Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Libertine Seguros]

Your argument would hold some weight if Froome was flying in 08, Cobo and whole team was disgusting thats not a slur they had 3 guys doing what they please attacking from far out. Everyone has a dig at Cobo just like everyone does at Froome(even moreso) but Cobo is just funny because he just went boom after the win Froome has not. Cobo shown nowthing since, zero.


Were talking about Ricco and Peopili lol, yet you think its same thing HAHA jokes on you.

Er... Pfannberger was pretty ridiculous in his time. He was gone by the time Froome rocked up to Le Tour for the first time, but Dueñas tested positive in that very race. Sure, Dueñas wasn't lighting up the mountains like Riccò and Piepoli, but he never made it that far to do so and in all likelihood wasn't good enough to. There was still the taint of doping on Barloworld at the 2008 Tour, it just wasn't as indelible as it was on Saunier Duval.

And compared to the rest of his pre-2011 Vuelta results, Froomey WAS flying at the 2008 Tour. It's just that he was super raw at that point, so it's hard to use as a measure. It showed he had some talent, and let no doubter tell you otherwise because it did, but it's about the only performances he had on the big stage like that for a long time, for a variety of reasons we've been through at length on multiple threads.

As I've said before, there's a reason the Froome supporters always point to the 2008 Tour and a reason why the detractors always point to the side-crawling on San Luca in the 2009 Giro: those were about the only noteworthy things Chris had done, good OR bad, until the '11 Vuelta.

 

[thehog]

Yeah 2km to go he went for it.

TJ has a good TT in him and with his climbing here and in Oman, his chances now warrant a lot more attention.

Agreed. Like him a lot. Peiper is a good role model for him. And glad they backed and not Evans. Rode smart today.

 

[roundabout]

Er... Pfannberger was pretty ridiculous in his time. He was gone by the time Froome rocked up to Le Tour for the first time, but Dueñas tested positive in that very race. Sure, Dueñas wasn't lighting up the mountains like Riccò and Piepoli, but he never made it that far to do so and in all likelihood wasn't good enough to. There was still the taint of doping on Barloworld at the 2008 Tour, it just wasn't as indelible as it was on Saunier Duval.

And compared to the rest of his pre-2011 Vuelta results, Froomey WAS flying at the 2008 Tour. It's just that he was super raw at that point, so it's hard to use as a measure. It showed he had some talent, and let no doubter tell you otherwise because it did, but it's about the only performances he had on the big stage like that for a long time, for a variety of reasons we've been through at length on multiple threads.

As I've said before, there's a reason the Froome supporters always point to the 2008 Tour and a reason why the detractors always point to the side-crawling on San Luca in the 2009 Giro: those were about the only noteworthy things Chris had done, good OR bad, until the '11 Vuelta.

Pfannberger tested positive in 2009. While riding for Katusha.

That he was doping at Barloworld is nothing more than a very reasonable guess. Ahem.

 

[BYOP88]

Er... Pfannberger was pretty ridiculous in his time. He was gone by the time Froome rocked up to Le Tour for the first time, but Dueñas tested positive in that very race. Sure, Dueñas wasn't lighting up the mountains like Riccò and Piepoli, but he never made it that far to do so and in all likelihood wasn't good enough to. There was still the taint of doping on Barloworld at the 2008 Tour, it just wasn't as indelible as it was on Saunier Duval.

And compared to the rest of his pre-2011 Vuelta results, Froomey WAS flying at the 2008 Tour. It's just that he was super raw at that point, so it's hard to use as a measure. It showed he had some talent, and let no doubter tell you otherwise because it did, but it's about the only performances he had on the big stage like that for a long time, for a variety of reasons we've been through at length on multiple threads.

As I've said before, there's a reason the Froome supporters always point to the 2008 Tour and a reason why the detractors always point to the side-crawling on San Luca in the 2009 Giro: those were about the only noteworthy things Chris had done, good OR bad, until the '11 Vuelta.

Do I need to get thehog to post the picture of Froome helping Henderson?

 

[RownhamHill]

So you believe that Froome improved slightly while all the guys ahead of him all declined to Froome's pre Vuelta 2011 level?

Like I said, I believe there's no evidence he has had a 20% increase in his ftp, just a theory based loosely on some numbers.

 

[Col Okey]

Everyone has a dig at Cobo just like everyone does at Froome(even moreso) but Cobo is just funny because he just went boom after the win Froome has not. Cobo shown nowthing since, zero.

Wisdom teeth(you're welcome)

 

[RownhamHill]

By most accounts the Vuelta was his last chance saloon, at least as far as Sky were concerned. I guess the expectation was for Löfkvist to take over mountain dom duty later in the race.

You would have thought so, but even if they didn't think he could win the race, you would have thought they could at least have promoted him to a free role rather than forcing him, in the maillot lidér, to domestique on La Manzaneda the day after the rest. That's more a problem for Sky's tactical inflexibility rather than the debate on Froome's relative capabilities though.


It's just that if he HAD showed that potential, and they could have him for a minimum PT wage domestique contract, since he wasn't likely to get much more from Garmin or Lampre, you'd have thought it was a no-brainer. I mean, "might play a role as a GT dom" is a pretty damning judgement for a guy who is now a terminator. But even if that was as far as it went, if he had the chance to be a good GT dom, he would still be of value to Sky in the same way as Lance having American helpers and T-Mobile having Germans lining up to help Ullrich were to the audiences. And the thing is, if those numbers suggested "might play a role as a GT dom", I can understand the reluctance to re-sign him. But they're talking about numbers that justify "making former GT winners look like utter amateurs". That is a whole other level.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, except that I don't think it's just the fault of Sky's tactical inflexibility - I think their reaction to him at the Vuelta speaks to a deep seated surprise/lack of confidence in his ability to put a three week GT together.

Posting them now would surely achieve nothing. But if they'd published them back in the 2011-12 off-season or something, it might have been of use. "Yes, he was this good, but he's been blighted by injuries and illnesses. We know it looked crazy, but if you see these training numbers from 2010 you can see he had the potential to put out x number of W/kg or had y VAM in training." - it may not have convinced everyone, and sure just like with the blood values etc. you'd have people with no expertise judging on them, but it would have shown the transparency Sky have claimed but not shown, and while accusations would certainly not have gone away (especially in light of what has happened since), they might have assuaged some doubters and limited people's incredulity before it became uncontrollable by their PR.

coulda, shoulda, woulda?

After all, remember JTL saying back in March 2012 when interviewed, "I know people will have their suspicions" - at least he showed some self-awareness, whereas Sky's reactions to being accused of doping in July 2012 made it look like they were genuinely unprepared for anybody questioning them.

Yeah, but it turns out JTL was likely doping, so possibly an explanation of why he might be more thoughtful about doubters?

Cobo is almost always a good example in this thread, because more or less nobody believed in him, and yet there's no more against his name than there is Wiggins or Froome, and his decline since that Vuelta triumph has made him a figure of fun. To be consistent, those who defend Sky really ought to be similarly defending Cobo - but are they? After all, if the peloton got cleaner in 2011 and that justifies Froome's miracle improvement, surely it could justify Cobo's too? If getting over illness justifies Froome's miracle improvement, surely it could justify Cobo's too? If having a past on dodgy teams and making a miracle improvement is not a justification for suspecting Froome, surely it is not a justification for suspecting Cobo either?

From what little I'd know about him/his history I'd defend Cobo - he certainly has the benefit of my doubt. I just haven't seen anyone attacking him!

And we spiral out, keep going, spiral out, keep going.

 

[RownhamHill]

Actually I was just summarising what he was saying which had been the subject of many long and rambling posts from both sides.

I never ramble.

 

[red_flanders]

By most accounts the Vuelta was his last chance saloon, at least as far as Sky were concerned. I guess the expectation was for Löfkvist to take over mountain dom duty later in the race.

IIRC, Löfkvist was the main domestique on the first stage. They (apparently) then figured out that Froome was on some magical form and put him as the last man.

All consistent with them being as surprised as anyone, despite seeing him in training (presumably).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Do I need to get thehog to post the picture of Froome helping Henderson?

That was only noteworthy in retrospect. Unless something noteworthy happens on the help, like when Ángel Madrazo nearly broke his teeth on the tarmac trying to push Valverde up one of the LBL climbs (La Redoute?), domestique pushing a leader isn't exactly interesting stuff. Happens a lot. It's only noteworthy when we look back at it and see Froome was below Henderson in the pecking order.

The queen stage breakaway and good final ITT, and the San Luca Taaramäe impression (before Taaramäe even did his Taaramäe), were noteworthy at the time that they happened - San Luca was him going for a stage win from the break on a weekend stage of the Giro; the Tour was, well, the Tour.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Sorry but Froome was nowhere until 26 years of age and I mean nowhere. You just can't compare him with Nibali or AC. Froome transformed practically overnight during August 2011. There was absolutely no sign whatsoever that he can become a GT contender until Vuelta 2011. Even Cobo showed at least something before (won Pais Vasco, stage in TdF, 20th in TdF, 10th in Vuelta).

I didn´t compare their career paths, but did explain that GT contenters are near the top year round, not only for 21 days... Sorry for not explaining that properly...

Anyway:

Yeah 26, not 36... and maintaining the level, unlike Grandpa.
What is more suspicious?
Arsenal London consistently being around the top of the league year round, or Team XYZ winning 21 games in a row, but losing all other games before and after, even to the point of falling out of the top league?

Question to all Froome/Sky bashers: Point driven home, finally?

 

[HSNHSN]

I didn´t compare the career path, but did explain that GT guys are near the top year round, not only for 21 days... Sorry for not explainng that properly...

Anyway:

Yeah 26, not 36... and maintaining the level, unlike Grandpa.
What is more suspicious?
Arsenal London consistently being around the top of the league year round, or Team XYZ winning 21 games in a row, but losing all other games before and after, even to the point of falling out of the top league?

Question to all Froome/Sky bashers: Point driven home, finally?

In your comparison: it's just as easy to say Froome is now on the 21 games in a row streak (basically since Vuelta 2011) and will fall to the losing about everything in a few races time. I'm sure you can come up with a comparison that's a whole lot better.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

How can you be sure of? Play lottery if you can see the future...
I can´t. It´s also possible Froome is on a 5000-day streak....
So my comparison stands your test. And since soccer is known all over the world, it´s easy to understand. That´s why i chose soccer.

BTW, there was a reason i chose 21 days. I thought that was clear.

 

[Justinr]

In your comparison: it's just as easy to say Froome is now on the 21 games in a row streak (basically since Vuelta 2011) and will fall to the losing about everything in a few races time. I'm sure you can come up with a comparison that's a whole lot better.

He's 13 seconds down in his first race back from injury and has lost a key team mate. Yeah - really on a downwards spiral ...

 

[del1962]

IIRC, Löfkvist was the main domestique on the first stage. They (apparently) then figured out that Froome was on some magical form and put him as the last man.

All consistent with them being as surprised as anyone, despite seeing him in training (presumably).

If you look at the tour de Swiss earlier in the year, Froome had a couple of good days particularly Crans Montana (not quite Vuelata form but good nevertheless) then was inconsistent the next day, what may have suprised the management is that he was more consistent not so much the individual performances in themselves

 

[Saint Unix]

If you look at the tour de Swiss earlier in the year, Froome had a couple of good days particularly Crans Montana (not quite Vuelata form but good nevertheless) then was inconsistent the next day, what may have suprised the management is that he was more consistent not so much the individual performances in themselves

If you look at the Tour de Suisse earlier in the year, Froome finished 47th overall, 12 minutes down on climbing legend Daryl Impey and 36 minutes behind José Joaquin Rojas.

If that's Froome showing his talent before his sudden transformation then you've lost me. Sorry.

 

[will10]

Froome's "streak" doesn't extend from the Vuelta 2011 - he was just as bad in 2012 pre-Dauphine as he'd been throughout 2011. Particularly in Romandie he was literally the first guy in the Sky train, I remember watching it. Then he was suddenly good enough to get 6th in the Dauphine ITT and take 4th overall.

Of course, on a terrible Dauphine route, and with Rogers and Porte slaughtering everyone, Froome (or Wiggins obviously) never had to put his nose in the wind once, so we don't really know how good he was at the Dauphine....we only had to wait until Plateau de Belles Filles though.

So far we've witnessed two stratospheric ramps in form - to the Vuelta 2011 and Dauphine/Tour/Olympics 2012 - swiftly followed by an incredibly consistant five months in 2013. God only knows what sort of form curve we'll see from him in 2014. At least we know what to expect from the likes of Valverde

 

[BYOP88]

If you look at the Tour de Suisse earlier in the year, Froome finished 47th overall, 12 minutes down on climbing legend Daryl Impey and 36 minutes behind José Joaquin Rojas.

If that's Froome showing his talent before his sudden transformation then you've lost me. Sorry.

Nah Dude you got it wrong. Because Froome had 1 good day out of 9 it SHOWED without any doubt that Froome was destined to become a great rider and win whatever races he wants too.

 

[del1962]

If you look at the Tour de Suisse earlier in the year, Froome finished 47th overall, 12 minutes down on climbing legend Daryl Impey and 36 minutes behind José Joaquin Rojas.

If that's Froome showing his talent before his sudden transformation then you've lost me. Sorry.

Have a look at the race, have a look at the crans montana stage,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDK3c0htwSE

The point is he is good on this stage even attacling at 26:21, getting caught and then managing to claw his way back on the group before fading in the last k, then on the next day his form is not as good and with a massive break he loses a lot of time,

 

[Alpechraxler]

And then some time later his recovery goes from insufficient for a one week stage race to peaking all year long

 

[del1962]

And then some time later his recovery goes from insufficient for a one week stage race to peaking all year long

The argument put forward was that Sky would have expected Froome's consistency because they saw his power numbers in training, but from Sky's perspective they had seen good performances followed by poor ones, so they would not have expected Froome to maintain his form throughout the Vuelta

 

[Saint Unix]

Have a look at the race, have a look at the crans montana stage,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDK3c0htwSE

The point is he is good on this stage even attacling at 26:21, getting caught and then managing to claw his way back on the group before fading in the last k, then on the next day his form is not as good and with a massive break he loses a lot of time,

You can't just cherry pick one performance from one stage race and say that it shows signs of him being a stage race great waiting to happen. That's not how it works. If it was we'd have literally hundreds of riders in the peloton with the potential to crush everyone in the toughest stage races.

Froome's career as a whole up until the end of the 2011 season is seriously underwhelming. Every rider has good days, but before his transformation Chris Froome struggled to beat also-rans even on his good days.

 

[Digger]

The argument put forward was that Sky would have expected Froome's consistency because they saw his power numbers in training, but from Sky's perspective they had seen good performances followed by poor ones, so they would not have expected Froome to maintain his form throughout the Vuelta

Yes - eventhough they didn't lab test him...

 

[GuyIncognito]

del1962: words

forum members:

 

[del1962]

Yes - eventhough they didn't lab test him...

I presume you are not familiar with power meters