Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Michele]

Who knows how they rated him? Maybe they saw him as a raw talent who couldn't transfer the numbers into results and were losing patience. Maybe they were just trying to drive his contract renewal price down. Maybe they were too focused on Wiggins. Different people, different perspectives. I'm not going to take the one that suits me as the definitive truth.

Personally I'm not buying the idea that he wasn't going to get a contract renewal - he'd shown sporadic good form at Romandie and Suisse that year. (And a friend of mine who occasionally has contact with British Cycling was always telling me that Froome was going to be the next big thing)

But sport is full of managers making bad decisions with regard to signings. For example, Peter Sagan almost quit road racing when Lefevere didn't sign him to Quick Step.

1 year later during Tour de France, Saronni was a guest at Rai and he said that Froome wasn't gonna get his contract renewed by Team Sky and they had reached a verbal agreement, the contract was being finalized in the details.
Saronni was then joking at how that season would have turned around for Lampre to have such a rider in the team.

 

[thehog]

Once again, more clearly I hope:

These dots with the riders initials next to them represent their current level of performance. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is guesswork, based on previous experience, which is represented by the curve named 'Estimated trajectory of a cyclist's career'. It's an estimate. It doesn't have to be accurate all the time.

No it's not an estimate.

It's a method used to predict the future of a cyclists potential, future earnings and usefulness to Sky.

Yes, it's a little crude but Brailsford's 'theory' is what he used for contract renewals, salary expectations and predict future potential. Based on this graph, Froome as it's well known was about to be dropped by Sky and most likely out of the ProTour all together.

Then something happened that nobody estimated or predicted. He became the fastest GT cyclist in history. Overnight.

 

[stutue]

He became the fastest GT cyclist in history. Overnight.

Overnight? Really?

So he won his first GT the following morning then.

 

[kingjr]

No it's not an estimate.

It's a method used to predict the future of a cyclists potential, future earnings and usefulness to Sky.

It is an estimate in the sense that a cyclists career does not always follow that curve. Some can be ahead, some can be behind. Take EBH as an example of someone who was way ahead of the curve at the time, and today he would probably below it. So based on that graph alone Froome probably wouldn't have been dropped but also because of the fact that he did go backwards rather than forward during his time at Sky up to that point.

 

[the sceptic]

Overnight? Really?

So he won his first GT the following morning then.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overnight

 

[stutue]

Ah I get it.

Overnight= 2 years.

 

[thehog]

It is an estimate in the sense that a cyclists career does not always follow that curve. Some can be ahead, some can be behind. Take EBH as an example of someone who was way ahead of the curve at the time, and today he would probably below it. So based on that graph alone Froome probably wouldn't have been dropped but also because of the fact that he did go backwards rather than forward during his time at Sky up to that point.

I see the point you're trying to make but it's not an estimate. An estimate is more a rough calculation. Here Brailsford had his own chart which was copied into this graph. Brailsford called it a "theory" by which he uses a set method to calculate a riders potential based on set criteria. Summarily to financial modelling last performance is part of that criteria.

What you see here is Brailsford attempting to calculate the potential of his team and how he renews them and with what salary.

Froome was in the drop zone. And if Froome had shown in training and by numbers he really was the next greatest GT rider Brailsford would have noted that on the graph as he had with others. Or at least provide exception and/or moved him into another square. He did not.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Overnight.

NASA called, they'd like to know what Froome's using for fuel.

 

[The Hitch]

I was going to make the same point but it's a waste of time. Apparently, everyone on here is an expert in tropical medicine.

Mods this is obvious baiting and trolling.

 

[the sceptic]

Ah I get it.

Overnight= 2 years.

The transformation happened between the tour of poland, where he lost 30 minutes to Sagan and the vuelta which was about 2 weeks. I believe that should qualify as "overnight".

 

[The Hitch]

Forget about the Badzilla. Its a red herring.

Just take a moment and imagine that Froome started doping in late 2011. It all makes sense then.

Bilharzia is not a red herring. It's the explanation froome gave for his transformation and the fact that he has been caught lying about 90% of what he said about bilharzia outs froome for what he is.

 

[The Hitch]

Ah I get it.

Overnight= 2 years.

Didn't skys doctor say the froome that destroyed everyone in 2013 was the same physiological beast of 2011. His power was the same.

Kind of destroys your argument that froome was on a gradual improvement through to 2013. His own people say it was an overnight transformation.

 

[kingjr]

I see the point you're trying to make but it's not an estimate. An estimate is more a rough calculation.

I'm referring to the curve called 'Estimated trajectory of a cyclists career' when I say estimate.

Other than that, there was indeed no reason for Brailsford to believe that Frooms performance would suddenly jerk upwards, I don't argue against that and if he wanted to drop him, that's perfectly understandable.

 

[stutue]

The transformation happened between the tour of poland, where he lost 30 minutes to Sagan and the vuelta which was about 2 weeks. I believe that should qualify as "overnight".

The transformation to what exactly?

According to thehog it is to the 'fastest GT cyclist in history'. Winners are the fastest, which is why they win. Froome didn't win until 2012. Hardly overnight.

I totally accept that Froome turned things around and I'm open to the possibility of cheating, but let's keep our feet on the ground and not start factoring ridiculous and palpably untrue exagerrations into the equation

 

[sniper]

Froome didn't win until 2012.

you mean sky kept him on a leash until 2012.

 

[Netserk]

The transformation to what exactly?

According to thehog it is to the 'fastest GT cyclist in history'. Winners are the fastest, which is why they win. Froome didn't win until 2012. Hardly overnight.

I totally accept that Froome turned things around and I'm open to the possibility of cheating, but let's keep our feet on the ground and not start factoring ridiculous and palpably untrue exagerrations into the equation

Actually, Froome was the fastest in the Vuelta in 2011.

 

[stutue]

Didn't skys doctor say the froome that destroyed everyone in 2013 was the same physiological beast of 2011. His power was the same.

Kind of destroys your argument that froome was on a gradual improvement through to 2013. His own people say it was an overnight transformation.

Only if you take what a Sky employee says as true.

I thought they were all liars, no?

If you pick and choose it starts to look like confirmation bias.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm referring to the curve called 'Estimated trajectory of a cyclists career' when I say estimate.

Other than that, there was indeed no reason for Brailsford to believe that Frooms performance would suddenly jerk upwards, I don't argue against that and if he wanted to drop him, that's perfectly understandable.

The point you keep trying to make is stupid. The graph shows froomes present ability (at the time) not his potential. So what. You think there was a second graph brailsfraud had which he conveniently never showed anyone (a bit like Joseph smith I guess) which had all the riders listed by potential and froome was on this whole other level above Wiggins even on "potential greatest cyclist ever".ability is directly related to potential. Froomes ability at age 25 does very much show his potential. It shows that he isn't a rider good enough to fight for major races let alone gts. No one that average at age 25 is going to destroy the times of the most hardcore dopers in history over the next few years, clean.for froome to have anywhere near that potential level he needs to by age 25 be right at the top of the graph. And yet he's at the bottom

 

[the sceptic]

The transformation to what exactly?

According to thehog it is to the 'fastest GT cyclist in history'. Winners are the fastest, which is why they win. Froome didn't win until 2012. Hardly overnight.

I totally accept that Froome turned things around and I'm open to the possibility of cheating, but let's keep our feet on the ground and not start factoring ridiculous and palpably untrue exagerrations into the equation

Nice trolling.

 

[stutue]

Nice trolling.

I realise that you try and play the mods off as mugs, which is why I won't dignify your baiting with a response.

If you want to discuss my posting by all means PM me.

 

[The Hitch]

Only if you take what a Sky employee says as true.

I thought they were all liars, no?

Or do you pick and choose?

I don't take what they say as true.

You however do, so jm pointing out to you that your own argument contradicts what froome and his people are saying.

It's up to you now. You want to take the stance that froome abd his people are lying over something so small, in order to defend a theory that froome continued to improve into 2012 so you can continue to play forum war with sceptic and co on the technicality that 2 years is not "overnight". Or do you want to take the stance that froome and his people are honest and not making up froomes powerfiles as they go along, at the expense of your argument with sceptic and having to concede that froomes transformation really was overnight

 

[kingjr]

You think there was a second graph brailsfraud had which he conveniently never showed anyone (a bit like Joseph smith I guess) which had all the riders listed by potential and froome was on this whole other level above Wiggins even on "potential greatest cyclist ever".

No I don't I already said that I believe Brailsford had no clue about what happened at the Vuelta 2011.

Froomes ability at age 25 does very much show his potential.

The strange thing is that he was better at 23 than he was at 25. Even before his transformation his career doesn't make much sense by normal standards.

 

[Afrank]

The transformation to what exactly?

According to thehog it is to the 'fastest GT cyclist in history'. Winners are the fastest, which is why they win. Froome didn't win until 2012. Hardly overnight.

I totally accept that Froome turned things around and I'm open to the possibility of cheating, but let's keep our feet on the ground and not start factoring ridiculous and palpably untrue exagerrations into the equation

It's very clear what Hog meant by overnight, in 2011 Froome went from zero to hero very quickly. Overnight is simply a figure of speech for it happening very quickly and suddenly. And it cannot be denied that Froome becoming a GT contender did happen very quickly and suddenly.

So let's let that be the end of it (mod-mode on).

 

[the sceptic]

I realise that you try and play the mods off as mugs, which is why I won't dignify your baiting with a response.

If you want to discuss my posting by all means PM me.

Apologize, I dont want to get banned right before the vuelta.

Lets go back to discussing Froome and his transformation.

 

[The Hitch]

No I don't I already said that I believe Brailsford had no clue about what happened at the Vuelta 2011.



The strange thing is that he was better at 23 than he was at 25. Even before his transformation his career doesn't make much sense by normal standards.

Err he was slightly better at 23 than 25. Very very slightly. It's perfectly normal for riders to have those kind of fluctuations from one year to another. It's not like he was fighting for wins if any sort at 23 and then not at 25. He was an average lower level domestique at age 23 and still a average lower level domestique at age 25 just slightly worse. If you think that's out of the ordinary then you Cant have watched cycling (or any sport for that matter) much.