Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Rackham]

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 guess we all have our assumptions (usually based on what we've learned about the sport).

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.

 

[Ripper]

so, it must be the key of longevity for Valverde

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1372852393294069764

View: https://twitter.com/sleepangelglobe/status/1372852393294069764?s=20

Too bad it did not also work for hair loss!

 

[Ripper]

I guess we all have our assumptions (usually based on what we've learned about the sport).

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.

I would agree that I think somethin' special was up at Sky.

I would add - injuries and age also add up. And dope, no matter how much, does not solve all the problems.

 

[geisterhome]

If everything went as you describe then perhaps. But fractures heal as do punctured lungs (ask Lemond). I just don't buy his inujuries prevent him from reaching the top again, because his top was unreachable even for him under normal circumstances. Froome should be at least decent by now, but he is like a mediocre dilettante, completely unrecognizable form the hights he obtained on "marginal gains" and evidently a great deal of "salbutomal."

Femur and Pelvic fracture I would be most concerned about, especially the joint impairment probable softtissue damage that can come with it.

Fractured neck vertebrae, punctured lung, fractured elbow joint and blood loss shouldnt be issues he couldnt over come.

 

[Rackham]

Femur and Pelvic fracture I would be most concerned about, especially the joint impairment probable softtissue damage that can come with it.

Fractured neck vertebrae, punctured lung, fractured elbow joint and blood loss shouldnt be issues he couldnt over come.

It could be argued Froome was done before that Dauphiné 2019 "sneeze" recon crash.

He had finished 3rd in 2018 Tour (granted, he did the Giro beforehand) but the trajectory was downwards at that point. I don't subscribe to the media (& Froome) narrative that the crash changed everything for him. Even without that, I doubt he would have won another GT.

 

[SHAD0W93]

It could be argued Froome was done before that Dauphiné 2019 "sneeze" recon crash.

He had finished 3rd in 2018 Tour (granted, he did the Giro beforehand) but the trajectory was downwards at that point. I don't subscribe to the media (& Froome) narrative that the crash changed everything for him. Even without that, I doubt he would have won another GT.

He can potentially win 3 in the future.

 

[geisterhome]

It could be argued Froome was done before that Dauphiné 2019 "sneeze" recon crash.

He had finished 3rd in 2018 Tour (granted, he did the Giro beforehand) but the trajectory was downwards at that point. I don't subscribe to the media (& Froome) narrative that the crash changed everything for him. Even without that, I doubt he would have won another GT.

Yea most likely he was declining just give his age, he could have won the 2019 TdF though dont you think? Competition wasnt all that tough and with Bernal being on the same team?

 

[Koronin]

I have held the belief that Froome's decline started in 2017/2018. He could have possibly won the Tour in 2019, but I do think that was the end of it and the Dauphine crash just put an exclamation point on that.

 

[Froome]

I have held the belief that Froome's decline started in 2017/2018. He could have possibly won the Tour in 2019, but I do think that was the end of it and the Dauphine crash just put an exclamation point on that.

Once again, he wasn't. His best performance ever was in stage 18 of giro 2018. He also won on zoncolan.
In may 2019 he was doing his best numbers ever in the altitude camp on teide.
In the first 2 weeks of the giro he was in very bad condition because of the crash in jerusalem.
In 2017 he rode the tour and the Vuelta in a conservative way, by controlling the races, and not dominating the races, because that it's the best strategy to win a double. He tried to sustain a good shape between july and september. So, that situation make people think that he was declining in 2017.
The preparation to a double, it's very different for a preparatiom for just one tour.

 

[Ripper]

It could be argued Froome was done before that Dauphiné 2019 "sneeze" recon crash.

He had finished 3rd in 2018 Tour (granted, he did the Giro beforehand) but the trajectory was downwards at that point. I don't subscribe to the media (& Froome) narrative that the crash changed everything for him. Even without that, I doubt he would have won another GT.

You can also see that he had less results over the course of the year building up to the GTs when compared to previous years.

 

[Froome]

You can also see that he had less results over the course of the year building up to the GTs when compared to previous years.

Of course the trajectory was donwards to that point. He was completely empty in the end of the tour 2018, he did four tours in a row. Tour 2017, la vuelta 2017,giro 2018, tour 2018. 3rd place was a great result taking that in considerarion.
He would likely win the tour 2019.
The tour 2020 i don't know, pogacar and roglic were very stronger, a lot stronger than bernal in 2019.

 

[Ripper]

Of course the trajectory was donwards to that point. He was completely empty in the end of the tour 2018, he did four tours in a row. Tour 2017, la vuelta 2017,giro 2018, tour 2018. 3rd place was a great result taking that in considerarion.
He would likely win the tour 2019.
The tour 2020 i don't know, pogacar and roglic were very stronger, a lot stronger than bernal in 2019.

You have nothing to base the 2019 prediction on. He had a pretty invisible run up to the race, which was a first since he started his Tour winning ways. 2018 was a slow down in the build, and 2019 much more so. You cannot cheat time.

 

[Koronin]

Once again, he wasn't. His best performance ever was in stage 18 of giro 2018. He also won on zoncolan.
In may 2019 he was doing his best numbers ever in the altitude camp on teide.
In the first 2 weeks of the giro he was in very bad condition because of the crash in jerusalem.
In 2017 he rode the tour and the Vuelta in a conservative way, by controlling the races, and not dominating the races, because that it's the best strategy to win a double. He tried to sustain a good shape between july and september. So, that situation make people think that he was declining in 2017.
The preparation to a double, it's very different for a preparatiom for just one tour.

Individual days are not overall performance. Overall performance says otherwise. His results had been lower than before.

 

[Froome]

Individual days are not overall performance. Overall performance says otherwise. His results had been lower than before.

On small races? Different aproaches, he was building during the year until the grand tours.

 

[Koronin]

On small races? Different aproaches, he was building during the year until the grand tours.

"Different approach" because he had started his decline. It's not complicated. By the way every year he went for Grand Tours he was building during the year for them. Thus your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Red Rick]

It's a bit hard to compare between 2015 and before and 2016 and after, when he changed his seasonal buildup to be a lot more stable in GTs and to do 2 in a row etc. He'd be red hot for the first 2 weeks of the Tour then start falling off by the third week. Compare that to later conservative approaches.

Also while Finestre is unquestionably his most memorable win, I don't really doubt 2015 PSM Froome would've won that by a minute or two more.

 

[Froome]

It's a bit hard to compare between 2015 and before and 2016 and after, when he changed his seasonal buildup to be a lot more stable in GTs and to do 2 in a row etc. He'd be red hot for the first 2 weeks of the Tour then start falling off by the third week. Compare that to later conservative approaches.

Also while Finestre is unquestionably his most memorable win, I don't really doubt 2015 PSM Froome would've won that by a minute or two more.

Personally i think the best froome wasn't froome 2015, i think froome 2013 was the best froome ever, ax 3 domaines and ventoux were better performances talking about just the tour.

 

[Pinot's goat]

You have nothing to base the 2019 prediction on. He had a pretty invisible run up to the race, which was a first since he started his Tour winning ways. 2018 was a slow down in the build, and 2019 much more so. You cannot cheat time.

Froome was smashing his PBs pre Dauphine 2019 and in the one hilly stage before his crash he was the strongest.

 

[Ripper]

Froome was smashing his PBs pre Dauphine 2019 and in the one hilly stage before his crash he was the strongest.

Was he smashing his PBs? Was this an objective measure observed in races? Or is this based on reports and uploads?

Lots of racers can set amazing numbers in training and then not do as well in races. Controlled versus uncontrolled environments, etc.

I am certainly not saying he was still not racing at an elite level, as he obviously was. But his level leading up to the races, compared to his previous seasons, appeared to be a diminishing capacity.

 

[Pinot's goat]

Lots of racers can set amazing numbers in training and then not do as well in races. Controlled versus uncontrolled environments, etc.

He won the TDF 4 times, I think it is clear this does not apply to him. He crashed multiple times in early 2019. His Dauphine attacks show he was fine, there is no need to rewrite history to make your point. He can be in decline and still capable of winning the TDF.

 

[Ripper]

He won the TDF 4 times, I think it is clear this does not apply to him. He crashed multiple times in early 2019. His Dauphine attacks show he was fine, there is no need to rewrite history to make your point. He can be in decline and still capable of winning the TDF.

To the bolded, that is basically what I'm saying so it appears we agree on that. He was in decline. Could he have won the 2019 Tour de France? Maybe, maybe not, I guess we will never actually know.

As for the comment about me rewriting history, I don't know what you're talking about. What have I said that is not factually correct?

 

[Pinot's goat]

You have nothing to base the 2019 prediction on. He had a pretty invisible run up to the race, which was a first since he started his Tour winning ways. 2018 was a slow down in the build, and 2019 much more so. You cannot cheat time.

This comment seem to suggest you did not think he would be competitive, apologies if I misunderstood.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Of course the trajectory was donwards to that point. He was completely empty in the end of the tour 2018, he did four tours in a row. Tour 2017, la vuelta 2017,giro 2018, tour 2018. 3rd place was a great result taking that in considerarion.
He would likely win the tour 2019.
The tour 2020 i don't know, pogacar and roglic were very stronger, a lot stronger than bernal in 2019.

He might not even have been the third strongest Ineos rider that year at the Tour. There is no way he was stronger then Bernal or Thomas that year unless he pulled another Giro.

 

[Froome]

He might not even have been the third strongest Ineos rider that year at the Tour. There is no way he was stronger then Bernal or Thomas that year unless he pulled another Giro.

What tour are you talking about? Tour 2018? Yeah, bernal and thomas were stronger than him on that tour.

 

[Ripper]

This comment seem to suggest you did not think he would be competitive, apologies if I misunderstood.

No worries! Competitive sure, I just think the assertion by the poster that he would have won (like a forgone conclusion other than crash) is not supported by fact. He was not demonstrating as high a degree of prowess compared to his previous self. Could he have won in 2019? Sure. Was he as big a favourite as previous years? I do not think so. Do I think he would have won? Really unsure, but I likely lean towards more possible than probable.

The main thing I was arguing though is that I think he was beginning the overall decline. Now, how rapid that occurs is different for everyone. Some have declined really slowly, while others fell of the edge of a cliff (figuratively!)