Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[roundabout]

Is that result from 2007?

Did they race as individuals or teams?

Because I see at least 3 Konica Minolta teammates ahead of Froome (if it was 2007)

And Van Garderen is 3 years younger than Froome and it was the first year out of juniors for him.

But I would say that describing his TT ability from that time as pathetic would a be a typical exaggeration.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's easy to dismiss me as an anti-Sky poster or what have you, but there is no rational explanation for how the rider in those results - any of them - could go on to do the things he has done since 2011's Vuelta.

I've known good riders nowhere near Tour winning potential and as 16 year olds they were monsters.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Here's the thing...

Let's say for a moment that that silliness is actually true and Froome really didn't have any idea how to ride in a pack. That he really did waste all his energy just navigating it.

How does that explain his time trials going from pathetic to world beater? He's not racing any pack in them

The thing is has his TTing always been pathetic? If we go all the way back to the 2007 UCI Road World Championships Men's under-23 time trial where he finished 41st you might say that his TT result was crap at the time but then you look at the riders around him and you see Tejay Van Garderen in 38th, who you could say turned into a very good Time Trialist and similarly with Ian Standard, Gatis Smukulis and Martin Velits who finished above him.

Also, all this analysis of Froome is based on results only and is pretty pointless. He could have had an awful time trial position as a youngster, after all I doubt they did much wind tunnel testing in SA teams. Nowadays his time trial position looks extremely aero.

Likewise, who knows what happened in those races where Froome finished low down. Would you expect Froome to be challenging in a race that was won by Impey? What was his role? Perhaps he was working as a domestique. Perhaps he had a rubbish coach and was overtraining or unable to peak properly.

It's just impossible to come to the conclusion that he lacked talent by solely looking at his results.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re:

How does that explain his time trials going from pathetic to world beater? He's not racing any pack in them

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

He could have had an awful time trial position as a youngster, after all I doubt they did much wind tunnel testing in SA teams. Nowadays his time trial position looks extremely aero.

They did not put Froome through the tunnel till after 2011 Vuelta, where he smashed Wiggo and pretty much everyone else in the race.

So that theory is kinda punctured yeah?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

It's just impossible to come to the conclusion that he lacked talent by solely looking at his results.

Sure thing buddy.

Me? I prefer to read a rider's tea leaves to work out whether they have talent. Much more reliable.

Dilmah FTMFW.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

It's just impossible to come to the conclusion that he lacked talent by solely looking at his results.

Sure thing buddy.

Me? I prefer to read a rider's tea leaves to work out whether they have talent. Much more reliable.

Dilmah FTMFW.

The problem is that you are ignoring some significant results and ignoring all other factors. If Froome began a full scale program in 2011, that would mean that he finished 32nd in the Giro (relatively) clean at 23 years old. You don't come close to doing that without a huge amount of natural talent. Likewise, he wouldn't have been signed up by Barloworld or Sky, and wouldn't have ridden the TdF at such a young age if he didnt have natural ability. He wouldn't have made it to the world tour from his background if he wasn't precociously talented.

Looking at results are one bit of evidence, but they are far from the full story imo. His transformation post-2011 is obviously not credible, but trying to claim he never had any talent is wrong as well.

I think Froome suffers from the fact that his transformation all happened in the public eye, whereas riders like Valverde or Contador burst onto the scene already as top riders - so are widely thought of as being more talented. But both of those were on doping teams as neo-pros, so the reality is that we simply don't know their true talent.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

I think Froome suffers from the fact that his transformation all happened in the public eye, whereas riders like Valverde or Contador burst onto the scene already as top riders - so are widely thought of as being more talented. But both of those were on doping teams as neo-pros, so the reality is that we simply don't know their true talent.

I think the thing you suffer from is not knowing what you're talking about.

Valverde and Contador were junior beasts.

Froome had nothing. Until his contract was up in 2011.

Yes, when looking to start a UK registered team they hired the only UK riders in the peloton. Quelle surprise.

They had no issues ditching a no hoper either.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

I think Froome suffers from the fact that his transformation all happened in the public eye, whereas riders like Valverde or Contador burst onto the scene already as top riders - so are widely thought of as being more talented. But both of those were on doping teams as neo-pros, so the reality is that we simply don't know their true talent.

I think the thing you suffer from is not knowing what you're talking about.

Valverde and Contador were junior beasts.

Froome had nothing. Until his contract was up in 2011.

Yes, when looking to start a UK registered team they hired the only UK riders in the peloton. Quelle surprise.

They had no issues ditching a no hoper either.

Yes, they were junior beasts, but we don't know at what age they started doping, so we just can't say how good they are. They could have been doping since teenagers for all we know.

Froome, pre-2011 was a solid mid-pack pro. If he did that clean - which his post-2011 transformation suggests he did (at least without blood doping) - then he was clearly naturally talented.

The fact is that we don't know how naturally talented the top riders are in the peloton and how much they are super-responders. Trying to pretend and claim otherwise is ridiculous. At least with Froome, it looks like we probably have some kind of benchmark as to what he can do relatively clean - 32nd in a Grand Tour.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

I think Froome suffers from the fact that his transformation all happened in the public eye, whereas riders like Valverde or Contador burst onto the scene already as top riders - so are widely thought of as being more talented. But both of those were on doping teams as neo-pros, so the reality is that we simply don't know their true talent.

I think the thing you suffer from is not knowing what you're talking about.

Valverde and Contador were junior beasts.

Froome had nothing. Until his contract was up in 2011.

Yes, when looking to start a UK registered team they hired the only UK riders in the peloton. Quelle surprise.

They had no issues ditching a no hoper either.

Yes, they were junior beasts, but we don't know at what age they started doping, so we just can't say how good they are. They could have been doping since teenagers for all we know.

Froome, pre-2011 was a solid mid-pack pro. If he did that clean - which his post-2011 transformation suggests he did (at least without blood doping) - then he was clearly naturally talented.

The fact is that we don't know how naturally talented the top riders are in the peloton and how much they are super-responders. Trying to pretend and claim otherwise is ridiculous. At least with Froome, it looks like we probably have some kind of benchmark as to what he can do relatively clean - 32nd in a Grand Tour.

So Contador and Valverde could have been doping since teenagers, but Froome came 32nd clean.

Right.

We know which side of the fence you're standing on then, don't we.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

He could have had an awful time trial position as a youngster, after all I doubt they did much wind tunnel testing in SA teams. Nowadays his time trial position looks extremely aero.

They did not put Froome through the tunnel till after 2011 Vuelta, where he smashed Wiggo and pretty much everyone else in the race.

So that theory is kinda punctured yeah?

Even worse, he only got in a wind tunnel in 2013:

Despite being the Olympic bronze medallist in the discipline and runner-up to Wiggins in both long time-trials in this year’s Tour, Froome has never tested his position and bike in a wind tunnel. In time-trial terms, he has been operating in the Stone Age, with elbows out as if riding a scooter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9751875/Chris-Froome-defiant-over-Bradley-Wiggins-challenge-to-Tour-de-France-ambitions.html

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

I think Froome suffers from the fact that his transformation all happened in the public eye, whereas riders like Valverde or Contador burst onto the scene already as top riders - so are widely thought of as being more talented. But both of those were on doping teams as neo-pros, so the reality is that we simply don't know their true talent.

I think the thing you suffer from is not knowing what you're talking about.

Valverde and Contador were junior beasts.

Froome had nothing. Until his contract was up in 2011.

Yes, when looking to start a UK registered team they hired the only UK riders in the peloton. Quelle surprise.

They had no issues ditching a no hoper either.

Yes, they were junior beasts, but we don't know at what age they started doping, so we just can't say how good they are. They could have been doping since teenagers for all we know.

Froome, pre-2011 was a solid mid-pack pro. If he did that clean - which his post-2011 transformation suggests he did (at least without blood doping) - then he was clearly naturally talented.

The fact is that we don't know how naturally talented the top riders are in the peloton and how much they are super-responders. Trying to pretend and claim otherwise is ridiculous. At least with Froome, it looks like we probably have some kind of benchmark as to what he can do relatively clean - 32nd in a Grand Tour.

So Contador and Valverde could have been doping since teenagers, but Froome came 32nd clean.

Right.

We know which side of the fence you're standing on then, don't we.

I never said that; I said they are both possibilities. So it's pointless trying to conclude which riders are more naturally talented.

I'm not on any side of the fence; I'm simply stating that you don't know how naturally talented these riders are. But any rider that has made it to the World Tour from South African racing probably has a fair amount of talent.

Your posts are highly disingenuous. You make a big deal about Froome finishing 18th in some local sportive as evidence that he lacks talent, but fail to mention that he finished 83rd in the Tour de France or was winning UCI African Tour races at the same age. This kind of cherry picking adds nothing to the debate - why not give the full picture?

Imo the focus should be on how Froome has transformed post-2011. This agenda to try to make him out to be a less deserving winner than others because he is supposedly less natural talented is both pointless and baseless.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

I think Froome suffers from the fact that his transformation all happened in the public eye, whereas riders like Valverde or Contador burst onto the scene already as top riders - so are widely thought of as being more talented. But both of those were on doping teams as neo-pros, so the reality is that we simply don't know their true talent.

I think the thing you suffer from is not knowing what you're talking about.

Valverde and Contador were junior beasts.

Froome had nothing. Until his contract was up in 2011.

Yes, when looking to start a UK registered team they hired the only UK riders in the peloton. Quelle surprise.

They had no issues ditching a no hoper either.

Yes, they were junior beasts, but we don't know at what age they started doping, so we just can't say how good they are. They could have been doping since teenagers for all we know.

Froome, pre-2011 was a solid mid-pack pro. If he did that clean - which his post-2011 transformation suggests he did (at least without blood doping) - then he was clearly naturally talented.

The fact is that we don't know how naturally talented the top riders are in the peloton and how much they are super-responders. Trying to pretend and claim otherwise is ridiculous. At least with Froome, it looks like we probably have some kind of benchmark as to what he can do relatively clean - 32nd in a Grand Tour.

thanks DFA123

no doubt about the choice to use super fuel from the Vuelta 2011.
but nice reasoning about his previous results at Barloworld
the italic part too

 

[LaFlorecita]

I really don't believe Froome was 100% clean before Vuelta 2011 and I also don't believe Alberto and Alejandro doped as teenagers/juniors, maybe as U23/first year pro but not that young.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

I really don't believe Froome was 100% clean before Vuelta 2011 and I also don't believe Alberto and Alejandro doped as teenagers/juniors, maybe as U23/first year pro but not that young.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe Froome was 100% clean pre-2011. But given the extent of his transformation, it suggests that he at least wasn't on a full blood-doping program. With Contador and Valverde, who knows? Contador was working with Saiz from 16 and Valverde was with Banesto youth team as a teenager. You would hope they weren't put on a program at that age, but it's really impossible to say.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I really don't believe Froome was 100% clean before Vuelta 2011 and I also don't believe Alberto and Alejandro doped as teenagers/juniors, maybe as U23/first year pro but not that young.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe Froome was 100% clean pre-2011. But given the extent of his transformation, it suggests that he at least wasn't on a full blood-doping program. With Contador and Valverde, who knows? Contador was working with Saiz from 16 and Valverde was with Banesto youth team as a teenager. You would hope they weren't put on a program at that age, but it's really impossible to say.

I don't know about Valverde but Contador was when 18 he joined the ONCE feeder team.

 

[Savant12]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

 

[gillan1969]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

not really....they didn't 'transform' (well, apart from Wiggins)...its the transformation which is the big red flag, and the fish being slapped across your face with the slapper shouting "doper!! doper!! doper!!" loudly at you...or as Cram noted for his athletics equivalent "New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."

...that it coincided with the hiring of Lienders is, well................................

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's funny how both ...

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

It's funny how people who comment on the clinic usually get it completely wrong. Their smugness only enhancing their apparent lack of reading comprehension.

No one is arguing Froome is a worse doper than riders A, B and C.

There is no worse when it comes to doping. It's like saying you are only a little bit pregnant. It's a binary. Any suggestion otherwise is delusional.

There's no obsession either. Nice attempt at shaming but yeah not the deal at all. Results and rebuttals are on tap as the arguments they debunk get raised so often it's almost reflexive to add the facts to the conversation.

Nice attempt at pretending to play both sides. I'll be sure to keep an eye on you, you sound very familiar.

 

[pastronef]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

not really....they didn't 'transform' (well, apart from Wiggins)...its the transformation which is the big red flag, and the fish being slapped across your face with the slapper shouting "doper!! doper!! doper!!" loudly at you...or as Cram noted for his athletics equivalent "New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."

...that it coincided with the hiring of Lienders is, well................................

we are not discussing the RED FLAG
we know froome is doping, dont need the red flag

just seeing how some riders are seen in a positive way, while others seen in a obsessive way

 

[gillan1969]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

not really....they didn't 'transform' (well, apart from Wiggins)...its the transformation which is the big red flag, and the fish being slapped across your face with the slapper shouting "doper!! doper!! doper!!" loudly at you...or as Cram noted for his athletics equivalent "New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."

...that it coincided with the hiring of Lienders is, well................................

we are not discussing the RED FLAG
we know froome is doping, dont need the red flag

just seeing how some riders are seen in a positive way, while others seen in a obsessive way

yes but i mean its the obviousness of it versus somebody who has always been good...froome's performances have an added layer of ridiculousness about them......which may explain the way he is perceived...he is ridiculous...

 

[SeriousSam]

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media

Really? There don't seem to be any pre-transformation statements from Sky that indicate this. It was only after he suddenly started riding like Armstrong that they've spread the diamond in the rough but sadly held back by badzilla narrative.

 

[pastronef]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

not really....they didn't 'transform' (well, apart from Wiggins)...its the transformation which is the big red flag, and the fish being slapped across your face with the slapper shouting "doper!! doper!! doper!!" loudly at you...or as Cram noted for his athletics equivalent "New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."

...that it coincided with the hiring of Lienders is, well................................

we are not discussing the RED FLAG
we know froome is doping, dont need the red flag

just seeing how some riders are seen in a positive way, while others seen in a obsessive way

yes but i mean its the obviousness of it versus somebody who has always been good...froome's performances have an added layer of ridiculousness about them......which may explain the way he is perceived...he is ridiculous...

I understand
on the other side NOT ridicolous does not mean clean

I can understand that fans and followers can accept and cheer for a more promising doper going fast from early age, than someone who is going fast the last 4 years.

but I also think fans and followers are both doing it wrong. anyone trying to tell the other how you are wrong! no, you! no, you!

 

[Savant12]

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media

Really? There don't seem to be any pre-transformation statements from Sky that indicate this. It was only after he suddenly started riding like Armstrong that they've spread the diamond in the rough but sadly held back by badzilla narrative.

The one statement that springs to mind is of Dave Brailsford saying they [him] saw something special in Froome as he rode in the 2006 Commonwealth Games. But yes, that was in the process of building up the great Froome myth as something that they molded into a champion rather than sources from 2006 stating how great he was then, which is what I wasn't really going for. Just the back statements from Sky describing how awesome they are for spotting "talent".

 

[Savant12]

It's funny how both ...

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

It's funny how people who comment on the clinic usually get it completely wrong. Their smugness only enhancing their apparent lack of reading comprehension.

No one is arguing Froome is a worse doper than riders A, B and C.

There is no worse when it comes to doping. It's like saying you are only a little bit pregnant. It's a binary. Any suggestion otherwise is delusional.

There's no obsession either. Nice attempt at shaming but yeah not the deal at all. Results and rebuttals are on tap as the arguments they debunk get raised so often it's almost reflexive to add the facts to the conversation.

Nice attempt at pretending to play both sides. I'll be sure to keep an eye on you, you sound very familiar.

I'll confess right now: David Walsh ghost writes all my comments. I just ask him what I should be posting and he sends a quick message back.

Oh and the one's who are obsessed can't see how much obsessing they do. You got a mirror around?

And the one's who want to give a contrary point are attacked for their "reading comprehension" or "lack of cycling knowledge". It's like the obsessed are scared to step out from their hating omerta where they got to hate on every doping story no matter how small, deficient in details or just factually wrong. It's as if one truth will bring their whole hating-on world come crashing down.