Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[taiwan]

You are sort of implying that people in this thread want to see Wiggins hospitalised, though. That's the joke - impersonating a clinic poster, but it's unfair.

 

[zalacain]

now for some good news

I blame doper's fatigue personally

Wasn't he on the way back from the pub?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I refer you to this: http://velorooms.com/the-doping-section/chris-froome/msg59781/#msg59781


An abridged version: with paragraphs cut out here and there to fit into the word limit


The fact is that we have given suitable proof to suggest are not necessarily doping in order to oppose your supposed proofs that Sky are doping and yet you seem to brandish those proofs repeatedly after.

They may not be entirely convincing, but you treat them as if they are entirely invalid.

Weirdly though, the bilharzia has been backdated. It is a hard disease to diagnose and can go undiagnosed for a long time, so it's plausible, but previously he had only mentioned catching it at the end of 2010.

Either way, again the trees can be explained but the forest is hard to ignore; there is no getting around how this bilharzia caused him to struggle for nearly two years, then cleared up miraculously in time to place him in a GT where this clean warrior was only defeated by Juan José Cobo thanks to time bonuses, and actually finished the GT in the fastest time, then after helping Britain pick up the rainbow jersey, he promptly caught it straightaway again! This resulted in him not picking up a single CQ point until he got 5 just for making it to the end of Romandie, until it miraculously cleared up in time for the Dauphiné, giving him just enough time to train up to peak form to finish in the top 5 of two straight GTs and pick up an Olympic medal.

I believe the bilharzia existed, and is part of the reason for his stagnation and regression between those promising-but-not-too-spectacular early showings and his spectacular coming-out party in Spain, but I also am extremely suspicious of the very convenient timing of it, both for the results and for the contracts. Elements of Froome's backstory make sense and provide some perspective to the transformation... but some of it falls into place rather too conveniently for me to swallow it as being wholly sanguine, and frankly, there's improvement, there's transformation and then there's Froome, and I can't unsee what I've seen from him. In a vacuum, discussing the stories, I can convince myself that, like Blackcat says (and Blackcat is one of Froome's staunchest defenders on this board), Froome is acting no differently to anyone else, whether that mean clean or dirty, and is a top natural talent... but when I watch his rides at the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour, looking like he's got energy to spare, I can't convince myself of that anymore.

 

[palmerq]

thread got a bit odd and offtopic, so i have removed a few of the posts and edited some others...

 

[Telmisartan new]

Weirdly though, the bilharzia has been backdated. It is a hard disease to diagnose and can go undiagnosed for a long time, so it's plausible, but previously he had only mentioned catching it at the end of 2010.

Either way, again the trees can be explained but the forest is hard to ignore; there is no getting around how this bilharzia caused him to struggle for nearly two years, then cleared up miraculously in time to place him in a GT where this clean warrior was only defeated by Juan José Cobo thanks to time bonuses, and actually finished the GT in the fastest time, then after helping Britain pick up the rainbow jersey, he promptly caught it straightaway again! This resulted in him not picking up a single CQ point until he got 5 just for making it to the end of Romandie, until it miraculously cleared up in time for the Dauphiné, giving him just enough time to train up to peak form to finish in the top 5 of two straight GTs and pick up an Olympic medal.

I believe the bilharzia existed, and is part of the reason for his stagnation and regression between those promising-but-not-too-spectacular early showings and his spectacular coming-out party in Spain, but I also am extremely suspicious of the very convenient timing of it, both for the results and for the contracts. Elements of Froome's backstory make sense and provide some perspective to the transformation... but some of it falls into place rather too conveniently for me to swallow it as being wholly sanguine, and frankly, there's improvement, there's transformation and then there's Froome, and I can't unsee what I've seen from him. In a vacuum, discussing the stories, I can convince myself that, like Blackcat says (and Blackcat is one of Froome's staunchest defenders on this board), Froome is acting no differently to anyone else, whether that mean clean or dirty, and is a top natural talent... but when I watch his rides at the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour, looking like he's got energy to spare, I can't convince myself of that anymore.

A wonderful post,there's something strangely admirable about Chris Froome,some top posters on here like him and so do i(despite Airstream thinking i hate him),genuine nice guy(unlike his rival Wiggo)who presents himself well in public and is an incredible Grand Tour rider,want to believe the "late developer" line of reasoning but not sure i do.Everyone thought Bobby Julich his mentor was a nice guy,i didn't.Did you see the way he spoke about his mechanic on the CSC documentary! Truly shocking,Julich and Froome,dopers in arms.....

 

[Galic Ho]

What DOES makes me laugh is this guy.

I don't know his name but seeing him at the 2009 Giro and watching him zig zag up hills its hard to believe that he has become a Contador-esque climber.

Yes thats him at right angles behind Gerrans.

Full video at 7:27: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEGpv0xn0E8

That makes me laugh me more than postcodes and humble guys from Kilburn.

I hope he can win the Tour next year so I read how small town guy from Monaco won the Tour

Ditto. I get the impression that Froome learnt a thing or two about how the peloton races during that Giro. Gotta be one of the dirtiest GT's post Armstrong's 2005 Tour win (stripped of course).

Just looking at Di Luca, Menchov, Garzelli and Pellizotti dropping everyone else was beyond a joke. Where are they now? Retired, busted and a shadow of their former selves. Even Basso who won the next year was shelled out on that climb. Yet it raises no alarm bells among the loyal acolytes that Froome, that Froome in the video getting spanked senseless by Simon Gerrans of all people, is now seen as the only rider capable of matching Contador!

That's right, nothing to see here people...move along, move along.

PS: @matliv. Your Contador example is beyond ***. How did he respond after his bonk? Absolutely rode the peloton into the ground ALONE and it required both Saxo Bank and Caisse d'Epargne to pull him back so Franck Schleck and LuLu could respectively maintain their 1st and 2nd podium places. You have a short memory. Short indeed and selectively biased. Contador was only just off winning after his bonk. Sheesh, get with the program dude...

 

[Galic Ho]

Yes Froome showed his real talent many times Especially at the Tour of Mauritius and other such Grand Tours! Dope or no dope Contador has shown time and time again he's all class and massively talented rider. The day before the stage you linked Contador smashed the field. And to his credit the day after the bonk he attacked form the start.

Froome form is indicative of his performance that day at the Giro. That's what Froome is naturally. No one and I mean no one ever expected him ever to ride like he did at the 2011 Vuelta. There wasn't even a Froome appreciation thread because no one knew who he was!

Alien arrived at the 2011 Vuelta and hasn't left the station.

He looks like a Praying Mantis on a bike IMO. Definitely alien looking.

I've gone over this with friends and relatives. Nobody remembers Froome. Nobody. Because he was a nobody. I could buy his ride that day being clean, but to go from that to 2011 Vuelta and beyond is asking way too much of fans. Ok, fanboys excluded.

I've re-watched occasionally some of the past Tours I have on DVD. I heard Froome's name once before the 2011 Vuelta. Once, minor mention riding for BarloWorld. Heck, even on the behind the scenes briefing they had of BarloWorld, he didn't get mentioned. It was Geraint Thomas and John Lee Augustyn. Mostly Robbie Hunter and Soler Hernandez had their names dropped above all others. Thinking on that, if Soler Hernandez were riding for Sky and performing as Froome has, it'd be easier to deal with. Not clean, but easier to swallow. Believing in Froome is pretty much the biggest joke I've seen peddled in a long, long time in cycling. I'm having a hard time thinking of someone who compares to him, from zero to hero, literally. Literally nothing on a bike, then world beater who has to HOLD BACK in order to not embarrass the anointed one.

Throw in a pearler to hook the masses, aka, insert bogus exotic blood disease nobody has heard of, get the pity points and if anything dodgy comes up you can spin the PR that way and pry more pity points from the public.

 

[blackcat]

Elements of Froome's backstory make sense and provide some perspective to the transformation... but some of it falls into place rather too conveniently for me to swallow it as being wholly sanguine, and frankly, there's improvement, there's transformation and then there's Froome, and I can't unsee what I've seen from him. In a vacuum, discussing the stories, I can convince myself that, like Blackcat says (and Blackcat is one of Froome's staunchest defenders on this board), Froome is acting no differently to anyone else, whether that mean clean or dirty, and is a top natural talent... but when I watch his rides at the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour, looking like he's got energy to spare, I can't convince myself of that anymore.

give him Andy Shleck's "medical program" in his second year after the Tour debut at Barloworld, and a perfect race program, and his progression would seem linear. Ofcourse he is on the gear, and was on it at Barlo. But he deserved to win the Tour this year, was better than Wiggins from my perspective. (sorry to be so frank Chris. NB. Not Frank Shleck)

Froome is my man, big props to the man from Kenya. They even cycle there without cleats and use bare feet. Thats how talented he is.

 

[armchairclimber]

He looks like a Praying Mantis on a bike IMO. Definitely alien looking.

I've gone over this with friends and relatives. Nobody remembers Froome. Nobody. Because he was a nobody. I could buy his ride that day being clean, but to go from that to 2011 Vuelta and beyond is asking way too much of fans. Ok, fanboys excluded.

I've re-watched occasionally some of the past Tours I have on DVD. I heard Froome's name once before the 2011 Vuelta. Once, minor mention riding for BarloWorld. Heck, even on the behind the scenes briefing they had of BarloWorld, he didn't get mentioned. It was Geraint Thomas and John Lee Augustyn. Mostly Robbie Hunter and Soler Hernandez had their names dropped above all others. Thinking on that, if Soler Hernandez were riding for Sky and performing as Froome has, it'd be easier to deal with. Not clean, but easier to swallow. Believing in Froome is pretty much the biggest joke I've seen peddled in a long, long time in cycling. I'm having a hard time thinking of someone who compares to him, from zero to hero, literally. Literally nothing on a bike, then world beater who has to HOLD BACK in order to not embarrass the anointed one.

Throw in a pearler to hook the masses, aka, insert bogus exotic blood disease nobody has heard of, get the pity points and if anything dodgy comes up you can spin the PR that way and pry more pity points from the public.

Citing your own ignorance as evidence that a rider is doping. Very good.
Then, it's all you've got.

 

[maltiv]

PS: @matliv. Your Contador example is beyond ***. How did he respond after his bonk? Absolutely rode the peloton into the ground ALONE and it required both Saxo Bank and Caisse d'Epargne to pull him back so Franck Schleck and LuLu could respectively maintain their 1st and 2nd podium places. You have a short memory. Short indeed and selectively biased. Contador was only just off winning after his bonk. Sheesh, get with the program dude...

How could you not get that it was a joke? My point was that it's silly to take one bad performance and say "look, this guy sucked so bad and now he's the best!". (even if it's true in Froome's case, who sucked everywhere). The Contador example was just to use the must ridiculous example I could find. I thought the part where I said I couldn't believe Contador had become a Contador-esque climber would make it pretty clear that I was being sarcastic

The fact that Froome sucked pre 2011 is pretty obvious, but showing a video of one stage where he couldn't follow Gerrans up a steep hill just isn't the best example, in my opinion. Whatever, I was just nit-picking anyway.

 

[sittingbison]

Citing your own ignorance as evidence that a rider is doping...

I'll jump in at this point and remind Sky supporters that it is ludicrous to demand proof or evidence of doping. The point is to look at the whole thing holistically. Its a detective story. Behavioral patterns, lies, changes in attitudes, performance jumps, deflections, BS, circumstantial or non-analytical evidence should all be examined, because these are the tell. If there was proof per se this thread would not be almost 9000 posts long and Sky would be busted.

So all these non-analytical jigsaw puzzle pieces are examined, dissected, compared. Stop pretending this is complete and utter rubbish, it is not. It slowly but surely reveals a picture, unravels the truth. If what is revealed is nothing then so be it, but don't pretend for one moment it is not worth the effort.

It is NOT a puerile exercise to look at Wiggos utterances on upbringing if he changes the story, because it could reveal a change in mindset just like his comments on Armstrong, his comments on Tour cheats, and his comments on doubters. It doesn't matter where he lived or if its changed its nature in the past 20 years, what matters is history being re-written.

As jimmyfingers himself said, Sky could not have made themselves look more guilty if they tried. As a result they stink to high heaven, and should be placed under the microscope, admitted the litmus test, given the Inquisition. Whatever it takes. Never forget they are immensely rich, powerful and backed by the media, the governing body is corrupt as all hell and won't look into them or is more likely complicit, and against this juggernaut are just a few bone idle lazy denizens armed with their memories, knowledge and google who have managed to unearth, dissect and reveal all kinds of interesting information and interactions.

The funniest interaction of all is Leinders. Remember him? As I predicted, his employment has been swept under the carpet and forgotten due to the Reasoned Decision. All the media has rabbited on about Yates, Jullich and De Jong but nary a peep about the good doctor. And the ones the HAVE mentioned him have NEVER revealed his role at Rabobank and asked the hard questions as to why Sky employed him then sacked him.

Compare that to White and the Perfect Storm that is going on in Australian Cycling with Govt leaping in, Royal Commissions in the offing, dumping Turter for a cleanskin, anti drugs agents going through the books etc. And Australias response is even being pilloried by Australians as being lame. And ALL of it at Sky and OGRE is because of people like us putting them to the test. Showing Jullich and White as being named in the Evidence. Revealing to the press and the public the existence of Leinders at Sky (and don't bother saying he was mentioned in some obscure article, that's not the point and you know it).

So please stop coming out with the "show us the proof" comments. It makes you out to be idiotic which most of you are not.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

How could you not get that it was a joke? My point was that it's silly to take one bad performance and say "look, this guy sucked so bad and now he's the best!". (even if it's true in Froome's case, who sucked everywhere). The Contador example was just to use the must ridiculous example I could find. I thought the part where I said I couldn't believe Contador had become a Contador-esque climber would make it pretty clear that I was being sarcastic

The fact that Froome sucked pre 2011 is pretty obvious, but showing a video of one stage where he couldn't follow Gerrans up a steep hill just isn't the best example, in my opinion. Whatever, I was just nit-picking anyway.

On the contrary, showing the video of one stage where he couldn't follow Gerrans up a steep hill is the best example. You know why? It's the only example of Froome doing anything noteworthy at the top level until La Covatilla.

It's also noteworthy because where have Froome's most spectacular performances been? Where he's picked up his miraculous wins? Peña Cabarga (5,6km @ 9,4%) and Planche des Belles Filles (5,9km @ 8,5%). Short-to-mid-length climbs with high steepness. San Luca is shorter (only just over 2km) and steeper (10,8%), but falls somewhere between your straightforward puncheur finish and those climbs that Froome has made his own.

So it's not about showing an image of Froome sucking... it's about showing an image of Froome sucking in an environment where you would have reasonably expected him to have shown more promise.

 

[taiwan]

Froome is my man, big props to the man from Kenya. They even cycle there without cleats and use bare feet. Thats how talented he is.

Like it. I had forgotten he was Kenyan. Thin end of the Kenyan wedge in cycling (jk)?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Its a detective story. Behavioral patterns, lies, changes in attitudes, performance jumps, deflections, BS, circumstantial or non-analytical evidence should all be examined, because these are the tell.

As jimmyfingers himself said, Sky could not have made themselves look more guilty if they tried. As a result they stink to high heaven, and should be placed under the microscope, admitted the litmus test, given the Inquisition. Whatever it takes.

The irony of you using what I have said as a justification for a thread as lengthy as this, given they are plenty of teamss and riders dirtier or more suspicious than Sky, is that I'm saying that if Sky were doping in the style of Armstrong/US Postal and working with Ferrari, as Hoggo has vehemently asserted, they wouldn't be making it so obvious to everyone. If they are doping then everything they have done in 2012 smacks of amateur hour, from their PR and media-relations, from their training camps and racing tactics, all of it has laid them open to easy, lazy accusations of cheating.

So ironically I think it makes them look innocent. It's the quiet ones you have to look out for. Organised, team-wide doping is proper smoke-and-mirrors, MI5 ***: not only are you dodging the cycling authorities but police forces and customs. If you were up to it you'd be doing everything you can to make sure people don't suspect, not the opposite, like Sky have done.

Some Sky riders may be doping but if they are I don't believe it's part of a team-wide programme.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The justification for a thread as lengthy as this is that there are people who do believe, and who want to believe. When everybody agrees there is doping going on, the threads don't grow to this size because there's no disagreement and argument.

Also, the justification for a thread as lengthy as this is that all those other dodgy teams you point out... they got spanked to all six corners of l'Hexagone in July by this team. And in July you have the most people watching, the most people contributing to the forum, and the discussion grows fastest. And because of smashing the péloton all over France, they've had lots of opportunities to have interviews and features on them which has placed them under scrutiny, especially bearing in mind as you said, they couldn't have looked more suspicious if they tried. After, of course, promising transparency and access. If it weren't a team people wanted to believe in, this thread would have stalled early.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Which, in and of itself is fine.

But the reason to pick that video is because it is literally the only memorable thing Froome had done until stage 9 of the 2011 Vuelta. That day was impressive. There were people (I was among them, one of even the leaders of the group) who believed that Froome was peaking for week 2 there and Löfkvist would take over as domestique of choice for Wiggins in week 3, and so Froome would soft-pedal the ITT and lose several minutes to be fresh for Wiggins.

There were a few moments of vague promise in Froome's 2008 and early 2009. Nothing remotely special, but signs that the guy could be a decent top level rider. In the wake of his Vuelta show, people were rewriting history to say that his being in the break over Croix de Fer and in the heads of state group at the bottom of Alpe d'Huez in 2008 showed that he had the talent to compete for the win at GTs. No it didn't. It was a pretty impressive show for an effective neo-pro in his first GT to have the strength to be in the break at that point. But Johan van Summeren was in that group too - it wasn't like it was élite climbers only. You know who had a more impressive showing in a GT a year later at a young age? Rigoberto Urán. He was everywhere in key moves in week 3. And Ignatas Konovalovas, winning that ITT at the end of the 2009 Giro. You know, the race where Froome performed his only memorable feat until September 2011: pulling a Taaramäe before even Taaramäe got to pull one.

If you look at Froome's career from début to May 2009, then from August 2011 to present, you could perhaps believe the progression. Even then, it'd be a little bit surprising, as other riders have shown more impressively in GTs at a young age, and you would expect them to still be above Froome. But it wouldn't be ridiculous. Unfortunately, I can't unsee May 2009 to August 2011, where he showed little improvement, did nothing of note and was close to losing his contract.

If Sky knew they had a potential British GT winner (and let's face it, even at the start of that Vuelta after showing great form in March and June, we still had no idea whether Wiggins would turn out to be that) on the roster, do you think they'd have let his contract run out? Re-signing him only AFTER that Vuelta only wound up costing them a bunch of money they wouldn't have had to spend if they'd only re-signed their potential GT winner while he was still a nobody, right? They were very quick to say that Froome had always had the 'numbers' to be a GT talent, but if that was the case, how come he'd not benefited at all from Sky's marginal gains at all until that point? The bilharzia (and its convenient relapse excusing him for sucking all year until TdF prep in 2012) accounts for some of that, sure, but he maintained that he caught it at the end of 2010... so there's a big gap from his planting it on San Luca to the end of the 2010 season where he made no progression despite having these mysterious 'numbers' that were never mentioned until he started making the likes of Nibali and Rodríguez look like chumps on climbs, whilst in a team committed to developing British riders, that we can't account for.

By most accounts, Chris Froome is a nice guy. He's an affable interview, self-deprecating at times. But he's also the possessor of one of the most suspicious transformations in modern cycling history.

This post deserves re-posting. I note the Froome supporters totally ignored it.

 

[JimmyFingers]

The justification for a thread as lengthy as this is that there are people who do believe, and who want to believe. When everybody agrees there is doping going on, the threads don't grow to this size because there's no disagreement and argument.

Also, the justification for a thread as lengthy as this is that all those other dodgy teams you point out... they got spanked to all six corners of l'Hexagone in July by this team. And in July you have the most people watching, the most people contributing to the forum, and the discussion grows fastest. And because of smashing the péloton all over France, they've had lots of opportunities to have interviews and features on them which has placed them under scrutiny, especially bearing in mind as you said, they couldn't have looked more suspicious if they tried. After, of course, promising transparency and access. If it weren't a team people wanted to believe in, this thread would have stalled early.

Ah so its the defenders of Sky that make this such a long thread, gotcha.

I understand that the success of the team garners attention, both good and bad. And I understand you're not going to get a lot of debate on a team that everyone agrees are doping, but the sheer number and length of threads, given that there's nothing but hearsay, conjecture and circumstancial evidence on Sky shows they do get a disproportionate amount of attention here. Yes they have been dominant but it's also because people simply don't like them, because of the newness of the team, the money they have, their sponsors, the association with BC etc etc. Their is an agenda against Sky that goes beyond the factors you list.

And if you want evidence just look at the fact their have been five or six pages on this thread recently discussing Wiggins' postcode, or previously the jacket he wears, or a picture of him on holiday smoking.

None are remotely relevant to this debate, something which I have said time and time again, yet this trivia is continually discussed ad infinitum in an effort to demonise certain characters.

If you want to go after Sky and find the truth then do it, and I'll applaud you. What I loathe is the moronic characters who use the clinic to get attention, say things to deliberately confront and antagonise and make accusation and insinuation about Sky staff and riders.

I get a lecture from you for saying what I just did, but I see a blind eye turned to this behaviour by and large in the clinic. I don't, I go after them and try to expose their motives and hypocrisies.

Such a lengthy thread but if you removed all the irrelevant posts you would halve it over-night. remove the endless repetitions of certain points and you'll halve it again. This thread is not challenging, or incisive, it is bloated and meandering.

 

[ebandit]

stats

Chris Froome GT record.


LOL!!!!

ms hog what a surprise! another post with zero impact

so what do these stats show?.............a nice straight line on a graph

.............a steady ( ok rapid ) progression

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Ah so its the defenders of Sky that make this such a long thread, gotcha.

I understand that the success of the team garners attention, both good and bad. And I understand you're not going to get a lot of debate on a team that everyone agrees are doping, but the sheer number and length of threads, given that there's nothing but hearsay, conjecture and circumstancial evidence on Sky shows they do get a disproportionate amount of attention here. Yes they have been dominant but it's also because people simply don't like them, because of the newness of the team, the money they have, their sponsors, the association with BC etc etc. Their is an agenda against Sky that goes beyond the factors you list.

Yes, but without the circular arguments in the Clinic that stuff would be in the Professional Road Racing forum, and this thread would be much shorter. Most of this thread is Betonköpfe on both sides of the debate. If it was just pro-Sky Betonköpfe the thread wouldn't even exist, or would only exist in the Professional Road Racing forum. If it was just anti-Sky Betonköpfe it would exist but would have petered out like the Cobo and Menchov threads.

I get a lecture from you for saying what I just did, but I see a blind eye turned to this behaviour by and large in the clinic. I don't, I go after them and try to expose their motives and hypocrisies.

That's because this is the only place to discuss doping in the forum. There are lots of threads about Sky, but for the sake of making the rest of the forum readable it makes more sense to put that which is not legitimately new information into the ongoing megathread. And then anything that IS legitimately new gets posted in here anyway. Easy to see how the thread has swelled to thousands of posts.

 

[Snafu352]

Wayne Rooney doesn't even have 3 books!

Anyway that was quick end to our debate.

I'm a proven liar. There you go. Lucky you don't hold the same standards to Wiggo. You know "Lance I love him, never raced against him - myth - raced him in 2009" interchangeable stories.

Come back another time when you toughen up and can stand the heat of the Clinic. Now on ya bike!

Where is all the proof re doping on Sky you constantly make insinuations of?

thehog = a walt

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Libertine Seguros - You truly are on a different level to most (if not all) other posters here. Chapeau, +1 etc. Marvellous, thought-provoking stuff.

 

[RownhamHill]

I'll jump in at this point and remind Sky supporters that it is ludicrous to demand proof or evidence of doping. . .

Thanks for the reminder. Let me click my heels together and repeat the mantra.

It's ludicrous to demand evidence of doping
It's ludicrous to demand evidence of doping
It's ludicrous to demand evidence of doping
There's no place like home
There's no place like home. . .

 

[thehog]

Libertine Seguros - You truly are on a different level to most (if not all) other posters here. Chapeau, +1 etc. Marvellous, thought-provoking stuff.

I would agree. His analysis and critical reasoning is first rate.

Back to the topic at hand...

I can buy the Wiggins story. It does follow a logical path. But in combination with Rogers, Porte and the the absolute absurdity of Froome the story is "not normal"

Even if Froome was this massively under discovered talent struck down by a bizarre blood virus his 2012 is weird a55.

At Romandie he was 10 minutes off the back on each stage. He couldn't keep up with the peloton! But somehow not only managed to come back to a good fitness level 6 weeks later but to a Tour crushing climbing and TT level!

Romandie to the Tour - that just defies "not normal normal!"

Marginal gains don't give a turn around like Froome's. Not in 2 years and certainly not in 6 weeks.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Wait, I thought it was Ellingworth who was coaching Wiggin's in 2009 whilst at Garmin. So are you saying that even Ellingworth viewed Froome as a bigger GC potential than Wiggin's. Was Wiggins's own coach caught by surprise by his own protege. Something doesn't quite add up here.

From what I know, Sky set their Tour victory target year as 2014 as they were banking on one of the guys in the Academy at the time. That is, someone in his teens at the time who would be bid 20s by 2014. Pete Kennaugh has always been spoken of as "the man" in this respect.

Despite training with Ellingworth in early 2009, Wiggo played no part in Sky's masterplan, which was always to sign Cav to bag lots of wins in 2010-2012 before launching Kennaugh (or whoever "the man" was) on the GT trail in a serious fashion.

For whatever reason, Cav didn't sign for Sky initially and Wiggo surprised everyone with his 2009 Tour performance. It must have surprised Sky, as presumably had they known his potential in early 2009, they'd have signed him for a much lower salary and much lower payoff to Garmin than they had to shell out when they signed him in late 2009.

Wiggo training with Ellingworth in early 2009 appears more like him wanting to stick with what he was comfortable with - i.e. the GB squad setup - rather than some masterplan by Sky to prepare him for future GT success once they'd lured him away from Garmin.

I don't think Froome registered on Sky's radar as a serious rider until the Vuelta in 2011, as otherwise, as others have stated, he would not have been consigned to the "out of contract" scrap heap.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I can buy the Wiggins story. It does follow a logical path. But in combination with Rogers, Porte and the the absolute absurdity of Froome the story is "not normal"

It was when Froome came from nowhere in the 2011 Vuelta that I was reminded of my Father In Law's saying about investments: "If something seems too good to be true, then it most likely is."

After this, one has to be suspicious of Sky, although this obviously doesn't mean that every argument put forward against them is valid!