I guess we all have our assumptions (usually based on what we've learned about the sport).Not sure to what extent his injuries are the issue, and what else plays into everything. Huge injuries. New team (doping aside). Likely a different regimen of supplements and training. Who knows what shyt-mix is making him so bad. But he is bad and much more comparable to pre-transfroomation, which makes me suspect that drugs or lack thereof are at least part of the issue.
I mean, he currently sucks and if taken at face value if he were a new pro, he would be at risk of not finding a team at all.
I'm inclined to believe there was a very specific regimen at Sky with the right people behind the scenes in the team & also right people behind the scenes outside the team which gave Froome his advantage.
I don't think dope is enough. It takes an extra layer of advantage on top. I mean that's what Armstrong had (I'm talking about the UCI backing him with Verbruggen to the point where he was advantaged).
I think Froome's "game over" happened between his Salbutamol 2017 Vuelta positive & his Giro 2018 Landis-esque 80km solo raid. I also think Ineos had already decided he was done after that.
That's just my own guess.