The Froome Files, test data only thread

[sniper]

Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

Asked why they didnt release froome pre-2011vuelta data, Brailsford once countered that giving out those data would strengthen Froome's competitors.
Now, Vaughters got to see Froome's test data from Barloworld, and look how that 'strengthened' Garmin's Tour de France podium efforts. (ow, right, Hesjedal probably won the Giro thanks to those data )
Brailsford's excuse is an insult to the brain. People like Swart and Burnley swallowing that kind of argumentation narrows down the possibilities to two: 1. they're dumb; 2. they're on the bandwagon. Whether 1 or 2 applies, is a moot point. It's the old Walsh discussion.

 

[bobbins]

Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

This pretty much sums it up. The believers will believe whatever bs Brailsford and his mouthpiece Richard Moore come out with. The face that Froome is dirty is obvious to anyone who knows bike racing. As with the Armstrong case, the facts will come out over time as more and more people hear about it and as Brailsford gets greedy and makes mistakes.

 

[thehog]

Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

This will always be the issue. The transformation was just so sudden. It wasn't incremental or bit by bit he got better as he shed more weight and got over Badzhilla.

It was from one race to the next in two weeks and went from very average to very very good. There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for it.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

This pretty much sums it up. The believers will believe whatever bs Brailsford and his mouthpiece Richard Moore come out with. The face that Froome is dirty is obvious to anyone who knows bike racing. As with the Armstrong case, the facts will come out over time as more and more people hear about it and as Brailsford gets greedy and makes mistakes.

It's my opinion that, at some point Cound may turn and spill all kinds of ***, someday when the gravy train is no longer providing (and Dawg is so unmarketable, he's not going to have a long-term, rest of his life status like an Indurain, LeMond, Contador, Vinokourov, hell, even Wiggins). She comes across to me like a person mostly after her own interests, fame, etc. Some of the behavior is bizarre if looked at from the standpoint of helping, rather than hurting Dawg's public image. And she seems not to be overly fond of Brailsford/Sky regime.

As far as the latest data release - to me, this is just noise, a distraction, and not really worth much as far as answering questions. It's just Coyle and Lance's heart of a pumpkin all over again.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data.

Who said that was going to be the plan? Do you think there is a rational explanation that would make us say ''hey, now, thats fair, okay, he is cleans'' for a rider who went from this result:

not even that bad

to

climbing as fast as Sastre, faster than Jimenez, while being held back to a cracking Wiggins [overgeard we read ]?

Do you think anyone on this board will accept any explanation for that? Anyone with half a brain knows there is no explanation for that, yet, how did he do it is the question. And that was never the incentive of this research, because every cycling nitwit knows he was held back due to Badzillah.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

This will always be the issue. The transformation was just so sudden. It wasn't incremental or bit by bit he got better as he shed more weight and got over Badzhilla.

It was from one race to the next in two weeks and went from very average to very very good. There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for it.

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

 

[Spawn of e]

Re: Re:

This pretty much sums it up. The believers will believe whatever bs Brailsford and his mouthpiece Richard Moore come out with. The face that Froome is dirty is obvious to anyone who knows bike racing. As with the Armstrong case, the facts will come out over time as more and more people hear about it and as Brailsford gets greedy and makes mistakes.

It's my opinion that, at some point Cound may turn and spill all kinds of ****, someday when the gravy train is no longer providing (and Dawg is so unmarketable, he's not going to have a long-term, rest of his life status like an Indurain, LeMond, Contador, Vinokourov, hell, even Wiggins). She comes across to me like a person mostly after her own interests, fame, etc. Some of the behavior is bizarre if looked at from the standpoint of helping, rather than hurting Dawg's public image. And she seems not to be overly fond of Brailsford/Sky regime.

As far as the latest data release - to me, this is just noise, a distraction, and not really worth much as far as answering questions. It's just Coyle and Lance's heart of a pumpkin all over again.

That makes no sense, if there is nothing legal going on she will not say a thing. There are still people 'covering' for LA, and not much of a peep our of god-fearing Kristin. Of course, we don't know what has gone on that is not public knowledge.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

This pretty much sums it up. The believers will believe whatever bs Brailsford and his mouthpiece Richard Moore come out with. The face that Froome is dirty is obvious to anyone who knows bike racing. As with the Armstrong case, the facts will come out over time as more and more people hear about it and as Brailsford gets greedy and makes mistakes.

It's my opinion that, at some point Cound may turn and spill all kinds of ****, someday when the gravy train is no longer providing (and Dawg is so unmarketable, he's not going to have a long-term, rest of his life status like an Indurain, LeMond, Contador, Vinokourov, hell, even Wiggins). She comes across to me like a person mostly after her own interests, fame, etc. Some of the behavior is bizarre if looked at from the standpoint of helping, rather than hurting Dawg's public image. And she seems not to be overly fond of Brailsford/Sky regime.

As far as the latest data release - to me, this is just noise, a distraction, and not really worth much as far as answering questions. It's just Coyle and Lance's heart of a pumpkin all over again.

That makes no sense, if there is nothing legal going on she will not say a thing. There are still people 'covering' for LA, and not much of a peep our of god-fearing Kristin. Of course, we don't know what has gone on that is not public knowledge.

No, I meant later on after the relationship goes sour. Her way to stay "famous." Tabloid tell-all type of stuff.
And Cound is not Kik, not by a long shot. Kik never wore the pants in that family.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

This will always be the issue. The transformation was just so sudden. It wasn't incremental or bit by bit he got better as he shed more weight and got over Badzhilla.

It was from one race to the next in two weeks and went from very average to very very good. There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for it.

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

That's silly. He was still under team orders at the 2011 Vuelta, he helped Wiggins all of week one and could still go full Cobo on Cobo.

Besides it still doesn't explain the two week transformation. The sudden overnight hyper-increase in form, never able to show it prior? Maybe just once or twice?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

This will always be the issue. The transformation was just so sudden. It wasn't incremental or bit by bit he got better as he shed more weight and got over Badzhilla.

It was from one race to the next in two weeks and went from very average to very very good. There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for it.

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

Even Swart has stated on twitter that, if one value in a data set is proven to be false, the veracity of the remainder of the data set has to be questioned. We've seen that the BMI data on the 2007 sheet is false, making the other data unreliable.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

This will always be the issue. The transformation was just so sudden. It wasn't incremental or bit by bit he got better as he shed more weight and got over Badzhilla.

It was from one race to the next in two weeks and went from very average to very very good. There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for it.

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

That's silly. He was still under team orders at the 2011 Vuelta, he helped Wiggins all of week one and could still go full Cobo on Cobo.

Besides it still doesn't explain the two week transformation. The sudden overnight hyper-increase in form, never able to show it prior? Maybe just once or twice?

What were his team orders in Poland? How do you know he wasn't doing donkey work for the team then rolling home?

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

This will always be the issue. The transformation was just so sudden. It wasn't incremental or bit by bit he got better as he shed more weight and got over Badzhilla.

It was from one race to the next in two weeks and went from very average to very very good. There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for it.

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

Even Swart has stated on twitter that, if one value in a data set is proven to be false, the veracity of the remainder of the data set has to be questioned. We've seen that the BMI data on the 2007 sheet is false, making the other data unreliable.

Unlikely to pass peer review in that case. We'll see.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

This will always be the issue. The transformation was just so sudden. It wasn't incremental or bit by bit he got better as he shed more weight and got over Badzhilla.

It was from one race to the next in two weeks and went from very average to very very good. There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for it.

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

That's silly. He was still under team orders at the 2011 Vuelta, he helped Wiggins all of week one and could still go full Cobo on Cobo.

Besides it still doesn't explain the two week transformation. The sudden overnight hyper-increase in form, never able to show it prior? Maybe just once or twice?

What were his team orders in Poland? How do you know he wasn't doing donkey work for the team then rolling home?

Of course he was doing domestique work in Poland. That's what he was. A dom without a contract. How do you know he wasn't particularly bad because he pulled a blood bag prior to Poland?

 

[sniper]

The very concept of peerreviewing implies that you don't know beforehand if your article gets accepted.
It's funny they already know it will be published in a peerreviewed journal.
All doesn't sound too scientific.

 

[meat puppet]

Re:

The very concept of peerreviewing implies that you don't know beforehand if your article gets accepted.
It's funny they already know it will be published in a peerreviewed journal.
All doesn't sound too scientific.

Yes and no. If an article is methodologically conventional and makes conventional enough claims, it is a safe bet it will be published. Maybe after revision, but still. This is not to say there couldn't be something fishy about the process.

Nonetheless, the way I see the bigger picture is this. The overnight transformation in 2011 is the elephant in the room. Froome and Sky are wise to ignore and obfuscate it with their stories. In the eyes of the general public, those that matter to Sky and froome, it is largely irrelevant if some enthusiast poke holes into the story. Facts are irrelevant in the end, this is politics, only winning matters. The message was sent a couple seems agp, made its rounds, became the "true in practice" narrative: now it is legit to believe, as it were.

Unless there is a tipping point, this is a good enough strategy to control the message.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

The most physiologically gifted rider of his generation was unable to guarantee even a domestique contract because the team was holding him back and he felt a bit iffy. For three years.

That's either ridiculous or it puts Sky and Brailsford down as rank amateurs. Or maybe both?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The very concept of peerreviewing implies that you don't know beforehand if your article gets accepted.
It's funny they already know it will be published in a peerreviewed journal.
All doesn't sound too scientific.

Yes and no. If an article is methodologically conventional and makes conventional enough claims, it is a safe bet it will be published. Maybe after revision, but still. This is not to say there couldn't be something fishy about the process.

good summary.

Nonetheless, the way I see the bigger picture is this. The overnight transformation in 2011 is the elephant in the room. Froome and Sky are wise to ignore and obfuscate it with their stories. In the eyes of the general public, those that matter to Sky and froome, it is largely irrelevant if some enthusiast poke holes into the story. Facts are irrelevant in the end, this is politics, only winning matters. The message was sent a couple seems agp, made its rounds, became the "true in practice" narrative: now it is legit to believe, as it were.

Unless there is a tipping point, this is a good enough strategy to control the message.

well said.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

This will always be the issue. The transformation was just so sudden. It wasn't incremental or bit by bit he got better as he shed more weight and got over Badzhilla.

It was from one race to the next in two weeks and went from very average to very very good. There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for it.

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

That's silly. He was still under team orders at the 2011 Vuelta, he helped Wiggins all of week one and could still go full Cobo on Cobo.

Besides it still doesn't explain the two week transformation. The sudden overnight hyper-increase in form, never able to show it prior? Maybe just once or twice?

Interesting that bilharzia has now been downgraded in skylore to "minor illness".

Also quite funny how minor illnesses kept him in the gruppeto for 5 years, not a single top result in that time, but the very major illness froome had on alpe d huez when his team was wondering if he should even ride and he had no tue's could not stop him from beating contador and others on that climb.

 

[Freddythefrog]

OK a week on. So with all the squealing about the provenance of the "fax" that became two "faxes", presumably Swart and Moore rang the lab and got it confirmed that one of the copies was genuine. So that took about 6 hours to get the reply on Thursday or Friday. It is not like they would want to leave that alone for a few days as they have a stack of library books to take back and their sock drawers to tidy or some such vital other business. They are there in the spotlight the pair of them. This is a great moment proving their boy is clean with the good fortune that Michele found the long missing data that had caused Sky to hire the Dawg, before the greatest manager in cycling ever, forgot about it all again and wanted to palm him off on JV. So can anyone point me at the statement from the lab confirming that Froome really was 17% body fat in 2007?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The very concept of peerreviewing implies that you don't know beforehand if your article gets accepted.
It's funny they already know it will be published in a peerreviewed journal.
All doesn't sound too scientific.

Yes and no. If an article is methodologically conventional and makes conventional enough claims, it is a safe bet it will be published. Maybe after revision, but still. This is not to say there couldn't be something fishy about the process.

good summary.

Nonetheless, the way I see the bigger picture is this. The overnight transformation in 2011 is the elephant in the room. Froome and Sky are wise to ignore and obfuscate it with their stories. In the eyes of the general public, those that matter to Sky and froome, it is largely irrelevant if some enthusiast poke holes into the story. Facts are irrelevant in the end, this is politics, only winning matters. The message was sent a couple seems agp, made its rounds, became the "true in practice" narrative: now it is legit to believe, as it were.

Unless there is a tipping point, this is a good enough strategy to control the message.

well said.

Agreed. I know Armstrong was doping pre-cancer but his rise was over 18 months not even in 2 weeks. In 97 he won a local US race. 1998 he was dumped out he back of Paris-Nice, ended up with a fourth at a weak Vuelta and won the Tour of Luxenbourg (from memory). His 99 was much better pre winning the Tour, he was second at Amstel.

Froome was 2 weeks. AICAR is drug that can do that. Fitness in a pill.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

The most physiologically gifted rider of his generation was unable to guarantee even a domestique contract because the team was holding him back and he felt a bit iffy. For three years.

That's either ridiculous or it puts Sky and Brailsford down as rank amateurs. Or maybe both?

Public strategies is at work here.........

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

Of course he was doing domestique work in Poland. That's what he was. A dom without a contract. How do you know he wasn't particularly bad because he pulled a blood bag prior to Poland?

I don't. How do you know he was particularly bad? What's so unusual about 'a dom without a contract' rolling home after a shift?

 

[thehog]

Re:

OK a week on. So with all the squealing about the provenance of the "fax" that became two "faxes", presumably Swart and Moore rang the lab and got it confirmed that one of the copies was genuine. So that took about 6 hours to get the reply on Thursday or Friday. It is not like they would want to leave that alone for a few days as they have a stack of library books to take bake and their sock drawers to tidy or some such vital other business. They are there in the spotlight the pair of them. This is a great moment proving their boy is clean with the good fortune that Michele found the long missing data that had caused Sky to hire the Dawg, before the greatest manager in cycling ever, forgot about it all again and wanted to palm him off on JV. So can anyone point me at the statement from the lab confirming that Froome really was 17% body fat in 2007?

The 17% claim is so absurd it makes the "Iraq could launch nuclear war in 45 minutes" claim sounds plausible.

I posted the excerpts from Froome's book for 2007 leading to he supposed test. He had a huge race schedule, including stage races and a altitude training camp. He makes no mention of this test or that he was carrying such a large amount of body fat at this time.

The BMI measurement (21) is another indicator that they messed about with the weight and body fat %.

I was actually shocked that Moore and Swart had to check up themselves on the faxes and then offer up "it's authentic" but provide no explanation or proof as to why it's authentic. Considering fans of Sky want proof and evidence, here we have some dubious and no one wants to explain why there are two faxes that look doctored and very different from each other.

 

[harryh]

Deleted. OT (again)

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

The most physiologically gifted rider of his generation was unable to guarantee even a domestique contract because the team was holding him back and he felt a bit iffy. For three years.

That's either ridiculous or it puts Sky and Brailsford down as rank amateurs. Or maybe both?

A bit harsh, but without Froome his results would more accurately reflect his abilities. And he was planning to release Froome...