Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1361 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
If anyone here looks at Chris Froome's twitter page you will see he is in pretty good spirits and positive about his performance at La Vuelta so far.
There are pics of himself driving the peloton from the front with 'inspirational' cliches along the lines of 'pain today, strength tomorrow'.
He certainly does not appear to be suffering or frustrated with his form, quite the contrary.
Do I think he will ever win a multi-stage race at World Tour level ever again? No, but I wish him all the best.
Good, that is good news he is still finding joy. Too many athletes battle with depression after a big injury like that and not performing as well as before.
 
If anyone here looks at Chris Froome's twitter page you will see he is in pretty good spirits and positive about his performance at La Vuelta so far.
There are pics of himself driving the peloton from the front with 'inspirational' cliches along the lines of 'pain today, strength tomorrow'.
He certainly does not appear to be suffering or frustrated with his form, quite the contrary.
Do I think he will ever win a multi-stage race at World Tour level ever again? No, but I wish him all the best.
Perhaps this should be in a non-clinic thread?
 
Nearly 1400 pages on this, so maybe this has been conclusively befoe.

In 2011 Chris Froome was outsider. He was earning 80k a year, not that much, few contacts in the sport. But then he apparently took something that catapulted him, according to the Clinic, from an autobus dweller into a contender overnight. Tour of Poland etc.

Now let's say it was all drugs, Froome has extended that form for at least 8 years. He is rich. There's been no actual doping problems

So the question is 'Why is he only one?'. Surely others would try their hand
 
Nearly 1400 pages on this, so maybe this has been conclusively befoe.

In 2011 Chris Froome was outsider. He was earning 80k a year, not that much, few contacts in the sport. But then he apparently took something that catapulted him, according to the Clinic, from an autobus dweller into a contender overnight. Tour of Poland etc.

Now let's say it was all drugs, Froome has extended that form for at least 8 years. He is rich. There's been no actual doping problems

So the question is 'Why is he only one?'. Surely others would try their hand
It sounds like you are being contrarian to be contrarian. It has been rehashed quite regularly what the facts are, and you've been part of many of the conversations, so stating them again seems like a waste. Your final question is a false premise though - what makes you think he is the final one of anything? It does sound like you are trying to convince yourself the more obvious just cannot be the case.

However, perhaps it is your premise that he was just immensely lazy and in the course of weeks changed his approach from pack fodder with occasional moderate talent to world beating GT dominator. Which seems totally legit ;)
 
Last edited:
If anyone here looks at Chris Froome's twitter page you will see he is in pretty good spirits and positive about his performance at La Vuelta so far.
There are pics of himself driving the peloton from the front with 'inspirational' cliches along the lines of 'pain today, strength tomorrow'.
He certainly does not appear to be suffering or frustrated with his form, quite the contrary.
Do I think he will ever win a multi-stage race at World Tour level ever again? No, but I wish him all the best.
'Driving'

The sycophants Boulting and Millar were wetting their pants when he did about a 10m turn on the front to then get swamped. As soon as the Ineos train got overtaken they didn't mention it again.
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
Let's say none of it was drugs. What was it?
A complete outsider that the sport has never seen before. He's Kenyan. This is like an Indian wanting to play rugby. No real u23 experience bar the UCI WCC, starts up with a little team that folds, then goes to a team entirely focussed on Wiggins. Once he finally has proper coaching, full fitness and a job to do he shines. To put a crude simile on this, it's like a poor student from an impoverished background and a poor school. But because they werent as good at 19 as those that went to Eton, they must be dishonest to pass them.

Where oh where have you been the past ten years?
And you point is? Who else has made this transformation? Name names (outside Sky)

Problems, as you define them, being positives that can't be fixed with lots of money and zero transparency.
When the designer of the test that he failed says the test is rubbish then you should listen. But do you think that the key to Froome's success is Ventolin.
 
Reactions: brownbobby
A complete outsider that the sport has never seen before. He's Kenyan. This is like an Indian wanting to play rugby. No real u23 experience bar the UCI WCC, starts up with a little team that folds, then goes to a team entirely focussed on Wiggins. Once he finally has proper coaching, full fitness and a job to do he shines. To put a crude simile on this, it's like a poor student from an impoverished background and a poor school. But because they werent as good at 19 as those that went to Eton, they must be dishonest to pass them.



And you point is? Who else has made this transformation? Name names (outside Sky)



When the designer of the test that he failed says the test is rubbish then you should listen. But do you think that the key to Froome's success is Ventolin.
If anything I would say Froome could have been an early working domestique on the mountains and getting top 10s and an off win in breakaways and TTs like he started having a little success with before the transformation. His rapid increase in ability came out of nowhere to the point Sky never saw it coming. Even with all the world class training and testing Sky did for him. He could have any record of his illness or it hampering his form.

Any rider that has been caught doping the last 20 years, namely Armstrong and his team. One that got out of it like Froome though who's increase in abilities wasn't as high was Kreuziger.

Froome has money now to fight his "false positive test" and he and his team have a lot more pull. Why would the UCI want known the team since 2011 that had been dominating the Grand Tour scene was doped up as well after Armstrong got busted.
 
Once he finally has proper coaching, full fitness and a job to do he shines.
He was at Sky for two years, and never "shone" until that Vuelta. And it's not as though his two years at Barlo couldn't have made any difference.

Who else has made this transformation?
That's not the question. The question is, who else has doped? It's well-established that doping doesn't help all riders equally. Saying that no one else transformed like Froome just throws us back to the original question, if it wasn't doping, how did he transform? Where are your examples of a rider who transformed like Froome after getting the proper coaching?

When the designer of the test that he failed says the test is rubbish then you should listen. But do you think that the key to Froome's success is Ventolin.
The salbutamol test resulted from the research of a lot of scientists, there was no one "designer". The limitations of correlating urine concentration with amount inhaled were always understood, and to be fair, further insight into the limitations emerged during Froome's case. None of which means the test is useless, or that UCI should just give up, and let riders take as much as they want.

Once a rider raises suspicion with regard to one substance, of course one asks what else he might have been taking. No one thinks testosterone was the only drug or banned method Landis was using, or that it was the key to the performance that put him back in the TDF lead. Clenbuterol probably wasn't the only drug or banned method Contador used, either.
 
If anything I would say Froome could have been an early working domestique on the mountains and getting top 10s and an off win in breakaways and TTs like he started having a little success with before the transformation. His rapid increase in ability came out of nowhere to the point Sky never saw it coming. Even with all the world class training and testing Sky did for him. He could have any record of his illness or it hampering his form.
So he's going to be getting top teamn for a Pro Conti team? You cansee evidence of talent at Barloworld, whether it was for coming 14th in the final TT in his first year Tour, or coming third on Mont Faron behind Moncoutie and his teammate Soler. Sky aren;t perfect, they make mistakes. But you would have thought tey would have their'doping' guinea pig under contract.

Any rider that has been caught doping the last 20 years, namely Armstrong and his team. One that got out of it like Froome though who's increase in abilities wasn't as high was Kreuziger.
Not 20 years. Let's limit it to the Bio Passport years.. And Kreuziger won the Tour de Suisse aged 22. There's no real jump here.

Froome has money now to fight his "false positive test" and he and his team have a lot more pull. Why would the UCI want known the team since 2011 that had been dominating the Grand Tour scene was doped up as well after Armstrong got busted.
So if he's on some superstar doping programme, why does he get busted for ventolin, a drug some of your friends use. Is Venotlin the game changer drug? And the designer of the test he afild says it's rubbish.
 
So he's going to be getting top teamn for a Pro Conti team? You cansee evidence of talent at Barloworld, whether it was for coming 14th in the final TT in his first year Tour, or coming third on Mont Faron behind Moncoutie and his teammate Soler. Sky aren;t perfect, they make mistakes. But you would have thought tey would have their'doping' guinea pig under contract.


Not 20 years. Let's limit it to the Bio Passport years.. And Kreuziger won the Tour de Suisse aged 22. There's no real jump here.



So if he's on some superstar doping programme, why does he get busted for ventolin, a drug some of your friends use. Is Venotlin the game changer drug? And the designer of the test he afild says it's rubbish.
Like I said, his talent showed he could be the first domestique on a mountain stage and continuing to top 10 stages group a breakaway and TT with the odd win. Not what he turned into. I and others have stated 2011 Vuelta he most likely went in alone as he was about to be out of a job and career. Sky, the team of all data never saw it coming. This isn't like he was on FDJ, AG2R, BBox, etc. team. Every rider was saying how high tech Sky is. Should he have improved? Absolutely but to the results stated above of mostly top 10s and the odd win.

Fine, there is still plenty of riders that have been busted that saw a performance increase. Not to the levels as Froome but as MI stated not all gain the same benefits. Kreuziger had stagnated, had a 2012 Giro maybe doping for his stage win, and than from 2013-June 2014 was a whole new rider. He could havw podiumed that year and most likely won more without supporting Contador. This was a performance he never returned too after coming back. Plus riders peak early just like late.

Wasn't his positive a leak, like Contador's? If so that's why. MI already highlighted other points.
 
A complete outsider that the sport has never seen before.
Okay! So you are going with the whole ... he was lazy, did not know how to train, and in the course of weeks changed his approach from pack fodder with moderate talent to world beating GT dominator.

After all this time, and all the evidence that the speed of transformation does not align with the story you are telling, it sounds just like an entrenched belief. Almost ideological
 
He was at Sky for two years, and never "shone" until that Vuelta. And it's not as though his two years at Barlo couldn't have made any difference.



That's not the question. The question is, who else has doped? It's well-established that doping doesn't help all riders equally. Saying that no one else transformed like Froome just throws us back to the original question, if it wasn't doping, how did he transform? Where are your examples of a rider who transformed like Froome after getting the proper coaching?



The salbutamol test resulted from the research of a lot of scientists, there was no one "designer". The limitations of correlating urine concentration with amount inhaled were always understood, and to be fair, further insight into the limitations emerged during Froome's case. None of which means the test is useless, or that UCI should just give up, and let riders take as much as they want.

Once a rider raises suspicion with regard to one substance, of course one asks what else he might have been taking. No one thinks testosterone was the only drug or banned method Landis was using, or that it was the key to the performance that put him back in the TDF lead. Clenbuterol probably wasn't the only drug or banned method Contador used, either.

So despite his obvious troubles in his earlier career, he got on a GT podium in his fourth year, in contrast to Contador's fifth year, Dumoulin's sixth year,. Four years is similar to the likes of Hinault and LeMond. An outsider needs a break. Would you say same if he had a been a black Kenyan rider?

There's been a bit of coverage in light of the BLM movement as to how hard it is for African riders to get to the World Tour. If one does make it and win races in their mid 20s, you won't call them a doper as you don't want to be called a racist. But why would their story be any different to Froome's

As I have said in this thread, people have decided on a standard career progression, with no regard for the individual.
 
Last edited:
So despite his obvious troubles in his earlier career, he got on a GT podium in his fourth year, in contrast to Contador's fifth year, Dumoulin's sixth year,. Four years is similar to the likes of Hinault and LeMond. An outsider needs a break. Would you say same if he had a been a black Kenyan rider?
Contador, Hinault, and Lemond actually showed potential plus Contador missed a year in 2004 from an proven medical condition. Froome showed as much potential of going elite as I do of going pro. I don't think anyone was really hyping Dumoulin as a GT contender besides the Dutchies and that was more in the vein of Tony Martin. Froome's obvious issue was he just wasn't good enough.
 
Contador, Hinault, and Lemond actually showed potential plus Contador missed a year in 2004 from an proven medical condition. Froome showed as much potential of going elite as I do of going pro. I don't think anyone was really hyping Dumoulin as a GT contender besides the Dutchies and that was more in the vein of Tony Martin. Froome's obvious issue was he just wasn't good enough.

The season that riders got their first GT podium:

Hinault - 4 years
LeMond - 4 years
Dumoulin - 6 years (he may not have been hyped up, but he's got 3 GT podiums)
Froome - 4 years
Contador - 5 years

Now, I will admit that none of these benefited from the powerhouse Kenyan federation. Kenya have of course dominated cycling for years, unlike those other rider's countries.

If Froome had had exactly the same career but been black you would have praised him to the rooftops.
 
The season that riders got their first GT podium:

Hinault - 4 years
LeMond - 4 years
Dumoulin - 6 years (he may not have been hyped up, but he's got 3 GT podiums)
Froome - 4 years
Contador - 5 years

Now, I will admit that none of these benefited from the powerhouse Kenyan federation. Kenya have of course dominated cycling for years, unlike those other rider's countries.

If Froome had had exactly the same career but been black you would have praised him to the rooftops.
Did you read what I wrote?
So we're talking about his skin color for why people don't believe him now? I, and I'm sure others could care less what color his skin is. I'm white and girlfriends black, an open lover of all skin. Froome overcame a lot, down to where he was born. Was it remotely believable, not in the slightest.
And with his career trajectoru Dumoulin can be just as surprising, like Roglic and Pogcar have been questioned. And Pogcar is 22!
 
Nearly 1400 pages on this, so maybe this has been conclusively befoe.

In 2011 Chris Froome was outsider. He was earning 80k a year, not that much, few contacts in the sport. But then he apparently took something that catapulted him, according to the Clinic, from an autobus dweller into a contender overnight. Tour of Poland etc.

Now let's say it was all drugs, Froome has extended that form for at least 8 years. He is rich. There's been no actual doping problems

So the question is 'Why is he only one?'. Surely others would try their hand
No doping problems. Except for several incidents including a positive test.
 
The season that riders got their first GT podium:

Hinault - 4 years
LeMond - 4 years
Dumoulin - 6 years (he may not have been hyped up, but he's got 3 GT podiums)
Froome - 4 years
Contador - 5 years

Now, I will admit that none of these benefited from the powerhouse Kenyan federation. Kenya have of course dominated cycling for years, unlike those other rider's countries.

If Froome had had exactly the same career but been black you would have praised him to the rooftops.
Hinault won the French junior national champs aged 18. That is the French championships, ie. arguably the top cycling nation of the time.

Within 2 years of turning pro he had won a whole bunch of important races, including the Dauphiné and some Classics. The following year he won the Tour.

The point about Froome is that prior to winning a Grand Tour he had won sweet FA of anything of any importance*. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

*and no, the 'Anatomic Jock Race' is not important
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
It would not amount to racism if one criticises a hypothetical racialised rider for doping in case they undergo a ridiculous transformation, given the history of the sport. So this is a strawman.

Criticising such an athlete for this or that because of their supposed origins would.

Doing well when young proves nothing, but at least increases the possibility that a career is not primarily a well tailored cocktail. Though even so it might.

In most contexts I would agree that evoking "genetic talent", whatever it is, as the most important predictor of success as flirting with a right wing position. However, here the context is creme de la creme endurance athletes, and it goes without saying that everyone who made the grade chose their parents very well, wrt aerobic capacity. Some even better than others.

And their doctors too, most likely.
 
The season that riders got their first GT podium:

Hinault - 4 years
LeMond - 4 years
Dumoulin - 6 years (he may not have been hyped up, but he's got 3 GT podiums)
Froome - 4 years
Contador - 5 years
This is pretty funny! So, it is Froome was lazy and then over the course of weeks, sharpened himself up 'cause now he was 'working' for the great purpose of Wiggins :) And to get a bit reductionist, we also just look at years to a podium, and not what those years looked like. Macbindle covered this a bit with Hinault, but Lemond and Contador also had lots heading in the right direction in those years, including the year of those races. Even Dumo showed more in the years prior to his jump into GC battles. In all cases, we are talking about signs of talent and progression that can at least add up. None of that negates doping (duh), but one can track data points and see talent and progression.

Froome, nothing until le Vuelta (edit - I should not say nothing, I should say signs of sporadic moderate talents), and then insanity. I guess the premise that he only started working in the month or two before the Vuelta, even though he had been with Sky for a while then, is where you have now placed all your belief.

That's OK though, because we all have things we need to believe in, and things we suspend disbelief in. Personally, I like a good movie ;)
 
Genetics absolutely plays a part in things. Some people get lucky, others don't. We could all train and practice for a year for the same amount of time and than race against the other and we wouldn't finish together. That goes with any competition we do. Now obviously hard work can and does beat genetics when that is all that the person relies on. And I'm not saying Froome didn't work hard, he absolutely did and worked on his weak points during his dominantion to get better at those. Heck, Freire was saying he barely trained and was going off his talent.
 
The season that riders got their first GT podium:

Hinault - 4 years
LeMond - 4 years
Dumoulin - 6 years (he may not have been hyped up, but he's got 3 GT podiums)
Froome - 4 years
Contador - 5 years
In the first place, these riders showed far more promise before podiuming in a GT. They did not burst upon the scene with that result.

Second, your tacit assumption is that development is totally dependent on the number of years a rider has as pro, while completely ignoring age. How old were these riders when they podiumed for the first time?

Hinault - 23
Lemond - 23
Dumoulin - 26 (but strongly contended at the Vuelta two years earlier)
Contador - 24
Froome - 27

Hinault, Lemond and Contador required several years to podium not because, or just because, of lack of experience, but because they had to develop physically. If they had turned pro at 18, they would have needed even more years. IOW, Froome had a head start in physical maturation, which you are ignoring.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS