Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1364 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
While were having a break from Domestique training we can have a diversion into PR. It maybe a surprise to you but press interview are not considered to be the same as legal depositions. Also media outlets may also exaggerate things to generate interest.

For a case study look at some films. The actors will appear on TV saying how great the movie is and then cinemas will tweet how this as a 'must see'. But then it turns out to be rubbish. Were they all wrong. Inside tip - no they weren't. They knew it was good but part of their job is to get you interested.

Next month I will explain why you don't have to worry about whether Santa Claus will be stopped by Covid 19.
"Describe GoT season 8 in 1 word?"

"Disappointing"

~Kit Harington, mad lad
 
The thing is though, a lot of these lists are massively biased by the sports that that country's catchment includes.
Oh, I understand that. That's why there are only two baseball players and two NFL players on Marca's list. I get that. But baseball is an Olympic sport, and certainly watched more than swimming, which has more representation with Marca. (As an aside, I'm a former swimmer, and probably appreciate Phelps more than most, but I would never regard him as the greatest athlete, sportsman, or whatever. Swimming, even more than cycling, is mostly about getting oxygen to the muscles. There is very little skill involved). And Marca lose all credibility for me by not including Mike Trout, universally recognized as the game's best player since he was a rookie, eight years ago.

There's also the issue of doping. The two MLB players they include, Bonds and ARod, are both established juicers. I don't have a problem with that. People can differ on how much weight they put on doping, or whether they pay attention to it at all. But if you have those players on your list, then to be consistent, you should include LA, too. I know, that would cause an uproar, Marca would probably be boycotted, etc., etc. But the fact remains that LA didn't cheat any more than Bonds and ARod did (and if you think LA deserved everything because he was such a jerk, you don't know Bonds, or the incredible scenes ARod made, threatening to sue everyone in sight). Most people would probably argue that Bonds was a great player regardless of the PEDs, but that isn't so clear with ARod, who was known to be doping fairly early in his career. Their accomplishments were not stripped, as was LA's, but that's because you can't do that in baseball. If you voided any single player's stats, you would have to change the stats of all the players he interacted with, both teammates and players on opposing teams. It's easier to strip cyclists of results.

There are many other inconsistencies on that list. Parker and Ginobili over Dwayne Wade, Chris Paul, James Harden and Giannis? I think their U.S. correspondent must live in San Antonio.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Black Betsy
Quite possibly. Or, much like the US list I referenced with "oh, there was a Winter Olympics this year, we should name some Winter Olympians' rather than looking at who was actually the best Winter Olympian that year, they've probably gone with something like "oh crap, we need to get some baseball players in here. Who are big names? looks up home run records Barry Bonds and Alex Rodríguez? Cool, put 'em in somewhere". I don't dispute your statement that if we include the two of them we should include Lance, I agree with you there. The other alternative is that their frame of references is obsolete (much like the biathlon I mentioned, where Bjørndalen was included over Svendsen who had been better than him all year, more because of what Bjørndalen had achieved 8 years prior when the Games were in the US than what he had done in 2010) and there was more attention paid to baseball in the 2000s than in recent years since Trout has been around.

I would also contest that while your statements "baseball is an Olympic sport" and "[baseball is] watched more than swimming" are both correct, at the same time as an Olympic sport swimming is almost certainly watched more, and also Olympic medals are a currency which has a lot greater translatability to an audience that doesn't understand a sport which elevates the achievements of people like Phelps and Thorpe due to the glut of medals available in swimming. I remember at some point a video was shared on here of Michael Johnson doing punditry for the BBC and them gushing over Phelps' achievements and expecting Johnson to get very patriotic and proud of it, and Johnson was just completely unimpressed, saying something along the lines of "if they had 200 and 400m running, 200 and 400m skipping, 200 and 400m running backwards, and 200 and 400m running while waving your arms around, I could have won eight gold medals". But there's no way that "he has the most Olympic gold medals of anybody in history" doesn't have more currency with the man in the street than any baseball achievement, not to mention the barrage of fancy stats like xWAR that are second nature to somebody raised on the sport, but a disorienting fog to the novice fan.

Even so, a lot of minority sports only get attention paid to them for events on the scale of the Olympics. And there, the problem that baseball has is that it's an Olympic sport, but it's not really an Olympic sport. Much like (road) cycling, tennis or soccer-football, it pays Olympic medals, but unlike for things like athletics, swimming, track cycling, rowing, wrestling etc., the Olympics aren't the biggest achievement in the sport. Lots of people will tune in to see these sports once every four years, and that's only because it's the Olympics - but they'll then remember those performances and not the ongoing performance in the sport.
 

TMJ

Jul 18, 2015
52
5
3,695
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.
 
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

ASK THE COMMUNITY