Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Gung Ho Gun]

You don't have to win a GT to be the best GT rider in that GT
Like Froome in the 2011 Vuelta

 

[the sceptic]

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 miss 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.

I wonder what actually happened there.

It seems odd that sky would put him on a program after being ready to dump him, and they already had Wiggins as their man. It seems more likely that he was just a lone Dawg that took a shot, possibly with the help of Michelle and her mother.

 

[the sceptic]

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.

That hasnt stopped other bots arguing for thousands of posts. Being on the fence is just a way to avoid difficult questions.

 

[stutue]

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.

Eh?

I've never maintained that Froome is clean.

 

[thrawn]

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.

Perhaps you didn't watch the race. Froome, despite being a dom for most of the race that mattered, finished the Vuelta with a quicker time than any rider. Cobo won due to bonus seconds. So he's right, Froome was the quickest.

 

[thehog]

I wonder what actually happened there.

It seems odd that sky would put him on a program after being ready to dump him, and they already had Wiggins as their man. It seems more likely that he was just a lone Dawg that took a shot, possibly with the help of Michelle and her mother.

If you turn it around the other way and take the position that Froome is 100% clean.

What explanation can be given to the dramatic and overnight turnaround as a clean rider? Even Froome in his book and Kimmidge interview couldn't explain it. When he has tried to provide the detail story changes, the detail Badzhilla is inconsistent and mostly incorrect.

 

[stutue]

Yes it is highly unusual and deserving of suspicion.

But the fastest GT rider in history overnight? No.

 

[RownhamHill]

If you turn it around the other way and take the position that Froome is 100% clean.

What explanation can be given to the dramatic and overnight turnaround as a clean rider? Even Froome in his book and Kimmidge interview couldn't explain it. When he has tried to provide the detail story changes, the detail Badzhilla is inconsistent and mostly incorrect.

Turn it around again though, and how to drugs programmes as we all understand them explain the four week turn-around from Poland to vuelta - that's barely a withdrawal cycle is it? Think of all the hundreds of previous dopers that we know about and did any of them go from 'clean nobody' to 'gt champion' in four weeks?

Which is the interesting thing with Froome - whichever way you cut it, the speed, and completeness, of his transformation both invites massive amounts of scepticism, and massive amounts of head scratching.

 

[the sceptic]

Yes it is highly unusual and deserving of suspicion.

But the fastest GT rider in history overnight? No.

Glad we have that sorted out.

So what is stopping you from thinking Froome is doping?

 

[Jack (6 ch)]

I wonder what actually happened there.

It seems odd that sky would put him on a program after being ready to dump him, and they already had Wiggins as their man. It seems more likely that he was just a lone Dawg that took a shot, possibly with the help of Michelle and her mother.

I agree. He effectively forces Sky to re employ him.

Pumps up to the max pre Vuelta. Last chance saloon.
Badzilla makes the testers job impossible.
Sky have the choice of calling him out, revealing doping in their pristine ranks, or sucking it up and using him for Plan Wiggo for 2012
He goes on to the Sky A team programme in 2012. Perhaps a little independent topping up on the side. Becomes a key part of the Wiggo story.
Too late to call him out now.
Wiggo self destructs - Froome becomes plan A.

 

[thehog]

Great post on schisto, Hitch.

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.

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.

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.

Grappe did later clarify his conclusions based on the data he was given;

"Have I said one single time that he is not doped? The data analysed do not suffice to reach that conclusion. I must be very honest...

...The question we must ask is: what was his profile before 2011? And I know nothing of that..."

And, yes, overnight is the best way to describes Froome dramatic change in performance. Night & Day.

 

[TheSpud]

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.

If you accept that losing motivation and confidence can cause a drop off presumably you also accept that regaining those could result in reversing that drop?

 

[TheSpud]

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.

What time 2011 data was Grappe given? All of it or just Vuelta - the article doe sn't say.

 

[sniper]

I wonder what actually happened there.

It seems odd that sky would put him on a program after being ready to dump him, and they already had Wiggins as their man. It seems more likely that he was just a lone Dawg that took a shot, possibly with the help of Michelle and her mother.

Perhaps he simply sat down with one of the team doctors and asked how can I get rid of that saddle sore that is making me underperform?
Geert, Zorzoli, and off you go.

 

[TheSpud]

I wonder what actually happened there.

It seems odd that sky would put him on a program after being ready to dump him, and they already had Wiggins as their man. It seems more likely that he was just a lone Dawg that took a shot, possibly with the help of Michelle and her mother.

How soon before the Vuelta did the other rider pull out?

 

[red_flanders]

If you accept that losing motivation and confidence can cause a drop off presumably you also accept that regaining those could result in reversing that drop?

Of course. The point is that it's a whole lot harder to make gains than losses.

 

[The Hitch]

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.

Andy schleck, peter Sagan, peter velits, ebh, all riders better at 23 than 25. There is no guaranteed career trajectory. Finishing 14th in a tt 90% of riders did just to finish means squat. It's nothing to build on and no guarantee the rider will be any good in their future.

 

[The Hitch]

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.

You would expect /=/ you can 100% guarantee. Just cos some cyclists do better at 25 than 23, most even, does no way guarantee that this has to happen to everyone and in no way makes froomes slight regression out of the ordinary.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Lovkvist being a prime example of going backwards

 

[thehog]

Turn it around again though, and how to drugs programmes as we all understand them explain the four week turn-around from Poland to vuelta - that's barely a withdrawal cycle is it? Think of all the hundreds of previous dopers that we know about and did any of them go from 'clean nobody' to 'gt champion' in four weeks?

Which is the interesting thing with Froome - whichever way you cut it, the speed, and completeness, of his transformation both invites massive amounts of scepticism, and massive amounts of head scratching.

How do you know when he withdrew? His Poland was bad enough to be a withdraw cycle prior. Regardless I doubt he was blood doping. That's a little old school.

These days it much better to be either consistently bad or consistently good. Or just sick all of the times in between racing. Or at altitude.

It's not too hard to pull off. Rather easy in fact.

When I look for a doper I look at the parts in between the racing. That generally tells you the story.

 

[sniper]

I doubt he was blood doping. That's a little old school.

then why the badzilla?
whatever he did, it had to do with red blood cells.

 

[thehog]

then why the badzilla?
whatever he did, it had to do with red blood cells.

What he is doing is stimulating the growth of red blood cells by foreign substances ingested/injected into his body.

And when you do that you need fuzzy the passport. So the best thing you can do for that is going up and down from altitude and having some form of parasitical illness would help in rendering the passport profile next to useless. No software/expert could determine doping with his history.

But as with Armstrong doping is one part. The other part is having compliance from the testing arm/sporting body.

See Froome's performance at Romandie this year. Having that TUE made a significant difference. Additionally, knowing the keys to the passport program would asset greatly.

 

[kingjr]

You would expect /=/ you can 100% guarantee. Just cos some cyclists do better at 25 than 23, most even, does no way guarantee that this has to happen to everyone and in no way makes froomes slight regression out of the ordinary.

No one said anything about a 100 % guarantee.

And yes it is out of the ordinary. The fact that there are other (some not very fitting) examples doesn't change that. You could argue though that it's ordinary that things out of the ordinary happen. Sorry for the clumsy english.

 

[Merckx index]

Turn it around again though, and how to drugs programmes as we all understand them explain the four week turn-around from Poland to vuelta - that's barely a withdrawal cycle is it? Think of all the hundreds of previous dopers that we know about and did any of them go from 'clean nobody' to 'gt champion' in four weeks?

What had LA done in a GT prior to the 1998 Vuelta? His transformation as a climber was virtually overnight. And remember, this was someone who was already known to be doping before.

DiLuca also transformed rapidly from a roleur to a climber. Had he shown any climbing ability prior to his breakout Giro, in 2004 I think it was?

It's hard to pin down the transformation in cases like these to a few weeks, because going into the GT, the rider may not have entered a race where climbing was important. I'm not sure what LA's schedule earlier in 1998 was, or DiLuca's was before that Giro. But in those GTs, they achieved performances as climbers that exceeded anything they had previously done by, I think, a margin comparable to what Froome did.

Which is the interesting thing with Froome - whichever way you cut it, the speed, and completeness, of his transformation both invites massive amounts of scepticism, and massive amounts of head scratching.

I agree about the head scratching. But it’s possible Froome was clean as a whistle prior to the 2011 Vuelta. His improvement in that race is consistent with a typical blood doping program, EPO and/or transfusion. We know from several studies that this kind of improvement is easily obtainable from a rather moderate blood doping program. But if he was clean before that, riding in a still-doping peloton, his results should be considered quite good. If we accept this scenario, Froome was always a very talented rider who was being held back by other dopers. He might have been a super-responder, but he might have just responded more or less normally.

I think Horner probably had less to lose by doping last year than any other rider in recent history, but Froome in 2011 was in a somewhat similar situation.

 

[sniper]

What he is doing is stimulating the growth of red blood cells by foreign substances ingested/injected into his body.

And when you do that you need fuzzy the passport. So the best thing you can do for that is going up and down from altitude and having some form of parasitical illness would help in rendering the passport profile next to useless. No software/expert could determine doping with his history.

But as with Armstrong doping is one part. The other part is having compliance from the testing arm/sporting body.

See Froome's performance at Romandie this year. Having that TUE made a significant difference. Additionally, nowing the keys to the passport program would asset greatly.

i am sort of aware of all that
you seemed to suggest that froome's program does not involve blooddoping and i wanted to check if that is what you think.