Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[The Chicken]

the thing that worries me most about froome?....he looks very much like et, or that alien they found in the crashed ufo.



uploaded with imageshack.us

so maybe genuine extraterrestial? The other thing that i am hung up on is the fact that he rides like he has prosthetic arms. I just hope that all this marginal gains stuff does not lead to everyone riding like giant alien grasshoppers!!

lmfao :d

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

 

[Dr.Sahl]

Looking at Froomes past results hes only completed three grand tours since 2008. In 2008 he placed 84th in the tof and in '09 he placed 36th in the Giro. We all ofcourse know that he placed 2nd on the tour of spain last year. Has their been a gradual progression? Yes, but nothing too spectacular, until now. Froome's Results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Froome

I think a lot of people are wondering...who is this guy? Unfortunately for him, people may have forgotten how strong he was in Spain last year. To his merit, last night he looked incredible...Bertie like even. If he's clean, this is great for cycling as we may have another contender for the 100th anniversary of the tour next year. But, unfortunately, i know what to expect from performances like this.

As said earlier, they gave a crazy story about his unnatural progression and I posted it here a few times..

After the sky doctors found and removed a Parasite he has been his full power, thats why he is so much better now, with the Parasite he was only 70% strengt..

I heard that several other riders are getting looked at, Cadel thinks he might be infected with a vicious Australian Parasite this year (haha)

 

[maltiv]

Not sure if this has already been posted:

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford/

Now note where CF, or Chris Froome, was, according to Brailsford, a mere year ago.

That's very interesting. Note that Thomas Löfkvist and EBH were the highest rated. Now they are merely domestiques.

Coincidentally they're also two of the more plausible riders on Sky (or least likely dopers). Note that neither Löfkvist nor EBH were on Tenerife, despite being on the short list for TDF.

 

[will10]

I'd forgotten about that graphic, good find. Although the fact that Froome went into the Vuelta without a contract with anyone for the following season speaks for itself.

 

[frenchfry]

Thierry Adam of France Télévisions, has told us multiple times how Froome may go to a team managed by Johan (the Hog) Bruyneel.

I guess Adam argees with Fat Pat that lifetime bans established by USADA will be impossible to implement.

 

[lilac harry quinn]

That's very interesting. Note that Thomas Löfkvist and EBH were the highest rated. Now they are merely domestiques.

Coincidentally they're also two of the more plausible riders on Sky (or least likely dopers). Note that neither Löfkvist nor EBH were on Tenerife, despite being on the short list for TDF.

Lofkvist is below the line; Thomas, Rogers and Flecha, together with EBH, are the ones most ahead of the progression.

 

[D-Queued]

Have we ever seen a rider get yelled at and called back by his DS after pacing the lead group for 14k up the last Cat 1 or HC category climb, while ripping that group down to just four other riders, then attacking with 4k to go?

What will they do to him next, outfit his bike with hobbles?

Dave.

 

[thehog]

The Froome graph of potential will go down in history as the funniest if not the most ridiculous thing Brailsford/Sky have produced. I can't believe they missed his potential...

 

[Forunculo]

The Froome graph of potential will go down in history as the funniest if not the most ridiculous thing Brailsford/Sky have produced. I can't believe they missed his potential...

Didn't know he had a thread. Thanks thehog

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

The Froome graph of potential will go down in history as the funniest if not the most ridiculous thing Brailsford/Sky have produced. I can't believe they missed his potential...

Although the graph mentions it, the article does stipulate:

Please note, this graph is our interpretation of Dave Brailsford’s theory, not the exact graph produced for Team Sky

There could be quite a difference in the parameters that are being used by Sky versus what is being used in the article.

 

[Forunculo]

Although the graph mentions it, the article does stipulate:

Please note, this graph is our interpretation of Dave Brailsford’s theory, not the exact graph produced for Team Sky

There could be quite a difference in the parameters that are being used by Sky versus what is being used in the article.

Yes and the interpretation is Froome is our worse rider

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Yes and the interpretation is Froome is our worse rider

The point being that is Cycle Sport's interpretation. Do you honestly think they have access to the same data on Sky's riders as Sky do? I am not saying that Froome would not end up in such a position on the graph only that a simplistic interpretation is open to a large amount of difference from more complex models. Am I wrong?

 

[Forunculo]

The point being that is Cycle Sport's interpretation. Do you honestly think they have access to the same data on Sky's riders as Sky do? I am not saying that Froome would not end up in such a position on the graph only that a simplistic interpretation is open to a large amount of difference from more complex models. Am I wrong?

Simplistic or not the graph is more or less correct for the rest and completely wrong with Froome, whose contract ended in 2011, and Brailsford not wanted to renew him being accurate with the graph.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Simplistic or not the graph is more or less correct for the rest and completely wrong with Froome, whose contract ended in 2011, and Brailsford not wanted to renew him being accurate with the graph.

That could easily be because the points were plotted based on the current level of riders and not their potential. Without knowing the methodology it is hard to extrapolate too much meaning.

 

[Forunculo]

That could easily be because the points were plotted based on the current level of riders and not their potential. Without knowing the methodology it is hard to extrapolate too much meaning.

I'm sorry, your argument makes no sense. The graph is divided into sections by age and ignoring the fact that from May to August can not improve much, a potential winner of a GT does not have a level of Pro Conti podium even if he is young.

The potential is given by the blue and white line so with 26 have to show things in WT level and again the FACT, Brailsford were not going to renew him

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I'm sorry, your argument makes no sense. The graph is divided into sections by age and ignoring the fact that from May to August can not improve much, a potential winner of a GT does not have a level of Pro Conti podium even if he is young.

Ok, let me ask you this. With what criteria did Cycle Sport use to plot the points for each of the riders?

The potential is given by the blue and white line so with 26 have to show things in WT level and again the FACT, Brailsford were not going to renew him

I am not arguing about Froome's place on the graph one way or the other. You seem unable to grasp this.

 

[Forunculo]

Ok, let me ask you this. With what criteria did Cycle Sport use to plot the points for each of the riders?


I am not arguing about Froome's place on the graph one way or the other. You seem unable to grasp this.

1. The guys on the left of the chart are being paid for what we believe they can do in the future. It’s quite difficult but people gamble. Someone like Edvald is obviously a great talent. It could be unbelievable if he goes on to fulfil all that potential, or it could be that he doesn’t quite. But you’re betting on the future.

You want to concentrate your coaching on these guys. They are your future. We found that last year, we probably didn’t give these guys – the likes of Swift, Stannard, Kennaugh – everything we could because of the challenges of setting up the team. Also the sickness at the Vuelta meant they missed out on the goal they had been working towards.

The key here is to get people who are ahead of the curve – performing at a higher level for their age. The ideal scenario is that they outperform their salary. A great example would be Richie Porte at Saxo Bank. He was seventh at the Giro as a neo-pro but there were guys who finished much lower than that getting paid a lot, lot more.

This is the area we want to invest in. We hired Alex Dowsett because we believe he has a lot of potential and he had a super season. We looked at Luke Rowe but felt he needed another year in the [British Cycling] academy. Rigoberto Uran has come in. He’s a young rider but he’s been around a while. He’s punchy so he gives us something we didn’t have, which is a rider for the Ardennes. This is where we concentrate our coaching and development.

2. These are your top performers. Guys who can deliver big results and who are in the peak of their career.

3. These guys are getting older now but if they can still do a job they still deserve their place on the team. Guys over here don’t need coaching, as such. They still need support but we are not developing their talent, we are prolonging their careers.

4. Once you get down here, it’s time to say goodbye to the guys. Is it worth having an older guy, with his salary expectations, who can podium at Pro Continental level but not at the bigger races? Probably not.

5. Riders in this area are borderline for us. As you get older, the potential for improvement disappears and so it’s much more a judgement call. A rider might bring something to the team in terms of his personality that makes him a good guy to have around.

The blue boxes

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Surely that is what the graph is telling you rather then how a given rider is placed there?

 

[Forunculo]

Surely that is what the graph is telling you rather then how a given rider is placed there?

Dave Brailsford

He was who talked with Cycle Sport

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Dave Brailsford

He was who talked with Cycle Sport

Yes, I read the interview. So it sounds like Cycle Sport took what he said and plotted an example graph. Brailsford only mentions a few riders in the interview and where they would appear. So either

i) He mentioned the other riders in the interview but it wasn't printed.
ii) He explained exactly how he determines a riders place on the graph and gave Cycle Sport information so they were able to plot it correctly.
iii) Cycle Sport put riders where they thought they might appear.

I am going for (iii). I could well be wrong though.

btw Who is SG on the graph?

 

[roundabout]

Gerrans.....

 

[Forunculo]

Simon Gerrans

If DB didn't cite Froome... he wasn't special. I remember Contador with 19, Andy with 20, Cancellara with 21. People called them the next thing. Froome? He was going to be unemployed last year at 26.

Edit: I didn't see roundabout

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

If DB didn't cite Froome... he wasn't special. I remember Contador with 19, Andy with 20, Cancellara with 21. People called them the next thing. Froome? He was going to be unemployed last year at 26.

He does not mention most of those riders in the graph yet they have been plotted. So I ask how does Cycle Sport know where to plot them? It looks like they have guessed in which case it does not necessarilly reflect Brailsford's view.

 

[blackcat]

Simon Gerrans

If DB didn't cite Froome... he wasn't special. I remember Contador with 19, Andy with 20, Cancellara with 21. People called them the next thing. Froome? He was going to be unemployed last year at 26.

Edit: I didn't see roundabout

Froome came from cycling backwaters where he was not exposed to high level competition that one needs to demonstrate their talent,

Best indicator is his first Tour de France when he was 22/23 with Barloworld.

Now, if he did the u23 World Champs in the chrono, instead of the seniors, and won the World Espoir Chrono Champ, how would folks look different at him now.

Muppets, manifest, ignorance...

Not like he was a trackie with an "engine". I among others, have posted on his dearth of chrono results up until he was about 27. How fricken long is Wiggins gonna weight for the tt "specialist" results. They werent there. they just werent.

Respect the Froome.
No Broom Wagon Froome.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

He does not mention most of those riders in the graph yet they have been plotted. So I ask how does Cycle Sport know where to plot them? It looks like they have guessed in which case it does not necessarilly reflect Brailsford's view.

But then, as the interview may have been edited, they may have discussed all of the riders, but only gone with those thought to be relevant for the finished article, in which case it would be even more damning as Froome would have been considered totally irrelevant.

Only Cyclesport themselves, and Brailsford himself, can know for sure, and Brailsford isn't going to admit that he dropped the ball otherwise it makes it look like either the marginal gains theory is nonsense (ie he didn't show enough attention to detail or he would have known Froome was that good) or is fuel to the fire of the Froome-is-suspicious party (ie if even the team bosses didn't think Froome was very good, then comes this explosion of form, what are we meant to think?), so we're relying on Cyclesport, who aren't likely to turn around and criticise their own piece.

Brailsford already ret-conned the "Froome always had the numbers" story (but neglected to tell us what those numbers were, and this feature would look to counteract those claims), so what's to say he couldn't ret-con something else? Porte always had the numbers to show he was superior to Nibali (Brailsford would surely have seen Nibali's numbers when he tried to sign him in 2010). Rogers' numbers in 2009-10 were superior to his numbers in 2005-6 because he became a better rider when he was clean, sorry, not embroiled in an unfortunate situation (damn that Sinkewitz). Wiggins' numbers at the Olympics heralded clear evidence that his future was as a climber. Thomas Löfkvist's numbers have always shown him to be nothing more than a domestique.