Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[fmk_RoI]

Something similar struck his current manager Dave Brailsford at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne in 2006. Froome was a one-man Kenyan team, doing it all for himself in the same way that he had made himself a Kenyan national champion's jersey. "He looked after himself, came to the team managers' meeting, turned up in his sandshoes and he performed really well," recalled Brailsford.

Not sure who's at fault here, Fotheringham (not famed for his fact checking) or Brailsford (who takes the Liberty Valance view of truth) but that story is not about the Melbourne commie games, it's about the Salzburg worlds. In the latter, Froome was a one man team and may well have been wearing sandshoes at the managers' meeting, but at the former Kenya had several riders and officials.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Not sure who's at fault here, Fotheringham (not famed for his fact checking) or Brailsford (who takes the Liberty Valance view of truth) but that story is not about the Melbourne commie games, it's about the Salzburg worlds. In the latter, Froome was a one man team and may well have been wearing sandshoes at the managers' meeting, but at the former Kenya had several riders and officials.

Thank you! In any event, hardly an incriminating matter then.

 

[TheSpud]

Pooley: Brailsford and Sky need to get their facts straight | Cyclingnews.com

'It just looks bad for them. It's at best silly and careless,' says former World Champion

www.cyclingnews.com

Oh yeah, I remember now.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Back to these sandshoes. I'm not really clear on what the alleged issue here is, whether it's a Rasmussen-like story of blood doping products being trafficked in hollowed-out heels or whether it's just a fashion faux pas and the word 'sandshoes' is supposed to be delivered in a Lady Bracknell-like voice, or with all the disdain of Jeeves giving Bertie Wooster's Old Etonian spats a withering look.

Whatever. Here's something relevant from the pen of David Walsh, ghosting The Climb for Froome. The place is Melbourne, the time is 2006, the occasion the Commie Games. Froome has gone off early in the time trial and is back at the finish sitting in the hot seat waiting for someone to better his performance:

All of my family saw me on TV. The broadcast kept on switching back to the hot seat and this young, skinny guy. Cyclingnews.com called me 'Chris Froome, time trial revelation.' I was sitting there in the hot seat when two managers from the English team first noticed me. Their names were Dave Brailsford and Shane Sutton.

'See what that kid has done?'
'Who?'
'That Kenyan kid, wearing the sandals.'
'Doesn't look like a Kenyan.'
'Well, he is.'

I wound up 17th overall in a field of seventy-two riders but, thanks to spending over an hour in the leader's chair, the result seemed to bestow more attention on me than a 17th-placed finisher had ever received before.

So, at the Commie Games in 2006, Brailsford and Sutton saw him sitting in the hot seat at the time trial, wearing sandals. Photographic evidence would be nice, if someone wants to go on to Getty or see if they can find the race on Youtube (I've drawn a blank on both). But let's suspend our disbelief a moment and imagine he was, as reported, wearing sandals.

Now I'm not much of a shoes guy, I live in fear of the Shoe Event Horizon (look at that, from Oscar Wilde to PG Wodehouse to Douglas Adams, all in the Clinic – who woulda thunk it?). But I'd guess that sandals (Jesus boots, Birksenstocks, whatever you want to call 'em) and sandshoes (Plimsoles) can be the same thing, in a generic footwear kind of way, if you squint really, really hard and turn off the lights. We're surely not going to get into an argument over one of them being open-toed shoes for tossers and the other canvas-topped runners your dad might think he looks cool in, are we?

Point is, there's no suggestion in that anecdote that he rode the time trial in sandals/sandshoes. The other anecdote, Fotheringham in the Guardian, quoting Brailsford apparently conflating the Commie Games in Spring 2006 and the Worlds in Autumn 2006, there's room for interpretation as to whether it's being implied he raced in sandshoes or turned up to the managers' meeting in them (totes a fashion faux pas, that) but there's also room for interpretation as to who's making the error, Brailsford (whose memory often leaves you wondering whether he's suffering from early-onset Alzheimers or is just an inveterate bullshitter) or Fotheringham (whose family motto ought be 'nisi stulti reprehendo veritates').

So, sartorial sins aside, the sandshoes story doesn't seem to have any real value, one way or the other. It's a non-story.

But, add to it this with regard to The Climb's claim that “Cyclingnews.com called me 'Chris Froome, time trial revelation.'” I can't find any evidence of that having actually happened. Here's the CN Commie Games main page and here's the race report (where he's “Christopher Froome”, not Chris) and nowhere do they call him a time trial revelation (the report does acknowledge that he “recorded an impressive time which made a mockery of his ranking for the event”). I even did a Google search on Froome “time trial revelation” and, from that, it'd seem that the source for the quote in The Climb can only be ... The Climb itself.

(And The Climb's claim that Froome was 17th out of 72 riders? The CN report shows 67 riders finishing, with a DNF and a DNS bringing that up to a field of 68 or 69 riders, depending on how you want to count.)

So is that what's really at stake here, that you get one thing about the guy that's a little bit dodge but really rather insignificant and you try and stand it up only behind it is something else that's a little bit dodge but really rather insignificant and you dig further only to find that behind that is something else that's a little bit dodge but really rather insignificant and so on and so forth in an Escher-like progression of error, *** and outright lies? Because despite all these things seeming a little bit dodge but really rather insignificant (we're not really arguing the difference between sandals and sandshoes) their sum is like the apocryphal rounding differences in banks' computers: very significant, when compounded.

And, as that quote from The Climb shows, Froome can't wash his hands of all this nonsense and say it's always someone else saying these things. He contributes to the problem, as we all know.

 

[Parker]

But, add to it this with regard to The Climb's claim that “Cyclingnews.com called me 'Chris Froome, time trial revelation.'” I can't find any evidence of that having actually happened. Here's the CN Commie Games main page and here's the race report (where he's “Christopher Froome”, not Chris) and nowhere do they call him a time trial revelation (the report does acknowledge that he “recorded an impressive time which made a mockery of his ranking for the event”). I even did a Google search on Froome “time trial revelation” and, from that, it'd seem that the source for the quote in The Climb can only be ... The Climb itself.

(And The Climb's claim that Froome was 17th out of 72 riders? The CN report shows 67 riders finishing, with a DNF and a DNS bringing that up to a field of 68 or 69 riders, depending on how you want to count.)

Here it is.

The lead group was split in two after an attack by Davis and South African shadow Robbie Hunter on the twelfth lap. Reaching the front group were Mathew Hayman and Will Walker (Australia), Ryan Cox and David George (South Africa), Steve Cummings (England), Mark Cavendish (Isle of Man), Greg Henderson (New Zealand), Gordon Fraser (Canada) and time trial revelation Chris Froome (Kenya).

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=results/men_rr

And here's the start list for the TT. 72 riders. I guess that's where that came from. I doubt Froome looked that up himself.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=stages/men_road_tt

 

[fmk_RoI]

Oh rats.

Not sure how I missed that. As well as using Google to look for it I even checked the photo galleries in case it had been an image title. Soz.

(That start-list? Sixty-nine riders.)

 

[Parker]

Oh rats.

Not sure how I missed that. As well as using Google to look for it I even checked the photo galleries in case it had been an image title. Soz.

(That start-list? Sixty-nine riders.)

Yes, it it is on second glance. But you can see how it easy to think it's 72.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Okay, another version of the sandshoes story, this time Richard Moore, in the Mail (21 July, 2013):

Brailsford recalls his first encounter with Froome, during the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. 'I was with Shane Sutton [the British head coach] on the beach road in Melbourne during the time trial. Chris rode past and Shane said "Bloody hell, there's a bloke in a pair of sand shoes, and he's going fast."'

As with the Fotheringham quote earlier, I don't know who to blame there, Brailsford or Moore.

 

[fmk_RoI]

And yet another one, an alternative version from the pen of David Walsh, this time in his Sky spaff-fest, Inside Team Sky:

'Chris has always been a good time triallist,' he said afterwards, 'that's where I first saw him, in Melbourne in the Commonwealth Games in 2006, first time I set eyes on him. Nathan O'Neil won that time trial, we had Steve Cummings and the usual suspects. I was there with Doug Dailey and Shane [Sutton]. Shane's saying [in Brailsford's best Australian twang], “You're not going to believe this, some bloke's turned up in sand shoes, jumped on his bike and look what he's done. In a pair of *** sand shoes!”

'We all looked and thought bloody hell that guy is impressive. He wasn't up there, but it was impressive, you know, he caught the eye. And he was completely unknown.'

That one, it's harder to blame that on Walsh, that one has to be on tape somewhere, Brailsford even doing the accent. No benefit of the doubt, blame the journalist on that. (Odd that Walsh wrote such a different version of it in The Climb. Maybe even he decided that Inside Team Sky was best forgotten.)

 

[Parker]

Quote: Merkx Index

But how's this?

Emma Pooley: LIE
Unlikely to be a lie. More likely someone not remembering an inncuosus event from five years ago
Leinders: LIE
What is the lie here?
We will be transparent: LIE
Define transparent. Not giving all information to people with bad intentions (e.g Vayer) doesn't invalidate this. Transparency has its limits.
No TUEs: LIE
Source for this promise?
Sandshoes: LIE
It's a turn of phrase. Not literal. Free info for you: when some says they are pedalling squares, the shape of the pedal is not actually a square.
Marginal gains: LIE
What's the lie here. I was learning about this stuff as an engineering student in the early 90s

To be fair, these are all on Sky; not all of them are on Froome.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I elaborated why these were lies in the post you didn't want to read because it was too long.

This is precisely what I expected. Post something that explains stuff? "Too long, make it shorter". Post Cliff's Notes short version? "Too vague, needs more information, I can dismiss as not relevant due to lacking detail".

Besides, the "Inside Team Sky" quote was the one I was thinking of when I wrote the Sand shoes bit. Interesting to note how the story has changed over the years. I don't mind if Cope mis-remembered visiting Pooley (though the later testimonies from her and even more so Cooke make it clear that despite his job title being women's team coach, Cope did very little coaching of the women for British cycling in 2011), but while your mileage may vary on whether or not this was a lie per se, the fact Brailsford told Lawton he'd look into it, then managed to repeat something so easily disproven (it takes under 30 seconds using a results aggregator like procyclingstats or CQ ranking) to him before fact checking it, really shows up their claims of "attention to detail" to be a lie too (and before you get pedantic, there are a LOT of things that point toward the 'attention to detail' being, really, a PR buzz-phrase rather than an actual tenet of the team ethos, including some that harm other claims of theirs). Your last sentence is fair, however - much of the lying is not by Froome himself but around him.

Oh, sorry, whoops, I might have gone past 200 words again. Silly me.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Libertine, you should have burn cream on you at all times.

 

[Koronin]

Libertine, some people don't want to read.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Besides, the "Inside Team Sky" quote was the one I was thinking of when I wrote the Sand shoes bit. Interesting to note how the story has changed over the years.

Thing is, it's not even over years it's changed. The first version, Fotheringham's, appeared in July 2013. Just a few days later, the Moore version came along. Then, later in 2013, Walsh gave us the Inside Team Sky version, followed by his other version in The Climb the following June.

 

[brownbobby]

I really don't get the interest in, and significance of the whole 'sand shoes' saga when it comes to a discussion on Sky/Ineos 'lies'.

I mean, is it not just human nature, unless being read directly from a written script or autocue, that different people, perhaps even the same person at different times, will tell their own slightly different versions of the same story?

All of the versions presented above are just variations on the same theme presented anecdotally, no doubt embellished by some for dramatic/comedic effect

It makes for an interesting and for some amusing little tale, but there's nothing malicious in it and it tells us nothing about Sky and a propensity to lie.

 

[Alpe73]

I really don't get the interest in, and significance of the whole 'sand shoes' saga when it comes to a discussion on Sky/Ineos 'lies'.

I mean, is it not just human nature, unless being read directly from a written script or autocue, that different people, perhaps even the same person at different times, will tell their own slightly different versions of the same story?

All of the versions presented above are just variations on the same theme presented anecdotally, no doubt embellished by some for dramatic/comedic effect

It makes for an interesting and for some amusing little tale, but there's nothing malicious in it and it tells us nothing about Sky and a propensity to lie.

Ahh, c'mon Brown Bobby … the likelihood of that story is like the likelihood of you doing a one day three-peat of all roads up and down 'the big windy.' Time to wake up and smell the lavender, brutha!

 

[Parker]

I elaborated why these were lies in the post you didn't want to read because it was too long.

This is precisely what I expected. Post something that explains stuff? "Too long, make it shorter". Post Cliff's Notes short version? "Too vague, needs more information, I can dismiss as not relevant due to lacking detail".

OK. Lets look at a factual bit that you wrote:

There are other things that aren't necessarily lies but are shown up in the fullness of time, like them telling of how the roadbook is their bible and how they achieve so much because of their thorough study of the roadbook, yet in País Vasco in 2012 they toasted all their puncheurs trying to lead out Appollonio in a sprint, failing to recognise the Alto de Garagaltza, 1km @ 9%, in the route, which led to the stage eventually being a two-up sprint between Samuel Sánchez and Joaquím Rodríguez.

Actual result of that stage can be found here: https://www.procyclingstats.com/race/itzulia-basque-country/2012/stage-5
Nordhaug @ 5s
Henao @ 10s
They finish the stage 4th and 6th on GC

So a blatent lie from you. (You have already ruled out that people may misremember events from several years ago)

You remind me of the Brexit people in my country. They pepper their rhetoric with obscure lies amidst the lengthy bluster to give their opinions legitimacy

Now, I've shown that you are a liar, how about #you show me that Sky are liars in less than 200 words.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

"Journalist David Walsh quoted Prof Peters in a 2013 book as saying if a rider got into trouble with pollen we would pull him out of the race rather than apply for a TUE on his behalf."

A confirmed lie, Froome's prednisolone at Romandie was known about before Fancy Bears.

Brief enough for you?

Really, if you can't be bothered to read all of the long post, just read the penultimate paragraph. It is my belief that to believe that Brailsford has been totally honest and innocent and well-intentioned at all times credits him with too little aptitude or professionalism to have credibly achieved what he has.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Oh, and about my "blatant lie", it was based on Lars Petter Nordhaug's post-race interview with Norwegian TV, which Maltiv quoted here.

Nordhaug: "We were going to set up the sprint for Appolonio when an insanely steep wall suddenly appeared. We had no idea that climb was going to be there!"

 

[fmk_RoI]

You remind me of the Brexit people in my country. They pepper their rhetoric with obscure lies amidst the lengthy bluster to give their opinions legitimacy

Now, I've shown that you are a liar, how about #you show me that Sky are liars in less than 200 words.

How positively Trumpian.

 

[dacooley]

All of us can read. But the whole tone the thread is developing in is quite hilarious. Froome tends to be delivered like one of the greatest cheats in the history of sports. Let's put it straight, each of us who might've been offered to jump in a high-scale doping programme to become a starry athlete and reach money, popularity and admiration Froome got, would've agreed even without thinking about it. from my point of view, there mustn't be any question on whether froome dopes. yes, he is doped up to eyeballs. but in spite of this he is 100% entitled to stay on top and be regarded one of the great cyclists over the last 10-15 years. All these lamentations on the theme 'how a sport of cycling would've looked like had it been completely clean? I don't know how exactly, but there wouldn't have been the space for froome, etc, etc' and countless searches for justice are completely disconnected from reality. It is as stupid as believing froome might be clean. That's the sport where riders heavily dope just to be signed or extended by a team with a World Tour license LOL. Riding amongst super elite riders and flying uphill clean is completely out of the question.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Let's put it straight, each of us who might've been offered to jump in a high-scale doping programme to become a starry athlete and reach money, popularity and admiration Froome got, would've agreed even without thinking about it.

People judging others by their own low standards...

 

[brownbobby]

People judging others by their own low standards...

I don't think it's about 'money, popularity and admiration' per se...

But when you've been dreaming about something from a very young age, dedicating yourself to that goal at the expense of everything else (education etc), then actually having the talent and the breaks that get you within touching distance of achieving that dream.... until reality hits.

I do think Froome, perhaps naively, entered the World Tour believing he could achieve his dreams clean, its not hard to believe that from his unconventional path he wasn't aware just how intrinsic doping was to success.

At some point i guess this is the moral dilemma world class cyclists face, or at least they did up until a decade and more ago. Its not a choice driven purely by greed and a desire for fame, but more a choice of do you cross the line, do as everyone else is doing and continue to pursue what you've been working towards for most of your life.....or do you stay righteous and give up on your dreams.

Not many people are 'lucky' enough to ever be faced with this choice, but i've got to be honest, i think i'd take the less righteous option if i ever was in that position.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Not many people are 'lucky' enough to ever be faced with this choice, but i've got to be honest, i think i'd take the less righteous option if i ever was in that position.

Even in the debunked Mirkin and Goldman anecdotes - one shouldn't use the word studies in association with them, they weren't - it's generally only half the people who accept the Mephistophelean deal offered. Yet now you and @dacooley want to suggest we'd all do it, just cause you would? One more time: your standards are not everyone's standards.

 

[brownbobby]

Even in the debunked Mirkin and Goldman anecdotes - one shouldn't use the word studies in association with them, they weren't - it's generally only half the people who accept the Mephistophelean deal offered. Yet now you and @dacooley want to suggest we'd all do it, just cause you would? One more time: your standards are not everyone's standards.

Point me to the part of my post where i said 'we'd all do it'