Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[del1962]

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.

Where in my posts did it say it showed he was a great stage racer waitng to happen, if you read what was said it would be why Sky where not expecting him to maintain his forrm for the vuelta

 

[Saint Unix]

You said: "What may have suprised the management is that he was more consistent not so much the individual performances in themselves."

That implies that that one decent finish in a short stage race is somehow an indication of him being able to blow eveyone out of the water at one of the biggest stage races in the world. Nothing Froome had shown beforehand indicated that he was capable of doing what he did at the Vuelta, never mind consistently.

 

[Digger]

Look guys can we stop this froome bashing - he wasn't a good bike handler. And his tactics weren't great. Those three weeks between Poland and Spain in 2011 were epic. Bike racing for dumbies.
The Bilharzia also came right at this time...with the result that there was no difference in his blood values...as said to Walsh by the Sky team doctor.
As regards VO2 Max - of course it's never been tested. And of course Froome hasn't been in a lab. Eventhough Wiggins was going into a lab every six weeks in 2011, and numerous other riders from other teams had their VO2 Max tested over the winter alone. Eventhough Brailsford said in THAT clip that they would test Chris' VO2 max NEXT time they were In a lab...to me the word NEXT denotes a previous time...but obviously I am just mad into these conspiracy theories.

So yes I am convinced. Froome is definitely a clean rider.

 

[Race Radio]

I am sure he will explain it all in his book

 

[red_flanders]

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

I don't understand what your general thesis is at this point. It sounds like you agree (with speculative qualifiers) that Sky didn't think he was good enough to be a protected team leader. That's been obvious since day 1 of the Vuelta.

From your posts, it seems you've been trying to argue that his unexpected and dramatic rise was somehow not that dramatic or unexpected, which I presume is a way to say that somehow his performances are believable.

I don't agree with any of it. I think Saint Unix nailed it, if his rise was expected and/or normal, then we should expect at least a hundred other cyclists to start pounding Contador and all the rest when the road goes up, and start competing with Martin and Cancellara in TT's.

Just writing it down it strikes me again how absurd it all is. He was a decent rider before the Vuelta. No shame in that. To imagine he transformed the way he did with legal means just has no support in fact.

 

[Col Okey]

I am sure he will explain it all in his book

He's not the 100th Tour De France Champion, he's the Champion of the 100th Tour De France

 

[thehog]

He's not the 100th Tour De France Champion, he's the Champion of the 100th Tour De France

What about the photoshopping to make his head normal?

 

[Netserk]

What about the photoshopping to make his head normal?

I could hardly recognize him

 

[Digger]

What about the photoshopping to make his head normal?

The funny thing about froome is that they might photoshop his body to make him look heavier and more human! rather than the usual way

 

[BYOP88]

I assume all money that Froome makes from the book and any advance he was given will all be given to medical research etc etc to consign bilharzia to the history books.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A few pages back people were trying to claim all manner of reasons why Froome could not perform back in the day like he is now.

One of them was that Froome was a domestique and not giving 100% in the TTs.

A quick search through cqranking.com for TTs when Froome was at Barloworld showed him to be the highest ranked Barloworld rider in every TT he did.

For the theory to hold water, you'd expect him to be mid-team or worse, surely?

Regardless, at PT level, his TTing was not world dominating, despite being the best placed rider in his team.

The final piece of data to consider for this theory is his participation in World Championships - surely requiring a 100% effort? Again, not much chop for our mate Froome.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Despite the allegedly fickle quality of SiC's recent model, I find it troubling that the people offering counter hypotheses (everyone else slowed down, Froome was not riding at 100%) do absolutely no research of their own to explain or support their position.

And further, do not concede at all that the SiC argument has any merit.

A little digging reveals data points that IMO debunk said hypotheses - the graph re: "speeds are down" and his team relative placings for the "not giving 100%".

Despite the very negative review of SiC as a scientist, no actual research was done to support the counter arguments proposed by people holding said views.

None.

 

[Digger]

I assume all money that Froome makes from the book and any advance he was given will all be given to medical research etc etc to consign bilharzia to the history books.

he's here fighting this disease so you don't have to BYOP.

 

[Digger]

Despite the allegedly fickle quality of SiC's recent model, I find it troubling that the people offering counter hypotheses (everyone else slowed down, Froome was not riding at 100%) do absolutely no research of their own to explain or support their position.

And further, do not concede at all that the SiC argument has any merit.

A little digging reveals data points that IMO debunk said hypotheses - the graph re: "speeds are down" and his team relative placings for the "not giving 100%".

Despite the very negative review of SiC as a scientist, no actual research was done to support the counter arguments proposed by people holding said views.

None.

Who needs scientific evidence when you have better bike handling and tactics on your side.

 

[RownhamHill]

Who needs scientific evidence when you have better bike handling and tactics on your side.

Who needs science when you have Dear Wiggo and Digger on your side?

 

[Granville57]

he's here fighting this disease so you don't have to BYOP.

Just don't call Froome a parasite, otherwise he and/or Michelle might be forced to inform you that you're not worthy of the forum you're posting on.

 

[deeno1975]

he's here fighting this disease so you don't have to BYOP.

The Chris Froome Foundation

 

[Merckx index]

. . until you completely lost me here. Which order of magnitude is that, and what is the test you've performed to quantify it? Or did you just observe a significant difference between the two data sets, and apply your own best guess as to an explanation?

The order of magnitude difference in probability between dozens of riders slowing down and one rider speeding up. I really don’t think statistics are necessary to establish that.

So basically you agree with me completely?

I’m just saying the increase in probability is not 20%.

Wait you just said it was literally orders of magnitude more likely it was. . . oh well. But again, you seem to be agreeing with me again, so I won't quibble too much.

I said it was orders of magnitude more likely that the change is in Froome’s speed, not the peloton’s. That’s completely different from the question of how much Froome’s power changed.

Sorry you've lost me here, but what I understand you doing here is essentially shaving off some of the difference between the times to model some slowing by the rest of the field? Is that right? And then what's left shows Froome's increase (sorry if I've completely missed the point here). I don't want to sound stupid, but what if you 'adjusted' the data differently? Could you show more or less difference depending on the arbitrary adjustment you choose to make? And as the adjustments are by definition arbitrary, doesn't that rather speak to the inadequacy of the model in differentiating between the causes for the actual observed contraction in relative times? As I say I'm not entirely sure I've followed your purpose here, so apologies if I've missed your point entirely.

I’m showing that the probability of even a fairly small decrease in peloton speed is very unlikely. If I had not adjusted the data, the difference in Froome’s times and power would be even larger--a point I emphasized in the original post. The adjustment was not arbitrary, it's the kind of thing statisticians do all the time.

So you're saying because he's tall, he must by definition have been going all out in TTs from the start of his career? I don't know if that's true or not, but regardless, I'm pretty sure that the original data is silent on the question of 'tall rider's propensity to ride TTs at 100%', so in that sense, from the data presented we can't rule out the possibility that his team duties and instructions from the DS might have affected his performance, not withstanding his height.

Again, you're twisting my words, I didn't say that. I’m saying his height would suggest TTng would be his strength, which would make it even more unlikely that if he were good at them this would go unnoticed.

But describing the relative difference in numbers (as SiC), and finding the difference is significant as you've added (who'd'a'thunk that eh?), and then asserting that we think the only plausible explanation for that is a massive increase in ftp related to drug use doesn't, in a scientific sense, really take us any further than the hog posting video of him weaving up the road in that giro stage. But it does wrap your own assertions and gut feelings in the shiny authority of being 'scientific' (even though the science hasn't done anything other than quantify the improvement), and that, in my opinion, is an abuse of the spirit of science as a concept, and it is that abuse (that, I would argue, actively harms trust levels in science in society) that I am criticising.

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. I never in the entire post mentioned doping. You just assume because I'm arguing that Froome was stronger after 2011, I must be claiming this is proof of doping. Even though you yourself, at the end, also admit you accept that Froome is stronger. All my post did was use statistics to argue for a conclusion which you now say you accept. Having accepted that, you are left with arguing that that doesn't prove he was doping--again, an inference I never made--with no other explanation for the difference in performance except he wasn't trying his hardest before.

You know nothing about my gut feelings, certainly I didn't express them in that post, and the fact that you would imply that these feelings are being used to support a conclusion which again I never made does nothing at all to support your contention that you are being objective, acting in the true spirit of science. I think your real objection, like many others on this forum who try to support suspicious riders, is that when people draw conclusions on the basis of preponderance of evidence. But this isn't a murder trial, where one must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a forum, where it's entirely reasonable to form opinions based on preponderance of evidence. If you want to remain agnostic on these issues, that's your prerogative. But as soon as you challenge arguments that suggest one conclusion over another, you are in effect taking a stand, and this thread is about the evidence that that stand is not supported by the preponderance of evidence.

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?

Which is more suspicious?
A rider with a prior history of winning climbing stages and a top 10 in the TDF, a team leader expected to contend in a relatively weak field, winning the Vuelta, or a rider with absolutely no background as a contender, not even a team leader, about to lose his contract because no results, taking a very close second in the Vuelta, which he would have won if he had gone in as team leader?

Suppose Horner, recovering in time from his 2011 TDF crash, had competed in the Vuelta that year. Who on the entire planet, going into that race, would have bet that Froome would finish ahead of Horner? If Horner’s palmares as a racer are so unimpressive that winning a Vuelta in 2013 is considered a bigger surprise than Froome almost winning two years earlier, why is it that he would have been a huge favorite to finish ahead of Froome in that earlier race?

Stop being so selective, Foxxy. They’re both suspicious as he!l.

 

[Justinr]

A few pages back people were trying to claim all manner of reasons why Froome could not perform back in the day like he is now.

One of them was that Froome was a domestique and not giving 100% in the TTs.

A quick search through cqranking.com for TTs when Froome was at Barloworld showed him to be the highest ranked Barloworld rider in every TT he did.

For the theory to hold water, you'd expect him to be mid-team or worse, surely?

Regardless, at PT level, his TTing was not world dominating, despite being the best placed rider in his team.

The final piece of data to consider for this theory is his participation in World Championships - surely requiring a 100% effort? Again, not much chop for our mate Froome.

To be honest I dont know much about that Barloword team but I dont think you can make that comment and insist he should be mid team to say he wasnt trying 100%. Maybe that team was carp (I dont know) so that if he was at 90% he may be much better than them but a lot worse than the better teams. I really dont know but in my opinion I dont think your comment holds water any more (or less) than anyone elses.

My view is that to make a (more) valid comparison then you / we need to compare him with the same group of riders (or at least a fairly stable group) in each race and, as I have said before, life hasnt necessarily afforded us that luxury.

Also it would probably be worth removing obviously spurious results caused by conditions - for instance if in one race he was say, 50th in the GC, compared with Rider A in, say, 5th then he would start a lot earlier in the day (it would apply the other way round). In this circumstance then we really should look at the conditions and remove obvious sillies like dry v ****ing with rain, because maybe in the next race CF and Rider A may be within 5 places in the GC and starting much closer together. Potentially there may not be the weather factor in that race - although of course it is possible there would be.

Its a complete minefield whether its CF or AC or whoever due to so many variables. Seriously - you could spend days analysing all of those variables and excluding this that and the other. We may not agree with each other on our views of riders / teams but life is too short surely to go to those lengths.

Obvious spurious results - yes, more than that is not for me ...

 

[Justinr]

"The order of magnitude difference in probability "

I'm sorry but what does that actually mean?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

To be honest I dont know much about that Barloword team but I dont think you can make that comment and insist he should be mid team to say he wasnt trying 100%. Maybe that team was carp (I dont know) so that if he was at 90% he may be much better than them but a lot worse than the better teams. I really dont know but in my opinion I dont think your comment holds water any more (or less) than anyone elses.

The argument in defence of Froome's performance difference in ITTs was that he had not been trying in previous ITTs due to a team player role rather than a leadership role. Yet while performing at that lower level Froome was consistently the best Barloworld rider.

What this suggests, then, is not necessarily that Barloworld sucked, but more that there is little reason to believe that Froome was riding within himself to save energy in all of the TTs he did at Barloworld, and therefore we can't just discredit them and remove them from the conversation with relations to the strengths shown by Froome in the TTs before and after his transformation. Certainly while in some TTs, just getting to the end of the race was the goal, and in others he may have had stage hunting in mind and so the TT is not representative of Froome at full power; the question then should come, if he was conserving this energy in the TTs, and it's clearly not to be domestiquing since there was no discernible leader for him to be domestiquing for, why was he not more visible as a stage hunter in that period? Was it just that his tactical acumen was not enough to get him into the right moves, or was it just that he was often in larger moves where he was anonymous rather than more memorable solo or small group attacks?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Which is more suspicious?
A rider with a prior history of winning climbing stages and a top 10 in the TDF, a team leader, winning the Vuelta, or a rider with absolutely no background as a contender, not even a team leader, about to lose his contract because no results, taking a very close second in the Vuelta, which he would have won if he had gone in as team leader?

Horner did have his first TdF T-10 at age 38!!
99.9% of all GT contenders (doped or not) had to retire at this age (or before, of course) because they simply couldn´t keep up anymore...
Which GT climbing stages (before Vuelta 2013) did Horner win?...
And if you look at my sig, you´ll see Horner had zero "first class" results at Froomes age. Not only zero, but other than Froome he actually did lose his job. On a 2nd tier team, unable to keep up with clean riders like Moncoutie and Casar...
When was Horner a team leader in the circuit that counts (europe pro tour that is)? Not even at age 41 entering the Vuelta which he won. RSH just "threw" him in there and see what happens.

Conclusion: If Sky defenders and bashers assume that Sky and Froome are on some kind of (illegal) program, the difference between them and Horner still is like night and day.
In the history of sports (especially if we look at Froomes career path), late bloomers happened everywhere (even in the NFL as you know; even though 99% of roster spots go to circa 22 year old students for 1st year players), but never ever (other than Carom billiards maybe ) did endurance athletes blossom at age 35+, when they failed at peak age (26-28) before.
Horners path is unprecedented. Froomes is unusual, no more, no less...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

To be honest I dont know much about that Barloword team but I dont think you can make that comment and insist he should be mid team to say he wasnt trying 100%. Maybe that team was carp (I dont know) so that if he was at 90% he may be much better than them but a lot worse than the better teams. I really dont know but in my opinion I dont think your comment holds water any more (or less) than anyone elses.

But you refuse to look at the data, right? You believe they are clean, end of. Nothing, no data or logical explanation can sway you.

In 2008, Froome rode the final TT at the TdF. If he performs he might get a good contract. It's the final stage that is raced, and he does not have to save anything for the procession the following day.

According to you and others, he's a domestique and riding less than 100%, despite beating everyone in his team.

He's 2:22:33 down on the winner.

He comes 14th.

4 years later, in 2012, he definitely IS the dom. He rides the finall TT and what, puts in 100% now? Or is he still riding at 80%?

Regardless, he finishes second at the Tour, and could probably have won it, riding as a domestique.

What has changed is his TT is now top 5%, not top 25%. The winner's speed is the same, or quicker than 2008.

His power and his recovery are out of this world compared to 2008 Froome.

Please explain.

 

[Granville57]

Horners path is unprecedented. Froomes is unusual, no more, no less...

I'd say that "unprecedented" is the most apt term for both of those two lads. At best, it would be a photo finish to determine which one deserves the title more than the other.

The funny thing is, Merriam-Webster provides the most deliciously appropriate definition that we could hope for, given the context.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unprecedented

un·prec·e·dent·ed
adjective \ˌən-ˈpre-sə-ˌden-təd\
: not done or experienced before

Examples of UNPRECEDENTED

The team has enjoyed unprecedented success this year.
This level of growth is unprecedented.

Also:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sky?show=0&t=1395965425

sky noun \ˈskī\
: the space over the Earth where the sun, moon, stars, and clouds appear

Examples of SKY

- Dark clouds moved quickly across the sky.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I'd say that "unprecedented" is the most apt term for both of those two lads.

Nope. Only Horner qualifies. I´d bet all-in with you, if I had the time, that I would find a rider who, given the same obstacle career path as Froome*, came out of "nowhere" at age 26 and then had a good career as GT contender. OTOH, you would not find a single rider other than Horner who started GT success at age 38 after losing his job due to lack of performance...

* for example a rider who changed sports, or was "busy" in a WW, or someone who started late to cycle. You know something like that...