Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1362 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
quite...
Hinaults palmares in those 3 previous years include 7 overall stage race victories and liege bastogne liege lol
Lemond's 3 previous years include 4 overall wins including Dauphine and Avenir...also includes a silver and gold in world champs RR lol
Contador....been up there overall in Romandie twice, won catalan week and been up there overall in Basque Country twice
Dumoulin...5 years of gradualliy increasing top tens both by number and by quality
Froome...anatomic jock....

Great work Parker
 
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.
Also worth noting that promising riders were kept out of GT's to mature back then. If Hinault and Lemond were riding today, their GT debuts would have come a couple of years earlier.
 
Not totally sure I follow this discussion. Is the discussion about why one group of near certain dopers (Hinault, Contador, etc.) had a more consistent ramp than another near certain doper, Froome?

Is the argument that, unlike Hinault, Contador, etc., who were doping the entire time they were in the pro peloton, and likely before, Froome showed much restraint and only started doping late in the game when it was clear his dream was almost over?
 
Last edited:
Not totally sure I follow this discussion. Is the discussion about why one group of near certain dopers (Hinault, Contador, etc.) had a more consistent ramp than another near certain doper, Froome? Are we trying to track down the mystery of why exactly Froome made an unprecedented leap at 27? Is the argument that, unlike Hinault, Contador, etc., who were doping the entire time they were in the pro peloton, and likely before, Froome showed much restraint and only started doping late in the game when it was clear his dream was almost over?
Yes.
 
Not totally sure I follow this discussion. Is the discussion about why one group of near certain dopers (Hinault, Contador, etc.) had a more consistent ramp than another near certain doper, Froome?

Is the argument that, unlike Hinault, Contador, etc., who were doping the entire time they were in the pro peloton, and likely before, Froome showed much restraint and only started doping late in the game when it was clear his dream was almost over?
The argument is that talent shows early. If your talent shows early, you might dope, but maybe you do have talent nonetheless. If your talent doesn't show early, you don't have it.
 
The argument is that talent shows early. If your talent shows early, you might dope, but maybe you do have talent nonetheless. If your talent doesn't show early, you don't have it.
.....to that I would only add the related and implied point that some riders respond far better to doping than others...and so leaps such as that of Froome's might demonstrate the proportion of their success which might be assumed to be to due to PED use....
 
Not totally sure I follow this discussion. Is the discussion about why one group of near certain dopers (Hinault, Contador, etc.) had a more consistent ramp than another near certain doper, Froome?

Is the argument that, unlike Hinault, Contador, etc., who were doping the entire time they were in the pro peloton, and likely before, Froome showed much restraint and only started doping late in the game when it was clear his dream was almost over?
The point is to make a list of superdopers but not include armstrong thus enshrining Contador in the list of holy doper-but-it-doesnt-count legends
 
Reactions: VayaVayaVaya
Not totally sure I follow this discussion. Is the discussion about why one group of near certain dopers (Hinault, Contador, etc.) had a more consistent ramp than another near certain doper, Froome?

Is the argument that, unlike Hinault, Contador, etc., who were doping the entire time they were in the pro peloton, and likely before, Froome showed much restraint and only started doping late in the game when it was clear his dream was almost over?
No, the game here is to throw enough shade around Froome’s doping that future readers might harbor some notion that he might have been clean. The hope appears to be that this can be accomplished by not responding to any direct comment about his positive test and acting like his transformation was within the bounds of natural athletic progression. The other riders are just props in the service of the overarching goal.
 
Last edited:
The argument is that talent shows early. If your talent shows early, you might dope, but maybe you do have talent nonetheless. If your talent doesn't show early, you don't have it.
So now we're assigning talent levels based on early results, holding that constant, treating doping as the variable, adding the assumption that all are doping to some level, and concluding that Froome's doping must have been more comprehensive, programmatically superior, or more compatible with his natural response, or some combination of the three?

If I'm going to waste time, I like to know the methodology behind it. :cool:
 
Not totally sure I follow this discussion. Is the discussion about why one group of near certain dopers (Hinault, Contador, etc.) had a more consistent ramp than another near certain doper, Froome?

Is the argument that, unlike Hinault, Contador, etc., who were doping the entire time they were in the pro peloton, and likely before, Froome showed much restraint and only started doping late in the game when it was clear his dream was almost over?
its a nice story, it makes him look human, the notion that you cannot succeed in pro peloton without doping is nothing new, so once it was clear SKY was ready to dump him, he tried PEDs and probably to surprise of everyone he responded so amazingly well that he literally turned into a GC guy in weeks from nothing

unfortunately this sort of understandable path to greatness got tainted by all the "light years ahead" schtick from SKY, positive doping test later didnt help either

i think there is a movie in there somewhere
 
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
That's a lie, of course. Like most of what you do here, btw, it's either lying or amuse everyone by pretending you know something about the sport and even teaching it.

There was a doping "problem" and you're lying pretending there wasn't.
 
Not totally sure I follow this discussion. Is the discussion about why one group of near certain dopers (Hinault, Contador, etc.) had a more consistent ramp than another near certain doper, Froome?

Is the argument that, unlike Hinault, Contador, etc., who were doping the entire time they were in the pro peloton, and likely before, Froome showed much restraint and only started doping late in the game when it was clear his dream was almost over?
Its possible.

For a pro rider, whether to dope is a huge decision. Its a massive gamble. Not an ethical one, but a financial one. Is it worth signing up to the huge monthly costs of a doping programme? Will I see a return on my investment or not?

For Froome, doping was entirely the right decision.
 
Also worth noting that promising riders were kept out of GT's to mature back then. If Hinault and Lemond were riding today, their GT debuts would have come a couple of years earlier.
Good point. Most riders also had to deal with the squad/sponsor politics to get any freedom within a team for most races; let alone GT stage or GC protection. Froome's own experience on Sky echoes that.
Bernal was the rare beneficiary of a fractured TdF that ended strangely. His injuries aside; he may never get close again.
 
So now we're assigning talent levels based on early results, holding that constant, treating doping as the variable, adding the assumption that all are doping to some level, and concluding that Froome's doping must have been more comprehensive, programmatically superior, or more compatible with his natural response, or some combination of the three?

If I'm going to waste time, I like to know the methodology behind it. :cool:
No, try again.
 
Regardless of your opinion of Froome, there are two facts that everyone ought to be able to agree on:

  1. Froome's transformation was unprecedented. He went from basically a nobody to a GT winner (after Cobo was DQd) in a matter of weeks, and very quickly from there to one of the best GT riders of all time. This is totally unlike the path of any other multiple TDF winner. Even LA, with all his doping, was not a nobody, though he had never shown much promise as a GT rider.
  2. Froome has never been willing to be transparent about what happened. He has never furnished numbers of his pre-Vuelta days, other than the FAX that emerged during the DSK tests, and a few remarks about his weight at various points. After his salbutamol positive was cleared, he said a complete explanation would be forthcoming. It never was.
 
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
I would say the general assumption here in the Clinic is that Sky was running a very sophisticated team doping program for all of those years (together with all the other marginal gains stuff, which probably helped marginally too). Probably connected with the official UK efforts for the London Olympics. This program hasn't really been revealed yet, and maybe never will.

Maybe not everything Sky was doing was technically illegal, but in some grey zone of legality. I personally don't think they were using blood bags or anything as crude as that. Why was Froome a part of that despite being an outsider (which he was) - why wouldn't he be if he's on the Vuelta team?

The second assumption is that not every athlete profits from doping equally. This is probably uncontroversial, various genetic factors makes people react differently to all sorts of drugs. Some people for instance are basically immune to morphine. Training level also matters; if you pump a fat male 18-year-old full of anabolic steroids and make him work out under professional guidance for half a year you'll see a more radical transformation than if you do it to an already fit 30-year-old. And if that 18-year-old actually has excellent genetics but just never did anything, then even more so.

It is possible that the factors Froome himself stated for his improved performance (recovery from illness, better coaching, more focused peaking, etc.) and the well known yellow-jersey syndrome (if a rider has a real goal in mind it's easier to give 100% than if you don't think you have a chance anyway) in connection with whatever sinister program Sky was running produced the result we know.

It can be both imo. He probably did try harder, he did train better, and maybe he also did some things along the way that weren't within the rules of the sport.
 
The argument is that talent shows early. If your talent shows early, you might dope, but maybe you do have talent nonetheless. If your talent doesn't show early, you don't have it.
This certainly holds true for riders from the US or Europe, who are racing on the circuit from a young age and have experienced coaches and training plans in place for them.

But Froome was racing with substandard equipment and coaching until he was in his 20s. The conditions weren't really there for him to come close to fulfiling his potential. Which is why Brailsford was always so keen to point out that he was a 'diamond in the rough'. It was the ideal explanation, because it is plausible.

Of course, it's not likely, but it is at least a possibility with Froome. There are circumstances where talent wouldn't show early.
 
Reactions: VayaVayaVaya
This certainly holds true for riders from the US or Europe, who are racing on the circuit from a young age and have experienced coaches and training plans in place for them.

But Froome was racing with substandard equipment and coaching until he was in his 20s. The conditions weren't really there for him to come close to fulfiling his potential. Which is why Brailsford was always so keen to point out that he was a 'diamond in the rough'. It was the ideal explanation, because it is plausible.

Of course, it's not likely, but it is at least a possibility with Froome. There are circumstances where talent wouldn't show early.
4 years in Europe not enough?...with an (alleged) physiological test (the fax) telling him that if he shed some weight he would be one of the fastest cyclists of all time....he just couldn't be ars*d to lose it....but managed it in three weeks in '11
 
This certainly holds true for riders from the US or Europe, who are racing on the circuit from a young age and have experienced coaches and training plans in place for them.

But Froome was racing with substandard equipment and coaching until he was in his 20s.
I‘m curious what evidence exists for this assertion. We already know the “sand shoes” story is a lie from photos of the event. I’m just wondering if you know this for sure. Young riders in the US are rarely equipped with top coaching, certainly not as a matter of course. The very best? Sure, but what is that, 10 guys? I’m skeptical Froome was at any meaningful disadvantage here.


The conditions weren't really there for him to come close to fulfiling his potential. Which is why Brailsford was always so keen to point out that he was a 'diamond in the rough'. It was the ideal explanation, because it is plausible.
Even in the 90s very detailed training plans were available from a number of sources. Amateur racers trained amazingly hard to very strict training plans. Joe Friel‘s book was a great basic primer. Sure he likely didn’t have access to pro level training but neither did almost anyone else. Brailsford was definitely keen to provide an explanation for how Froome went from pack fodder to GT dominator, but not having access to top level coaching as a reason is pretty laughable and has the benefit of playing upon European belief in their own superiority.

Of course, it's not likely, but it is at least a possibility with Froome. There are circumstances where talent wouldn't show early.
It’s interesting that no one brings up the bilharzia excuse anymore. I guess it was debunked so badly on this thread folks stay away. That’s a good thing.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS