• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Sky/Froome Talk Only (No Way Sky Are Cleans?)

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Larry Finnegan said:
Taking the times Wiggins and others in question have done in previous years when they were finishing way down the field and presumably racing clean and comparing them with the times they are now producing is a good comparison, making allowance for motivation, weather, equipment improvement etc. The 'sod this' factor of being pummeled by Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich and the rest has to be considered too.
But it's not "Wiggins and others". Wiggins is truly a unique case. And even then, basically it comes down to "there's too many variables, we have to stick to our skepticism."
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
hrotha said:
But it's not "Wiggins and others". Wiggins is truly a unique case. And even then, basically it comes down to "there's too many variables, we have to stick to our skepticism."
GT's aside Philip Gilbert is another example, Voeckler's heroics at the tour, having not featured for 10 years is another. I don't agree Wiggins is a unique case.
 
osborn99 said:
People can't work and train to get to the top, according to you guys you have to dope, it's a sad world :(

If you look at athletics and swimming in the uk, investment and new bosses = success. Same at team Sky, £40m investment, the best coaches we get to the top. It's not rocket science
the same theory came from Armstrong & Bruyneel...
 
Sep 3, 2011
40
0
0
hrotha said:
we have to stick to our skepticism
Couldn't agree more about being sceptical or cynical. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. That is the only thing one can surmise though. Given the lack of evidence.
 
Larry Finnegan said:
GT's aside Philip Gilbert is another example, Voeckler's heroics at the tour, having not featured for 10 years is another. I don't agree Wiggins is a unique case.
Voeckler was 100 times the climber Wiggins was. Wiggins is a case of going from the grupetto (literally) to the front of the race in the toughest climbs.
 
Larry Finnegan said:
Exactly. It's a very plausible explanation, but not a popular one I think. Can't think why!
It's a plausible explanation, but Froome's improvement is so drastic and so sudden, that it's hard to take seriously, simply because we're being asked to accept the explanation that most of the péloton doped up until August 6 2011, and is now mostly clean. It's not a minor swing or gradual process, otherwise a clean Froome's results should be gradually improving as more and more clean riders means more people he's able to beat on a level playing field. But the swing has been incredibly drastic, from a guy who'd finished in the top 10 of two mountain stages in his entire career (3rd on Mont Faron in the 2008 Tour Méditerranéen and 8th in the relatively easy climb of Leysin the 2011 Tour de Romandie) and had blown up in a number of one week races, to a guy who finishes in the top 5-6 in every mountain stage in a GT, shelling people who've won GTs and people who've top 5ed the Tour de France in the process. And he could still win the Vuelta - Cobo has to do a pee before anything can be confirmed.

If it was possible for Froome to do this clean, and the péloton hasn't had a sudden get-up-and-go-totally-clean, then the question must be asked, why hadn't he even come close to doing this before?
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,646
0
0
Larry Finnegan said:
Taking the times Wiggins and others in question have done in previous years when they were finishing way down the field and presumably racing clean and comparing them with the times they are now producing is a good comparison, making allowance for motivation, weather, equipment improvement etc. The 'sod this' factor of being pummeled by Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich and the rest has to be considered too.
Well, 2009 when Wiggins had his breakthrough wasn't exactly a slow Tour.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
It's a plausible explanation, but Froome's improvement is so drastic and so sudden, that it's hard to take seriously, simply because we're being asked to accept the explanation that most of the péloton doped up until August 6 2011, and is now mostly clean. It's not a minor swing or gradual process, otherwise a clean Froome's results should be gradually improving as more and more clean riders means more people he's able to beat on a level playing field. But the swing has been incredibly drastic, from a guy who'd finished in the top 10 of two mountain stages in his entire career (3rd on Mont Faron in the 2008 Tour Méditerranéen and 8th in the relatively easy climb of Leysin the 2011 Tour de Romandie) and had blown up in a number of one week races, to a guy who finishes in the top 5-6 in every mountain stage in a GT, shelling people who've won GTs and people who've top 5ed the Tour de France in the process. And he could still win the Vuelta - Cobo has to do a pee before anything can be confirmed.

If it was possible for Froome to do this clean, and the péloton hasn't had a sudden get-up-and-go-totally-clean, then the question must be asked, why hadn't he even come close to doing this before?
As has been mentioned before, Froome contracted bilharzia while on holiday in Kenya in late 2010. With that in mind, his results earlier this year (a.o. 14th in the Vuelta a Castilla y León and 15th in the Tour de Romandie) are quite good.
Froome has always shown that he had some climbing talent.
 
Fus087 said:
As has been mentioned before, Froome contracted bilharzia while on holiday in Kenya in late 2010. With that in mind, his results earlier this year (a.o. 14th in the Vuelta a Castilla y León and 15th in the Tour de Romandie) are quite good.
Froome has always shown that he had some climbing talent.
OK, so we're saying the péloton has got cleaner over the year of 2011 then, since he hasn't really set the world alight with his climbing at any point from the 2008 Tour onwards.

I actually do him a disservice - he managed a third mountain stage top 10 - in the Brixia Tour 2010, where he came in a mere 2'01" down on Domenico Pozzovivo, and lost a minuscule 26" on the lauded climber Alessandro Bertuola.

Froome has always been a reasonable climber. But at no point in his career did he develop beyond those 2008 performances, he never really progressed and never looked like being anything other than a reasonable mountain domestique who could maybe be second to last man in the chain. Until this last week and a bit, when he's suddenly crushing GT winners and dumping people with spectacular palmarès off the back on one of the toughest climbs in world cycling.

Forgive me for being skeptical.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
If it was possible for Froome to do this clean, and the péloton hasn't had a sudden get-up-and-go-totally-clean, then the question must be asked, why hadn't he even come close to doing this before?
Froome gained less than a minute on Maxime Monfort (with a full TdF in his legs) & Lagutin who aren’t exactly prizefighters. But of course Froome’s results are now (only after seeing today) surprising - even given the fact that the competition here isn't strong (given the poor performances of the favourites and those who attended the Giro).

Dave Brailsford was interviewed after Froome took the red jersey and instead of a fully staunch defence basically said (paraphrasing):

"his numbers show he has the ability when climbing or time trialling on any given stage, but what he has never managed to do is string consecutive days of such performances together".

In short, Brailsford was also refusing to state that he wasn't surprised. The TV coverage spin on that was that, by being forced to work with Wiggins (who is very methodical in eeking out his energy reserves) Froome has learnt how to ride with his head and hold something back. I'm not saying that is fair observation, I'm merely putting it up there.

If Sky develop any suspicion about Froome I think he'll be dropped like a stone. It would be totally disasterous for their project if Team Sky got a positive test at this early stage. They’d be utterly discredited and the UK public & media are generally far less tolerant of doping than appears to be the case in some other countries (for example, when the Spanish Prime Minister, having never stepped inside an abbatoir or a laboratory publically defends Contador).

There is nothing the UK media would like more than to give a competitive UK rider with a positive test an absolute kicking (well, the papers that weren’t owned by News International at least). Generally in the UK, the media is very open about telling, for example, 100m sprinters who are caught doping to p*ss off.

I must confess I am very surprised that after his daily efforts on behalf of Wiggins, Froome has managed to stay within a minute of Cobo on the stage (although its hard to tell to what extent Cobo was actually pushing himself as it all looked so easy (compared to Froome and Wiggins deliberately zig-zagging before the camera bike fell)).

With virtually every major contender underperforming so dramatically though I’d say the jury is still out on Froome for me rather than overwhelming suspicion. Particularly given the breakdown of his interrupted cycling development outlined by others in this thread.
 
Jun 21, 2011
315
0
0
hrotha said:
Voeckler was 100 times the climber Wiggins was. Wiggins is a case of going from the grupetto (literally) to the front of the race in the toughest climbs.
They're not really comparable. Voeckler was in many situations where he had a reason to climb at his limit, Wiggins was not.
 
Fergoose - even regarding the relatively weak field here, his performances have been eyebrow raising.

He hasn't done anything to this level on ANY stage at any point in his career. Doing it once can easily be bought, twice too (especially given that he showed a bit of weakness on La Farrapona). The ITT was a bit hard to swallow, but could be brushed off given that he has some OK ITT results in the past and his best ITT results are in longer ones.

But it's becoming farcical. Far worse than Velits last year actually. Because at least Velits was clinging on, he wasn't the one doing the work, and Velits lost a bit of time on various mountains and gained it back elsewhere. I found Velits' ITT hard to swallow, but development being stunted at Milram and never really fighting for himself softened the blow (however, the amount of riders who have not lived up to expectations when leaving HTC is a question for another day). But if Velits' performance was hard to swallow, Froome's makes me gag.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Fergoose said:
The TV coverage spin on that was that, by being forced to work with Wiggins (who is very methodical in eeking out his energy reserves) Froome has learnt how to ride with his head and hold something back. I'm not saying that is fair observation, I'm merely putting it up there.
.
And this I would agree with. If Froome had been left to ride his own way he would have been five minute clear in red, and then lost ten minutes the next day. Being forced to ride at a sensible pace with Wiggins has if anything benefited Froome. His natural style is the attack/explode/crumble strategy
 
May 23, 2011
943
0
0
Ragerod said:
They're not really comparable. Voeckler was in many situations where he had a reason to climb at his limit, Wiggins was not.
That is because Wiggins sucked so hard that on climbing stages he needed a telescope to see the front of the field from his position at the back. Wiggins never had a reason to try because he was blown out the back of the lead groups on climbs quicker than a bad burrito exiting a beloved patriot tourist.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Fergoose - even regarding the relatively weak field here, his performances have been eyebrow raising.
I agreed with that. But by the same token (albeit to a lesser extent) then so have those of Monfort, Fuglsang, Kessiakoff, Mollema, Poels & D. Martin because they've all also been beating up the pre-race favourites on many uphill stages. This Vuelta Froome has:

- been dropped on an uphill stage
- only done team attacks at very specific limited points in a stage
- not done aggressive attacking performances on consecutive stages.

Plus he is also only 26 and has had a less than smooth career progression. That's why, for me, he is in a totally different category than Cobo.

I still think his performances (after today) merit a thread at least to monitor his future achievements.
 
The riders I listed are also all either:

a) younger (Mollema & Poels)
b) had complaints about health / how they are feeling (Mollema & Kessiakoff)
c) not (first and foremost) recognised climbers (Fuglsang, Monfort)
d) inconsistent or have non-GC priorities? - (D.Martin)
e) raced one of the other GT this season (and as is clear, the Giro is having an effect and the TdF is obviously more recent)

So coming over the line alongside such riders, or slightly ahead of them, does not, for me, constitute overwhelming suspicion.

I actually think the most suspicious thing is Froome beating Wiggins (as I don't find such a light Wiggins doing well uphill much of a surprise - not in this field at least). But again, with Wiggin's lack of ideal preparation for the Vuelta, and it being so steep even that doesn't completely beggar belief (for me).
 
And even when they've been ill before, those riders have outperformed him in the mountains. Froome has done pretty much nothing since 2008, save the occasional stage top 10 (San Luca '09, Leysin '11). And Froome himself has battled with illness earlier in the season. No thanks, not buying what he's selling.

Has he remembered to collapse at the top of a mountain after crossing the line to show people how obviously clean he is? It's a good job there isn't a final ITT in this Vuelta. He'd fall off the ramp and still put in a career best performance.

Maybe I'll go to his bike shop in a couple of years to watch the Tour de France on the big screen.
 
Jul 28, 2010
121
0
0
TeamSkyFans said:
its not a mysterious blood illness at all. It was Schistosomiasis.

Basically a parasite related illness that is fairly easily treatable but can go undetected for a while. Also known as bilharzia its fairly common in Africa, in fact its incredibly common.

So not really mysterious at all, and not particularly serious either. The short term effects are serious, but like the flu or something, it doesnt have a massive long term impact on your health

Mysterious blood illness sounds like the sort of line a journalist has used to make it sound really serious. common parasitic infection is nearer the mark.
[This isn't directed at you, TSF, just carrying on the thread of conversation.]

It's not so much whether his ailment was mysterious, commonplace, non-existent, or serious. It's that it was his reason stated for having red blood cell therapy between the Tour de Suisse and the Vuelta.
Legitimate or not - what was the treatment or cure; did it require a TUE; in what country did he have it, etc.

Not many riders show such improvement between races.
Presumably not many riders have red blood cell treatment, or at least admit to it.
Could be coincidence. Or it could generate an uneasy feeling that the story is a carte blanche for an unexpected performance.

Outside the clinic, it doesn't stop me from cheering on his breakthrough performance, especially if the breakthrough is on his own behalf. If he's taking that kind of risk though, I am less than happy about Wiggins being the risk-free beneficiary (not to say, of course that Wiggins isn't taking his own risks).

CN Quote:
"Froome’s season was knocked off course by the parasite which he picked during a visit to Kenya. It cost him a ride at this year’s Tour de France but he is now confident he has overcome the problem.
“It feeds off red blood cells which is obviously not ideal for an athlete,” he said. “But after undergoing some treatment following the Tour of Switzerland in June, I think where I am now shows I’ve finally got the better of it.”

Pasted from http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
hrotha said:
Voeckler was 100 times the climber Wiggins was. Wiggins is a case of going from the grupetto (literally) to the front of the race in the toughest climbs.
Front of race and winning are completely different, I want to believe his efforts are genuine. As for Voecklers mountain credentials, they are modest to say the least during the acknowledged doping era. All credit to him for what he achieved at the tour this year, looked like real suffering to me, as did Wiggins effort yesterday, he was in a sorry state at the end of the stage not indicative of juicing. Who knows??
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
It's a plausible explanation, but Froome's improvement is so drastic and so sudden, that it's hard to take seriously, simply because we're being asked to accept the explanation that most of the péloton doped up until August 6 2011, and is now mostly clean. It's not a minor swing or gradual process, otherwise a clean Froome's results should be gradually improving as more and more clean riders means more people he's able to beat on a level playing field. But the swing has been incredibly drastic, from a guy who'd finished in the top 10 of two mountain stages in his entire career (3rd on Mont Faron in the 2008 Tour Méditerranéen and 8th in the relatively easy climb of Leysin the 2011 Tour de Romandie) and had blown up in a number of one week races, to a guy who finishes in the top 5-6 in every mountain stage in a GT, shelling people who've won GTs and people who've top 5ed the Tour de France in the process. And he could still win the Vuelta - Cobo has to do a pee before anything can be confirmed.

If it was possible for Froome to do this clean, and the péloton hasn't had a sudden get-up-and-go-totally-clean, then the question must be asked, why hadn't he even come close to doing this before?
Others on here have spoken about illness, I don't know enough about Froome to comment competently.
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
goggalor said:
Well, 2009 when Wiggins had his breakthrough wasn't exactly a slow Tour.
I take your point, but again weather, distance and numerous other factors have to be considered when comparing tours.
 
Sep 4, 2010
41
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
OK, so we're saying the péloton has got cleaner over the year of 2011 then, since he hasn't really set the world alight with his climbing at any point from the 2008 Tour onwards.

I actually do him a disservice - he managed a third mountain stage top 10 - in the Brixia Tour 2010, where he came in a mere 2'01" down on Domenico Pozzovivo, and lost a minuscule 26" on the lauded climber Alessandro Bertuola.

Froome has always been a reasonable climber. But at no point in his career did he develop beyond those 2008 performances, he never really progressed and never looked like being anything other than a reasonable mountain domestique who could maybe be second to last man in the chain. Until this last week and a bit, when he's suddenly crushing GT winners and dumping people with spectacular palmarès off the back on one of the toughest climbs in world cycling.

Forgive me for being skeptical.

Skepticism is essential when discussing pro cycling! No forgiveness necessary!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS