Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[L.Suds]

Obviously the transformation was when he started using oval chainrings

 

[gillan1969]

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

 

[red_flanders]

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.

 

[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?

 

[SHAD0W93]

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.

 

[hrotha]

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.

 

[gillan1969]

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....

 

[myrideissteelerthanyours]

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

 

[red_flanders]

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.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

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.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

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

I'm all about this game.

 

[saganftw]

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

 

[PhiLiz]

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.

 

[macbindle]

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.

 

[Oldermanish]

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.

 

[hrotha]

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.

No, try again.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

No, try again.

Nah I'm good

 

[Merckx index]

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.

 

[spalco]

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.

 

[DFA123]

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.

 

[gillan1969]

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

 

[red_flanders]

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.

 

[macbindle]

Is it too late to mention Froome had bilharzia?

Turns out he'd had it all his life, which is why he had never shown any promise of being the greatest GT rider in decades.

Fortunately they realised, just in time, and cured it. Or he would have likely been lost to professional cycling forever.

 

[red_flanders]

Is it too late to mention Froome had bilharzia?

Turns out he'd had it all his life, which is why he had never shown any promise of being the greatest GT rider in decades.

Fortunately they realised, just in time, and cured it. Or he would have likely been lost to professional cycling forever.

Don't try and wind me up.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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.

A lot of the time, though, these debates have been had ad nauseaum for several years, and if they haven't been debunked for a while, then points will be raised once more in an attempt to re-postulate the same hypothesis that was rejected before, in order to implant it in the memory of a new readership.

Froome didn't spend most of his formative years in cycling in Kenya (which is a genuine cycling backwater, though it is improving with its infrastructure improving, there are some riders on BikeAid and on an Australian continental team and there's a fairly reasonable looking amateur race called the Tour of Machako which is growing), though, he spent them in South Africa, which while some way removed from spending your formative racing years in Belgium or Italy, is far less of a backwater. And especially was less of one in the mid-late 2000s when they had a few pro races and a stronger cycling calendar than they in fact have today, in which the young Froome took part. There were as many pro races and almost as many pro teams in South Africa as there were in Britain for the young Geraint Thomas and his colleagues in the mid 2000s, in fact. When he signed for Barloworld they were, per CQ, the 21st ranked team in the world. One of the very best ProContinental setups in that respect, buoyed largely by the results of Robbie Hunter in sprints and Mauricio Soler's breakthrough Tour de France.

Now, did he get a later start than many? Yes. It's difficult to compare him to, say, Michael Woods or Primož Roglič because they were already sportsmen when they started cycling late. And he didn't start cycling late enough to be that directly comparable to, say, Tony Rominger, because Froome was a pro cyclist at 21. But even though he's European we could compare him to, say, Bauke Mollema, who didn't start cycling competitively until his late teens and was winning the Tour de l'Avenir two years later.

He must have had something, other than the willingness to commit identity theft, that meant people saw something in him, otherwise he wouldn't have got to the UCI World Cycling Centre. But there are several years between that and his eventual breakout that are being written off as though he was in some cycling backwater until he signed for Team Sky. In reality, Barloworld was a pretty good ProContinental team which in retrospect was not one of the most reputable teams out there, but at least wasn't one of the least either.

But Froome wasn't even the best young African climber on it.