But let us get serious for a moment and look at the hard facts.
Fact #1: We know Froome's transformation involved a significant increase in his power output. It's visible to anyone who knows cycling that he's stronger and John Swanson's data is as close to conclusively proving it as we're going to get without Froome's power files from his entire stint at Sky being released.
Fact #2: We know Froome lost a lot of weight from his pudgy early Sky days in 2010 and 2011 to the alien-like emaciated look he was sporting in 2012 and 2013. It's impossible to say he didn't when looking at pictures of him.
The crux of the matter is how he achieved his performance gains. A very important thing to consider is that Chris Froome had ridden competitively at a high level for the better part of a decade before his transformation. Just getting to that level requires dedication and years of training. The training, by the way, largely consists of low intensity cardio. Pretty much a perfect routine for anyone looking to lose excess fat. In other words, it's not unreasonable to assume that Froome was close to his physiological limit power-wise and didn't have much weight left to lose naturally. There's also the problem of the time frame. His transformation happened so quickly that it's hard to believe that the power increase and weight loss happened naturally.
So the explanations for his transformation that are popular among posters on the Clinic are:
1) The classic doping cocktail of blood boosters, HGH and the likes
2) Weight loss drugs (AICAR, GW1516, etc.)
3) Motorized bikes
4) All clean, baby. The engine was there all along. He just lost the inner fat.
The doping cocktail or the motorized bikes by themselves might explain the increase in power, but not the weight loss. It can't be just this, but it could definitely be a part of it. Similarly, the weight loss drugs explain the weight loss, but not the increase in power. A combination of 1 and 2 or 3 and 2, or even all three together, however, is a plausible explanation for how the two previously stated facts came to be true.
The fact that you need a combination of at least two illegal practices to simultaneously explain the two facts by default makes explanation #4 extremely unlikely. Paniagua does not fully explain his increase in power, nor his drastic weight loss.
Looking at cycling historically, we have seen riders substantially increase their power in a short period of time. The common denominator, however, has been the use of PEDs. Similarly, there is at least one case of a rider shedding a seemingly unhealthy amount of weight in a short amount of time and suddenly podiuming GTs seemingly at will... Of course it's Sir Kenacort of Fluimucil, tattered reputation and all. Conveniently enough he was both from the same country and on the same team as Froome in 2011.
So what you have is a transformation never seen before in cycling, which can be easily explained through a concept that has been linked with the sport of cycling since its very beginning over a century ago - cheating. There are also multiple pieces of evidence to support this hypothesis:
- There's the Leinders factor that makes the use of PEDs very conceivable.
- There's the similarity to the weight loss of Wiggins. Eric Boyer insinuated Wiggins lost weight through use of illegal substances. The ongoing jiffy bag scandal further strengthens this case.
- There is the leaked power file of the Ventoux acceleration which is consistent with the motorized bike theory.
Meanwhile the evidence to support Froome is clean is the famous Armstrong Defence (zero failed tests) and Sky's word, which of course is worth little in the world of sport, where teams and athletes will always profess their innocence regardless of whether they're doping or clean. Just look at Russia continously denying running a state-funded doping program despite the mountain of evidence against them.
Blind faith is all well and good, but at some point one has to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and start smelling the coffee instead.