongest rider in the Vuelta (yes, finished 2nd, but only after pulling Wiggo around for weeks, then finally being freed up to astonish the cycling world). Other questions would involve institutional corruption -- if it exists, and to what extent. Are select teams/riders "protected"? Are certain riders allowed to dope as much as they want while others must either be more discrete or more closely follow the rules? All just speculation, of course.

 

[hrotha]

I don't see the big mystery. Froome's rise happened at the precise moment that weight loss drugs appeared to have come to the fore and any progress made after the introduction of the biological passport started being undone. You don't need Froome to be on something no one else has, you just need him to respond particularly well to these doping methods, and/or to doping in general if he was clean(ish) before. Then you just need Sky to have/use very good doctors to further refine his program going into 2012. Political shenanigans optional.

Other folks who dominated the sport didn't do so because they were on some freak alien juice, they used the same products that were available to their rivals, sometimes even fewer of them (witness US Postal taking mostly what really mattered while Kelme riders just injected everything this side of plutonium). The difference is almost always not the what, but the how. Doctors are important for a reason.

Much of this is speculation because no one that matters has been busted in ages, much less spoken about contemporary doping methods in detail, but it's internally consistent.

The thing with "logical" progressions is not that they make doping less likely by themselves, but that their absence makes doping overwhelmingly more likely. If you had a logical progression and then become a top rider, that says little about whether or not you dope. If you become a top rider despite not showing any glimpses of that potential, then there's no way dope isn't involved.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Well, we don't even know what we don't know, that's what's so frustrating about all of this. Have Contador and Nibali been doping since their teenage years? It's not totally implausible, but it's impossible for us to know.

The big question about Froome that hasn't been answered imo, remains: If he was such a donkey to start with, what mega-fuel did he consume to become the dominant GT cyclist of this generation? Why don't others use the same stuff and how can he be such a better responder than anyone else?
If Brailsford had been able to choose anyone out of his "stable" to become the Golden Child, why the hell would he have chosen Froome?

It makes one feel better to think riders with traditional career curves and obvious talent in younger years are more likely to be clean - among current riders let's say Carapaz, Dumoulin, MvP, MAL. In the past "if it looks fishy it probably is fishy" has been a reasonable rule of thumb, but really it's all speculation anyway; just trying to find patterns in randomness and pretending to have control.

A couple of possible answers to explain his performances. One, he's just a tremendous responder to whatever he's been doing. Two, motors. The latter seems harder to believe, since his performance hasn't altered too much over time and it's almost impossible to believe he's been motoring this whole time. But the year he won everything and peaked all year? Seems possible. Don't know what else could explain that nonsense.

That he's on some dope everyone else isn't doesn't make any sense to me on a number of levels. I think basically he found a doctor and a cocktail that worked really, really well, and took everyone including his team by surprise.

EDIT: What Hrotha said above.

 

[dacooley]

the 2011 vuelta froome was considerably heavier than his 2012-2013 skeletor-like version. I have big difficulties with imagining a cocktail that turns a sky c lead-out man into top climber and top trialist. His transformation rips any logical loop apart

 

[spalco]

Re:

The thing with "logical" progressions is not that they make doping less likely by themselves, but that their absence makes doping overwhelmingly more likely. If you had a logical progression and then become a top rider, that says little about whether or not you dope. If you become a top rider despite not showing any glimpses of that potential, then there's no way dope isn't involved.

I agree with this, it seems like common sense.

But we just don't know if it's true because nobody appears to even get caught doping anymore, except ridiculous stuff like miniscule amounts of Clen or some asthma spray.

Actually in a vacuum I think the most logical explanation would be that the peloton is mostly clean now and Froome just rose to the top because "clean riders" can succeed again (plus his magical bilharzia or whatever). But we do know that's absurd (and I'm serious, not being sarcastic).
Maybe that explains some of the discrepancy in views of "hipster"-cycling-fans who've been following the sport longer and people who started in the last couple of years.

 

[samhocking]

Like many things in life, usually it's a combination of multiple factors. Clearly there is no magic. Cycling is a poor sport that leans on more valuable industries for pharma, technology and even sports science progression. If the best we can explain it with is salbutomol/doping, motors & more money, none of that is exclusive to Froome. In fact it's all been part of cycling forever some would argue, so why would it only benefit new kids on the block from Sky/British Cycling? The only non-transferable performance increase would be knowledge. Like any business, knowledge is what separates you from your rivals, not that you have the same knowledge as them.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

Well, we don't even know what we don't know, that's what's so frustrating about all of this. Have Contador and Nibali been doping since their teenage years? It's not totally implausible, but it's impossible for us to know.

The big question about Froome that hasn't been answered imo, remains: If he was such a donkey to start with, what mega-fuel did he consume to become the dominant GT cyclist of this generation? Why don't others use the same stuff and how can he be such a better responder than anyone else?
If Brailsford had been able to choose anyone out of his "stable" to become the Golden Child, why the hell would he have chosen Froome?

It makes one feel better to think riders with traditional career curves and obvious talent in younger years are more likely to be clean - among current riders let's say Carapaz, Dumoulin, MvP, MAL. In the past "if it looks fishy it probably is fishy" has been a reasonable rule of thumb, but really it's all speculation anyway; just trying to find patterns in randomness and pretending to have control.

A couple of possible answers to explain his performances. One, he's just a tremendous responder to whatever he's been doing. Two, motors. The latter seems harder to believe, since his performance hasn't altered too much over time and it's almost impossible to believe he's been motoring this whole time. But the year he won everything and peaked all year? Seems possible. Don't know what else could explain that nonsense.

That he's on some dope everyone else isn't doesn't make any sense to me on a number of levels. I think basically he found a doctor and a cocktail that worked really, really well, and took everyone including his team by surprise.

EDIT: What Hrotha said above.

I don't see the big mystery. Froome's rise happened at the precise moment that weight loss drugs appeared to have come to the fore and any progress made after the introduction of the biological passport started being undone. You don't need Froome to be on something no one else has, you just need him to respond particularly well to these doping methods, and/or to doping in general if he was clean(ish) before. Then you just need Sky to have/use very good doctors to further refine his program going into 2012. Political shenanigans optional.

Other folks who dominated the sport didn't do so because they were on some freak alien juice, they used the same products that were available to their rivals, sometimes even fewer of them (witness US Postal taking mostly what really mattered while Kelme riders just injected everything this side of plutonium). The difference is almost always not the what, but the how. Doctors are important for a reason.

Much of this is speculation because no one that matters has been busted in ages, much less spoken about contemporary doping methods in detail, but it's internally consistent.

The thing with "logical" progressions is not that they make doping less likely by themselves, but that their absence makes doping overwhelmingly more likely. If you had a logical progression and then become a top rider, that says little about whether or not you dope. If you become a top rider despite not showing any glimpses of that potential, then there's no way dope isn't involved.

I don't think it's motors.

Weren't Sky looking to offload Froome to another team in early 2011. I think Froome might have taken something outside the regular team program, and after that the team decided to run with him. Might have just being responding well to the weight loss stuff, and him getting much skinnier in 2012/2013 than before might have just been perfecting that method.

I'm not sure there's anything that explains 2013, apart from blood doping he may have stopped doing as heavily afterward.

One "clean" factor I think is that he deals really well with the transition from the flats to the mountains. Basically all his best performances are on stages where there's a large amount of flat earlier in the stage. The Finestre stage had a long cat 3, but the pace had been absolutely brutal before they hit that climb.

Also I don't think that corruption is optional.

 

[dacooley]

2012-2013 seasons do really stand out. I've never seen such dried-up cyclists as wiggins and froome back then. the way they look was pretty much on the verge with being unhealthy. froome was reported to be about 68-69kg in the tour de france, but damn that was an obvious lie. i assume his weight was rather leaning to the point of 64 kg. how is it possible that an "athlete" with this body mass index was able to wreck the whole opposition both on climbs and in time trials? that's a big question to answer. seems to me, sky really possessed kinda of exclusive knowledge doping-wise which others didn't have access to. who knows, it might have concerned by some backroom british doping programme for the London olympics or something. the level of the secrecy is what we can only guess about. anyway de jongh obviously new the nature of those methods since bertie looked lethal thougout the whole 2014. contador wasn't virtually different from froome, keeping unthinkably low body fat. in 2015, the game once again flipped imo. outputting necessary watts was made possible without having to be extremely lean.

 

[Oufeh]

FWIW Vayer posted Froome's weight on twitter along with other stuff from his training logs a few months ago :

Feb 2011 73kg
Apr 2011 71kg
Aug 2011 from 71 to 69 during Vuelta
Apr 2012 71kg
May 2012 69kg
Jul 2012 67kg
Jan 2013 70kg
Jul 2013 67.5
Sep 2013 71kg
Jul 2014 67.5

 

[samhocking]

Pretty slow weight loss of around 1kg a month, that's easily achievable simply through diet and nutrition. Without the FTP alongside each month, difficult to suggest weight loss is via illegal methods.

 

[rick james]

Froome should be asking for his money back on then weight lose magic pills, they really haven’t done much for him

 

[spalco]

The weight loss isn't suspicious, but retaining endurance and muscle power at already quite low weight (and Froome isn't a small guy) may be.
Apparently in the US a BMI of just under 20 would put Froome in the 3rd percentile of men, I couldn't find any charts for the UK easily.
Of course he's also well into top 3rd percentile of fittest people on the planet undoubtedly, so I really have no idea if there's something wrong with that from a sports science point of view.

I'm surprised from a BMI point Froome isn't even considered "underweight" at 68kgs, even though he did look crazy thin in some pictures; I'm shorter than him, weigh about 84kgs and I'm not fat either.