• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1365 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Hardware does expedite healing and provides stability if one needs movement and strength right away. But it can lead to complications later. And some surgeons will refuse based on their ethical read of the benefits and potential complications.
I’ll clarify this as it was unclear: I was responding specifically to the collarbone question.

People can’t get enough of weighing in on this
 
Why would you waste time believing his injuries are exaggerated?
I was looking for a jiffy-bag around here with some 2000 mcg of salbutamol, but somehow the database disintegrated and was only left with anomalous endogenic concentrations. No rule broken of course, mind you. Just millions in legal fees.

Transparency index?
 
Last edited:
Me too, exactly the same with 4 broken ribs and scapula, no surgery.
No broken ribs but I did fracture my scapula during a bike race.

In hospital for a day whilst the doctor checked my MRI scan. He said that it should heal in a new position without the need of surgery.

Was back on the trainer 5 days later. Completed a 100km Zwift group ride two weeks after my crash.
 
Ah yes, the infamous "sandshoes". That just "happened" to have ratchet straps...
Having persevered through crushing poverty and chronic bilharzia infestations as a child, Froome wore those cherished sandshoes heroically at the dawn of what would become a legendary cycling career. Consider also how, wracked with uncontrolled asthma, dehydration, and failing kidneys (unable to properly metabolize the minute doses of legally administered salbutamol in his system), Froome persevered on the way to that Vuelta victory in 2017. :D
 
"sandshoes" I had thought was just a misinterpretation of Froome showing up at a meeting in sandshoes, but now I see quoted in Walsh book Brailsford really was talking about racing
And the chronology seems to be :
Age 20 - Froome had never heard of the Tour de France, despite having been captain of his high school cycling club and member of the University of Johannesburg cycling club for two years
Age 21 - Froome was unaware of clipless pedals, or simply preferred to ride in sandshoes on platform pedals, at the international racing level
Age 22 - Froome becomes professional cyclist

I never knew that part of the Froome story

As for the injuries, I'm not going to write him off so soon, Beloki at least completed a GT and Froome has vastly more resources than Beloki did
 
Not sure the PR will work out they way Brailsford would like.

Former Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman to admit he told ‘a lot of lies’

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/29/former-team-sky-doctor-richard-freeman-to-admit-he-told-a-lot-of-lies
Sky/Ineos will skate by uneffected by this latest admission. Their fans will back the bus up and run over the poor doctor letting him suffer on the skewer of being the scapegoat for all the wrongs of Sky's past.
 
Reactions: JosephK
This constitutes very veridical proof of doping at Sky and Team GB.

It is the reference point for every medal and TDF win.
Well good luck with that.

There were three cycling stories today.

  1. The Tour of California is taking a year off - probably folding
  2. ASO are moving into Saudi Arabia (presumably North Korea disputed the sock length rules)
  3. Shane Sutton needed some 'marginal gains' when he got back in the dating game after a divorce.
 
going down with the ship I see @Parker :) Here's a cycling question for today...starter for 10 - what was 'Froomey's' world/CQ ranking when he 'won' the Vuelta in '11. Follow -up for 15...what is the next lowest ranked rider to win a GT?
Yeah he came apparently out of nowhere. I'd have been as surprised as you if I hadn't been told in 2008 (by people who know) that Froome was a very unpolished diamond. Frankly Wiggins was more of surprise. Froome was more 'so this is what they were talking about'
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
25
230
Yeah he came apparently out of nowhere. I'd have been as surprised as you if I hadn't been told in 2008 (by people who know) that Froome was a very unpolished diamond. Frankly Wiggins was more of surprise. Froome was more 'so this is what they were talking about'
Wiggins moving from Vaughters b/c Vaughters wasn't going to do marginal gains. I'm in agreement with your assessment of Wiggins.
 
Sky/Ineos will skate by unaffected by this latest admission. Their fans will back the bus up and run over the poor doctor letting him suffer on the skewer of being the scapegoat for all the wrongs of Sky's past.
Agree that not much will happen for Froome / Ineos, having persisted through years of bad press already, and with relevance of Freeman / Sutton fading.
Freeman’s lawyer, Mary O’Rourke QC quoted in article:
The GMC aren’t going to believe whatever he says, they are bent on saying it was doping,” she said.
Seems unusual (to me) for an attorney to both set out the defense strategy and predict in advance that it won't work. Her point probably is the same as yours, that someone wants blood... and so Freeman is going to come out of it worse off than the more-culpable people.
Freeman and Sutton square off, the former admits the drugs but says it wasn't for athletes, this is found implausible and at best, improper, after testimony by an endocrinologist... so Freeman gets some kind of sanction. Sutton continues to deny knowledge of the package, and in the absence of evidence, nothing happens. There is a hidden human cost and trail of wreckage in the lives of everyone affected, however. Far from unscathed.
The story is being promoted in the press as "stunning", "explosive", and similar superlatives but barring some major new revelations from other characters in the saga, will be anticlimactic
This constitutes very veridical proof of doping at Sky and Team GB. It is the reference point for every medal and TDF win.
It seems significant in the way that you describe, in that it establishes a top-down supply chain. Maybe there was already 'proof' at Sky by the Tiernan-Locke case and TUE abuse, but those were not structurally the same
From Ineos staff website:
Team doctors: Neil Heron, Richard Usher, Derick MacLeod, Inigo Sarrieguil... these are the same people, so the medical core of Team Sky has not changed, just been rebranded. Meanwhile the Ineos roster is changing, and so an interesting question is: how a point of control for a doping program persists. It seemed like Froome, Wiggins, Thomas were compartmentalized to the point that they really may not have known what teammates were doing with doping methods. But who in management / physicians has knowledge of what, and where do those paths intersect ...
There has to be a balance-of-power that maintains silence as staff and riders leave a team. Dont' think Froome's situation will be changed by Freeman vs. Sutton
 
Yeah he came apparently out of nowhere. I'd have been as surprised as you if I hadn't been told in 2008 (by people who know) that Froome was a very unpolished diamond. Frankly Wiggins was more of surprise. Froome was more 'so this is what they were talking about'
The only thing the "unpolished diamond" explanation really has to go off, is Froome at the 2008 TDF briefly holding Menchov's wheel for hairpins 20 and 19 after Menchov had to chase back on after he outdid himself and crashed uphill on AdH. Froome only had the freedom to do that much because half his team popped positives during the race.

Even then, Menchov was only able to chase back on because the main group were all staring at Evans trying to make him realise that Sastre had just taken off with the win. Apart from Sastre's heroics, 2008 was a slow ascent of the Alpe d'Huez and Froome still came in almost 10 minutes behind the Evans group.
 
Last edited:
Agree that not much will happen for Froome / Ineos, having persisted through years of bad press already, and with relevance of Freeman / Sutton fading.
Freeman’s lawyer, Mary O’Rourke QC quoted in article:
The GMC aren’t going to believe whatever he says, they are bent on saying it was doping,” she said.
Seems unusual (to me) for an attorney to both set out the defense strategy and predict in advance that it won't work. Her point probably is the same as yours, that someone wants blood... and so Freeman is going to come out of it worse off than the more-culpable people.
Freeman and Sutton square off, the former admits the drugs but says it wasn't for athletes, this is found implausible and at best, improper, after testimony by an endocrinologist... so Freeman gets some kind of sanction. Sutton continues to deny knowledge of the package, and in the absence of evidence, nothing happens. There is a hidden human cost and trail of wreckage in the lives of everyone affected, however. Far from unscathed.
The story is being promoted in the press as "stunning", "explosive", and similar superlatives but barring some major new revelations from other characters in the saga, will be anticlimactic
It seems significant in the way that you describe, in that it establishes a top-down supply chain. Maybe there was already 'proof' at Sky by the Tiernan-Locke case and TUE abuse, but those were not structurally the same
From Ineos staff website:
Team doctors: Neil Heron, Richard Usher, Derick MacLeod, Inigo Sarrieguil... these are the same people, so the medical core of Team Sky has not changed, just been rebranded. Meanwhile the Ineos roster is changing, and so an interesting question is: how a point of control for a doping program persists. It seemed like Froome, Wiggins, Thomas were compartmentalized to the point that they really may not have known what teammates were doing with doping methods. But who in management / physicians has knowledge of what, and where do those paths intersect ...
There has to be a balance-of-power that maintains silence as staff and riders leave a team. Dont' think Froome's situation will be changed by Freeman vs. Sutton
Previously one could make very well justified inferences, based especially on past history/knowledge of the sport/watts et al.

But now: "The team doctor got popped for ordering testosterone and covering it up."

The only surprising thing is how old school it is.

Of course nothing will change, but if one could be bothered to read all 1000+ pages of this thread, and collate all the defences put forth by the Froome-believers, that sentence sounds rather refreshing: "The team doctor got popped for ordering testosterone and covering it up."
 
Reactions: JosephK
The only thing the "unpolished diamond" explanation really has to go off, is Froome at the 2008 TDF briefly holding Menchov's wheel for hairpins 20 and 19 after Menchov had to chase back on after he outdid himself and crashed uphill on AdH. Froome only had the freedom to do that much because half his team popped positives during the race.

Even then, Menchov was only able to chase back on because the main group were all staring at Evans trying to make him realise that Sastre had just taken off with the win. Apart from Sastre's heroics, 2008 was a slow ascent of the Alpe d'Huez and Froome still came in almost 10 minutes behind the Evans group.
Actually Menchov crashing uphill was on Prato Nevoso. Froome stayed with him on merit for those hairpins. However, for all the hype that performance was given in retrospect about justifying his subsequent meteoric rise three years later, he finished the stage at +11'41, some 9'26" behind the Russian. He was also detached from the group just after Johan van Summeren. The stage 20 time trial is more fertile ground for those trying to prove 2008 shows that the rest of his career was not unexpected. That performance has been done to death, though, for both its positives and negatives in hinting at Froome's future. Largely because he has so few noteworthy race days before that Vuelta that those few there were have been overanalysed retrospectively and far more meaning has been attributed to them than they realistically show.
 
Actually Menchov crashing uphill was on Prato Nevoso. Froome stayed with him on merit for those hairpins. However, for all the hype that performance was given in retrospect about justifying his subsequent meteoric rise three years later, he finished the stage at +11'41, some 9'26" behind the Russian. He was also detached from the group just after Johan van Summeren. The stage 20 time trial is more fertile ground for those trying to prove 2008 shows that the rest of his career was not unexpected. That performance has been done to death, though, for both its positives and negatives in hinting at Froome's future. Largely because he has so few noteworthy race days before that Vuelta that those few there were have been overanalysed retrospectively and far more meaning has been attributed to them than they realistically show.
Whats the criteria for meteoric rise?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS