Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 443 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
(we know from Jesús Hernández about the 'heated massage pads' filled with synthetic testosterone at Liberty Seguros that riders weren't fully informed about).
I hadn't heard about that one before. Pretty clever, you must admit. :p
 
Race Radio said:
After Sky purged many of their staff last year many of the "Secrets" were passed around......Nothing special.

A huge part of coaching is having the athlete think you have designed something special for him. The rider thinks they can only perform under the guidance of the coach. Ferrari and Checcini are experts at this.
Doping doctors, they can con
You into thinking you’re the one
That can do what’s never been done
That can win what’s never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you
 
spalco said:
You know, while of course I agree that Froome's sudden success is/was wildly improbable to put it mildly, I still don't understand how the doping angle is a sufficient explanation either unless Froome had access to some new dope nobody else used and/or (probably and) the 2011 Vuelta peloton was cleanish.


If your (general "you") answer to the question of how Froome was able to become a top cyclist so unexpectedly is simply: "well, he's using **** obviously!", then I'm not convinced, because there must be more to the story.
Yes, and if there's more to the story, he's still doping.

Option A Froome's improvement is down 100% to doping = he's doping
Option B Froome's improvement is down 90% to doping + 1 other factor = he's still doping
Option C Option B Froome's improvement is down 80% to doping + 2 other factors = he's still doping
Option D Froome's improvement is down 70% to doping + 3 other factors = he's still doping

Do you see where this is going?
:cool:

It doesn't matter if there are 50 other reasons for why Froome improved and doping only accounts for 0.00001 %, if doping contributed to the improvement in any way shape of form, he doped.

So it doesn't matter if you find parts of people's theories about Froome doping unbelievable. You know why? Becuase they can adjust those theories to allow for a load of other factors and he would still be doping.

You say there's more to the story. If there's more to the story, Froome is still doping.
For Froome to not be doping you need to believe that the story is entirely false, not that there is more to it. That his improvement was 100% down to natural factors. There CANNOT be a middle ground, or grey area. not for froome to be clean.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
As I've said, I thought maybe if things went well he could be a Chris Anker Sørensen or an Egoi Martínez.
Please be serious. CAS is a cyclist who's won or been second on hard mountain stages in the last five GT's he's done. So very far beyond the prospects of pre-2011 Froome. Martinez as well had much more talent than Froome showed in five years. A normal alternative dimension Froome would have been the level of Sutherland or Tanner or Dan Craven. Although I'm sure Froome could still have had a contract somewhere on account of his englishspeakingness.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
ciranda said:
Please be serious.
Libertine Seguros said:
As I've said, I thought maybe if things went well he could be a Chris Anker Sørensen or an Egoi Martínez. And that at Barloworld he wasn't even the most impressive young African rider.
Thought
Maybe
If
Could
 
The Hitch said:
You say there's more to the story. If there's more to the story, Froome is still doping.
For Froome to not be doping you need to believe that the story is entirely false, not that there is more to it. That his improvement was 100% down to natural factors. There CANNOT be a middle not for froome to be clean.
Good points. Well, I can't with good confidence say that, but he does have that bugzillah alternative story.

The two main reasons why I'm still willing to disbelieve in my disbelief and give Froome the benefit of the doubt are, that if it's due to doping I don't think he could have done it without Sky knowing, and despite what others here think, I don't believe there's organised doping there, and secondly, as has been pointed out many times, Froome's "transformation" is so miraculous that it's not explainable by normal standards - normal being doping in this context in cycling.
 
ciranda said:
Please be serious. CAS is a cyclist who's won or been second on hard mountain stages in the last five GT's he's done. So very far beyond the prospects of pre-2011 Froome. Martinez as well had much more talent than Froome showed in five years. A normal alternative dimension Froome would have been the level of Sutherland or Tanner or Dan Craven. Although I'm sure Froome could still have had a contract somewhere on account of his englishspeakingness.
I was talking about based on 2008-9 showings. Not after two years of mediocrity and anonymity afterward.
 
spalco said:
Good points. Well, I can't with good confidence say that, but he does have that bugzillah alternative story.

The two main reasons why I'm still willing to disbelieve in my disbelief and give Froome the benefit of the doubt are, that if it's due to doping I don't think he could have done it without Sky knowing, and despite what others here think, I don't believe there's organised doping there, and secondly, as has been pointed out many times, Froome's "transformation" is so miraculous that it's not explainable by normal standards - normal being doping in this context in cycling.
Its so miraculous it can't be explained by non doping either.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Race Radio said:
After Sky purged many of their staff last year many of the "Secrets" were passed around......Nothing special.

A huge part of coaching is having the athlete think you have designed something special for him. The rider thinks they can only perform under the guidance of the coach. Ferrari and Checcini are experts at this.
In cycling secrets = doping.

Ferarri and Checcini are pretty good at doping, which seemed to work very well. I think after 2 and half weeks of pain, the quiet word in the ear doesn't work as well as the last rest days blood bag.

I dont think anyone won a GT thinking it was because they had the best bike, yes the mentality and psychology is important but it doesn't beat the doping.
 
Apr 8, 2014
408
0
0
The Hitch said:
Its so miraculous it can't be explained by non doping either.
I love this new logic. Froome's transformation is too extreme to be doping-induced. Somewhere, Bjarne Riis is laughing.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Nathan12 said:
I love this new logic. Froome's transformation is too extreme to be doping-induced. Somewhere, Bjarne Riis is laughing.
Nope wrong. You misread or misinterpreted what Hitch posted.

But maybe that is your modus.......
 
Libertine Seguros said:
I've said before, I do believe he had health problems in 2010-11 that contributed to how anonymous his performances were. And I do think recovering from that helped improve his level.

But I do not believe that Chris Froome ever showed anything remotely like the talent level that he is showing now, before the 2011 Vuelta. As I've said, I thought maybe if things went well he could be a Chris Anker Sørensen or an Egoi Martínez. And that at Barloworld he wasn't even the most impressive young African rider.

Also, a lot of the Team Sky sports science stuff has been shown to be nonsense for a couple of reasons. 1) Froome admitted not using some of it, not warming down post stages sometimes and not being in a wind tunnel, and 2) the argument was made that a reason he struggled was because he was technically and tactically poor, and improving this helped him become the destructive force he is today; however his position on the bike is no less awkward, his TT position is still dreadful, and Sky have been shown to be rather lacking in tactical aptitude on a few occasions in the last two years, they've just been strong enough that the simple bludgeoning tactic has been enough to overcome their weaknesses in other tactical aspects.

You also have the factor that Froome's blood values under bilharzia will have been completely unusable as a baseline because the characteristics of the disease make it impossible to tell what his natural level is; he was offered an opportunity, almost unique among the péloton, of a total do-over on his biopassport.

So no, doping is not some magic wand that has been waved and turned Cinderella into a princess. But the chance that it has not played some part in the transformation are, to my mind, extremely slim, because the amount of inconsistencies, bendings of the truth, changes to previous stories and straight up bald-faced lies that the team have had to tell to explain it away do not suggest any better reasons. And we are talking about a guy who had no problem with cutting corners, breaking into a national cycling official's email account to commit identity theft to get himself onto a World Championships startlist and getting thrown out of a race for hanging on to a motorbike. He was about to lose the dream, or so it seemed, and among the atmosphere that is the professional péloton do we really think he would have changed to become one of the most morally upstanding members of the péloton?
Good post.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
I was talking about based on 2008-9 showings. Not after two years of mediocrity and anonymity afterward.
I mean, it's super offensive to Sørensen and Martinez, two high quality cyclists. If Froome had continued along the line of his most *promising* results he could maybe have got to be like Sutherland and get top 15 in the Tour of Colorado or something. Or if he could not he could be around someone like Tanner who's sort of just present at races. I picked these names randomly, no offense intended. I don't know anything about Craven except that he has a beard.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
The Hitch said:
Its so miraculous it can't be explained by non doping either.
Ha ha ha.

I find it incredible that people can't see what's right there in front of them. I'm getting older so I've actually seen the way riders used to progress before oxygen vector doping.

It used to be that talent was easy to spot at the junior level. It still is. You get these 16 year old phenoms that are simply that good. That talent would then get groomed by teams willing to give the junior equipment and experience with older riders at regional races. By time they were 18, if they were any good, they would get picked up by a pro team development squad and start spending time in Belgium, France and Italy.

If they could handle the workload and still had obvious talent, pro teams would start to select 20-22 year olds based on their strengths (sprint, climbing, stage races, etc). Okay. So far, so good. To what I can tell it pretty much works that way today.

However... It was widely understood that after 30, a rider would start to decline due to age and the fatigue (mental, injuries, etc) of training and racing at such absurd levels. Which means that if you weren't winning by 26, you were pretty much done. Washed up. Finished. Either you wouldn't get a contract at 27, or you'd get a pay cut and work as a lowly domestique. There's no way you'd be expected to suddenly transform yourself and be a bloody GT winner! It's ludicrous.

Example: Greg Lemond was 2nd in the Giro and Tour by time he was 24. He showed the absolutely classic career arc from junior to world-beating champion.

Counter-example: Froome was 26 and washed up. He showed the classic career arc of someone who was good enough to become a pro, but not good enough to become a champion. Turning 27 he should have been fighting for a contract and/or making post-career plans. Oops! He was! To suddenly become a GT winner is a slap in cycling fan's faces everywhere.

John Swanson
 
Apr 8, 2014
408
0
0
ScienceIsCool said:
Ha ha ha.

I find it incredible that people can't see what's right there in front of them. I'm getting older so I've actually seen the way riders used to progress before oxygen vector doping.

It used to be that talent was easy to spot at the junior level. It still is. You get these 16 year old phenoms that are simply that good. That talent would then get groomed by teams willing to give the junior equipment and experience with older riders at regional races. By time they were 18, if they were any good, they would get picked up by a pro team development squad and start spending time in Belgium, France and Italy.

If they could handle the workload and still had obvious talent, pro teams would start to select 20-22 year olds based on their strengths (sprint, climbing, stage races, etc). Okay. So far, so good. To what I can tell it pretty much works that way today.

However... It was widely understood that after 30, a rider would start to decline due to age and the fatigue (mental, injuries, etc) of training and racing at such absurd levels. Which means that if you weren't winning by 26, you were pretty much done. Washed up. Finished. Either you wouldn't get a contract at 27, or you'd get a pay cut and work as a lowly domestique. There's no way you'd be expected to suddenly transform yourself and be a bloody GT winner! It's ludicrous.

Example: Greg Lemond was 2nd in the Giro and Tour by time he was 24. He showed the absolutely classic career arc from junior to world-beating champion.

Counter-example: Froome was 26 and washed up. He showed the classic career arc of someone who was good enough to become a pro, but not good enough to become a champion. Turning 27 he should have been fighting for a contract and/or making post-career plans. Oops! He was! To suddenly become a GT winner is a slap in cycling fan's faces everywhere.

John Swanson
Great post.
 
ScienceIsCool said:
Ha ha ha.

I find it incredible that people can't see what's right there in front of them. I'm getting older so I've actually seen the way riders used to progress before oxygen vector doping.

It used to be that talent was easy to spot at the junior level. It still is. You get these 16 year old phenoms that are simply that good. That talent would then get groomed by teams willing to give the junior equipment and experience with older riders at regional races. By time they were 18, if they were any good, they would get picked up by a pro team development squad and start spending time in Belgium, France and Italy.

If they could handle the workload and still had obvious talent, pro teams would start to select 20-22 year olds based on their strengths (sprint, climbing, stage races, etc). Okay. So far, so good. To what I can tell it pretty much works that way today.

However... It was widely understood that after 30, a rider would start to decline due to age and the fatigue (mental, injuries, etc) of training and racing at such absurd levels. Which means that if you weren't winning by 26, you were pretty much done. Washed up. Finished. Either you wouldn't get a contract at 27, or you'd get a pay cut and work as a lowly domestique. There's no way you'd be expected to suddenly transform yourself and be a bloody GT winner! It's ludicrous.

Example: Greg Lemond was 2nd in the Giro and Tour by time he was 24. He showed the absolutely classic career arc from junior to world-beating champion.

Counter-example: Froome was 26 and washed up. He showed the classic career arc of someone who was good enough to become a pro, but not good enough to become a champion. Turning 27 he should have been fighting for a contract and/or making post-career plans. Oops! He was! To suddenly become a GT winner is a slap in cycling fan's faces everywhere.

John Swanson

Excellent post. I'd also say Froome was lucky to even be at ProTour level. If it wasn't for Barloworld's South African connection he wouldn't even have a contract.

He got into to Sky primarily due to them needing to fill the ProTour rider limit in 2010. He was pushing Greg Henderson in 2010 and his story had already been written.

How he went from giving up his bike to sprinters to accelerating away from Contador in the saddle after 230km of riding up Ventoux is the best advertisement for drugs I've ever seen.

Just EPO it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS