Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[CTQ]

Who says he didn't take it? It would be naive to think the Fancy Bears hacked everything.

in march 2015, this tweet from Chris Froome writing 2 TUE in his career, Fancy Bears posting 2 TUEs ................

https://twitter.com/x/status/575643998678872064

View: https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/575643998678872064?s=20

 

[Parker]

Who says he didn't take it? It would be naive to think the Fancy Bears hacked everything.

So you think that Fancy Bears hacked Froome's ADAMS account where all the TUE information is held but only released parts of it, which conveniently matched what he had publicly stated

Also it wasn't a jab, they were chest infection pills.

And the Millar quote was about Wiggins's TUE.

It appears that your suspicions are based false information. Don't worry that's fairly common in this forum.

 

[Ripper]

So you think that Fancy Bears hacked Froome's ADAMS account where all the TUE information is held but only released parts of it, which conveniently matched what he had publicly stated

Also it wasn't a jab, they were chest infection pills.

And the Millar quote was about Wiggins's TUE.

It appears that your suspicions are based false information. Don't worry that's fairly common in this forum.

You just mean pills right? Because they're for severe allergies? Not an infection.

I'm sure Froome's been on a whole pharmacy during his career, so who knows what was next

This said, I don't think there is any likelihood he is going to turn this around. It must be extremely difficult for him to have to continually adjust his expectations down.

 

[Ripper]

Not like a TUE means that's what you're taking

 

[Parker]

You just mean pills right? Because they're for severe allergies? Not an infection.

I'm sure Froome's been on a whole pharmacy during his career, so who knows what was next

This said, I don't think there is any likelihood he is going to turn this around. It must be extremely difficult for him to have to continually adjust his expectations down.

No they're for a chest infection, nothing to do with allergies, which he doesn't have. Froome's not been on a whole pharmacy - that's your invention. He is confirmed by him and hacker to have had two TUEs

I understand that facts are inconvenient to your argument, but you really should consider them.

 

[Ripper]

No they're for a chest infection, nothing to do with allergies, which he doesn't have. Froome's not been on a whole pharmacy - that's your invention. He is confirmed by him and hacker to have had two TUEs

I understand that facts are inconvenient to your argument, but you really should consider them.

You do not know that Froome has not been through a whole pharmacy. His performance transformation way back was certainly reminiscent of pharmaceutically enhanced. I understand that facts are inconvenient to your argument, but you really should consider them.

 

[Rackham]

Froome is getting worse, so something isn't working with his new team.

It reminds me a bit of Beloki who was juicing like the best of them at Once, but after his crash in 2003 he never, never came anywhere near his best again in this subsequent team. It's the tentative fragile art of clinic theory in pro cycling, i.e. what works in one team doesn't work in another (with other doctors), or doesn't work after a certain age or bad crash.

But with regards to the crash I'll say its influence now is vastly overrated on Froome considering he was way better last year (ergo the crash excuse doesn't work anymore). Now it's just his age & dysfunctional program IMO which means he's toast.

 

[veganrob]

Can't use badzilla anymore either.

 

[MartinGT]

Bad chest, but apparently that will be sorted at altitude. AKA lets get back on it.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Froome was in 2012/13 lean as a man can get without dying, he had 0 body fat, lost fat in his lips and stuff.

He's just missing the chemical magic that can get you that lean in his new team.

For sure the severe injuries hinder also him, no matter what juicing he does or training camps or weightloss. Otherwise in a full sky program in 2020 he would be back to his best. But he was better there than now.

He should try different races, have some fun, do some 1 day races.

 

[red_flanders]

Why would he not be taking the same stuff he was at Sky? He forgot the name of it? Can’t afford a doping doctor? Just makes zero sense to me.

He’s injured and aging. And his motivation doesn’t look great.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Why would he not be taking the same stuff he was at Sky? He forgot the name of it? Can’t afford a doping doctor? Just makes zero sense to me.

He’s injured and aging. And his motivation doesn’t look great.

Why wouldn't Viviani, Tony Martin and Gilbert take the same things they're taking at Quickstep?

Strange logic.

 

[bigcog]

Froome is getting worse, so something isn't working with his new team.

It reminds me a bit of Beloki who was juicing like the best of them at Once, but after his crash in 2003 he never, never came anywhere near his best again in this subsequent team. It's the tentative fragile art of clinic theory in pro cycling, i.e. what works in one team doesn't work in another (with other doctors), or doesn't work after a certain age or bad crash.

But with regards to the crash I'll say its influence now is vastly overrated on Froome considering he was way better last year (ergo the crash excuse doesn't work anymore). Now it's just his age & dysfunctional program IMO which means he's toast.

A crash like that has no permanent effect on the body and you can recover 100%, appears to be what you are saying, yeah sure... I am guessing you've never had a serious leg fracture, let alone multiple fractures.

 

[red_flanders]

Why wouldn't Viviani, Tony Martin and Gilbert take the same things they're taking at Quickstep?

Strange logic.

Strange logic? Because you think these peoples programs suffered (speculation, there are many other factors), Froome’s (speculated, zero evidence) lack of a program must also be the reason? Riders have left Sky and gotten better it got worse when they arrived. Your premises are faulty and unsupported.

I’m very open to hearing why Froome can’t replicate his program. Particularly with Froome, who appears to have made his initial transformation without Sky’s help. They were as shocked by what he did in the 2011 Vuelta as anyone.

Doping isn’t magic, in its results or in the construction of programs.

 

[zlev11]

he got a big fat contract and he's already won 4 Tours, he has nothing left to prove. there's no reason for him to take a big risk with a doping program. he's just gonna be packfill and pad his bank account. he already got away with testing positive once, there's no reason to go through all of that again to finish 7th or something at the Tour which IMO with his age and injury would be his maximum even with the best doping program on earth.

i cant see him being a GC contender ever again.

 

[Rackham]

A crash like that has no permanent effect on the body and you can recover 100%, appears to be what you are saying, yeah sure... I am guessing you've never had a serious leg fracture, let alone multiple fractures.

Why ask me? It was Froome himself who claimed he could win the Tour again when he signed with Israel, so the defense mechanism narrative used by his fans to handwave his embarrassing performances (i.e. which I'll paraphrase as "it's the crash!!!") was already disregarded as a nonfactor by Froome & his new employer.

He's the one who in his youtube propaganda videos, interviews, statements & social media posts was repeating the "I'm aiming to win the Tour" mantra. So he's the one who already replied "yes" to the "can Froome recover 100%?" question.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

This is all speculation - wait and see:

If I Could Tell You - W. H. Auden

Time will say nothing but I told you so,
Time only knows the price we have to pay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

If we should weep when clowns put on their show,
If we should stumble when musicians play,
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

There are no fortunes to be told, although,
Because I love you more than I can say,
If I could tell you I would let you know.

The winds must come from somewhere when they blow,
There must be reasons why the leaves decay;
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

Perhaps the roses really want to grow,
The vision seriously intends to stay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

Suppose all the lions get up and go,
And all the brooks and soldiers run away;
Will Time say nothing but I told you so?
If I could tell you I would let you know.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Obviously Froome has not been himself since his fall and his injuries were serious but I wonder what is the main physical factor of Froome being so much weaker than he used to be?

Factors determining cyclist's condition:

1) Absolute maximum aerobic capacity (VO2 max) factors (associated with the ability to consume high amount of oxygen per unit of time)
a) cardiac output, which is a product of max HR and stroke volume. This should be pretty constant in such a short period of time. Max HR's change is minimal in a period of 2-3 years and stroke volume is already large for all active pros (so shouldn't change much at this stage).
b) arteriovenous oxygen difference: the difference between oxygen content in arterial and venous blood. This is more interesting of course, esp. in this thread. If he used to dope and he's not doping anymore (i.e. because he doesn't want to risk ruining his reputation at the end) then arterial oxygen content drops significantly reducing his performance. Other factor is muscles ability to consume oxygen (to minimize O2 in venous blood) - maybe after such a crash Froome couldn't rebuild his muscles to be 100% like before (this could be the case but he was working on equalling power in both legs).

2) Metabolic factors (associated with the ability to perform at high percentage of VO2 max):
Obviously all trained endurance pros can sustain a much higher percentage of VO2 max effort then you average Joe. That's what training is about: to shift lactate curves to the right (i.e. increasing aerobic and anaerobic thresholds). Is it possible that a long break in intense training caused the permanent significant lowering of Froome's anaerobic threshold? (which is crucial for very intense uphill/TT efforts). The guy has been training for so many years and also trained a lot since the crash so IMO this doesn't explain entirely this drop of form (but could be one of the reasons).

3) Body mass - Obvious factor determining how fit people are. All these absolute power/aerobic capacity figures are usually divided by mass to assess a cyclist's ability to perform in variable terrain. Chris said he's 2-3 kilos too heavy, but it explains only a fraction of his form drop: i.e. 1 minute on a steep 10 km climb (30-minute intense effort).

4) Other limiting factors associated with his injuries: Such a serious injury may have decreased his pedalling efficiency (causing a quicker tiring) or he still feels some pain capping his maximum effort. This is likely to be an important factor here.

 

[samhocking]

As Froome rightly says, he has to keep trying to see how far he can get as he doesn't want to look back with what ifs. It took LeMond just over two years and his injury, although life threatening due to pneumothorax blood loss, wasn't nearly as complicated to recover from. Even LeMond was going to retire as after 2 years he was still only a top 50 rider. By '89 Giro he was an hour off the podium, yet 4 weeks later began Tour and went on to win it and again in '90.
Froome is visibly more muscled now, it might be that he switches to one day racing if the muscle bulk is required to keep him balanced on the bike. Saying that though 3kg is about a minute lost per 10km on a typical average 8% climb in Alps. It's visibly huge on paper, but in terms of the performance difference, not really that much.

 

[Froome]

Obviously Froome has not been himself since his fall and his injuries were serious but I wonder what is the main physical factor of Froome being so much weaker than he used to be?

Factors determining cyclist's condition:

1) Absolute maximum aerobic capacity (VO2 max) factors (associated with the ability to consume high amount of oxygen per unit of time)
a) cardiac output, which is a product of max HR and stroke volume. This should be pretty constant in such a short period of time. Max HR's change is minimal in a period of 2-3 years and stroke volume is already large for all active pros (so shouldn't change much at this stage).
b) arteriovenous oxygen difference: the difference between oxygen content in arterial and venous blood. This is more interesting of course, esp. in this thread. If he used to dope and he's not doping anymore (i.e. because he doesn't want to risk ruining his reputation at the end) then arterial oxygen content drops significantly reducing his performance. Other factor is muscles ability to consume oxygen (to minimize O2 in venous blood) - maybe after such a crash Froome couldn't rebuild his muscles to be 100% like before (this could be the case but he was working on equalling power in both legs).

2) Metabolic factors (associated with the ability to perform at high percentage of VO2 max):
Obviously all trained endurance pros can sustain a much higher percentage of VO2 max effort then you average Joe. That's what training is about: to shift lactate curves to the right (i.e. increasing aerobic and anaerobic thresholds). Is it possible that a long break in intense training caused the permanent significant lowering of Froome's anaerobic threshold? (which is crucial for very intense uphill/TT efforts). The guy has been training for so many years and also trained a lot since the crash so IMO this doesn't explain entirely this drop of form (but could be one of the reasons).

3) Body mass - Obvious factor determining how fit people are. All these absolute power/aerobic capacity figures are usually divided by mass to assess a cyclist's ability to perform in variable terrain. Chris said he's 2-3 kilos too heavy, but it explains only a fraction of his form drop: i.e. 1 minute on a steep 10 km climb (30-minute intense effort).

4) Other limiting factors associated with his injuries: Such a serious injury may have decreased his pedalling efficiency (causing a quicker tiring) or he still feels some pain capping his maximum effort. This is likely to be an important factor here.

Bones and muscles, that's the problem. I don't think he lost is aeroby capacity. Even if he lost something of that, he would be anyway competitive, because is threshold was 419 watts for 1 hour.

 

[gillan1969]

lols......he used to beat Martin in TT with a chest infection...and won the Vuelta with chest infection, asthma attacks and a kidney infection (mind you he did have the one man approval machine Zorzoli for the first and Sky's v expensive lawyers and the UCI disregarding their rules).....so assembled forumistes...notwithstanding last stage chest, the new excuse seems to be weight, only a few km and all muscle...should he not still be able to tank it in flat TTs???

 

[bigcog]

Why ask me? It was Froome himself who claimed he could win the Tour again when he signed with Israel, so the defense mechanism narrative used by his fans to handwave his embarrassing performances (i.e. which I'll paraphrase as "it's the crash!!!") was already disregarded as a nonfactor by Froome & his new employer.

He's the one who in his youtube propaganda videos, interviews, statements & social media posts was repeating the "I'm aiming to win the Tour" mantra. So he's the one who already replied "yes" to the "can Froome recover 100%?" question.

Nice deflection. I ain't defending his performances, they are what they are. I always thought it was highly unlikely he would return to his previous GT winning form given his accident. However, to state/infer that is due to lack of PEDs rather than his injuries is laughable.

 

[Cookster15]

lols......he used to beat Martin in TT with a chest infection...and won the Vuelta with chest infection, asthma attacks and a kidney infection (mind you he did have the one man approval machine Zorzoli for the first and Sky's v expensive lawyers and the UCI disregarding their rules).....so assembled forumistes...notwithstanding last stage chest, the new excuse seems to be weight, only a few km and all muscle...should he not still be able to tank it in flat TTs???

Agree with the clinic stuff for Froome but its poor form to doubt the chest infection. Do you think all chest infections are the same? Nobody can win grand tours with serious chest infections it simply isn't possible. If any rider won a grand tour and said they did so with a serious chest infection then they would be lying. The aerobic demands are simply too great and a puffer does not control the build up of fluid.

 

[MartinGT]

Froome racing in 2021 according to PCS:

UAE Tour - GC 48th
Catalunya - 81st
Tour of the Alps - 93rd
Romandie - 96th

So, next race, best he's hoping for 100?

As the season has gone on he has gradually got worse as has his excuses. Pre Romandie it was because he was doing weight training, then it was a chest infection.

Come on. What next?

 

[Ripper]

Hmmm, I wonder if the chest infection will require a heavy hit of a certain medication to "clear things up"?