Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1370 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
New theory - Froome has additional weight from being so full of sh*t.

Unfortunate fact: all the doping in the world does not wave a magic wand and enable one to simply recover from catastrophic injuries.

Truth: if we see even a hint that Froome is within top 10 Tour form or likely in for the Olympics, then the he's found a new chemical breakthrough!
 
The Fancy Bears hack revealed Sky and Chris Froome used a Therapeutic Use Exemption to lawfully take the corticosteroid Prednisolone in May, 2013 and April, 2014.

Now, ex-doping cyclist David Millar describes it as a "once a year" medication so maybe Froome has not had his yet, based on those dates, which were seasons that he started the Tdf.

If he gets his jab before his next race at the end of May (Critérium du Dauphiné) then we should see a big improvement if he has recovered from his injuries (still questionable).

Ex-doper Joerg Jaksche says such medicinal drugs give a 3-5% improvement by reducing weight, reducing inflammation, improving recovery and reducing pain.

Would this really be sufficient to transform the Froome we see now into a WT contender?

Seems like a reach............
if this is a once a year medication, why he didn't take it in 2015 an 2016....
 
Who says he didn't take it? It would be naive to think the Fancy Bears hacked everything.

So you think that Fancy Bears hacked Froome's ADAMS account where all the TUE information is held but only released parts of it, which conveniently matched what he had publicly stated

Also it wasn't a jab, they were chest infection pills.

And the Millar quote was about Wiggins's TUE.

It appears that your suspicions are based false information. Don't worry that's fairly common in this forum.
 
So you think that Fancy Bears hacked Froome's ADAMS account where all the TUE information is held but only released parts of it, which conveniently matched what he had publicly stated

Also it wasn't a jab, they were chest infection pills.

And the Millar quote was about Wiggins's TUE.

It appears that your suspicions are based false information. Don't worry that's fairly common in this forum.
You just mean pills right? Because they're for severe allergies? Not an infection.

I'm sure Froome's been on a whole pharmacy during his career, so who knows what was next :)

This said, I don't think there is any likelihood he is going to turn this around. It must be extremely difficult for him to have to continually adjust his expectations down.
 
You just mean pills right? Because they're for severe allergies? Not an infection.

I'm sure Froome's been on a whole pharmacy during his career, so who knows what was next :)

This said, I don't think there is any likelihood he is going to turn this around. It must be extremely difficult for him to have to continually adjust his expectations down.

No they're for a chest infection, nothing to do with allergies, which he doesn't have. Froome's not been on a whole pharmacy - that's your invention. He is confirmed by him and hacker to have had two TUEs

I understand that facts are inconvenient to your argument, but you really should consider them.
 
No they're for a chest infection, nothing to do with allergies, which he doesn't have. Froome's not been on a whole pharmacy - that's your invention. He is confirmed by him and hacker to have had two TUEs

I understand that facts are inconvenient to your argument, but you really should consider them.
You do not know that Froome has not been through a whole pharmacy. His performance transformation way back was certainly reminiscent of pharmaceutically enhanced. I understand that facts are inconvenient to your argument, but you really should consider them.
 
Reactions: Rackham
Froome is getting worse, so something isn't working with his new team.

It reminds me a bit of Beloki who was juicing like the best of them at Once, but after his crash in 2003 he never, never came anywhere near his best again in this subsequent team. It's the tentative fragile art of clinic theory in pro cycling, i.e. what works in one team doesn't work in another (with other doctors), or doesn't work after a certain age or bad crash.

But with regards to the crash I'll say its influence now is vastly overrated on Froome considering he was way better last year (ergo the crash excuse doesn't work anymore). Now it's just his age & dysfunctional program IMO which means he's toast.
 
Reactions: JosefK
Froome was in 2012/13 lean as a man can get without dying, he had 0 body fat, lost fat in his lips and stuff.

He's just missing the chemical magic that can get you that lean in his new team.

For sure the severe injuries hinder also him, no matter what juicing he does or training camps or weightloss. Otherwise in a full sky program in 2020 he would be back to his best. But he was better there than now.

He should try different races, have some fun, do some 1 day races.
 
Why would he not be taking the same stuff he was at Sky? He forgot the name of it? Can’t afford a doping doctor? Just makes zero sense to me.

He’s injured and aging. And his motivation doesn’t look great.
Why wouldn't Viviani, Tony Martin and Gilbert take the same things they're taking at Quickstep?

Strange logic.
 
Froome is getting worse, so something isn't working with his new team.

It reminds me a bit of Beloki who was juicing like the best of them at Once, but after his crash in 2003 he never, never came anywhere near his best again in this subsequent team. It's the tentative fragile art of clinic theory in pro cycling, i.e. what works in one team doesn't work in another (with other doctors), or doesn't work after a certain age or bad crash.

But with regards to the crash I'll say its influence now is vastly overrated on Froome considering he was way better last year (ergo the crash excuse doesn't work anymore). Now it's just his age & dysfunctional program IMO which means he's toast.
A crash like that has no permanent effect on the body and you can recover 100%, appears to be what you are saying, yeah sure... I am guessing you've never had a serious leg fracture, let alone multiple fractures.
 
Why wouldn't Viviani, Tony Martin and Gilbert take the same things they're taking at Quickstep?

Strange logic.
Strange logic? Because you think these peoples programs suffered (speculation, there are many other factors), Froome’s (speculated, zero evidence) lack of a program must also be the reason? Riders have left Sky and gotten better it got worse when they arrived. Your premises are faulty and unsupported.

I’m very open to hearing why Froome can’t replicate his program. Particularly with Froome, who appears to have made his initial transformation without Sky’s help. They were as shocked by what he did in the 2011 Vuelta as anyone.

Doping isn’t magic, in its results or in the construction of programs.
 
Last edited:
he got a big fat contract and he's already won 4 Tours, he has nothing left to prove. there's no reason for him to take a big risk with a doping program. he's just gonna be packfill and pad his bank account. he already got away with testing positive once, there's no reason to go through all of that again to finish 7th or something at the Tour which IMO with his age and injury would be his maximum even with the best doping program on earth.

i cant see him being a GC contender ever again.
 
A crash like that has no permanent effect on the body and you can recover 100%, appears to be what you are saying, yeah sure... I am guessing you've never had a serious leg fracture, let alone multiple fractures.
Why ask me? It was Froome himself who claimed he could win the Tour again when he signed with Israel, so the defense mechanism narrative used by his fans to handwave his embarrassing performances (i.e. which I'll paraphrase as "it's the crash!!!") was already disregarded as a nonfactor by Froome & his new employer.

He's the one who in his youtube propaganda videos, interviews, statements & social media posts was repeating the "I'm aiming to win the Tour" mantra. So he's the one who already replied "yes" to the "can Froome recover 100%?" question.
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
This is all speculation - wait and see:

If I Could Tell You - W. H. Auden

Time will say nothing but I told you so,
Time only knows the price we have to pay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

If we should weep when clowns put on their show,
If we should stumble when musicians play,
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

There are no fortunes to be told, although,
Because I love you more than I can say,
If I could tell you I would let you know.

The winds must come from somewhere when they blow,
There must be reasons why the leaves decay;
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

Perhaps the roses really want to grow,
The vision seriously intends to stay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

Suppose all the lions get up and go,
And all the brooks and soldiers run away;
Will Time say nothing but I told you so?
If I could tell you I would let you know.
 
Obviously Froome has not been himself since his fall and his injuries were serious but I wonder what is the main physical factor of Froome being so much weaker than he used to be?

Factors determining cyclist's condition:

1) Absolute maximum aerobic capacity (VO2 max) factors (associated with the ability to consume high amount of oxygen per unit of time)
a) cardiac output, which is a product of max HR and stroke volume. This should be pretty constant in such a short period of time. Max HR's change is minimal in a period of 2-3 years and stroke volume is already large for all active pros (so shouldn't change much at this stage).
b) arteriovenous oxygen difference: the difference between oxygen content in arterial and venous blood. This is more interesting of course, esp. in this thread. If he used to dope and he's not doping anymore (i.e. because he doesn't want to risk ruining his reputation at the end) then arterial oxygen content drops significantly reducing his performance. Other factor is muscles ability to consume oxygen (to minimize O2 in venous blood) - maybe after such a crash Froome couldn't rebuild his muscles to be 100% like before (this could be the case but he was working on equalling power in both legs).

2) Metabolic factors (associated with the ability to perform at high percentage of VO2 max):
Obviously all trained endurance pros can sustain a much higher percentage of VO2 max effort then you average Joe. That's what training is about: to shift lactate curves to the right (i.e. increasing aerobic and anaerobic thresholds). Is it possible that a long break in intense training caused the permanent significant lowering of Froome's anaerobic threshold? (which is crucial for very intense uphill/TT efforts). The guy has been training for so many years and also trained a lot since the crash so IMO this doesn't explain entirely this drop of form (but could be one of the reasons).

3) Body mass - Obvious factor determining how fit people are. All these absolute power/aerobic capacity figures are usually divided by mass to assess a cyclist's ability to perform in variable terrain. Chris said he's 2-3 kilos too heavy, but it explains only a fraction of his form drop: i.e. 1 minute on a steep 10 km climb (30-minute intense effort).

4) Other limiting factors associated with his injuries: Such a serious injury may have decreased his pedalling efficiency (causing a quicker tiring) or he still feels some pain capping his maximum effort. This is likely to be an important factor here.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: PhiLiz

ASK THE COMMUNITY