Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[The Hitch]

If you look at the tour de Swiss earlier in the year, Froome had a couple of good days particularly Crans Montana (not quite Vuelata form but good nevertheless) then was inconsistent the next day, what may have suprised the management is that he was more consistent not so much the individual performances in themselves

Yep, finishing outside the top 10 on 1 stage of a wt stage race is such a good indicator of future greatest talent to ever get on a bicycle. Matthias Frank to win at least 3 TDF's

 

[Justinr]

But you refuse to look at the data, right? You believe they are clean, end of. Nothing, no data or logical explanation can sway you.

In 2008, Froome rode the final TT at the TdF. If he performs he might get a good contract. It's the final stage that is raced, and he does not have to save anything for the procession the following day.

According to you and others, he's a domestique and riding less than 100%, despite beating everyone in his team.

Actually i have never used the argument that he might be riding at less than 100% as a reason for the differences.

What I said was that the assumption/conclusion that he should be "mid team" being needed to back up going at less than 100% cant be made from any of the data that you based it on. I was also quite open about not knowing much about that Barloworld team.

Also i think we have done to death the potential pitfalls of analysing the data that was put forward over the last two days (speed, power, graphs, etc.). A method was presented which was the analysed / counter analysed by a lot of people who said certain conclusions could not be drawn from the method based on lots of variables, etc.

What has changed is his TT is now top 5%, not top 25%. The winner's speed is the same, or quicker than 2008.

His power and his recovery are out of this world compared to 2008 Froome.

Please explain.

You want me to regurgitate all the posts from this thread? I happen to believe what i believe (and i have said this a number of times) because of what Brailsford and co did with track cycling. Now i know that will no doubt have people posting all sorts of comments about me, but go ahead i dont care. DB declared his ambition to pull together a team to win the TdF in a clean manner with a clean rider. I believe in their aims and that they are sincere about it, and also that life isnt one big conspiracy theory.

Sorry if you dont like that but its my right to have that view.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I'm sorry but what does that actually mean?

It's the difference between the chance of it raining today and the chance of you winning the lottery. Does that help?

John Swanson

 

[Granville57]

Nope. Only Horner qualifies. I´d bet all-in with you, if I had the time, that I would find a rider who, given the same obstacle career path as Froome*, came out of "nowhere" at age 26 and then had a good career as GT contender. OTOH, you would not find a single rider other than Horner who started GT success at age 38 after losing his job due to lack of performance...

* for example a rider who changed sports, or was "busy" in a WW, or someone who started late to cycle. You know something like that...

Well this is probably more suited to the Chris Squared thread but...

1) You don't need the time. We've got a forum full of folks whose combined efforts have yet to come up with any rider matching Froome's trajectory. If that person was out there, surely the die-hard Froome supporters would've uncovered this mystery man by now.

2) "Changed sports"? Busy p) during a war? How would either of those scenarios be comparable to Froome's history?

If only Froome had changed sports and fought in a war!

The endorsements alone would mind boggling. But can you just imagine the book and film royalties?!

 

[Justinr]

It's the difference between the chance of it raining today and the chance of you winning the lottery. Does that help?

John Swanson

So a meaningless statistic then since those two events are connected ...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I happen to believe what i believe (and i have said this a number of times) because of what Brailsford and co did with track cycling.

Thanks, I was curious and this answers my question.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

2) "Changed sports"? Busy p) during a war? How would either of those scenarios be comparable to Froome's history?

IOW, a rider who did not go the usual way: being a pampered road cyclist from youth on, going to an elite junior amateur team, going pro...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

We've got a forum full of folks whose combined efforts have yet to come up with any rider matching Froome's trajectory.

So it seems it will be my job to do... No problem. I might have some free space in summer, a couple of cold beers, and my Laptop on a beach... then I´ll do it. I am certain I´ll find one...

Edit: What is the criteria (Question @ all)? I would say a rider around age 26 having his first GT podium, then prolongs for a successful career, but was unheared of before his first GT podium. Is that ok?

 

[Granville57]

I´d bet all-in with you, if I had the time, that I would find a rider who, given the same obstacle career path as Froome*, came out of "nowhere" at age 26 and then had a good career as GT contender.

So are you suggesting that this mystery rider does, in fact, exist somewhere in the halls of cycling history, but that none of us have been able to discover him yet?

Also, we are not simply talking about someone who has had a "good career as a GT contender." We are talking about someone blowing the doors off the competition in a most "unprecedented" way.

Guys like Cadel Evans, Alex Zülle, Claudio Chiappucci or Raymond Poulidor would be considered "GT contenders" in their day, but none of them ever pedaled a bicycle like Christopher Froome. Ever.

 

[BYOP88]

So are you suggesting that this mystery rider does, in fact, exist somewhere in the halls of cycling history, but that none of us have been able to discover him yet?

Also, we are not simply talking about someone who has had a "good career as a GT contender." We are talking about someone blowing the doors off the competition in a most "unprecedented" way.

Guys like Cadel Evans, Alex Zülle, Claudio Chiappucci or Raymond Poulidor would be considered "GT contenders" in their day, but none of them ever pedaled a bicycle like Christopher Froome. Ever.

They might've done if they'd had a few beers.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Guys like Cadel Evans, Alex Zülle, Claudio Chiappucci or Raymond Poulidor would be considered "GT contenders" in their day, but none of them ever pedaled a bicycle like Christopher Froome. Ever.

Can you evaluate that a little further?
I take Froomes funny style 1.000 over a super suspicious 5-hours-out-of-the-saddle-one-leg-Horner style...

Serious: It´s not about style. We don´t discuss figure skating. It´s about numbers... Yes I am confident to find at least one...

Edit: I´ll make the job a little harder myself. I won´t look for obvious high-tech dopers, but more like the era when riders where told smoking widens the lungs. So yes they inhaled and then rode. Amazing how they survived besides doping going the wrong way.

 

[Race Radio]

1) You don't need the time. We've got a forum full of folks whose combined efforts have yet to come up with any rider matching Froome's trajectory. If that person was out there, surely the die-hard Froome supporters would've uncovered this mystery man by now.

Riis?....oh, wait..

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Riis?....oh, wait..

Riis matches Wiggins trajectory almost to a T.

 

[Granville57]

Edit: What is the criteria (Question @ all)? I would say a rider around age 26 having his first GT podium, then prolongs for a successful career, but was unheared of before his first GT podium. Is that ok?

That's a good and fair question.

I would say not only would this mystery rider have to have been unheard of, they would have to show a documented history, as does Froome, of being so far down in the standings that NO ONE would've bet a penny on them ever achieving GT glory.

If you can find such a rider whose story also includes a mysterious parasite, then I will pay for your beers and free swimming lessons.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

That's a good and fair question.

I would say not only would this mystery rider have to have been unheard of, they would have to show a documented history, as does Froome, of being so far down in the standings that NO ONE would've bet a penny on them ever achieving GT glory.

If you can find such a rider whose story also includes a mysterious parasite, then I will pay for your beers and free swimming lessons.

Nice. ROFL.

Ok, back to the criteria: So you basically ask for a rider like Horner + mysterious parasite, only 15 years younger?

 

[Granville57]

Riis?....oh, wait..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyqyVKSJiOM

 

[Granville57]

ok, back to the criteria: So you basically ask for a rider like horner + mysterious parasite, only 15 years younger?

:d

.................

 

[Saint Unix]

Criteria:

1) Post World War 2 rider, at least, because cycling has changed a hell of a lot. To keep it as comparable as possible, the riders can't be almost centuries apart.

2) Clean. No Armstrongs, Riises, Indurains or Chiappuccis here.

3) No top level podiums in track cycling, MTB or other endurance sports on two wheels until the age of at least 25.

4) Went from pack fodder to GC contender within a very short time period. Lets say within six months or less.

5) Capable of winning TTs and mountain stages consistently after the meteoric rise.

6) Career path not that of a typical top level cyclist.


Find that rider.

 

[Granville57]

ok, back to the criteria: So you basically ask for a rider like horner + mysterious parasite, only 15 years younger?

ten chars

 

[Granville57]

the riders can't be almost centuries apart

You mean like comparing Horner to Nibali?

ps
Good stuff on the rest of that post. Particularly #4.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Criteria:

1) Post World War 2 rider, at least, because cycling has changed a hell of a lot. To keep it as comparable as possible, the riders can't be almost centuries apart.

2) Clean. No Armstrongs, Riises, Indurains or Chiappuccis here.

3) No top level podiums in track cycling, MTB or other endurance sports on two wheels until the age of at least 25.

4) Went from pack fodder to GC contender within a very short time period. Lets say within six months or less.

5) Capable of winning TTs and mountain stages consistently after the meteoric rise.

6) Career path not that of a typical top level cyclist.


Find that rider.

Besides 1* and 2**, I think it sounds fair.

* Why not pre WW2? I originally said Horners path is unheard of before (ever), but a Froome like late blossoming around 26 certainly did happen. And the good point is (if I look at the old days); we can be sure doping went the wrong way (smoking), so we talk about truly talented riders who showed it later than normal...

** This is impossible because we can only be certain of 3 1/2 riders that made it trou doping free in the modern era. But be sure I wouldn´t look for hi-tech dopers (I would call this the beginning of the EPO/Indurain era. In short; no Riis, Rominger, LA, whatever)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

You mean like comparing Horner to Nibali?

Another good one.

 

[BYOP88]

Look guys can we stop this froome bashing - he wasn't a good bike handler. And his tactics weren't great. Those three weeks between Poland and Spain in 2011 were epic. Bike racing for dumbies.
The Bilharzia also came right at this time...with the result that there was no difference in his blood values...as said to Walsh by the Sky team doctor.
As regards VO2 Max - of course it's never been tested. And of course Froome hasn't been in a lab. Eventhough Wiggins was going into a lab every six weeks in 2011, and numerous other riders from other teams had their VO2 Max tested over the winter alone. Eventhough Brailsford said in THAT clip that they would test Chris' VO2 max NEXT time they were In a lab...to me the word NEXT denotes a previous time...but obviously I am just mad into these conspiracy theories.

So yes I am convinced. Froome is definitely a clean rider.

Seems someone needs to pass this clip to Walsh and tell him to watch from 11 minutes and 34 seconds. (http://youtu.be/1bKuqFBrE9o?t=11m32s)

 

[Digger]

Seems someone needs to pass this clip to Walsh and tell him to watch from 11 minutes and 34 seconds.

What clip are you talking about?
I am talking about the clip from last July when the journalist asked for Froome's VO2 max and Brailsford went all defensive!

 

[RownhamHill]

I really don’t think statistics are necessary to establish that. . .You know nothing about my gut feelings.

I think your real objection, like many others on this forum who try to support suspicious riders, is that when people draw conclusions on the basis of preponderance of evidence.

Thanks for the response, for the sake of Justinr and others I won't reply at length, but two points I wanted to make.

First point - my conclusion on your 'gut feelings' were specifically about your gut feeling on the liklihood that the change in relative performance was down to Froome improving, to highlight the speculative aspect of the original data set. I drew that conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence you presented in your post. Apologies if I'm still getting that wrong, you're quite right I know nothing about your gut feelings.

Second point. I'm not trying to support a suspicious rider. I don't like Froome, I'm quite prepared to accept he is doping, and I wouldn't be upset if he was busted for doping. My objection in this case - as I think I have pretty consistently articulated - is to people dressing up speculation in the language of 'science' and then presenting it back as fact.