Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I guess if Froome had been born in the Wirral and been spotted flying up the Cat and Fiddle aged 14 and been taken under BC's wing he might have shown a different set of results?

We'll never know.

You can look at what he's done and create a case for him being clean, and you can create one for him being dirty, and in either case make out like you are being objective, when at best you can be empirical but that means you must at least acknowledge the other point of view*.

The performances are plausible, just, but the circumstancial evidence based on cycling's prior history mounts.

*But this is the Clinic, we dont do that - we do dogma, whether its doping or non-doping...

Now, lets do a numbers game on Froome's great Alpe d'Huez stage.

Vetoo has measured Sastre at 6.04w/k
Via the following site:
http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm
we get the next result for Sastre

E r g e b n i s

***#####7.6 % mittlere Steigung

***####20.9 km/h mittlere Geschwindigkeit

***####69.0 kg Gesamtgewicht

***###302.7 Watt Steigungsleistung

***####48.0 Watt Leistung für Luftwiderstand

***####20.0 Watt Leistung für Rollwiderstand

***###370.9 Watt Gesamtleistung

***#####6.0 Watt pro Kg Körpergewicht

***###913.6 Kcal Kalorienverbrauch bzw. 3825.1 KJ

That looks a lot like 6.04 we know from Vetoo, less than 1% margin of error. We know by Vaughters vetoo is sometimes 1 or 2% wrong.

Now we take Froome:

E r g e b n i s

***#####7.6 % mittlere Steigung

***####16.1 km/h mittlere Geschwindigkeit

***####80.0 kg Gesamtgewicht

***###270.9 Watt Steigungsleistung

***####22.0 Watt Leistung für Luftwiderstand

***####17.9 Watt Leistung für Rollwiderstand

***###311.0 Watt Gesamtleistung

***#####4.3 Watt pro Kg Körpergewicht

***###992.4 Kcal Kalorienverbrauch bzw. 4155.2 KJ

Now, tell me, as a normal human being, Froome being able to ride at 5.9w/k at the Tour 2012/Vuelta 2011, is that a marginal gain?

From 4.3 to 5.8/5.9 is 35% improvement in my book.

Ed Coyle should do a study on him.

Yes. He admitted, for example, that he did not eat enough before Alpe D'huez and bonked halfway up the climb

Of course you can back that up.

 

[will10]

The rst site is not reliable. You're better off working it out manually.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The rst site is not reliable. You're better off working it out manually.

Thats why I compared it to someone who is really good at it. Even with a 5% margin the numbers speak for themselfs.

 

[mastersracer]

Now, lets do a numbers game on Froome's great Alpe d'Huez stage.

Vetoo has measured Sastre at 6.04w/k
Via the following site:
http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm
we get the next result for Sastre

That looks a lot like 6.04 we know from Vetoo, less than 1% margin of error. We know by Vaughters vetoo is sometimes 1 or 2% wrong.

Now we take Froome:

Now, tell me, as a normal human being, Froome being able to ride at 5.9w/k at the Tour 2012/Vuelta 2011, is that a marginal gain?

From 4.3 to 5.8/5.9 is 35% improvement in my book.

Ed Coyle should do a study on him.

Yes. He admitted, for example, that he did not eat enough before Alpe D'huez and bonked halfway up the climb

Of course you can back that up.

I can back up every statement I make: Froome interviewed by cyclingnews in 2008:

"One moment, during the Alpe d'Huez stage, Corti called me back to the car to get more gels. I said, 'No, no. I am fine.' I just had one gel in my pocket. About four kilometres into Alpe d'Huez I blew completely and lost a hell of a lot of time. That hit home how important energy is, that showed me a lesson. He said, 'Why did you not come back? You needed about 10 gels, not one!'"

The average power for the entire climb is going to be unrevealing given that his output was so distinct between first and second parts.

 

[BYOP88]

Now, lets do a numbers game on Froome's great Alpe d'Huez stage.

Vetoo has measured Sastre at 6.04w/k
Via the following site:
http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm
we get the next result for Sastre

That looks a lot like 6.04 we know from Vetoo, less than 1% margin of error. We know by Vaughters vetoo is sometimes 1 or 2% wrong.

Now we take Froome:

Now, tell me, as a normal human being, Froome being able to ride at 5.9w/k at the Tour 2012/Vuelta 2011, is that a marginal gain?

From 4.3 to 5.8/5.9 is 35% improvement in my book.

Ed Coyle should do a study on him.Of course you can back that up.

Hey but 4.3 is top level in Africa. Froome hadn't learnt how to ride on European roads at that time. So when he came to Europe he was stuck on African w/k and wasn't used to the better road surfaces in Europe. It was only at the 2011 Vuelta where he got used to European roads and was able to increase his w/k and show his true ability.

 

[will10]

Thats why I compared it to someone who is really good at it. Even with a 5% margin the numbers speak for themselfs.

You can compare several of the vetoo calculations to the rst ones and get a big margin for error. The fact you found one climb where the two agree does not verify the rst site.

 

[will10]

I can back up every statement I make: Froome interviewed by cyclingnews in 2008:

"One moment, during the Alpe d'Huez stage, Corti called me back to the car to get more gels. I said, 'No, no. I am fine.' I just had one gel in my pocket. About four kilometres into Alpe d'Huez I blew completely and lost a hell of a lot of time. That hit home how important energy is, that showed me a lesson. He said, 'Why did you not come back? You needed about 10 gels, not one!'"

The average power for the entire climb is going to be unrevealing given that his output was so distinct between first and second parts.

You'd have thought with such a bucketload of talent he'd have had another chance to show it again in the next 38 months after L'Alpe.

 

[D-Queued]

I really do not think that there is an organised team doping programme at Sky. What there is though is a ethos which puts enormous pressure on an individual to perform.

This means that the responsibility for any doping would fall at the individuals feet whilst the powers at be are protected by "Team Policy", this also would help to enforce the omerta having a team of "individual dopers", rather than "team doping".

Like any big organisation the management don't know what is going on, on the ground. That may be because they are just unaware, or they don't really wan't to know. With a limited career, good wages at Sky and enormous pressure to perform I find it hard to find a reason why a rider wouldnt dope.

That's refreshing.

Sure hope the riders don't talk to one another and informally collaborate or anything. And, sure hope that whoever they might be seeing would never do anything for another rider.



As we know, post-Festina, the teams moved to an 'arms-length' relationship with the doping programs. This is why both Ferrari and Fuentes found themselves with an appealing market for their services.

Now, lets do a numbers game on Froome's great Alpe d'Huez stage.

Vetoo has measured Sastre at 6.04w/k
Via the following site:
http://www.rst.mp-all.de/bergauf.htm
we get the next result for Sastre

That looks a lot like 6.04 we know from Vetoo, less than 1% margin of error. We know by Vaughters vetoo is sometimes 1 or 2% wrong.

Now we take Froome:

Now, tell me, as a normal human being, Froome being able to ride at 5.9w/k at the Tour 2012/Vuelta 2011, is that a marginal gain?

From 4.3 to 5.8/5.9 is 35% improvement in my book.

Ed Coyle should do a study on him.Of course you can back that up.

Ach.

One standard deviation = 68%.

In other words, by very loose statistical assessment, a 35% gain in a highly trained individual is still marginal. This is barely one-half of one standard deviation for the general population, and we are talking about the elite here.

Heck, you are right. Coyle could easily justify this with an even less sophisticated statistical argument.



Dave.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I can back up every statement I make: Froome interviewed by cyclingnews in 2008:

"One moment, during the Alpe d'Huez stage, Corti called me back to the car to get more gels. I said, 'No, no. I am fine.' I just had one gel in my pocket. About four kilometres into Alpe d'Huez I blew completely and lost a hell of a lot of time. That hit home how important energy is, that showed me a lesson. He said, 'Why did you not come back? You needed about 10 gels, not one!'"

The average power for the entire climb is going to be unrevealing given that his output was so distinct between first and second parts.

Link us up scotty.

Jan Ullrich had the mother of all hungerbonks in 1998 and lost five minutes in the climb up to les Deux Alpes, 8.8 kilometres that is. So, your boy lost 9 minutes in almost 8.8 kilometres?

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/59872498
Watch at 5 minutes 44 seconds, 1.6 kilometres in the climb he is dropped, that is something else.

He should just have hung on a motorbike like on the Mortirolo in 2010.

1000 days panne aqua I call him.

And, for potential, I know a lot of young riders who have done the same, in the past and present, and yet they did not turn out to be the best climber/TT'er combo.

You can compare several of the vetoo calculations to the rst ones and get a big margin for error. The fact you found one climb where the two agree does not verify the rst site

It is a strange site, I agree.
Sometimes it is right on, sometimes you get a 5/10% margin. Perhaps l'Alpe is pre - programmed. If you have another site that is good I am all ears.

 

[JRanton]

Did you see him attempt to take on Alberto on Sunday? He got a little aggressive there. Soon he’ll be chasing down Ag2R riders and taunting them.

From 11th March

Good one Hog. That didn't take long.

 

[thehog]

From 11th March

Good one Hog. That didn't take long.

Template of a doper. Not hard to pick them out.

 

[mastersracer]

Link us up scotty.

Jan Ullrich had the mother of all hungerbonks in 1998 and lost five minutes in the climb up to les Deux Alpes, 8.8 kilometres that is. So, your boy lost 9 minutes in almost 8.8 kilometres?

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/59872498
Watch at 5 minutes 44 seconds, 1.6 kilometres in the climb he is dropped, that is something else.

He should just have hung on a motorbike like on the Mortirolo in 2010.

1000 days panne aqua I call him.

And, for potential, I know a lot of young riders who have done the same, in the past and present, and yet they did not turn out to be the best climber/TT'er combo.
It is a strange site, I agree.

So what? The two main white jersey contenders, Nibali and Monfort, couldn't even hold pace on the previous climb, the Croix de fer, and got dropped there. By the way, at 13:01 he's still with Menchov dangling off the yellow jersey group before he cracks. Yes, some riders show potential but don't turn out to be grand tour contenders. But some do.

 

[Havetts]

So what? The two main white jersey contenders, Nibali and Monfort, couldn't even hold pace on the previous climb, the Croix de fer, and got dropped there. By the way, at 13:01 he's still with Menchov dangling off the yellow jersey group before he cracks. Yes, some riders show potential but don't turn out to be grand tour contenders. But some do.

Are you really implying that holding on to a cracking Menchov who literally exploded for 1,6 km in total, is sign of GT potential? Not to mention he lost 8 minutes afterwards.. Dont bother, its rhetoric, you have been arguing the same thing for approx 200 out of 420 pages now and its been debunked over and over and over.

Get Mario Aerts back from retirement please, we have to tell him he is capable of winning Grand Tours now.

 

[skidmark]

Ach.

One standard deviation = 68%.

In other words, by very loose statistical assessment, a 35% gain in a highly trained individual is still marginal. This is barely one-half of one standard deviation for the general population, and we are talking about the elite here.

Heck, you are right. Coyle could easily justify this with an even less sophisticated statistical argument.



Dave.

That, of course, is assuming that 4.3 W/Kg is at the mean. Yes, in normally distributed data, 68% of results fall within 1 SD below or above the mean, but if Froome was, say, 1 SD above the mean already, an improvement from 4.3 W/Kg to 5.8 would be insanely unlikely by chance.

Anyway, problems with this kind of out-of-context numerical analysis include:

- not knowing the mean
- not knowing the standard deviation
- not accounting for whether Froome was at his maximum, riding easy pace to finish line, had blown up (which was what he said in the interview), which makes a comparison with an athlete at their max totally irrelevant
- not accounting for systematic improvement over age and development rather than chance

This is not directed at you, D-Queued, but rather at the thread in general - these 'objective' analysis are no more than peripheral evidence to a whole that you have to believe or not believe, in the end. I believe, due to everything to do with development, performance of teammates, things said in the media, and especially, especially the history of cycling and elite sports, that Froome is doping. But analyzing his 'trajectory' before and after joining Sky, for example, is useless in and of itself. If we were to nitpick that narrowly, we'd conclude that Jonathan Tiernan-Locke was clean for years, doped with Endura last year (on some AMAZING program) and then now is clean with Sky, since he's not winning stuff. In the end, the old Ullrich quote about anyone not being able to put 1+1 together being beyond his help is appropriate to this debate; not that it's quite as clear as 1+1 anymore, but rather that you have to look at the whole context of elite sports to basically draw your own conclusion.

 

[mastersracer]

Are you really implying that holding on to a cracking Menchov who literally exploded for 1,6 km in total, is sign of GT potential? Not to mention he lost 8 minutes afterwards.. Dont bother, its rhetoric, you have been arguing the same thing for approx 200 out of 420 pages now and its been debunked over and over and over.

Get Mario Aerts back from retirement please, we have to tell him he is capable of winning Grand Tours now.

Menchov did end up 8th on that stage and was coming back to the yellow jersey group when Froome popped. And, yes, doing better than the white jersey on the Queen stage of your first Tour, is an indication of potential. As I said, it needs to be judged against the right reference class - there are no natural laws regarding how a rider develops.

 

[Parrulo]

So what? The two main white jersey contenders, Nibali and Monfort, couldn't even hold pace on the previous climb, the Croix de fer, and got dropped there. By the way, at 13:01 he's still with Menchov dangling off the yellow jersey group before he cracks. Yes, some riders show potential but don't turn out to be grand tour contenders. But some do.

once again with this?

Giro d'Italia 2008, General classification:

1. CONTADOR VELASCO Alberto AST 89h56'49" 500
2. RICCO Riccardo SDV 01'57" 375
3. BRUSEGHIN Marzio LAM 02'54" 315
4. PELLIZOTTI Franco LIQ 02'56" 270
5. MENCHOV Denis RAB 03'37" 245
6. SELLA Emanuele CSF 04'31" 220
7. VAN DEN BROECK Jurgen SIL 06'30" 195
8. DI LUCA Danilo LPR 07'15" 170
9. POZZOVIVO Domenico CSF 07'53" 155
10. SIMONI Gilberto SDA 11'03" 140
11. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 20'14" 125


Tour de France 2008, Stage 4 : Cholet I.T.T. (29.5 km):

9. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 29" 2
31. FROOME Chris BAR 01'31" 0

Tour de France 2008, Stage 6 : Aigurande - Super Besse (195.5 km)

49. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 02'19" 0
73. FROOME Chris BAR 04'48" 0

Tour de France 2008, Stage 9 : Toulouse - Bagnères-de-Bigorre (224 km)

12. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 01'17" 0 (with all the favourites)
46. FROOME Chris BAR 01'57" 0

Tour de France 2008, Stage 10 : Pau - Hautacam (156 km)

9. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 03'40" 2
115. FROOME Chris BAR 33'14" 0

Tour de France 2008, Stage 15 : Embrun - Prato Nevoso (Ita) (183 km)

19. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 05'46" 0
125. FROOME Chris BAR 25'33" 0

Tour de France 2008, Stage 16 : Cuneo (Ita) - Jausiers (157 km)

31. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 05'13" 0
136. FROOME Chris BAR 31'56"

Tour de France 2008, Stage 17 : Embrun - L'Alpe-d'Huez (210.5 km)

30. FROOME Chris BAR 11'41
40. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 17'21" 0

Tour de France 2008, Stage 20 : Cérilly - Saint-Amand-Montrond I.T.T. (53 km)

14. FROOME Chris BAR 02'39" 0
47. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 05'07" 0

Tour de France 2008, General classification

18. NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 28'33" 82
81. FROOME Chris BAR 2h22'33" 20

you keep giving the ApD result as a prof of froome's immense talent and give nibali as comparing device as they are roughly the same age yet you ignore all the circumstances that shown that at the time nibali was about 20 leagues ahead of froome and the only reason why froome gained time on nibali over the last 2 important GC stages was because nibali was completely cooked from doing a Giro- Tour double as a 23 year old.

 

[maxmartin]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sut...h-other-at-tour-of-flanders-and-paris-roubaix

Die for each other, LMAF.

Sure, I need 200cc blood. LOL

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I do not think you are a bad guy or so, and I like discussing but after reading this

So what? The two main white jersey contenders, Nibali and Monfort, couldn't even hold pace on the previous climb, the Croix de fer, and got dropped there. By the way, at 13:01 he's still with Menchov dangling off the yellow jersey group before he cracks. Yes, some riders show potential but don't turn out to be grand tour contenders. But some do.

and this

Menchov did end up 8th on that stage and was coming back to the yellow jersey group when Froome popped. And, yes, doing better than the white jersey on the Queen stage of your first Tour, is an indication of potential. As I said, it needs to be judged against the right reference class - there are no natural laws regarding how a rider develops.

makes me want to show you this:
Young rider classification

1 Andy Schleck (Lux) Team CSC - Saxo Bank 74.49.18
2 Roman Kreuziger (Cze) Liquigas 1.58
3 Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Liquigas 15.24
4 Maxime Monfort (Bel) Cofidis - Le Crédit par Téléphone 24.33
5 Eduardo Gonzalo Ramirez (Spa) Agritubel 1.04.36
6 Thomas Lövkvist (Swe) Team Columbia 1.15.17
7 John-Lee Augustyn (RSA) Barloworld 1.19.58
8 Rémy Di Grégorio (Fra) Française des Jeux 1.20.55
9 Peter Velits (Svk) Team Milram 1.37.06
10 Luis Leon Sanchez Gil (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne 1.43.18
11 Trent Lowe (Aus) Team Garmin-Chipotle p/b H30 1.56.52
12 Christopher Froome (Ken) Barloworld 2.08.17
13 Gerald Ciolek (Ger) Team Columbia 2.43.21
14 Matteo Bono (Ita) Lampre 2.58.40
15 Niki Terpstra (Ned) Team Milram 3.02.18
16 Romain Feillu (Fra) Agritubel 3.05.47
17 Jérémy Roy (Fra) Française des Jeux 3.06.37
18 Heinrich Haussler (Ger) Gerolsteiner 3.07.56
19 Marcus Burghardt (Ger) Team Columbia 3.08.33
20 Sebastian Langeveld (Ned) Rabobank 3.11.52
21 Martijn Maaskant (Ned) Team Garmin-Chipotle p/b H30 3.12.26
22 Arnaud Gérard (Fra) Française des Jeux 3.14.48
23 Sven Krauss (Ger) Gerolsteiner 3.21.30

And then, there are several conclusions to be made out of your posts with regarding to SKY. But please, do not underestimate peoples intelligence.

Augustyn, now there was a talent. Not tha dawg.

 

[the sceptic]

With Mastersracer logic, everyone thats had a decent day in their career could be a grand tour winner at some point. Good news for the vast majority or riders that participate in pro tour races. Or does this formula only work on British riders that are willing to train hard and smart?

 

[fruit bars with eyes]

we need to trace F-Dawg back to 2006
where James Ouchterlony beat him
now Ouchterlony was a beast on a mtb- but his training mainly consisted of riding to Stirling with empty panniers, and riding back with heavy shopping
margarine gains and all that

1 Liam Killeen (England) 2.13.11
2 Oli Beckingsale (England) 0.15
3 Seamus Patrick McGrath (Canada) 0.32
4 Chris Jongewaard (Australia) 1.57
5 Kashi Leuchs (New Zealand) 2.18
6 Sid Taberlay (Australia) 4.07
7 Joshua Fleming (Australia) 7.03
8 Mike Northcott (New Zealand) 8.00
9 Mannie Heymans (Namibia) 8.21
10 Burry Willie Stander (Republic of South Africa) 8.48
11 Geoff Kabush (Canada) 10.33
12 Simon Richardson (England)
13 Gareth Montgomerie (Scotland) 11.42
14 Marc Bassingthwaighte (Namibia) 13.22
15 Steven Roach (Wales) 14.02
16 Clinton Avery (New Zealand) 14.19
17 Ermin Van Wyk (Namibia) 15.45
18 James Ouchterlony (Scotland) 16.41
19 Lewis Ferguson (Northern Ireland) 17.35
OVL Andrew Roche (Isle Of Man)
OVL Christopher Clive Froome (Kenya)
OVL Davidson Kamau Kihagi (Kenya)
OVL David Kinjah (Kenya)
OVL Robert James Smart (Guernsey)
OVL Azwimangadzi Jus. Makhale (Republic of South Africa)

 

[maxmartin]

With Mastersracer logic, everyone thats had a decent day in their career could be a grand tour winner at some point. Good news for the vast majority or riders that participate in pro tour races. Or does this formula only work on British riders that are willing to train hard and smart?

cherry picking data to support his argument is his only tool.

 

[mastersracer]

cherry picking data to support his argument is his only tool.

I'm still waiting on your citations as per your post I responded to yesterday...

 

[BYOP88]

I do not think you are a bad guy or so, and I like discussing but after reading this


and this



makes me want to show you this:
Young rider classification

1 Andy Schleck (Lux) Team CSC - Saxo Bank 74.49.18
2 Roman Kreuziger (Cze) Liquigas 1.58
3 Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Liquigas 15.24
4 Maxime Monfort (Bel) Cofidis - Le Crédit par Téléphone 24.33
5 Eduardo Gonzalo Ramirez (Spa) Agritubel 1.04.36
6 Thomas Lövkvist (Swe) Team Columbia 1.15.17
7 John-Lee Augustyn (RSA) Barloworld 1.19.58
8 Rémy Di Grégorio (Fra) Française des Jeux 1.20.55
9 Peter Velits (Svk) Team Milram 1.37.06
10 Luis Leon Sanchez Gil (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne 1.43.18
11 Trent Lowe (Aus) Team Garmin-Chipotle p/b H30 1.56.52
12 Christopher Froome (Ken) Barloworld 2.08.17
13 Gerald Ciolek (Ger) Team Columbia 2.43.21
14 Matteo Bono (Ita) Lampre 2.58.40
15 Niki Terpstra (Ned) Team Milram 3.02.18
16 Romain Feillu (Fra) Agritubel 3.05.47
17 Jérémy Roy (Fra) Française des Jeux 3.06.37
18 Heinrich Haussler (Ger) Gerolsteiner 3.07.56
19 Marcus Burghardt (Ger) Team Columbia 3.08.33
20 Sebastian Langeveld (Ned) Rabobank 3.11.52
21 Martijn Maaskant (Ned) Team Garmin-Chipotle p/b H30 3.12.26
22 Arnaud Gérard (Fra) Française des Jeux 3.14.48
23 Sven Krauss (Ger) Gerolsteiner 3.21.30

And then, there are several conclusions to be made out of your posts with regarding to SKY. But please, do not underestimate peoples intelligence.

Augustyn, now there was a talent. Not tha dawg.

Somebody needs to get Trent Lowe back into the sport, future GT winner there. Maybe if Ciolek cuts out the drink and trains harder he could become a GT winner, only 35 minutes behind Froome. If with the right training Froome can shave 2 hours out of Nibs(How much time would Froome have lost if Nibs had only ridden the Tour?), then Ciolek should be able to match that too.

 

[thehog]

Somebody needs to get Trent Lowe back into the sport, future GT winner there. Maybe if Ciolek cuts out the drink and trains harder he could become a GT winner, only 35 minutes behind Froome. If with the right training Froome can shave 2 hours out of Nibs(How much time would Froome have lost if Nibs had only ridden the Tour?), then Ciolek should be able to match that too.

Bono was just behind F-Dawg in 14th place.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

This fallacy is easy to see in other contexts. Ezekiel Ansah, for example, may be a top 10 NFL draft choice. He's from Ghana and has incredibly poor football skills. Obviously not as developed as an American who grew up playing the game. But it would be ridiculous for an NFL scout to grade him against that reference class. But this is exactly the fallacy occurring in these discussions about Froome.

However, you would then expect Ansah's productivity to be increasing as he develops as he theoretically plays catch-up with the Americans whose skills are more developed due to growing up with the game. Froome's productivity was not just static, but going backwards. He had seldom shown even the level that he showed in that Alpe d'Huez stage again, and his best mountain stage result prior to the 2011 Vuelta came even earlier (3rd to Mont Faron in the 2008 Tour Med). His best mountain performance between l'Alpe and La Covatilla 37 months later was in the 2010 Brixia Tour, when he finished 9th, just 2 short minutes behind Domenico Pozzovivo, and performed to a level where he was almost able to compete with lauded climbing legends like Bartosz Huzarski and Alessandro Bertuola, finishing just 1'08 behind the former and 31" behind the latter, and just a minute and a half behind his own younger teammate Morris Possoni, who as we know has gone on to domina... oh wait.

Froome's breakout was not indicative of somebody who was behind the development curve due to his background catching up... it was indicative of somebody who had shown a bit of promise a while back but who was struggling to break past the first couple of levels of the game bashing "up up down down left right left right B A Start".

Here are a few people who you might want to put a little bet on for the GC of a Grand Tour in the near future. You never know, after all it happened to Chris Froome:

- Jonathan Hivert: the Sojasun man was 8th to Montagne de la Lure in Paris-Nice a few years ago, only 3 seconds behind Samuel Sánchez and 1'34 behind Alberto Contador. Fränk Schleck could only beat him by 36 seconds, which makes him approximately 15 times closer to Schleck's standard than Froome was on Alpe d'Huez. He was also less than 4 mins down on Luz Ardiden two years later.
- Branislau Samoilau: the Belarusian was only 6 minutes down on Monte Zoncolán in 2010 and finished a highly creditable 39th.
- Marcel Wyss: the Swiss finished in the top 20 to Aprica in one of the toughest-raced GT stages of recent times.
- Paul Voss: showed TT ability when he won a prologue in Catalunya, but also finished just 6 minutes behind on Bola del Mundo in 2010, a sure harbinger of great things to come.
- Tom Peterson: now with Argos Shimano, the former Garmin man came 15th to Cotobello over some difficult passes in 2010, together with podium man Velits just 2'18 before the first of the GC men.
- Rob Ruijgh: on the Galibier stage in 2011, which was raced from a long way out, Rob was only 7'25 back on Andy Schleck, which means he stayed within 5 minutes of the heads of state.
- Egor Silin: the Russian was only 19 seconds behind Ruijgh and is two years younger - plus the picture of him on CQ makes him look a bit like Froome which is obviously a sign of talent.
- Gorka Izagirre: the Basque was less than the magic 9 minutes down on l'Alpe in 2011, and what's more he won the Prueba Villafranca de Ordizia-Ordiziako Klasika, which has a name almost as silly as the Anatomic Jock Race that Froome made his name in.