Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1371 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
As Froome rightly says, he has to keep trying to see how far he can get as he doesn't want to look back with what ifs. It took LeMond just over two years and his injury, although life threatening due to pneumothorax blood loss, wasn't nearly as complicated to recover from. Even LeMond was going to retire as after 2 years he was still only a top 50 rider. By '89 Giro he was an hour off the podium, yet 4 weeks later began Tour and went on to win it and again in '90.
Froome is visibly more muscled now, it might be that he switches to one day racing if the muscle bulk is required to keep him balanced on the bike. Saying that though 3kg is about a minute lost per 10km on a typical average 8% climb in Alps. It's visibly huge on paper, but in terms of the performance difference, not really that much.
 
Jan 29, 2021
199
164
530
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.
Bones and muscles, that's the problem. I don't think he lost is aeroby capacity. Even if he lost something of that, he would be anyway competitive, because is threshold was 419 watts for 1 hour.
 
lols......he used to beat Martin in TT with a chest infection...and won the Vuelta with chest infection, asthma attacks and a kidney infection (mind you he did have the one man approval machine Zorzoli for the first and Sky's v expensive lawyers and the UCI disregarding their rules).....so assembled forumistes...notwithstanding last stage chest, the new excuse seems to be weight, only a few km and all muscle...should he not still be able to tank it in flat TTs???
 
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.
Nice deflection. I ain't defending his performances, they are what they are. I always thought it was highly unlikely he would return to his previous GT winning form given his accident. However, to state/infer that is due to lack of PEDs rather than his injuries is laughable.
 
Reactions: Cookster15
lols......he used to beat Martin in TT with a chest infection...and won the Vuelta with chest infection, asthma attacks and a kidney infection (mind you he did have the one man approval machine Zorzoli for the first and Sky's v expensive lawyers and the UCI disregarding their rules).....so assembled forumistes...notwithstanding last stage chest, the new excuse seems to be weight, only a few km and all muscle...should he not still be able to tank it in flat TTs???
Agree with the clinic stuff for Froome but its poor form to doubt the chest infection. Do you think all chest infections are the same? Nobody can win grand tours with serious chest infections it simply isn't possible. If any rider won a grand tour and said they did so with a serious chest infection then they would be lying. The aerobic demands are simply too great and a puffer does not control the build up of fluid.
 
Last edited:
Froome racing in 2021 according to PCS:

UAE Tour - GC 48th
Catalunya - 81st
Tour of the Alps - 93rd
Romandie - 96th

So, next race, best he's hoping for 100?

As the season has gone on he has gradually got worse as has his excuses. Pre Romandie it was because he was doing weight training, then it was a chest infection.

Come on. What next?
 
Agree with the clinic stuff for Froome but its poor form to doubt the chest infection. Do you think all chest infections are the same? Nobody can win grand tours with serious chest infections it simply isn't possible. If any rider won a grand tour and said they did so with a serious chest infection then they would be lying. The aerobic demands are simply too great and a puffer does not control the build up of fluid.
In all honesty, I don't think it is poor form at all to doubt the chest infection. We know athletes have used whatever excuse fits the treatment "needed". We also know there are unscrupulous MDs out there who will also BS things. So he might have a bad chest infection. Or it might be a lot of BS.

This said, I agree that suggesting Froome's current issues are mainly related to a lack of "supplemental help", which has also been a trend, is not really an honest appraisal. All the magic potions in the world don't negate a seriously nasty crash and all of its effects. And if he did get sick, it might have had an impact. But he does seem to be consistently floating in the back of the field and not improving, race after race, for quite some time.
 
He's most probably back to clean Barloworld Froome. Sure his chest infection may have cost him 5 places on GC but when doms are dropping you on climbs whilst they're in the fun bus chatting to their mates alarm bells must be ringing in his head

On this form ISUN would be on drugs themselves to take him to the Tour.

Gwan Froomey. Get to altitude and feed some snakes
 
Agree with the clinic stuff for Froome but its poor form to doubt the chest infection. Do you think all chest infections are the same? Nobody can win grand tours with serious chest infections it simply isn't possible. If any rider won a grand tour and said they did so with a serious chest infection then they would be lying. The aerobic demands are simply too great and a puffer does not control the build up of fluid.
I don't think anything off limits after the 2011 transformation. If this is a rider who has bigger targets he shouldn't have started the stage if his chest infection was so serious. I'm merely pointing out from previous experience, the worse his health problems, the better he's been. This is a rider who has returned to his natural level - if any other pro at his age was given the chance to return to their 25 year old form they would jump at the chance......
 
Last edited:
Reactions: MartinGT
lols.....

my previous post was cut short....after the whole wiggins thing surely any journo worth their salt must know the next one to fall will be the most glaring of all recent/current riders...my speculation is that there is a PI on his case...and he literally can't get hold of the gear :)

loving this bit....

"We both know very well who took the initiative of closing this case and the reasons why"

now that does not refer to something currently in the public domian....
 
Last edited:
lols.....

my previous post was cut short....after the whole wiggins thing surely any journo worth their salt must know the next one to fall will be the most glaring of all recent/current riders...my speculation is that there is a PI on his case...and he literally can't get hold of the gear :)

loving this bit....

"We both know very well who took the initiative of closing this case and the reasons why"

now that does not refer to something currently in the public domian....
Interesting timing with this BBC piece, i.e. their journalists just happened to be given copies of private correspondence between the UCI & Wada at a time when Froome's performances are complete garbage & he's basically stealing a living.

Okay.
 
Agree with the clinic stuff for Froome but its poor form to doubt the chest infection. Do you think all chest infections are the same? Nobody can win grand tours with serious chest infections it simply isn't possible. If any rider won a grand tour and said they did so with a serious chest infection then they would be lying. The aerobic demands are simply too great and a puffer does not control the build up of fluid.
Didn't Chris Horner do exactly this? He also has long term problems from it but he went nuclear to combat it and win the Vuelta.

Froome's leg/body issues are a different and apparently longer term issue.
 
Agree with the clinic stuff for Froome but its poor form to doubt the chest infection. Do you think all chest infections are the same? Nobody can win grand tours with serious chest infections it simply isn't possible. If any rider won a grand tour and said they did so with a serious chest infection then they would be lying. The aerobic demands are simply too great and a puffer does not control the build up of fluid.
You can win Romandie with it if you get your buddy Zorzoli to give you a BS TUE.

RE: the chest "infection", it should be said that I don't believe a word Froome says WRT training or health, he's lied so many times. That said, he obviously has a cough, and reasonably could have caught it this week. Is it why he isn't performing as he implied the other day? Very doubtful. He's got a new "reason" every day. The guy has absolutely no connection to the truth where any of this is concerned, so it's hardly a surprise that those who have had their intelligence insulted over the years by Froome and Sky laugh whenever he makes a claim, no matter how pedestrian. That people doubt his statements is a DIRECT result of the number and absurdity of his false statements over the years.
 
Last edited:
I agree Froome comes out with a new reason every day. I agree he seems to be making up excuses. I'm just pointing out that downplaying chest infections is poor. Sometimes in this sport there is an undercurrent belief that riders are weak if they don't overcome illness. If any of those who claim this had any experience racing bikes they would know its rubbish.
Didn't Chris Horner do exactly this? He also has long term problems from it but he went nuclear to combat it and win the Vuelta.
No he didn't Horner did BBs. I've never heard of super human performance that might explain Horner's ride on l'Angliru from drugs that combat flu like symptoms. Only blood bags, EPO or testosterone does that.
 
Reactions: Ripper
Interesting timing with this BBC piece, i.e. their journalists just happened to be given copies of private correspondence between the UCI & Wada at a time when Froome's performances are complete garbage & he's basically stealing a living.

Okay.
Patrick Nathanson & Roan are good mates. My guess is Nathanson is looking into a Froome film/documentary and this is just some new information he's passed onto his good mate Dan Roan.
 
No, Horner himself thinks that his lung issues started in 2014

His issue was bacterial though wasn't it? Froome's is typically just the usual cyclists bronchitis from racing up and down mountains, but if not treated is a more serious risk because it triggers asthma. There's not that many treatments to manage asthma being triggered by chest infections and bronchial issues than some sort of substance that would require a TUE if you wanted to carry on with the race.
 
Patrick Nathanson & Roan are good mates. My guess is Nathanson is looking into a Froome film/documentary and this is just some new information he's passed onto his good mate Dan Roan.

The whole thing seems fairly clear to me.

  1. WADA know that Salbutamol isn't really a PED but is necessary to many.
  2. They put a limit on it the same as the manufacturers guidelines to stop idiots trying it out as a PED
  3. They keep their old test so they can warn athletes of over use, but know a ban won't hold up at CAS with a decent lawyer. (Note all Salbutamol cases at UKAD - the only open AD - resulted in a warning)
  4. The brand new UCI regime leak the test as Lappartient wants to be the conquerer of the corrupt British to the French who can appoint him to IOC membership.
  5. WADA points out that this isn't going to hold up and Froome's lawyer's know it.
  6. UCI eventually have to back down and try to blame WADA, who in turn blame UCI for leaking it in the first place.
 
Reactions: veganrob
The whole thing seems fairly clear to me.

  1. WADA know that Salbutamol isn't really a PED but is necessary to many.
  2. They put a limit on it the same as the manufacturers guidelines to stop idiots trying it out as a PED
  3. They keep their old test so they can warn athletes of over use, but know a ban won't hold up at CAS with a decent lawyer. (Note all Salbutamol cases at UKAD - the only open AD - resulted in a warning)
  4. The brand new UCI regime leak the test as Lappartient wants to be the conquerer of the corrupt British to the French who can appoint him to IOC membership.
  5. WADA points out that this isn't going to hold up and Froome's lawyer's know it.
  6. UCI eventually have to back down and try to blame WADA, who in turn blame UCI for leaking it in the first place.
I think that it is a little disingenuous to say that Salbutamol is not a PED. Inhaled, yes, there is pretty much no evidence of it being effective at increasing function in a sustained effort. But orally, there are from my understanding several studies that indicate it builds muscle mass. While this takes time to develop, and, as such, seems unlikely to behind the testing result that created this controversy, I think that WADA would be justified in deciding to consider it worth assessing whether it had a role in an athlete’s performance.

And if that is the case, then I don’t understand how one tests only for oral Salbutamol versus inhaled.
 
All of what we know about whether it's effective is done with certain doses under specific conditions, not always useful in determining if it will work on elite athletes at high doses for supra-maximal effort and such long-duration efforts. So we really don't know it's effective. The Froome positive seemed quite likely a very large dose that hadn't yet cleared by morning. We have no idea how much he actually took, we only know that a very large amount was left in his system at the time of testing. He could have and probably did take way more the night before.

Guys do not take stuff at that level without reason and without it having been tested OOC. Sky and attention to detail, remember? Or is that line conveniently ignored when it doesn't suit those defending him?

He took a very large dose of it on a day he needed to recover, when he'd lost time at the end of a hard stage. Why? In tests with non-elite athletes under sub threshold conditions it showed increased time to exhaustion. Exactly what he needed. Is that the reason? I can't say. But I don't believe for a second they gave it to him for no reason, and the official explanation is laughable.
 
Last edited:
All of what we know about whether it's effective is done with certain doses under specific conditions, not always useful in determining if it will work on elite athletes at high doses for supra-maximal effort and such long-duration efforts. So we really don't know it's effective. The Froome positive seemed quite likely a very large dose that hadn't yet cleared by morning. We have no idea how much he actually took, we only know that a very large amount was left in his system at the time of testing. He could have and probably did take way more the night before.

Guys do not take stuff at that level without reason and without it having been tested OOC. Sky and attention to detail, remember? Or is that line conveniently ignored when it doesn't suit those defending him?

He took a very large dose of it on a day he needed to recover, when he'd lost time at the end of a hard stage. Why? In tests with non-elite athletes under sub threshold conditions it showed increased time to exhaustion. Exactly what he needed. Is that the reason? I can't say. But I don't believe for a second they gave it to him for no reason, and the official explanation is laughable.
This really needs multiple likes!
 
The whole thing seems fairly clear to me.

  1. WADA know that Salbutamol isn't really a PED but is necessary to many.
  2. They put a limit on it the same as the manufacturers guidelines to stop idiots trying it out as a PED
  3. They keep their old test so they can warn athletes of over use, but know a ban won't hold up at CAS with a decent lawyer. (Note all Salbutamol cases at UKAD - the only open AD - resulted in a warning)
  4. The brand new UCI regime leak the test as Lappartient wants to be the conquerer of the corrupt British to the French who can appoint him to IOC membership.
  5. WADA points out that this isn't going to hold up and Froome's lawyer's know it.
  6. UCI eventually have to back down and try to blame WADA, who in turn blame UCI for leaking it in the first place.
lols......maybe...or pro cyclist takes PEDs....I like my odds better
 
I agree Froome comes out with a new reason every day. I agree he seems to be making up excuses. I'm just pointing out that downplaying chest infections is poor. Sometimes in this sport there is an undercurrent belief that riders are weak if they don't overcome illness. If any of those who claim this had any experience racing bikes they would know its rubbish.

No he didn't Horner did BBs. I've never heard of super human performance that might explain Horner's ride on l'Angliru from drugs that combat flu like symptoms. Only blood bags, EPO or testosterone does that.
I should have been more specific. Horner battled respiratory issues with alot....ALOT of anti-biotic treatments. He may have offered a theory that he got a particularly nasty version but once it's gone, it's gone. Then he took whatever was necessary to ride like he did for 3 weeks and then had health issues again. Now his lungs are no muy bueno due to all of the versions of pneumonia he's tried to race with.
 
Reactions: Cookster15

ASK THE COMMUNITY