Froome interview in Rouleur

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

You're a bit of a fan girl - Has anyone on turn pro with Sky and done anything noteable?

They're all still pretty young though. 24 tops. But Dowsett has won a Giro stage, Puccio has led the Giro and Kennaugh has a Olympic gold medal (I know you don't think much of that last one).
I'm not sure many of those that they have taken on will be stars anyway. Dombrowski probably. Kennaugh and Edmondson possibly. But Puccio, Dowsett, Rowe and Boswell are only ever likely to be good solid pros.

mike6

Blah, blah, blah. The glass is always half empty for most on here. Froome has done nothing out of the ordinary. Has not smashed everyone by 3 mins on a climb, so what is the problem?
He has gone to a team that look at all aspects of the sport and have individual coaches for there athletes. So many teams leave training up to the cyclists. In a multi million euro team sponsored professional sport, that is verging on the criminal.
Can you imagine Barcelona telling there players just to train at home in the garden, then pitch up on Wednesday for the big game?
Its a joke.

Turfle

iainf72 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

A common theme is that no one spouting ever seems to look at the riders' previous results eg pre-Sky, which shows clearly that X rider can climb / TT. Because that would spoil their fun.

Well, the problem with Froome was he was absolute toilet until a couple of years ago, so it's an easy target.

You're a bit of a fan girl - Has anyone on turn pro with Sky and done anything noteable? I know we've got guys who had decent careers before, but I can't think of anyone who's started there and done much?

Depends what you mean by turned "pro", I guess.

By year:
Kennaugh, Nordhaug
Dowsett
Puccio, Rowe
and the 4 this year: JTL, Dombrowski, Boswell, Edmondson

ddraver

Just like whasshisname, Mr Highroad racing, they ll pick people that have some talent, but maybe something blocking it which they can fix i.e. Froome's Bilhazia. They can then spend a bit of time fixing the problem which will turn an average domestique into a super-domestique. Cyclonomics basically (read more about it in Cycling Anthol pt 1)

Plus as simple as it sounds, they have the money to put top 10 GC riders in their train rather than have them ride against them for the first third of the climb and then crack and finish 10 mins down. Porte, Uran, Heano have their moments but they are never going to be a real top step GC contender and they are prepared to help others who CAN win. You'd never get Nico Roche doing it for example because he thinks he actually CAN win so wants to be No 1 - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary

As mike says - Froome's actually not done anything special yet... he was comfortably beaten by Nibali this year. I suspect that a lot of the naysayers are more pissed off that he' beating their babies (Contador, Valverde etc) now they have to ride clean

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

A common theme is that no one spouting ever seems to look at the riders' previous results eg pre-Sky, which shows clearly that X rider can climb / TT. Because that would spoil their fun.

Well, the problem with Froome was he was absolute toilet until a couple of years ago, so it's an easy target.

You're a bit of a fan girl - Has anyone on turn pro with Sky and done anything noteable? I know we've got guys who had decent careers before, but I can't think of anyone who's started there and done much?

To be strictly accurate, I'm a keen supporter of a good number of the riders (as I am of a number of riders throughout the rest of the peloton, as well as some of the riders on the British and Aussie conti scenes). If that makes me a 'fan girl' of Sky, so be it. I dont buy the kit, I dont make up banners that I wave from the side of the road, at race starts I wander around a number of teams buses and have a chat here and there with various teams. But again, 'fan girl' or 'fan boy' is a label thats easily and somewhat lazily 'awarded'.

Can you define what you mean by 'done much'? They've been going since 2010. How many would have turned pro with them in those first 3 years? Maybe 10?

Ok, so off top of my head:

a few of the riders were with proconti teams before Sky eg Froome, G and Cummings - but let's include them as you say 'turning pro'.

Just to pick a handful of examples:

Despite being back and forth with the track, G has won prologues and TTs (think I'm right) inc Romandie last year, and has placed 2nd in last year's Giro prologue and ITT. He won overall GC at Bayern-Rundfahrt in '11, and took 3rd place in same this year. He won stage of TDU this year, and 3rd overall.

Dowsett - won TT in '11 ToB, and a stage at Poit-thingey-Chartres same year. Then of course the Giro ITT win.

Rowe - won stage 1 of last year's ToB.

Nordhaug - 3 wins last year including GP Montreal, against some very decent competition


That the kind of thing you mean?

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

Just like whasshisname, Mr Highroad racing, they ll pick people that have some talent, but maybe something blocking it which they can fix i.e. Froome's Bilhazia. They can then spend a bit of time fixing the problem which will turn an average domestique into a super-domestique. Cyclonomics basically (read more about it in Cycling Anthol pt 1)

Plus as simple as it sounds, they have the money to put top 10 GC riders in their train rather than have them ride against them for the first third of the climb and then crack and finish 10 mins down. Porte, Uran, Heano have their moments but they are never going to be a real top step GC contender and they are prepared to help others who CAN win. You'd never get Nico Roche doing it for example because he thinks he actually CAN win so wants to be No 1 - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary

As mike says - Froome's actually not done anything special yet... he was comfortably beaten by Nibali this year. I suspect that a lot of the naysayers are more pissed off that he' beating their babies (Contador, Valverde etc) now they have to ride clean

Whoa, there, chap. Froome's been on the 2nd step of 2 x GTs, placed 4th on a 3rd, and put together a serious of consecutive wins this year that any rider would be happy with. I really dont think you can say that he's 'actually done nothing special yet'.

ddraver

Well, ok...I see what you mean but I think there's a big gap between 2nd and reliably first on GT podiums. I wasnt saying he's rubbish, just that he isnt (yet) a Mercx, Hinault or whoever, which seems to be what some people are suggesting he is.

What he's done is about average for his talent, but no one is going to be remembering him in 10 years if he stops here. ('cept perhaps Cilian Kelly)

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

Well, ok...I see what you mean but I think there's a big gap between 2nd and reliably first on GT podiums. I wasnt saying he's rubbish, just that he isnt (yet) a Mercx, Hinault or whoever, which seems to be what some people are suggesting he is.

What he's done is about average for his talent, but no one is going to be remembering him in 10 years if he stops here. ('cept perhaps Cilian Kelly)[/quote]


Very true!

thomthom

I'm not saying Froome is doping but saying that a completely avarage rider who gets sick and then turns into a world class rider (there's a gap here - where's the room for his immense development? He was too sick to race, meaning he couldn't fully train either..) isn't 'anything special' is a bit silly, really.

That he has not smashed anyone with 2-3 minutes is completely irrelevant. Neither did Santambrogio.

In fact, if this kind of rider development doesn't cause suspicion, you haven't watched cycling long enough. That might be a shame but that's the reality of this sport.

Say he did dope (which I'm sure would be without Sky's knowledge), good old Michelle doesn't strike me as someone who would talk him away from doing it if it made him win.. Just a bit of abstract thinking. Not to be taking too serious.

Remarkable

ThomThom wrote:

I'm not saying Froome is doping but saying that a completely avarage rider who gets sick and then turns into a world class rider (there's a gap here - where's the room for his immense development? He was too sick to race, meaning he couldn't fully train either..) isn't 'anything special' is a bit silly, really.

That he has not smashed anyone with 2-3 minutes is completely irrelevant. Neither did Santambrogio.

In fact, if this kind of rider development doesn't cause suspicion, you haven't watched cycling long enough. That might be a shame but that's the reality of this sport.

Say he did dope (which I'm sure would be without Sky's knowledge), good old Michelle doesn't strike me as someone who would talk him away from doing it if it made him win.. Just a bit of abstract thinking. Not to be taking too serious.

How long had he the virus though? Perhaps it is testament to his ability that he was able to still ride at pro level with it, and now that it has cleared, for the same effort he is a contender...

RichN95.

ThomThom wrote:

I'm not saying Froome is doping but saying that a completely avarage rider who gets sick and then turns into a world class rider (there's a gap here - where's the room for his immense development? He was too sick to race, meaning he couldn't fully train either..) isn't 'anything special' is a bit silly, really.

Was he average though? The coaches at the WCC say he was the most talented rider they've ever had (and one of the most clueless). In 2008 Claudio Corti said that he would come top 5 or better in the Tour (presumably not that year though). Jon Vaughters, who has seen his early career test results, says he's always had this talent. Pre-Sky he had been talked about as someone who could be a GC contender - but he hadn't got a clue what he was doing. Those in the know have never seen him as average.

Turfle

I'm still going with bilharzia is a perfectly decent reason, but I've no idea whether it's the real reason. So I'll enjoy it for now.

above_the_cows

Surely you also have to consider Froome's background. If he'd grown up in continental Europe and even the UK, he'd surely have been on a lot of people's radars a lot earlier. As it is he grew up in a place with very little cycling infrastructure. These structural restrictions have an impact. He turned pro at 22, having done a degree first.

Turfle

Above The Cows wrote:

Surely you also have to consider Froome's background. If he'd grown up in continental Europe and even the UK, he'd surely have been on a lot of people's radars a lot earlier. As it is he grew up in a place with very little cycling infrastructure. These structural restrictions have an impact. He turned pro at 22, having done a degree first.

And as a neo-pro, in the doping era, finished 14th in a 53k TT towards the end of the Tour de France. That's decent going.

above_the_cows

Turfle wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Surely you also have to consider Froome's background. If he'd grown up in continental Europe and even the UK, he'd surely have been on a lot of people's radars a lot earlier. As it is he grew up in a place with very little cycling infrastructure. These structural restrictions have an impact. He turned pro at 22, having done a degree first.

And as a neo-pro, in the doping era, finished 14th in a 53k TT towards the end of the Tour de France. That's decent going.

So what you're saying is that when he wasn't riding into race marshals at the first corner he was alright.

Richmond Racer

Above The Cows wrote:

Surely you also have to consider Froome's background. If he'd grown up in continental Europe and even the UK, he'd surely have been on a lot of people's radars a lot earlier. As it is he grew up in a place with very little cycling infrastructure. These structural restrictions have an impact. He turned pro at 22, having done a degree first.

Example of no infrastructure...when he pitched up to the Worlds in 06/07 to represent Kenya, he had to go to the DSs pre-race briefing to represent himself as he had no DS. He had to recce the TT course with the course profile in his hand (no wonder he went into that race marshall). At another major championship, the Kenyan cycling officials people were so corrupt and ars&y that they'd do things like hide bidons from Froome and his Kenyan team mate.

This is a guy who when he joined Sky had no idea how to take team instructions, of race craft, of anything really that the juniors and then U23s learn as they come up through the ranks. It took him ages to acclimatise, apparently.

above_the_cows

Richmond Racer wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Surely you also have to consider Froome's background. If he'd grown up in continental Europe and even the UK, he'd surely have been on a lot of people's radars a lot earlier. As it is he grew up in a place with very little cycling infrastructure. These structural restrictions have an impact. He turned pro at 22, having done a degree first.

Example of no infrastructure...when he pitched up to the Worlds in 06/07 to represent Kenya, he had to go to the DSs pre-race briefing to represent himself as he had no DS. He had to recce the TT course with the course profile in his hand (no wonder he went into that race marshall). At another major championship, the Kenyan cycling officials people were so corrupt and ars&y that they'd do things like hide bidons from Froome and his Kenyan team mate.

This is a guy who when he joined Sky who had no idea how to take team instructions, of race craft, of anything really that the juniors and then U23s learn as they come up through the ranks.

Didn't he also have to make his own national champs jersey?

frenchfighter

RichN95 wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

I'm not saying Froome is doping but saying that a completely avarage rider who gets sick and then turns into a world class rider (there's a gap here - where's the room for his immense development? He was too sick to race, meaning he couldn't fully train either..) isn't 'anything special' is a bit silly, really.

Was he average though? The coaches at the WCC say he was the most talented rider they've ever had (and one of the most clueless). In 2008 Claudio Corti said that he would come top 5 or better in the Tour (presumably not that year though). Jon Vaughters, who has seen his early career test results, says he's always had this talent. Pre-Sky he had been talked about as someone who could be a GC contender - but he hadn't got a clue what he was doing. Those in the know have never seen him as average.

Vaughters thinks so many peoples 'numbers' are supreme. He has a bad hit rate. CVV and Eskimo Dan to name the first two.

Turfle

I bet we see an influx of Spanish Marshalls at the Tour this year.

Richmond Racer

delete

Richmond Racer

ATC, forgot about the Kenyan champs jersey business. That was a beaut.

thomthom

RichN95 wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

I'm not saying Froome is doping but saying that a completely avarage rider who gets sick and then turns into a world class rider (there's a gap here - where's the room for his immense development? He was too sick to race, meaning he couldn't fully train either..) isn't 'anything special' is a bit silly, really.

Was he average though? The coaches at the WCC say he was the most talented rider they've ever had (and one of the most clueless). In 2008 Claudio Corti said that he would come top 5 or better in the Tour (presumably not that year though). Jon Vaughters, who has seen his early career test results, says he's always had this talent. Pre-Sky he had been talked about as someone who could be a GC contender - but he hadn't got a clue what he was doing. Those in the know have never seen him as average.

There wasn't a race in the entire calender Boasson Hagen wouldn't have won today 5 years ago either.. Or Fuglsang.. Or Gesink.. Or Riccardo Riccò a few years earlier than that.

How is the fact that they believe he had potential crashing with the claim that he was avarage btw? Every rider is avarage in the beginning of their career - the strange thing is that he was sick at the very period of time where he developed himself into a superstar. That's all I'm saying.

frenchfighter

unimpressed wrote:

And now, the real reason why I signed up here after reading on-and-off for years, Frenchfighter. Now, my wife is probably tired of me talking about this guy; i mean, am i going gay on her for this Frenchie? Whilst I admire your choice of photos, and can enjoy a good little sarcastic joke about sky from you, I need to know something from the Contadorians out there, and who's better to ask than you, FF? look, I know that it's mandatory for a Contadorian to be Anti Sky, or ASSS as I like to call them (Anti Sky SchutzStaffel), but how is it living on the other side - the "romantic side"?

When Contador attacks like an Alaskan dog on Rabies up the slopes, do you guys pat your belly and say "yeah, he is just that talented" and "look at the way he's just dancing up towards the summit"? This whole talent thing, where does it come from? I asked a member of the ASSS one time, why is Contador “allowed” the incredible performance gain he got (under the biggest daddy of them all, Manolo Saiz, continued under the second biggest daddy, Bruyneel, completed by the grandad, Riis) after his life threatening head injury, whilst everyone is supposed to have a completely linear CQ-ranking?

See, the thing is that deep down I quite like Contador. i like his style, it reminds me of the pure climbers of the 80's and 90's, and I can admire his focus towards specific races. Hell, if I completely block my logical senses and looks away from the physiology behind the performances, I would say that he's the best stage race rider I’ve seen. Better than Hinault, better than Indurain and better than Wonderboy. But the thing is, just as cheering for Liverpool when they played a non-english (or norwegian) team in the 80’s, it's hard due to their (both Liverpool and Contador) faithful, and tbh slightly retarded (at least some), fans.

I just like cycling. Have always done it. What I don't like, however, is how people always are claiming to be experts and therefor creates their own twisted world, only to share their twisted ideas with another bunch of twisted minds, creating a complete twisted-clusterfuck based on opinions, armchair experts and amateur cyclists who are pissed that their physiology only allows them to reach 4,5 w/kg at FTP clean. I'm not saying that you're one of them, FF, I haven't read enough from you, but this Libertine-guy certainly ticks some of the boxes.

Take a read of this if you like Contador. He has been putting the pain on consistently for 15 years.
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.co.uk/2009/ ... -know.html
He has been consistent in his winning and is not a zero to hero rider.

As for being anti-sky, see here:
viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12926282&start=20#p18366684

If you like the Pure Climbers, you will find interest here:
viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12636081
Also some good post here:
http://le-grimpeur.net/

As for how it feels. When El Pistelero is racing? It feels like I have not wasted my time watching, that I can reasonably expect I will be entertained at some point, that I will get to see some racing rather than number crunching. I also know that now and again he will add to the legend with a daredevil feat of brilliance. Same goes for a number of riders albeit to a lesser extent than Contador. I could go on and on but will leave it here for now as an initial response.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

Vaughters thinks so many peoples 'numbers' are supreme. He has a bad hit rate. CVV and Eskimo Dan to name the first two.

4th and 8th in the Tour de France - yeah, they suck

frenchfighter

It's funny what 'assistance' can do for you.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

It's funny what 'assistance' can do for you.

At Garmin? I doubt it.

iainf72

frenchfighter wrote:

It's funny what 'assistance' can do for you.

Uhhh, they were on Garmin at the time mate.

iainf72

Richmond Racer wrote:

Despite being back and forth with the track, G has won prologues and TTs (think I'm right) inc Romandie last year, and has placed 2nd in last year's Giro prologue and ITT. He won overall GC at Bayern-Rundfahrt in '11, and took 3rd place in same this year. He won stage of TDU this year, and 3rd overall.

I meant people who'd turned pro with Sky - G rode the Tour with Barloworld before going to Sky so it's not like he was new

I'm just wondering if they have had any luck spotting road talent that hasn't hit the pro scene yet. Remember when Cuddly Bob was running High Horse, they managed to get a lot of talent through the door.

I reckon for the number of people who've got better since they went to Sky, there is probably an equal number who've got worse.

frenchfighter

RichN95 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Vaughters thinks so many peoples 'numbers' are supreme. He has a bad hit rate. CVV and Eskimo Dan to name the first two.

4th and 8th in the Tour de France - yeah, they suck

Flash in the pan more or less.

In any case. My point is that he goes on about World Beaters, like their numbers are top dollar. If that was the case I am expecting top 5 WT ranking every year for 5 years sort of thing.

ms_tree

frenchfighter wrote:

Interesting. He is always on Porte`s wheel and is rarely on his own. He lacks the tactical nous and maybe he suffered in the Vuelta by having no one to guide him. Sheds new light on the Crit Int move when he took the jersey off Porte.

I am confused by Froome tbh.

He comes across as a really nice guy off the bike although sometimes I suspect it is a guise particularly given what many people have said about him. On the bike he is a killer since coming into this level of performance his legs can now deliver. For some fans that is an ideal combo.

On the one hand I feel like if he was in a different team he would be one of my favourite riders, at least if he rode on instinct. I really dislike him being moulded into Sky`s modus operandi (regardless of how effective it is). On the other hand I can`t feel comfortable about his jump in performance from average to World Beater.

Gotta agree with you ff