Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 901 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
It is a good point, but shouldn't we ask the same question about his doping?
Why was Froom selected?
Or does he (and cound) select his own doping program? If he does, maybe he also selects his own wheels?

Either way, that's why I hate motorizAtion.
It just completely muddies the waters.
 
Aug 19, 2015
88
0
0
Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Also regarding Froome motor doping... why Froome? Why not Kennaugh, a guy who was actually born and raised in the UK.
A small point of clarification: the Isle of Man (where Kennaugh is from) is not part of the UK, it is a crown dependancy. It is also part of the reason that the British / UK team at the Olympics is Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The most obvious would be Geraint Thomas. Proper British (and Welsh), charismatic, charming and already an Olympian, which carries a lot of cachet in Britain. Most English people can't pronounce his name properly, though! :)

As to the question of why Froome for the doping: riders can organise their own doping, and the team just turns a blind eye. It's much much harder to organise your own motor.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

bikenrrd said:
PremierAndrew said:
Also regarding Froome motor doping... why Froome? Why not Kennaugh, a guy who was actually born and raised in the UK.
As to the question of why Froome for the doping: riders can organise their own doping, and the team just turns a blind eye. It's much much harder to organise your own motor.
I don't think the team just turns a blind eye.
The team doesn't want any positives, so at the very least they'll be doing internal testing.

Implementing a hubmotor is a question of minutes. And if as Vargas says you can just screw on an electromagnetic wheel then why would that be much harder to organize? The main obstacle (like with a good dope program) would still be money.
 
theres also the fact that Froome is a 'loose canon'....ie, the shenanigans with Wiggins - and Brailsford and Yates had / have no control over him. He is now calling the shots with Team Sky imo.

And after the GB Track cycling at the Olympics, surely no-one can doubt that the 'Motorised bike exists'
 
Quintana and Valverde both calling for the abolition of power meters is a very clear dig at Froome considering it came the day after Froome's bizarre riding technique up the Covadonga. What has struck me within the current peloton (particularly Froome and Quintana) is the lack of any real bad blood between the top GC contenders. Nibali has that edginess and is prepared to go toe to toe with anyone but he hasn't really been a direct rival of Froome's in GT's for a few years now. Froome has since denied that he was riding to a power meter but clearly Movistar don't believe this otherwise why call him out over it.
 
Re: Re:

bikenrrd said:
PremierAndrew said:
Also regarding Froome motor doping... why Froome? Why not Kennaugh, a guy who was actually born and raised in the UK.
A small point of clarification: the Isle of Man (where Kennaugh is from) is not part of the UK, it is a crown dependancy. It is also part of the reason that the British / UK team at the Olympics is Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The most obvious would be Geraint Thomas. Proper British (and Welsh), charismatic, charming and already an Olympian, which carries a lot of cachet in Britain. Most English people can't pronounce his name properly, though! :)

As to the question of why Froome for the doping: riders can organise their own doping, and the team just turns a blind eye. It's much much harder to organise your own motor.
The Isle of Man is not part of GB & NI, but it is part of the UK, in a similar way to Gibraltar. That's why Cav (also a Manx) rides for 'Team GB', which is actually any territory that counts as part of the United Kingdom.

And either way, the Isle of Man is a hell of a lot more British than Kenya/South Africa and never setting foot in the UK. You can replace Thomas with Kennaugh in my initial point if it makes you happier though ;)
 
Also, another thing I would point to is the fact that Froome's performances haven't really dropped much (if at all) since 2013. I agree that in the 2000s and the early 2010s, it would indeed have been possible to use some mechanical assistance. But with the UCI ripping bikes apart these days, using thermal imaging cameras etc, it's risky to say the least these last couple of years.
Of course, the UCI might know and there may be a coverup but then that's opening a whole new can of worms
 
Re:

sniper said:
It is a good point, but shouldn't we ask the same question about his doping?
Why was Froom selected?
Or does he (and cound) select his own doping program? If he does, maybe he also selects his own wheels?

Either way, that's why I hate motorizAtion.
It just completely muddies the waters.
Of course he could select his own program. Once again, there's no way Sky put Froome on a program themselves in 2011. Maybe Sky put him on the Wiggins program from 2012, but he was surely acting alone in 2011.
If you look at the Sky train's dominance, it's been a lot due to a high budget being spent on stage racing, bringing in guys who would be GC leaders at other teams as domestiques. A team sponsored doping program is possible, but imo it's also possible that the riders doped themselves instead.

If you look at all the Sky riders, the only ones that have had truly incredible transformations that wouldn't really be seen at any other team are Froome, Wiggins (if we're saying that Sky got involved with Wiggins during his 2009 Garmin days) and maybe Thomas last year. Even the size of Porte and Rogers' transformations are seen at other teams.
 
Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Also, another thing I would point to is the fact that Froome's performances haven't really dropped much (if at all) since 2013. I agree that in the 2000s and the early 2010s, it would indeed have been possible to use some mechanical assistance. But with the UCI ripping bikes apart these days, using thermal imaging cameras etc, it's risky to say the least these last couple of years.
Of course, the UCI might know and there may be a coverup but then that's opening a whole new can of worms
its not really new...post Vrijman we know indisputably that the UCI not only collude with athletes to protect them winning races behind the scenes, but very publicly and very loudly...we also know the IAAF do the same

its more likely that it would be other riders who would 'snitch', those without access to a motor...but then we all know how that goes with PEDs

its probable that the less 'organised' odds and sods on the women's cyclo-cross circuit have less invested in the group and more in themselves which allowed them to be more vocal about it...

don't hold your breathe...the show must go on
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
sniper said:
It is a good point, but shouldn't we ask the same question about his doping?
Why was Froom selected?
Or does he (and cound) select his own doping program? If he does, maybe he also selects his own wheels?

Either way, that's why I hate motorizAtion.
It just completely muddies the waters.
Of course he could select his own program. Once again, there's no way Sky put Froome on a program themselves in 2011. Maybe Sky put him on the Wiggins program from 2012, but he was surely acting alone in 2011.
If you look at the Sky train's dominance, it's been a lot due to a high budget being spent on stage racing, bringing in guys who would be GC leaders at other teams as domestiques. A team sponsored doping program is possible, but imo it's also possible that the riders doped themselves instead.

If you look at all the Sky riders, the only ones that have had truly incredible transformations that wouldn't really be seen at any other team are Froome, Wiggins (if we're saying that Sky got involved with Wiggins during his 2009 Garmin days) and maybe Thomas last year. Even the size of Porte and Rogers' transformations are seen at other teams.
riders are exoected to be prepared for the job they have to do...as its their job

Sir dave might not be handing out the prescriptions but if you need to generate x amount of power and need to lose x amount of weight then.....

still waiting for Sir Dave to answer that question about Kennaugh's rapid weight loss

"Through calorie deficit," Brailsford said bluntly, before then expanding slightly on his answer. "Why not speak to Nigel our nutritionist? It's a good question to ask. That is a lot of weight to lose and I totally agree with you. What do we do to get to that kind of weight loss? They're the types of questions that would be legitimate to answer. I don't think there's any great secret in that."


it was a good question though...in fact too good to answer :)
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
PremierAndrew said:
sniper said:
It is a good point, but shouldn't we ask the same question about his doping?
Why was Froom selected?
Or does he (and cound) select his own doping program? If he does, maybe he also selects his own wheels?

Either way, that's why I hate motorizAtion.
It just completely muddies the waters.
Of course he could select his own program. Once again, there's no way Sky put Froome on a program themselves in 2011. Maybe Sky put him on the Wiggins program from 2012, but he was surely acting alone in 2011.
If you look at the Sky train's dominance, it's been a lot due to a high budget being spent on stage racing, bringing in guys who would be GC leaders at other teams as domestiques. A team sponsored doping program is possible, but imo it's also possible that the riders doped themselves instead.

If you look at all the Sky riders, the only ones that have had truly incredible transformations that wouldn't really be seen at any other team are Froome, Wiggins (if we're saying that Sky got involved with Wiggins during his 2009 Garmin days) and maybe Thomas last year. Even the size of Porte and Rogers' transformations are seen at other teams.
riders are exoected to be prepared for the job they have to do...as its their job

Sir dave might not be handing out the prescriptions but if you need to generate x amount of power and need to lose x amount of weight then.....

still waiting for Sir Dave to answer that question about Kennaugh's rapid weight loss

"Through calorie deficit," Brailsford said bluntly, before then expanding slightly on his answer. "Why not speak to Nigel our nutritionist? It's a good question to ask. That is a lot of weight to lose and I totally agree with you. What do we do to get to that kind of weight loss? They're the types of questions that would be legitimate to answer. I don't think there's any great secret in that."


it was a good question though...in fact too good to answer :)
Where is that interview taken from? Will he give access to journalists to interview Nigel and ask him this 'good question' saying as Dave claims that as DS of a team that prides itself on its marginal gains philosophy, he doesn't appear to know the answer to it himself.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
PremierAndrew said:
Also, another thing I would point to is the fact that Froome's performances haven't really dropped much (if at all) since 2013. I agree that in the 2000s and the early 2010s, it would indeed have been possible to use some mechanical assistance. But with the UCI ripping bikes apart these days, using thermal imaging cameras etc, it's risky to say the least these last couple of years.
Of course, the UCI might know and there may be a coverup but then that's opening a whole new can of worms
its not really new...post Vrijman we know indisputably that the UCI not only collude with athletes to protect them winning races behind the scenes, but very publicly and very loudly...we also know the IAAF do the same

its more likely that it would be other riders who would 'snitch', those without access to a motor...but then we all know how that goes with PEDs

its probable that the less 'organised' odds and sods on the women's cyclo-cross circuit have less invested in the group and more in themselves which allowed them to be more vocal about it...

don't hold your breathe...the show must go on
Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't even have mentioned it if I thought it was pretty much impossible. Like technically, another possibility would be that Froome used a motor back in 2012/2013 and since then has stopped using a motor but improved so much that you can't tell the difference. Of course, there's pretty much no chance of that being right, whereas the coverup theory? Unlikely, but there's been some interesting finds in the clinic that suggest it may well be a possibility (and of course we all know about Lance's cover up)
 
Re: Re:

deeno1975 said:
hfer07 said:
deeno1975 said:
Re-filled and recharged... "Froomey" is back
And he didn't have to recur to the Yo-Yo stroke :D
Yeah when you compare the climbing style of today versus Monday, was it the same rider!!! Bizarre and Unprecedented!
Froome can do whatever he wants. If he were really trying, he would be several minutes ahead of Quintana by now, but then people would be suspicious. I wonder if his heartrate has risen above 150bpm yet?
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
sniper said:
It is a good point, but shouldn't we ask the same question about his doping?
Why was Froom selected?
Or does he (and cound) select his own doping program? If he does, maybe he also selects his own wheels?

Either way, that's why I hate motorizAtion.
It just completely muddies the waters.
Of course he could select his own program. Once again, there's no way Sky put Froome on a program themselves in 2011. Maybe Sky put him on the Wiggins program from 2012, but he was surely acting alone in 2011.
If you look at the Sky train's dominance, it's been a lot due to a high budget being spent on stage racing, bringing in guys who would be GC leaders at other teams as domestiques. A team sponsored doping program is possible, but imo it's also possible that the riders doped themselves instead.

If you look at all the Sky riders, the only ones that have had truly incredible transformations that wouldn't really be seen at any other team are Froome, Wiggins (if we're saying that Sky got involved with Wiggins during his 2009 Garmin days) and maybe Thomas last year. Even the size of Porte and Rogers' transformations are seen at other teams.
Who are these GC leaders at Sky acting as domestiques?
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
sniper said:
It is a good point, but shouldn't we ask the same question about his doping?
Why was Froom selected?
Or does he (and cound) select his own doping program? If he does, maybe he also selects his own wheels?

Either way, that's why I hate motorizAtion.
It just completely muddies the waters.
Of course he could select his own program. Once again, there's no way Sky put Froome on a program themselves in 2011.
People keep forgetting that between Poland and the Vuelta in 2011 Froome was in the UK riding the Olympic test race for Team GB under Brailsford.

That transformation occurred there, that was the point in which he dramatically changed. He came back from that time in the UK like a racehorse.
 
The people referring to Froome's "bizarre" or "yo yo" style on Covadonga must have been absent for the last few years. Froome has, quite a number of times, ridden the early part of a climb conservatively....to a given power output... overhauling those who ride in short bursts futher up the climb.

On the subject of Froome and dope, my theory is that he stumbled on a formula (involving pred) whilst being treated for bilharzia. I doubt he was part of a Team Sky programme..... certainly not back then anyway. He was about to be canned.

Moto doping? Nah.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
PremierAndrew said:
sniper said:
It is a good point, but shouldn't we ask the same question about his doping?
Why was Froom selected?
Or does he (and cound) select his own doping program? If he does, maybe he also selects his own wheels?

Either way, that's why I hate motorizAtion.
It just completely muddies the waters.
Of course he could select his own program. Once again, there's no way Sky put Froome on a program themselves in 2011. Maybe Sky put him on the Wiggins program from 2012, but he was surely acting alone in 2011.
If you look at the Sky train's dominance, it's been a lot due to a high budget being spent on stage racing, bringing in guys who would be GC leaders at other teams as domestiques. A team sponsored doping program is possible, but imo it's also possible that the riders doped themselves instead.

If you look at all the Sky riders, the only ones that have had truly incredible transformations that wouldn't really be seen at any other team are Froome, Wiggins (if we're saying that Sky got involved with Wiggins during his 2009 Garmin days) and maybe Thomas last year. Even the size of Porte and Rogers' transformations are seen at other teams.
Who are these GC leaders at Sky acting as domestiques?
Landa, Poels, Henao, Konig, potentially Thomas and Roche (certainly at teams like IAM or LTS) right now. Going back, you've also got guys like Porte, Uran, Froome (back when he was on dom duties) etc who were all capable of leading the majority of WT teams in stage races
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
PremierAndrew said:
sniper said:
It is a good point, but shouldn't we ask the same question about his doping?
Why was Froom selected?
Or does he (and cound) select his own doping program? If he does, maybe he also selects his own wheels?

Either way, that's why I hate motorizAtion.
It just completely muddies the waters.
Of course he could select his own program. Once again, there's no way Sky put Froome on a program themselves in 2011.
People keep forgetting that between Poland and the Vuelta in 2011 Froome was in the UK riding the Olympic test race for Team GB under Brailsford.

That transformation occurred there, that was the point in which he dramatically changed. He came back from that time in the UK like a racehorse.
Yeah, they suddenly decided put a nobody who was leaving the team at the end of the year in a position where he could expose the team (potentially for money, and Froome wouldn't exactly have been rich back then)...
 
Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
Re:

armchairclimber said:
The people referring to Froome's "bizarre" or "yo yo" style on Covadonga must have been absent for the last few years. Froome has, quite a number of times, ridden the early part of a climb conservatively....to a given power output... overhauling those who ride in short bursts futher up the climb.

On the subject of Froome and dope, my theory is that he stumbled on a formula (involving pred) whilst being treated for bilharzia. I doubt he was part of a Team Sky programme..... certainly not back then anyway. He was about to be canned.

Moto doping? Nah.
Yes, it really does look like he simply stumbled upon some formula. One that was shared by Wiggins, Hesjedal and, perhaps, Horner.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
thehog said:
PremierAndrew said:
sniper said:
It is a good point, but shouldn't we ask the same question about his doping?
Why was Froom selected?
Or does he (and cound) select his own doping program? If he does, maybe he also selects his own wheels?

Either way, that's why I hate motorizAtion.
It just completely muddies the waters.
Of course he could select his own program. Once again, there's no way Sky put Froome on a program themselves in 2011.
People keep forgetting that between Poland and the Vuelta in 2011 Froome was in the UK riding the Olympic test race for Team GB under Brailsford.

That transformation occurred there, that was the point in which he dramatically changed. He came back from that time in the UK like a racehorse.
Yeah, they suddenly decided put a nobody who was leaving the team at the end of the year in a position where he could expose the team (potentially for money, and Froome wouldn't exactly have been rich back then)...
He was helping Wiggins at the Vuelta 2011 not trying to win the race. There was one objective for him.

In the first week of the Vuelta he did a lot of front riding. He even paced Wiggins back 5km before Pena when his chain dropped.

I don't think Sky nor Froome realized that he would be a the responder that he turned out to be. That can only come from the testing done in the UK just prior.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
thehog said:
PremierAndrew said:
sniper said:
It is a good point, but shouldn't we ask the same question about his doping?
Why was Froom selected?
Or does he (and cound) select his own doping program? If he does, maybe he also selects his own wheels?

Either way, that's why I hate motorizAtion.
It just completely muddies the waters.
Of course he could select his own program. Once again, there's no way Sky put Froome on a program themselves in 2011. Maybe Sky put him on the Wiggins program from 2012, but he was surely acting alone in 2011.
If you look at the Sky train's dominance, it's been a lot due to a high budget being spent on stage racing, bringing in guys who would be GC leaders at other teams as domestiques. A team sponsored doping program is possible, but imo it's also possible that the riders doped themselves instead.

If you look at all the Sky riders, the only ones that have had truly incredible transformations that wouldn't really be seen at any other team are Froome, Wiggins (if we're saying that Sky got involved with Wiggins during his 2009 Garmin days) and maybe Thomas last year. Even the size of Porte and Rogers' transformations are seen at other teams.
Who are these GC leaders at Sky acting as domestiques?
Landa, Poels, Henao, Konig, potentially Thomas and Roche (certainly at teams like IAM or LTS) right now. Going back, you've also got guys like Porte, Uran, Froome (back when he was on dom duties) etc who were all capable of leading the majority of WT teams in stage races
Prior to joining Sky Poels wasn't a GC team leader and unlikely to be seen as one, more one day. Granted at Astana Landa was impressive but still very young and yet to be an outright leader, even at the Giro he dropped his bundle. Heano has never been considered a GC leader, his passport problems and age no team has seen him as this. Thomas is a track/one day rider, he is not GT leader and never has been.

Konig was leader at NetApp because they were a small team but he was more in the 'holding on to 5th place' type rider, not a outright leader.

Granted Porte could be but each time he has been given leadership he manages to mess it up.
 
Poels has never been GC leader due to his inconsistency, but his climbing ability has always been there. He was doing pretty well at Vacansoleil. And that inconsistency is probably still there, but he wasn't particularly suspicious last year (obviously he's gone up a notch this year, and therefore so has the suspicion).

Henao was 24 when he joined Sky, and his evolution is hardly striking, he always had potential.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY