The Climb (Froome's first autobiography)

[Ventoux Boar]

He didn't once in 2 whole seasons realize that he was one of the most gifted climbers in the history of the sport? Please.

I'd be interested in how you justify such outlandish hyperbole. Thanks.

 

[JRanton]

I don't know. People IMO say that with Wiggins because he broke out when people didn't think of doping as much and when they did, they see 2009 Tour as a prescedent that is somehow supposed to show he can do well clean. Wiggins never even had to come up with an explanation like Froome has had to, and nor did any rider who emerged out of nowhere.

Sky tried the same thing with Froome later by using his 2011 Vuelta result as a prior good result that is supposed to show Froome was perfectly capable of winning the Tour later (the data they show the Armstrong defender last year deliberately did not go back to 2011 Vuelta, becuase they want to pretend that like with Wiggins 2009 Tour, that is supposed to be some sort of pre suspicion data point which even sceptics won't question).

Anyway if we move back a bit to say 2006 or earlier and look at wiggos 2009 Tour from that view, I don't see how his 4th (3rd if not for technicalities) was really any less of a transformation than Froomes 2nd (1st if not for technicalities) at the 2011 Vuelta. The TDF of course has a better field and whatsmore was doped to the rafters. Hell we know now even the breakaway riders from that Tour were on full doping programmes. And Wiggins had shown even less climbing ability than Froome had by that stage. He had also just done a full giro and only had a few weeks to prepare for the Tour compared to a rested Froome who went into the 2011 Vuelta far more fresh than anyone apart from the man who beat him. And wiggins was 29 years old.

IMO A 29 year old Wiggins has that transformation in 2011 like Froome and it gets treated as the more ridiculous of the 2. The only reason he gets let off so lightly is because he had it during what some call the "epo" era when people didn't think so much about doping and when they started to think about it they wrongly saw Wiggins as someone who had proven himself already.

Fair points Hitch. I do think the whole track thing is relevant with Wiggins though. You could make the argument that it was like a safety net for him and held him back from fulfilling his potential on the road in his early years. Motivation is a big issue with Wiggins, irrespective of whether he's doping or not. I do think we sometimes overlook (myself included) how big a role the mental state of riders plays when it comes to analysing performances. That's understandable though given that doping has so often been the explanation for dramatic fluctuations in performances.

Froome, on the other hand has a completely different mentality to Wiggins. I'm always reminded of the story of him hacking into Kenyan Cycling's email account in order to secure a ride at the Worlds Under 23s TT.

This is a guy who would do anything to get to the top. He had a dream and nobody was going to stop him.

 

[JRanton]

The best argument I can make in favour of Froome being clean is that his transformation was so ludicrous that it can't even be explained by doping and that if you're to believe Mr Vaughters doping these days provides only a marginal boost if you're to have any chance of beating the tests.*

* I don't believe that but it's the best I can come up with in Froome's defence.

 

[Benotti69]

The best argument I can make in favour of Froome being clean is that his transformation was so ludicrous that it can't even be explained by doping and that if you're to believe Mr Vaughters doping these days provides only a marginal boost if you're to have any chance of beating the tests.*

* I don't believe that but it's the best I can come up with in Froome's defence.

A marginal boost over a 3 week period adds up to a lot and JV is a businessman selling his team to make money.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The best argument I can make in favour of Froome being clean is that his transformation was so ludicrous that it can't even be explained by doping and that if you're to believe Mr Vaughters doping these days provides only a marginal boost if you're to have any chance of beating the tests.*

* I don't believe that but it's the best I can come up with in Froome's defence.

Goodness.

So which explanation do you attribute to his success? The pineapple juice and the espresso finishing bottles.

If you have a list of potential explanations, choose the simplest one.

Doping is the simplest one.

 

[Granville57]

I've criticised that book but there's a generalisation put forward by members of this forum he is a poor writer full stop. That wasn't said by them in reference to his other books with Lance before he reported inside Sky.

Maybe it just wasn't all that important to point out at the time?
I found Lance to Landis to be eye opening, but I never felt the book was put together all that well. As has been pointed out, it jumps around somewhat clumsily at times, and some of the accusations left some gaping holes, but substantial parts of it were damning enough that only a fool wouldn't be able to connect the dots.

Now, did I, personally, express my criticism of Walsh's writing style to others here in The Clinic? I've no idea (but I may try to check), because as I've previously stated, there were more pertinent issues being discussed. Do I care one bit if anyone believes that I was critical of Walsh amongst my friends? Nope. The issue is just not worth much of my time either way.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think that's key. The revelations of those earlier books meant the content trumped the style - so why criticise the style when the content is so riveting, you won't notice it anywhere near as much.

But Walsh's content has taken a nosedive since - Sky and Froome defense if anything.

So there's nothing interesting to distract you from the style, meaning it comes under more scrutiny now.

 

[Digger]

Honestly - we already know what he wrote in the 80s, by his own admittance, was fan with a typewriter stuff.

Lance stuff, no doubt, was really good investigative pieces at times. He was done a favour that LAC wasn't published in English, as it was actually short on facts and evidence.
From Lance to Landis was a very good book in my view. I would be a hypocrite to say otherwise. I gave it to a friend, who doesn't follow cycling and he thought Walsh stretched the evidence and his arguments were weak at times. I disagreed with him.

Seven Deadly Sins, by his own admittance again, was put out for the Xmas market in a month to prepare. And it had all the signs of it. Not good.

Sky book...was just awful. And as I said many times, Walsh can believe in Sky all he wants. I could respect it, IF he was consistent and thorough in the Sky book. It was short on fact checking, research, consistency and downright common sense.


Unlike many on here, I am not hugely bothered about writing styles. However, the metaphors he tried to use in the SKY book were cringeworthy. Butterfly...the bible reference...taking on the role of some kind of cockney judge where he says 'looks clean to me'.


I will always disagree with one thing. He did something very hard by going for lance. He was on his own to a large extent and I respect that. However he seems to think his work had a large part in taking down lance. He said Landis' revelations would not have been effective without his work...his work made zero difference.
In my view he's certainly not short on confidence or ego...

 

[elduggo]

The best argument I can make in favour of Froome being clean is that his transformation was so ludicrous that it can't even be explained by doping and that if you're to believe Mr Vaughters doping these days provides only a marginal boost if you're to have any chance of beating the tests.*

* I don't believe that but it's the best I can come up with in Froome's defence.

JV needs to sign an ex-Sky rider (from the Sky 'inner-circle') to find out what they're up to.

Mick Rogers maybe.

Does Froome's transformation matter that much though? I mean, sure its a massive red flag but even if he rode his full career the way he rides now, would anyone still believe hes doing it clean? Considering its probably not even humanly possible (didn't JV himself do some head-scratching when considering Froome's numbers (or the best guess thereof seeing as Froome keeps his numbers to himself)) without the aid of some go-faster-juice.

 

[elduggo]

Seven Deadly Sins, by his own admittance again, was put out for the Xmas market in a month to prepare. And it had all the signs of it. Not good.

In a short space of time I read Tyler Hamilton's book, the USADA report, and Seven Deadly Sins. By the time I got to Seven Deadly Sins I was bored by the repetition. Walsh had to cash in on the USADA report by turning it into a book and adding his own personal slant on things, seeing as he was, to be fair, heavily involved in its coming about.

Walsh's transformation since then is almost as mind-boggling as Chris Froome's

 

[nomapnocompass]

Does Froome's transformation matter that much though? I mean, sure its a massive red flag but even if he rode his full career the way he rides now, would anyone still believe hes doing it clean?

Very true, Froome looks ridiculous on the bike, came out of nowhere and became the best climber in the world. Underneath it all I suspect even the most hardened Sky fans realise he is doping, in the same way that most Lance fans knew that he was doping but chose to ignore it.

 

[The Hitch]

I'd be interested in how you justify such outlandish hyperbole. Thanks.

so you aknowledge Wiggins doped then?

Because if he doper I agree with you. Not even close.

But if he's clean, he's arguably the greatest climber of the last 20 years until froome since anyone that came close to posting his times and speeds was doped to the rafters.

They could all only climb like that because of superadvanced doping programmes.

Wiggins alone in recent cycling history (until froome) allegedly could climb like that naturally. Insane.

 

[The Hitch]

The best argument I can make in favour of Froome being clean is that his transformation was so ludicrous that it can't even be explained by doping and that if you're to believe Mr Vaughters doping these days provides only a marginal boost if you're to have any chance of beating the tests.*

* I don't believe that but it's the best I can come up with in Froome's defence.

It's not an argument though. It doesn't disqualify doping. All it does is suggest that there may be other factors besides just the doping. But if the transformation is really big it's perfectly possible that doping accounts for some of it, and non doping for the rest. More realistic than the idea that doping accounts for none of it.


As for Wiggins time on the track is time lost. No one can just climb mountains and do multiple mountain stages on their first attempt. It takes years of practice and building endurance and gaining experience. Otherwise youth developmental teams wouldn't exist. Otherwise people who grew up near mountains wouldn't be better climbers (Hell in the Quintana thread some Wiggins defenders even are attributing quintanas performances to riding mountains from a young age)

Its actually a massive disadvantage for Wiggins that for a decade, longer even while he was doing a totally different discipline, all his opponents were improving themselves by actually riding mountains, hills, racing them. Starting cycling at 29 that is experience he could never get back.
But of course he was so talented he managed to surpass even that.

Imagine if mythWiggins had actually grown up riding hills, and cone up through road cycling teams. With the once in 10 generations Jesse Owenesque talent he possesses, we would have seen someone climb like pantani and tt like Indurain, but totally clean

 

[the sceptic]

and thus the legend was born...

 

[RownhamHill]

Isn't a key difference between Wiggins 2009 transformation and Froome's 2011 transformation that Froome hadn't spent the previous 8 years concentrating on winning 6 Olympic medals (three of which were gold) in a completely different discipline of cycling?

No, since Wiggins spent at least 2 full years of that time concentrating entirely on road. he said so himself in 2005 that it was 100% road from that point until 2007.

So try again.

As for Wiggins time on the track is time lost. No one can just climb mountains and do multiple mountain stages on their first attempt. . .

Its actually a massive disadvantage for Wiggins that for a decade, longer even while he was doing a totally different discipline, all his opponents were improving themselves by actually riding mountains, hills, racing them.

I'm a bit confused now, it sounds a lot like you're actually agreeing with me now. . .

On your wider point*, it is interesting to speculate how naturally talented a rider Wiggins really is. Obviously he's not a particularly joyful or exciting rider to watch (especially in the mountains), a bit of a **** off the bike, and it's much more comfortable psychologically to apply 2010 levels of mockery to such a character (compared to say Contador, who much more looks and acts the part of someone you don't mind losing to). On the other hand given his record (even ignoring post -08, I think he was top-tenning high-level time trials in 06-07, and is one of the UK's most successful Olympians of all time) if he was clean at the time points to being a pretty rare level of talent, no?

*Please don't spend several minutes of your time typing out a long screed about how I'm missing the point you're making about his experience in the mountains and then rewriting it all out again in even more purple prose - I understand you're arguing his lack of experience in the mountains until 2009 makes his transformation even more extraordinary than it first appears.

 

[sniper]

I'm a bit confused now, it sounds a lot like you're actually agreeing with me now. . .

On your wider point*, it is interesting to speculate how naturally talented a rider Wiggins really is. Obviously he's not a particularly joyful or exciting rider to watch (especially in the mountains), a bit of a **** off the bike, and it's much more comfortable psychologically to apply 2010 levels of mockery to such a character (compared to say Contador, who much more looks and acts the part of someone you don't mind losing to). On the other hand given his record (even ignoring post -08, I think he was top-tenning high-level time trials in 06-07, and is one of the UK's most successful Olympians of all time) if he was clean at the time points to being a pretty rare level of talent, no?

*Please don't spend several minutes of your time typing out a long screed about how I'm missing the point you're making about his experience in the mountains and then rewriting it all out again in even more purple prose - I understand you're arguing his lack of experience in the mountains until 2009 makes his transformation even more extraordinary than it first appears.

Indeed the key questiom is was wiggins dope free pre 2008 or not.
We cannot fruitfully debate his true potential as long as we dont have the answer to that question.

 

[thehog]

and thus the legend was born...

You have advanced copy!?

Looks to be classic Walsh!

 

[the sceptic]

You have advanced copy!?

Looks to be classic Walsh!

the Walsh prose is unmistakable.

Its from the free amazon preview. The rest of it is pretty boring.

http://www.amazon.com/Climb-Autobio...7&sr=8-3&keywords=the+climb#reader_B00HRKZ6EQ

 

[gooner]

I got a copy this morning and the book is in 3 sections(Part 1:Africa, Part 2: Europe, Part 3: Tour de France). It's quite a big book with around 430 pages.

So far, I have read up to 100 pages that takes in his background in Africa which I thought was a good read. Some of the racing conditions he and his team-mates had to endure with regards to the Kenyan Cycling Federations were embarrassing. He had some tough experiences on a personal level in his upbringing. Haven't got to any of his racing in Europe yet.

Just going on to Part 2 now.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Some guy on VR (keith) is reading the book and has been posting snippets. We all agreed with him that it is a piece of **** no offense

Edit: this is one of the comments

looking forward to keith doing his breakdown, but Froome can flip off was so not caring re him, now he needs a good punch in the head

 

[Granville57]

the Walsh prose is unmistakable.

Nothing was funnier than when Hog posted excerpts from Walsh's last effort, and most people originally thought it was just a parody.

Turned out to be verbatim.


And this stuff all sounds the same. Ughh.

 

[gooner]

Some guy on VR (keith) is reading the book and has been posting snippets. We all agreed with him that it is a piece of **** no offense

Edit: this is one of the comments

I haven't got to any of his racing in Europe yet, including his early days racing here. I can't comment if that's poorly written or a load of rubbish.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I haven't got to any of his racing in Europe yet, including his early days racing here. I can't comment if that's poorly written or a load of rubbish.

Let me rephrase my comment: it is not a bad book but it is ridiculous at times.

 

[Bronstein]

Sky's view of Froome prior to the 2011 Vuelta (The Climb, page 207):

"I remember speaking to Bobby at the end of the Tour of Poland. He was frank.

'Listen Chris, it's going to be difficult to get you into the Vuelta. There are other guys they want to take.'

...

'Chris, you're going to the Vuelta. Lars Petter has gotten ill. They're not going to take a chance with him so they're taking you instead.' (page 208)


Sky's pre-race plan (page 210):

'Objective: GC with Bradley ... Xabier, Morris and Froome will do their best to survive as long as possible and will fetch bottles etc.'


So Froome only ends up starting the Vuelta due to Nordhaug's misfortune and is only seen a bottle carrying domestique. Yet somehow he manages to come 2nd on GC after working for Wiggins for the majority of the race. Seems legit.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Nothing was funnier than when Hog posted excerpts from Walsh's last effort, and most people originally thought it was just a parody.

Turned out to be verbatim.


And this stuff all sounds the same. Ughh.

It's my belief that The Hog actually really is David Walsh, playing one side of the fence in real life, and trolling the other side via his alter-ego. Da Hog has some skillz, yo.

Why do you think he's been on this forum for so long - and posting about Lance for so much of his history? We did his research for him!