He was too busy stealing bunny rabbits to dedicate time on his bike
Yep, so basically talent doesn't always 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.
And there's a difference between showing talent, and showing "yea, this guy will be the one to win 7 GTs" talent. As I've said many times, the progression that he showed from 2007 to 2011 suggested somebody whose upside was somewhere around the Egoí Martínez/Chris Anker Sørensen kind of level.Yep, so basically talent doesn't always show early.
Then he sucked for half a year again.
If I recall correctly, he sucked between the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour. He was supposed to be co-leader but he sucked pretty bad and wound up domestique. I think?When was that? Beginning with the 2011 Vuelta, revised, he was a GT winner every year till his crash last year, except in 2012 and 2014, when he finished second. He had to defer to Wiggins in 2012--he certainly didn't suck in that Tour--and he crashed out of Tour in 2014, and had to settle for second in the Vuelta. No sucking there.
If I recall correctly, he sucked between the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour. He was supposed to be co-leader but he sucked pretty bad and wound up domestique. I think?
No. He did not ride reasonably well in Romandie.He was dealing with health issues during that period, a period in which many GT contenders, including Froome himself in later years, don't do particularly well in races. When he finally returned to racing, in May, at Romandie, he rode reasonably well.
No. He did not ride reasonably well in Romandie.
As the stage began, eighth man down the ramp Froome attacked the 16.24-kilometre course to lay down a benchmark time of 30:41 on what has been an impressive return from illness in Switzerland.
He also rode Algarve and Critérium International and did nothing.
Froome should probably be out in public begging everyone with a fever to cough in his face. If Badzilla transoformed him from a talentless plodder into a GT winner then covid-19 could transform him into the greatest cyclist of all time.
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
Technically it’s not a positive is it? It’s an AAF.No doping problems. Except for several incidents including a positive test.
Yeah well technically the UCI stuffed his positive test and wiped their hands of it with no rational explanation. Not sure what calling it an AAF does for ya, but fact is he was caught dead to rights with double the legal limit of Salbutamol in his veins.Technically it’s not a positive is it? It’s an AAF.
Regardless, what are the ‘several incidents’ you refer to? I’ve been following this thread for years and I dont remember several incidents for Froome, strange things for Sky - yes, but Froome I don’t remember.
Yeah well technically the UCI stuffed his positive test and wiped their hands of it with no rational explanation. Not sure what calling it an AAF does for ya, but fact is he was caught dead to rights with double the legal limit of Salbutamol in his veins.
As for the rest, there are many and it’s all in the thread. Not going to rekindle all of that in detail.
Suffice it to say the team and Froome are both awash in doping scandals, and that’s just the stuff we know about.
Worth remembering that Salbutamol does not require a TUE for its use in or out of competition.
Froome is annoying precisely because there is so little evidence to explain such an utterly bizarre career trajectory.
Not now. It did, earlier, when Froome was racing, and there still is no evidence that he had a TUE for it.
Salbutomol TUE was replaced by the inhalation Threshold in 2009 Merckx
That's not my words you've quoted Mercks, that's macs.
The only year Froome as a pro rider would have required a TUE to inhale Salbutomol (of any inhalation amount or upto the threshold) was 2009 at Barloworld.
Despite the granting of a Therapeutic Use Exemption, the presence of salbutamol in urine in excess of 1000 ng/mL will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of a therapeutic dose of inhaled salbutamol.
Worth remembering that Salbutamol does not require a TUE for its use in or out of competition. It is not EPO It is hardly anything.
To be fair, that last clause in your final sentence casts a shadow over your point. What "we dont know about" resides purely in our imagination. It doesnt add weight to an argument, it delegitimises it.
Im scratching my head to recall doping scandals involving Froome. There is the Salbutamol, and if that is a scandal it revolves around the UCI response rather than Froome. I dont see Salbutamol as being of any significance at all with regards to performance. The significance is the gulf between the treatment of Froome, and that of Ulissi, and the damage the case did to anti-doping.
The only other incident I can recall is the 2014 Romandie prednisolone TUE, and again what I find most discomfitting is the behaviour of the UCI.
Froome is annoying precisely because there is so little evidence to explain such an utterly bizarre career trajectory. Prednisolone in 2014 doesnt explain 2011, 2012, 2013...etc, Just as numerous riders' use of prednisolone in the 80's, 90's, 2000's doesnt explain Froome's stratospheric rise.