Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[sniper]

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.

The transformation was such that it has been a central theme in almost all of Walsh's pieces on Froome.

In "Why I believe in Froome", Freeman says to Walsh he took two weeks to compare Froome's blood values pre-vuelta with the data from the vuelta, just to make sure everything was ok.

 

[Netserk]

Well, Froome *did* become the fastest GT rider (in the Vuelta) overnight.

 

[stutue]

I don't take what they say as true.

You however do,

Evidence please.

I'm just pointing out your inconsistency.

The point stands, Froome didn't win a GT until 2013. If his ability was the same in 2011 it seems odd that Sky didn't have him do a bit of winning in the interim. Power files don't lie.

Edit: mod has stepped in with mod hat. End of I guess

 

[the sceptic]

Well, Froome *did* become the fastest GT rider (in the Vuelta) overnight.

Hog said "fastest gc rider ever" or something like that, which probably wasnt true in the 2011 vuelta, hence the vortexing of what the word "overnight" means.

 

[Netserk]

Evidence please.

I'm just pointing out your inconsistency.

The point stands, Froome didn't win a GT until 2012. If his ability was the same in 2011 it seems odd that Sky didn't have him do a bit of winning in the interim. Power files don't lie.

He didn't win in 2012 either.

He was however the fastest the year before.

 

[kingjr]

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.

Coming back to the graph again , between 23 and 25 is where the estimated trajectory curve is at its steepest. In 2008 he managed to finish 14th in the final TT of the Tour, his first GT, his second season as a professional, you'd expect that's something to build on. Looking at the way he then rode in 2010, I think that's out of the ordinary, yes.

 

[Dalakhani]

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'd suggest it's a lot easier for someone to drop behind than move ahead.

Common reasons would be: loss of motivation, niggling injuries, loss of confidence, lack of opportunities, fatigue.

On the other hand, to suddenly find the ability to generate more power at age 25, seems very odd.

Maybe if you have a really bad riding style and you improve it, that could make a difference. But, in Froome's case, his style still looks horrible and the improvement seems beyond what you'd expect from some tweaks.

 

[TailWindHome]

That graph

EBH

 

[Merckx index]

Great post on schisto, Hitch.

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.

I’d just add that when people put their money on the line, they pull out all the stops to make information and predictions as accurate as possible.

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.

It wasn't a Sky employee, it was Grappe, who last year was given access to Froome's power data by Sky specifically in response to all the doping innuendos. The whole point of Grappe's analysis was to reassure people that Froome did not undergo a sudden transformation.

Speaking to Equipe about Froome's data, Grappe suggested that Froome's power indicate that his performances were consistent during 2011-2013 and similar to other riders he has studied...During the last two years, his profile has not changed. It appears that the potential that he has today is similar to the one he had in 2011."

Except that Grappe was not given any power data pre-2011. What he was able to show was that Froome at the Vuelta was the same beast as Froome at the 2013 TDF. This is the official Froome/Sky story.

Overnight is the right term to use for his transformation. Between the Tour of Poland and the Vuelta. Very unlikely that in that two week period of inactivity, he improved from his ToP form to his Vuelta form by 7% of the difference per day, no?

I don’t care if people want to argue that what Froome has done he has done clean. I do object when they try to avoid confronting exactly what he has done. Again, we don’t have slam-dunk proof that Froome doped. We do have slam-dunk proof that he transformed overnight, and that schisto doesn’t explain this. When people try to deny this, it strongly suggests that they believe, as Froome critics here do, that accepting this evidence makes it very hard to believe Froome is not doping.

If you want to make a claim that Froome is clean, do it taking into account the facts. They should be the starting point for all further argument.

Is it possible to show such a dramatic improvement overnight clean? Maybe. Make that argument. Then we can have a reasonable discussion.

 

[stutue]

Which do you think he was targeting?

Tour of Poland or Vuelta?

Edit: you have just massively edited your post to include a huge strawman and that is that I am arguing that Froome is clean. I'm not. What I am doing is pointing out that the arguments presented to his doping are overstated.

Not the same thing at all as arguing that he is clean.

 

[sniper]

It wasn't a Sky employee, it was Vayer, who last year was given access to Froome's power data by Sky specifically in response to all the doping innuendos. The whole point of Vayer's analysis was to reassure people that Froome did not undergo a sudden transformation.

Except that Vayer was not given any power data pre-2011. What he was able to show was that Froome at the Vuelta was the same beast as Froome at the 2013 TDF. This is the official Froome/Sky story.

Overnight is the right term to use for his transformation. Between the Tour of Poland and the Vuelta. Very unlikely that in that two week period of inactivity, he improved from his ToP form to his Vuelta form by 7% of the difference per day, no?

good points.
(but it was grappe i think, not vayer)

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

good points.
(but it was grappe i think, not vayer)

The guy who said Armstrong was cleans based on his power data, right?

 

[red_flanders]

Which do you think he was targeting?

Tour of Poland or Vuelta?

The difference between his results before and after the 201 Vuelta could not be more dramatic. You know it and everyone else knows it.

Why don't you cut this nonsense and come out with your detailed opinion about Froome. Vortexing around the topic is simply trolling. Put up or shut up.

 

[red_flanders]

Which do you think he was targeting?

Tour of Poland or Vuelta?

Edit: you have just massively edited your post to include a huge strawman and that is that I am arguing that Froome is clean. I'm not. What I am doing is pointing out that the arguments presented to his doping are overstated.

Not the same thing at all as arguing that he is clean.

Exactly. You're sniping about nonsense and offering no opinion. You're only doing it to those arguing Froome is doping.

Of course it follows that other people learn that your particular technique is a defense of Froome.

 

[stutue]

Exactly. You're sniping about nonsense and offering no opinion. You're only doing it to those arguing Froome is doping.

Of course it follows that other people learn that your particular technique is a defense of Froome.

Now who's trolling.

Please cease the personal attacks.

I wasn't actually talking to you. You've chosen to reply. If you think it is nonsense then don't reply.

Why don't you cut this nonsense and come out with your detailed opinion about Froome. Vortexing around the topic is simply trolling. Put up or shut up.

My detailed opinion is that I don't know. And I think youbdont know either.

Kindly dont tell me to "shut up"

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Which do you think he was targeting?

Tour of Poland or Vuelta?

Edit: you have just massively edited your post to include a huge strawman and that is that I am arguing that Froome is clean. I'm not. What I am doing is pointing out that the arguments presented to his doping are overstated.

Not the same thing at all as arguing that he is clean.

Well, he was fighting for selection to the Vuelta, and he didn't have a contract for 2012. August 1st is the opening of transfer silly season, so you would have to assume he would want to show in any race he could.

We now know that Garmin and Lampre had both been taking a look at him ahead of that Vuelta, but they wouldn't have been looking at much over minimum WT domestique wage for him. Then, on August 28, 2011, he became the best cyclist in the world.

 

[stutue]

Which begs the question why he was selected for the Vuelta.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Which begs the question why he was selected for the Vuelta.

Coz someone got sick.



Thought this was common knowledge?

 

[red_flanders]

Coz someone got sick.



Thought this was common knowledge?

It is. Draw the conclusion.

 

[BYOP88]

Coming back to the graph again , between 23 and 25 is where the estimated trajectory curve is at its steepest. In 2008 he managed to finish 14th in the final TT of the Tour, his first GT, his second season as a professional, you'd expect that's something to build on. Looking at the way he then rode in 2010, I think that's out of the ordinary, yes.

Again with the final TT, you do realize in the 2 stage that came after Alpe d'Huez before the TT that Froome finished well off the pace in those 2 stages.

Stage 18 finished 114th @7'07
Stage 19 finished 134th @3'08

And the 2 stages before Alpe d'Huez Froome 'rested' and lost over 25 minutes on each stage. (Stage 15- @25'33 and Stage 16- @31'56)

So Froome in 2008 could crack the top 31(Stage 17, 31st @11'41 and Stage 20, 16th @3'00) on GC for a stage provided he rested for a few days before and after the stages he was targeting. After his effort in the ITT Froome then finished dead last on the next stage.

 

[SundayRider]

Which do you think he was targeting?

Tour of Poland or Vuelta?

Edit: you have just massively edited your post to include a huge strawman and that is that I am arguing that Froome is clean. I'm not. What I am doing is pointing out that the arguments presented to his doping are overstated.

Not the same thing at all as arguing that he is clean.

Contador has something like 30 top 10 (overall) finishes in his last 35 stage races - can't remember the exact statistic but it is impressive.

 

[kingjr]

Again with the final TT, you do realize in the 2 stage that came after Alpe d'Huez before the TT that Froome finished well off the pace in those 2 stages.

And it's still better than anything he showed at Sky through 2010. Again, usually you would expect a young rider to improve from there and get better, but at Sky he went backwards rather than forward.

 

[thehog]

It is. Draw the conclusion.

This is true. His selection at the 2011 Vuelta was via default of another riding already selected withdrawing. This is outlined in his woefully written book.

Froome had one chance and one chance only. Clearly he didn't mess that chance up. And he certainly in a position to be targeting the Vuelta. He just needed results.

I think if you're only defence that he might not be doping is the definition of "overnight" and given the context it's clear what it means, then you really have very little to argue about.

A poor attempt at trolling nevertheless.

 

[stutue]

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

The fastest GT rider in history (overnight) but he didn't win a GT for a further two years. Riiiight.

If you build your case on false premises then you really haven't got much of a case.

 

[SeriousSam]

stutue has already conceded that he how regards it as possible that Froome might have doped: He is seemingly no longer maintaining that Froome's cleanliness is fundamental property of the universe. That's progress right there, good discussion.