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

[roundabout]

Froome should have started using the good stuff earlier.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It's not that important. I used 'racism' to bring more bright emotional coloring. Group of riders if you like. Many many reasonings here underlinedly imply so to speak Froome (Wiggins) are less talented and capable than Contador, Evans or someone and only more sophisticated pharmacological nutrition helps them get the result.

Your love for Contador, he should be of his bike like Ricco after two positives, makes your judgement a bit cloudy.

When two packfodder chimps from Euskaltel loose some pounds and suddenly are the best TT'ers and climbers of the GT riders everyone will act the same.

But, we all know that is not your point.

 

[Franklin]

If you work on your cadence then you can become a good ITTer even if you only weigh 50kg. Just look at Pantani, Heras, Contador etc. That could also have been the power of the yellow jersey of course, not sure.

Nice list.

Virenque also had a smashing TT in his best years. And didn't that Danish climber make huge strides in the TT as well?

Clearly, thin guys winning TT's is very common.

 

[karlboss]

If you work on your cadence then you can become a good ITTer even if you only weigh 50kg. Just look at Pantani, Heras, Contador etc. That could also have been the power of the yellow jersey of course, not sure.

Love it. (10char)

 

[Franklin]

Well, at first, I was very suspicious of Sky, especially back in 2011 when they still had Leinders, and Froome suddenly broke through.(not to the level of twittering about hating Froome though, if I had twitter) However, both Wiggo and Froome have been so consistent over the last seasons, that their suspicion has lowered somewhat. I'm therefore just arguing that there could be some plausible explanation for Froome's rise, or rather to the delay in his rise. Wiggo's a bit of a mystery for me though.

But I usually don't make sense as well, so it makes no difference really.

This is indeed the best post ever. The immediate firing of Leinders, with absolutely no lies about why he was hired, with no lies about his term with the team are indeed solid, really, really proof of how noble this team is.

 

[Pentacycle]

Froome has only been consistent after making one of the biggest shock jumps in form in the history of the sport though. Bernhard Kohl had podiumed the Dauphiné; Mosquera had top 10ed every non-WT stage race in Spain and the Volta a Portugal; even Santí Pérez had more results to speak of befor his great Vuelta than Froome did. The nearest thing we have to somebody coming from nowhere (as a GT contender) the same way as Froome did is Bradley Wiggins, which doesn't help the argument.

It is true that Froome has been very consistent since that breakthrough. He was consistently brilliant for a month, then garbage for all of 2012 until June. Since then he's been on it constantly, except at the Vuelta where he was tired. I assume he's due for a rest soon since he's been at top form (well, unbeatable form. Whether he has another couple of gears to use if he needs is another matter, given how fresh he was at the finish today) since February, although Wiggins of course showed that at Sky, the secret of unstoppable peaking can be broken.

Besides, Froome was most assuredly NOT making slow progress before his Vuelta transformation. His CQ scores, year on year, were going downwards, and his contract for the following year hadn't been sorted out. If that's not a red flag I don't know what is. If Steve Houanard suddenly started destroying the late season one-day races last season and won Paris-Bruxelles, Paris-Tours and the Tour de Vendée and podiumed Lombardia like he's 2005 Murilo Fischer or something, would you have thought, "well, you know, he has been top 10 in the Driedaagse van West-Vlaanderen and he did podium the Tour d'Alsace a few years ago, so it's totally logical that he would be this good"? But no, not only did Houanard not get to have his day in the sun, but he got busted for EPO as he tried to get the results to keep himself in the World Tour. Bad luck Steve, have another go in a couple of years.

Also, consistency is not a good thing to use as a guide, because form is transient. Form is like a bell curve. People who are good at all times are at one end of it (as freakishly uncommon), while people who superpeak are at the other. Froome used to be in the superpeak area, now he's swinging over to the other side at pace.

Oh, and as to consistency? Say hello to the most consistent elite cyclist of the last decade:

Piti pic

2003 first podium: February 2, Trofeo Mallorca
2003 last podium: October 12, World Championships RR
Months with a podium: February, March, April, July, September, October

2004 first podium: February 3, Trofeo Cala Millor
2004 last podium: September 19, stage 15, Vuelta a España
Months with a podium: February, March, April, May, June, August, September

2005 first podium: February 8, Trofeo Manacor
2005 last podium: September 25, World Championships RR
Months with a podium: February, March, April, July, September

2006 first podium: March 2, stage 2, Vuelta a Murcía
2006 last podium: September 24, World Championships RR
Months with a podium: March, April, June, August, September

I mean, I could go on.

Nice post, but missing my point. I said Froome was talented based on consistency but you mention nothing to disprove that.

> Kohl is the only rider you mention of whom I know wasn't that talented; all his better results at the pros are due to EPO use, his natural hematocrit was only 37 or so
> Santi Perez had that podium in the Vuelta, he's the only rider less known to me so I can't judge him
> Valverde's been doping, but he's still a very talented rider
> Mosquera wasn't untalented as well, but to contend in the Vuelta he went too far
> Froome's decreasing CQ scores were due to this little parasite in his blood, or he deliberately started sucking even more after 2009
> Steve Houanard wasn't going to get a contract for 2013 so he took a risk, but Froome wasn't at all close to losing his job. Is this just PR BS on the Sky site, or were they really upbeat about his progression?

The Kenyan-born rider has demonstrated his climbing prowess at numerous times this season, with top 15 results at both the Vuelta a Castilla y Leon and the Tour de Romandie marking him out as a growing force in stage races.

With his form now approaching a peak once again, Froome is hoping to make an impact on the biggest race in Spain and build on what has been a strong campaign to date.

He said: “I feel like I’ve had a good season so far. I’ve learnt a ton about myself and my capabilities. I’ve had one or two problems with illness but we’ve treated them and the team have been really supportive. They are sorted and, touch wood, everything seems to be going in the right direction right now.

“I’ve done one Tour de France and two Giro d’Italia’s but this is my first appearance at the Vuelta. I’m really looking to the mountain stages and doing everything I can for Bradley to help him on the GC.

“Obviously if an opportunity presents itself to get a stage result them I’m all for it.”

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Nice post, but missing my point. I said Froome was talented based on consistency but you mention nothing to disprove that.

> Kohl is the only rider you mention of whom I know wasn't that talented; all his better results at the pros are due to EPO use, his natural hematocrit was only 37 or so
> Santi Perez had that podium in the Vuelta, he's the only rider less known to me so I can't judge him
> Valverde's been doping, but he's still a very talented rider
> Mosquera wasn't untalented as well, but to contend in the Vuelta he went too far
> Froome's decreasing CQ scores were due to this little parasite in his blood, or he deliberately started sucking even more after 2009
> Steve Houanard wasn't going to get a contract for 2013 so he took a risk, but Froome wasn't at all close to losing his job. Is this just PR BS on the Sky site, or were they really upbeat about his progression?

The team which was built on the foundation of having a British Tour winner inside 5 years hadn't locked the biggest talent in decades (if what we're seeing is clean - only one that comes close in recent years would be Contador, and as we know, he isn't) - who just happened to ride with the British flag next to his name - into a contract. The brain trust were obviously too busy thinking of marginal gains to think of basics like actually SIGNING the riders they were upbeat about the progression of.

Besides, sure Froome wasn't going to lose his World Tour gig, but he was looking at a minimum WT wage domestique contract at Garmin or Lampre, not GT-contender salary.

Just because he's shown a high level of consistency (has he really? He had one month - September 2011 - of being great, then he sucked, then he was great for two months - June and July 2012 - had a rest then was very good but not as good as he had been at the Vuelta, then he was great so far this year. That's fairly patchy but improving in consistency) doesn't make his step up any less of a joke.

Besides, the biopassport monitoring levels makes it harder to do the Lance Armstrong superpeak. If you're going to go full ***, you have to go full *** all the time to not set off the alarms. I don't see Froome performing like he did today as a surprise in any way, shape or form, but then I wasn't surprised at Riccardo Riccò winning on Super-Besse either, or Valverde in Plumelec, or di Luca in Pinerolo, or Contador in the 2011 Giro. I also believe that three of those guys are very talented cyclists, dope or no dope.

 

[yespatterns]

Nice post, but missing my point. I said Froome was talented based on consistency but you mention nothing to disprove that.

Pretty sure a glance at his palmares disproves it.

 

[markene2]

Froome says that a minority is blood doping, only those who are losing their contracts.
Vuelta flashback?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IwC2JqDJFlE#t=278s

 

[Pentacycle]

Besides, the biopassport monitoring levels makes it harder to do the Lance Armstrong superpeak. If you're going to go full ***, you have to go full *** all the time to not set off the alarms. I don't see Froome performing like he did today as a surprise in any way, shape or form, but then I wasn't surprised at Riccardo Riccò winning on Super-Besse either, or Valverde in Plumelec, or di Luca in Pinerolo, or Contador in the 2011 Giro. I also believe that three of those guys are very talented cyclists, dope or no dope.

Froome's got to have talent, just like Valverde.(Di Luca/Ricco haven't really performed under the BP) He was on Sky in the PT/WT, not performing for 1,5 years, but his blood was monitored. If his sudden jump in performances is the result of heavy drug abuse or blood doping, I'd say the anti-doping authorities would've liked a good word with him.(sudden continuous elevation of his natural hematocrit) Whether this has happened, I don't know, but his current level hasn't faded significantly during the period since last year's Dauphine.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Froome's got to have talent, just like Valverde.(Di Luca/Ricco haven't really performed under the BP) He was on Sky in the PT/WT, not performing for 1,5 years, but his blood was monitored. If his sudden jump in performances is the result of heavy drug abuse or blood doping, I'd say the anti-doping authorities would've liked a good word with him.(sudden continuous elevation of his natural hematocrit) Whether this has happened, I don't know, but his current level hasn't faded significantly during the period since last year's Dauphine.

He had a blood disease. That justifies weak performance, sure, but it also renders his biopassport nigh on useless, because we simply do not know where a reliable base line figure for Froome can, would or does lie.

It's also a very convenient illness in that it can explain away any biopassport anomalies, because it's unpredictable when it comes and goes, when you think you've got rid of it you may well not have done and so on. As I've said in the past, I believe that the bilharzia existed and was to a large extent responsible for Froome's lack of progression over a two year period - but I'm very suspicious that its characteristics make it a very easy disease to use to mask suspicious goings-on, and that it cleared up in time for his contract negotiations, then struck again making him perform so poorly that the 2010 Cobo would have put his arm around him to cheer him up, until Tour preparation time, just strikes me as far too convenient to swallow.

I believe Chris Froome had bilharzia, and that this is responsible for his poor performance ahead of his jump to fame. I also believe that Chris Froome doped and/or is doping and wholly lacking in credibility as a clean cyclist. He doesn't pass the smell test. You wouldn't need to go to these lengths to search for the justification to say somebody like Dan Martin is clean, because he's never done anything that we've baulked at, so it isn't such a stretch to believe. But with Froome, he's done so much that was so incredible (in both senses) that you need to go to all kinds of lengths to contort things around in such a way that can justify his performances being credible.

 

[Ritouf]

If his sudden jump in performances is the result of heavy drug abuse or blood doping, I'd say the anti-doping authorities would've liked a good word with him.(sudden continuous elevation of his natural hematocrit)

Yeah you're right. The UCI and other authorities just want to catch all the bad guys.

UCI couldn't care less about doping. It's just about the money. They make a lot of money, they don't care if the cyclists are doped or not. And they are working on their public image by setting up out of competition drug tests and they are catching a guy every 2 months. Look out people, we take it very seriously ! Doping is a serious matter

 

[peloton]

He had a blood disease. That justifies weak performance, sure, but it also renders his biopassport nigh on useless, because we simply do not know where a reliable base line figure for Froome can, would or does lie.

It's also a very convenient illness in that it can explain away any biopassport anomalies, because it's unpredictable when it comes and goes, when you think you've got rid of it you may well not have done and so on. As I've said in the past, I believe that the bilharzia existed and was to a large extent responsible for Froome's lack of progression over a two year period - but I'm very suspicious that its characteristics make it a very easy disease to use to mask suspicious goings-on, and that it cleared up in time for his contract negotiations, then struck again making him perform so poorly that the 2010 Cobo would have put his arm around him to cheer him up, until Tour preparation time, just strikes me as far too convenient to swallow.

I believe Chris Froome had bilharzia, and that this is responsible for his poor performance ahead of his jump to fame. I also believe that Chris Froome doped and/or is doping and wholly lacking in credibility as a clean cyclist. He doesn't pass the smell test. You wouldn't need to go to these lengths to search for the justification to say somebody like Dan Martin is clean, because he's never done anything that we've baulked at, so it isn't such a stretch to believe. But with Froome, he's done so much that was so incredible (in both senses) that you need to go to all kinds of lengths to contort things around in such a way that can justify his performances being credible.

Once again, a great post.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I believe Chris Froome had bilharzia, and that this is responsible for his poor performance ahead of his jump to fame. I also believe that Chris Froome doped and/or is doping and wholly lacking in credibility as a clean cyclist. He doesn't pass the smell test. You wouldn't need to go to these lengths to search for the justification to say somebody like Dan Martin is clean, because he's never done anything that we've baulked at, so it isn't such a stretch to believe. But with Froome, he's done so much that was so incredible (in both senses) that you need to go to all kinds of lengths to contort things around in such a way that can justify his performances being credible.

Sorry but you contradict yourself here: you say you believe he had the disease and it affected his performance, then say his present performance rid of the disease 'doesn't pass the smell test'? Makes me wonder what does, and apparently that's Dan Martin because he's never surprised you.

Yet you admit Froome suffered from a blood disease that adversely affected his performance, so explains a leap in performance?

There's clearly two narratives here: one he was poor, he doped and got better and two he was poor, got over his disease and got better, oh unless you're saying he got over the disease and doped? All three are credible, and down to opinion more than anything.

nd I dislike the holding up of a supposed clean rider to illustrate the doping of another, since you have no way of knowing for sure. Anyone could be doping from any point in their development, it's impossible to grade riders in this manner, and simply betrays a bias.

 

[Sethcapes]

It is just tweet something about Froome and you can be sure she'll read it. Tweet something bad about him and you can be sure it will frustrate her Kinda like me when you post something bad about Alberto

You are an incredibly odd person.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Sorry but you contradict yourself here: you say you believe he had the disease and it affected his performance, then say his present performance rid of the disease 'doesn't pass the smell test'? Makes me wonder what does, and apparently that's Dan Martin because he's never surprised you.

Yet you admit Froome suffered from a blood disease that adversely affected his performance, so explains a leap in performance?

There's clearly two narratives here: one he was poor, he doped and got better and two he was poor, got over his disease and got better, oh unless you're saying he got over the disease and doped? All three are credible, and down to opinion more than anything.

nd I dislike the holding up of a supposed clean rider to illustrate the doping of another, since you have no way of knowing for sure. Anyone could be doping from any point in their development, it's impossible to grade riders in this manner, and simply betrays a bias.

No contradiction. I think Froome had bilharzia, but I don't believe that the amount of talent he showed prior to the disease messing things up for him was enough to justify the enormous strides that he made, and also am suspicious of the timing of this huge jump (just before contract negotiations) followed by another down period. I therefore think that the improvement of Froome in August 2011 is more than can just be explained by "ill Froome/healthy Froome" just as Cobo's history of depression and struggles to fit in at Caisse d'Epargne mean that the difference between Cobo 2009 and 2010 is more than just "clean Cobo/dirty Cobo".

Also, I picked Martin not because he's supposedly clean (though he is) but because he just won one of the biggest races in the sport this weekend, so he's fresh in the memory. Martin won the Froome breakout stage to La Covatilla, in fact. I thought Froome was credible then, I thought he was a mountain domestique who buried himself for his leader and did an awesome job, and would probably be burning himself out in the first two weeks for the far more proven Löfkvist to take over in week 3 as Wiggins' domestique of choice. I even advocated that he soft pedal the ITT to be fresher for Wiggins, which shows you just how much I underestimated his ITT capabilities (he beat Cancellara the next day). Martin? He behaved like a typical climber, and lost much time, and thus there was no overperformance to raise an eyebrow at.

There have been guys who've come out of nowhere like Froome did... most of those fairytales ended the same way. And there have been guys who've conquered all before them like Froome does, or at least would if the team would let him... most of those stories ended the same way too. In the context of these, seeing a guy who was once a moderately promising youngster (but not as promising as, say, John-Lee Augustyn, who was younger and on the same team) suddenly turn into a guy who outclimbs Contador and out-TTs Cancellara. Are you seriously telling me you didn't wince slightly at that?

 

[Bexon30]

You are an incredibly odd person.

You join in April and come to that decision, wow. Seems a strange stance to take on someone off the bat. I'm still not sure myself and I read post after post. Very quick to form a view,? Any thoughts on Froome/Sky?

 

[Sethcapes]

I have been reading for a while. Thoughts on froome/sky? Well they're full of drugs of course. Being professional cyclists and all.

 

[S2Sturges]

I have been reading for a while. Thoughts on froome/sky? Well they're full of drugs of course. Being professional cyclists and all.

Not necessarily restricted to pro cyclists... pro sports in general, I read drug testing is about a year and a half behind where the cheaters are now...
Sky has skirted or beaten conventional testing, using altitude training and all the other media releases as a smoke screen to help hide their sophisticated doping scheme.. you have a team whose yearly budget in their own words is around 30 million pounds, has plenty of financial latitude for high tech dope..
As per this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-07/explainer-performance-enhancing-substances/4506126

Unfortunately, nothing can really be done as most of this prep is either not listed as prohibited or in undetectable doses, hence the "minimal gains" statements by Sky..
It might be a scoop that the ASADA is investigating the doping of NRL teams, that should spread to testing for specifics through all pro sports....

 

[sittingbison]

she is Froome's GF. Dedicated her life to fangirling her boyfriend and battling Froome doubters on twitter.

you mean Lady Wiggo?

 

[mewmewmew13]

He had a blood disease. That justifies weak performance, sure, but it also renders his biopassport nigh on useless, because we simply do not know where a reliable base line figure for Froome can, would or does lie.

It's also a very convenient illness in that it can explain away any biopassport anomalies, because it's unpredictable when it comes and goes, when you think you've got rid of it you may well not have done and so on. As I've said in the past, I believe that the bilharzia existed and was to a large extent responsible for Froome's lack of progression over a two year period - but I'm very suspicious that its characteristics make it a very easy disease to use to mask suspicious goings-on, and that it cleared up in time for his contract negotiations, then struck again making him perform so poorly that the 2010 Cobo would have put his arm around him to cheer him up, until Tour preparation time, just strikes me as far too convenient to swallow.

I believe Chris Froome had bilharzia, and that this is responsible for his poor performance ahead of his jump to fame. I also believe that Chris Froome doped and/or is doping and wholly lacking in credibility as a clean cyclist. He doesn't pass the smell test. You wouldn't need to go to these lengths to search for the justification to say somebody like Dan Martin is clean, because he's never done anything that we've baulked at, so it isn't such a stretch to believe. But with Froome, he's done so much that was so incredible (in both senses) that you need to go to all kinds of lengths to contort things around in such a way that can justify his performances being credible.

yep
thank you for the articulate post

exactly

 

[Ripper]

He had a blood disease. That justifies weak performance, sure, but it also renders his biopassport nigh on useless, because we simply do not know where a reliable base line figure for Froome can, would or does lie.

It's also a very convenient illness in that it can explain away any biopassport anomalies, because it's unpredictable when it comes and goes, when you think you've got rid of it you may well not have done and so on. As I've said in the past, I believe that the bilharzia existed and was to a large extent responsible for Froome's lack of progression over a two year period - but I'm very suspicious that its characteristics make it a very easy disease to use to mask suspicious goings-on, and that it cleared up in time for his contract negotiations, then struck again making him perform so poorly that the 2010 Cobo would have put his arm around him to cheer him up, until Tour preparation time, just strikes me as far too convenient to swallow.

I believe Chris Froome had bilharzia, and that this is responsible for his poor performance ahead of his jump to fame. I also believe that Chris Froome doped and/or is doping and wholly lacking in credibility as a clean cyclist. He doesn't pass the smell test. You wouldn't need to go to these lengths to search for the justification to say somebody like Dan Martin is clean, because he's never done anything that we've baulked at, so it isn't such a stretch to believe. But with Froome, he's done so much that was so incredible (in both senses) that you need to go to all kinds of lengths to contort things around in such a way that can justify his performances being credible.

This about sums it up.

Nice work.

 

[Ripper]

Michelle just told me "you need help" Wow isn't she tough, insulting people while she's blocked them so they can't reply!

Via what? Twitter?

 

[airstream]

Your love for Contador, he should be of his bike like Ricco after two positives, makes your judgement a bit cloudy.

When two packfodder chimps from Euskaltel loose some pounds and suddenly are the best TT'ers and climbers of the GT riders everyone will act the same.

But, we all know that is not your point.

racism as it is. You even try to equate them to Euskaltel guys...

 

[Franklin]

Airstream, if you don't know what racism is, don't go on about it. It's ridiculous and offensive.