Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[the sceptic]

You do realize kennaugh is above the estimated trajectory for a cyclist.

Look at parker, waving the graph around without understanding what it means.

 

[The Hitch]

If they had made this graph in 2008 the picture would've been quite different. The question for me is not so much why he is so good today, but why he was so bad in 09/10 and pretty much up to Summer 2011.

Are you really saying that froome being a one in a billion talent who due to unrealistic bad luck after bad luck after bad luck for his whole career never could show it, is a more believable narrative than froome being an ordinary talent who went to do Greta things with dope just like every other gt winner in recent memory?

 

[kingjr]

Are you really saying that froome being a one in a billion talent who due to unrealistic bad luck after bad luck after bad luck for his whole career never could show it, is a more believable narrative than froome being an ordinary talent who went to do Greta things with dope just like every other gt winner in recent memory?

One in a billion is exaggerated. I think that he's an extraordinary talent though.
I think him getting into cycling relatively late in a country that has no cycling history, having no clue about how to ride in a professional bike race and then of course his illness have hampered his early career.

He might of course be doping, I'm not claiming to be sure of anything of course, far from it. But I have a good gut feeling about him.

 

[Parker]

You do realize kennaugh is above the estimated trajectory for a cyclist.

Again you miss the point of the graph and its use. There is no standard progression for a cyclist. The important thing is not where a rider is at any single point in time but how the rider moves in relation to the curve over time. The curve representing an average progression curve.
So at that point Kennaugh is ahead of the curve - not surprising for someone who had been in the British Cycling system since his mid teens. While Froome, who had had more unorthodox formative years and illness was unsurprisingly behind the curve.

 

[Benotti69]

Again you miss the point of the graph and its use. There is no standard progression for a cyclist. The important thing is not where a rider is at any single point in time but how the rider moves in relation to the curve over time. The curve representing an average progression curve.
So at that point Kennaugh is ahead of the curve - not surprising for someone who had been in the British Cycling system since his mid teens. While Froome, who had had more unorthodox formative years and illness was unsurprisingly behind the curve.

Got a link to prove that?

My guess is there was a recognised standard progression from schoolboy, junior, u23 to senior levels......there will always be those who are exceptional, those who bloom late etc, but they will not be far off the standard progression curve.

The curve was thrown out the window with EPO and has not returned.

 

[Parker]

Got a link to prove that?

http://www.cqranking.com

 

[red_flanders]

Again you miss the point of the graph and its use. There is no standard progression for a cyclist. The important thing is not where a rider is at any single point in time but how the rider moves in relation to the curve over time. The curve representing an average progression curve.
So at that point Kennaugh is ahead of the curve - not surprising for someone who had been in the British Cycling system since his mid teens. While Froome, who had had more unorthodox formative years and illness was unsurprisingly behind the curve.

So an "average progression curve" peaks at Word Tour Podium? That can't be the case, so it's something else.

I am interested in what you're saying but frankly I don't think I could accurately describe what the curve represents either.

 

[Parker]

So an "average progression curve" peaks at Word Tour Podium?

No, but then it's an oversimplified representation of the concept by a journalist for a magazine article. (The shape of the curve doesn't look quite right to me either)

 

[sniper]

Again you miss the point of the graph and its use. There is no standard progression for a cyclist. The important thing is not where a rider is at any single point in time but how the rider moves in relation to the curve over time. The curve representing an average progression curve.
So at that point Kennaugh is ahead of the curve - not surprising for someone who had been in the British Cycling system since his mid teens. While Froome, who had had more unorthodox formative years and illness was unsurprisingly behind the curve.

off topic, but which illness are you referring to? do you have a link? i'd be curious to see which article or piece of data you'd link to and which illness you are referring to.

 

[Digger]

Again you miss the point of the graph and its use. There is no standard progression for a cyclist. The important thing is not where a rider is at any single point in time but how the rider moves in relation to the curve over time. The curve representing an average progression curve.
So at that point Kennaugh is ahead of the curve - not surprising for someone who had been in the British Cycling system since his mid teens. While Froome, who had had more unorthodox formative years and illness was unsurprisingly behind the curve.

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

 

[bigcog]

So he juiced up alone? Or without team's accept or help? Because then.....this contradicts about 1000 pages here and some 3 years of talking.

Spot on, and as usual none of the experts on here can answer because it blows a big hole in their ludicrous "theories"

 

[Parker]

off topic, but which illness are you referring to? do you have a link? i'd be curious to see which article or piece of data you'd link to and which illness you are referring to.

Bilharzia in 2010. It's been fairly well documented.

 

[the sceptic]

Spot on, and as usual none of the experts on here can answer because it blows a big hole in their ludicrous "theories"

well, if you refuse to believe in logic its difficult to have a meaningful conversation about anything.

 

[Digger]

Bilharzia in 2010. It's been fairly well documented.

so why was he so sh** prior to badzilla?

 

[Parker]

so why was he so sh** prior to badzilla?

Was he though? He had some good results as an U23 with WCC and an encouraging neo-pro season, while being generally clueless about how to be a cyclist. And then Barloworld folded and he got ill and had injuries so took time to build on it.

 

[veganrob]

so why was he so sh** prior to badzilla?

Because he was too busy stealing bunnies and roving packs of lions disrupted his training.

 

[SeriousSam]

The curve is bull****.

The relevant facts are:

1. Froome had no meaningful results until the Vuelta 2011, at which point he became the best GC rider.

2. In the class of riders who have gone on to become dominant Grand Tour riders, he wasn't just bad he was horrendous up to that point. An extreme outlier, probably the worst rider to age 26 ever who won the Tour.

2. No one saw his transformation coming. If we had asked people in 2010 as to how Froome would progress the consensus would have been that he'd never contend at a Grand Tour, never mind win, never mind dominate.

 

[red_flanders]

Spot on, and as usual none of the experts on here can answer because it blows a big hole in their ludicrous "theories"

This and the statement quoted are irrelevant.

Some people think Sky doped Froome. Many other don't and never have, myself included.

But calling the theories "ludicrous" means nothing. It makes no assertion that Froome is clean, it offers no rational argument of his guilt or lack thereof.

For example, I have never known how dopers have done it before the details have come out, but I have been certain that they doped and never been wrong. They all eventually are caught out.

Of course people don't know how it's being done. Means nothing as to whether they are doing it.

 

[stutue]

The problem with saying that there has never been an amazing transformation like Froome's is that it would mean there has never been an amazing transformation like Froome's.....from anybody....even during the era of rampant surefire doping.

So if people want to engage in ridiculous overstated exagerration they are faced with a bit of a problem.

Doping can't be the whole answer...otherwise Froome's never-seen-before transformation would have been seen before.

I'm entirely happy with the proposition that he might be chemically enhanced, but I think people have to acknowledge that there might also be some truth in the retardative effect of his awkward and unusual formative years and also the badzilla

 

[red_flanders]

The problem with saying that there has never been an amazing transformation like Froome's is that it would mean there has never been an amazing transformation like Froome's.....from anybody....even during the era of rampant surefire doping.

So if people want to engage in ridiculous overstated exagerration they are faced with a bit of a problem.

Doping can't be the whole answer...otherwise Froome's never-seen-before transformation would have been seen before.

So what? It's obvious he's a doper, and the point of calling out the transformation is to try and get the people with blinders on to wake the **** up, not to explain how he got such a boost from whatever his program is.

All people respond differently to drugs and training methods. Froome had enough talent to get some minor results only, for whatever reason. For whatever reason he gets a massive boost from his program.

There is no legitimizing it. He's a doper. The echoes of arguments made by the Armstrong online trolls just keep coming back. Just remarkable how people can't figure it out, even after rinse, repeat, rinse repeat, over and over.

 

[sniper]

Bilharzia in 2010. It's been fairly well documented.

How is it fairly well documented? Where?
If you've followed the Clinic discussions on froome's bilharzia, you'll have noticed the various contradictions and lies in the story and timeline.
I don't think any of those contradictions and lies have been clarified since. They are still there.
Hence I don't think you can't state as a fact that froome got ill, unless you know something most of us don't.

Was he though? He had some good results as an U23 with WCC and an encouraging neo-pro season, while being generally clueless about how to be a cyclist. And then Barloworld folded and he got ill and had injuries so took time to build on it.

fascinating story.

 

[SeriousSam]

The problem with saying that there has never been an amazing transformation like Froome's is that it would mean there has never been an amazing transformation like Froome's.....from anybody....even during the era of rampant surefire doping.

So if people want to engage in ridiculous overstated exagerration they are faced with a bit of a problem.

Doping can't be the whole answer...otherwise Froome's never-seen-before transformation would have been seen before.

There are two explanations consistent with doping being the whole answer:

1. Froome might be an extreme outlier with respect to response to dope. This is more plausible than him being an extreme outlier with respect to VO2max efficiency etc and that going unnoticed.

2. Edge in doping, like Armstrong, who also underwent a great transformation.

but I think people have to acknowledge that there might also be some truth in the retardative effect of his awkward and unusual formative years and also the badzilla

Dominated by the PED induced change, but this likely contributed, yes.

But let's not go ahead of yourselves and try to quantify how much of his increase in ability is due to PEDs vs other factors. There are still people, possibly even clinic posters, that actually believe Froome is clean! The transformation is devastating evidence to the contrary even if it hasn't been fully driven by PED use.

 

[sniper]

Some people think Sky doped Froome. Many other don't and never have, myself included.

it's not that simple a dichotomy i think.
i mean, they hired leinders not for saddle sore, did they?
so while they may have not been handing out lunch boxes, isn't it still plausible to assume that Sky set up structures and appointed people to help (some of) their riders dope?
even if Leinders only helped to keep froome's blood parameters in check, i think it's fair to say sky at least helped froome dope, innit?

anyway, it's an important point you make here:

Of course people don't know how it's being done. Means nothing as to whether they are doing it.

 

[stutue]

So what? It's obvious he's a doper, and the point of calling out the transformation is to try and get the people with blinders on to wake the **** up, not to explain how he got such a boost from whatever his program is.

All people respond differently to drugs and training methods. Froome had enough talent to get some minor results only, for whatever reason. For whatever reason he gets a massive boost from his program.

There is no legitimizing it. He's a doper. The echoes of arguments made by the Armstrong online trolls just keep coming back. Just remarkable how people can't figure it out, even after rinse, repeat, rinse repeat, over and over.

So there is nothing left for you to discuss. So why are you here?

By the way, your 'legitimising' thing is a strawman.

 

[Netserk]

The problem with saying that there has never been an amazing transformation like Froome's is that it would mean there has never been an amazing transformation like Froome's.....from anybody....even during the era of rampant surefire doping.

So if people want to engage in ridiculous overstated exagerration they are faced with a bit of a problem.

Doping can't be the whole answer...otherwise Froome's never-seen-before transformation would have been seen before.

I'm entirely happy with the proposition that he might be chemically enhanced, but I think people have to acknowledge that there might also be some truth in the retardative effect of his awkward and unusual formative years and also the badzilla

What kind of argument is that? One transformation (caused by doping) will have to be the most extreme. No matter what. And no matter what, the most extreme transformation will never have been seen before. No matter what. Therefore you cannot use that to conclude whether or not doping is the whole answer to that. #logic101