How good is Chris Froome?

bompington

So I've tried to follow the logic going on here and it seems that it boils down to this:

Any performance which
a) wins
b) shows a significant improvement or maintains a consistent level
c) comes from someone who said or did anything at all that Armstrong ever said or did
d) comes from a Team Sky rider

must therefore be doping.

blazing_saddles

DeadCalm wrote:

[
Okay. I was extremely sceptical when I watched the ride. I'd have been less so if he'd been dominant from the off but he wasn't. I've been dubious about claims of riders riding themselves into form during a Grand Tour. From my experience, that's not how the body works. Reading the Pippa York piece has raised my levels of scepticism.

Are you sceptical about the climbing times Froome produced on the Finestre and Jafferau for that stage?
Or the climbing time to Cervinia, the following day?
After all, it's climbing times that social media have leaned on so heavily in the past, to create much of the scepticism out there.

As for Pippa York: I find it a little odd that someone who rode in an era when long range attacks were commonplace and often successful, would feel this to be impossible, now.

Where did you say her piece was, I'd like to read it before commenting further.

adr82

OK, anyone who finds it "unbelievable": would you care to venture an opinion on what actually happened?

Did Froome have one of those magic Hungarian motors in his bike that the post-stage check failed to find? Was he on some super-duper-jiffy-bagged cocktail of secretly developed drugs that don't show up in the current battery of doping tests? Maybe Sky are bribing everyone to fake the test results? Was he drafting an invisible motorbike? Is Reichenbach a deep-cover Sky agent, cleverly using the Moscon incident to deflect any suspicion he's working for them?

I mean, presumably (unlike Landis) Froome wasn't simply stuffed to the gills with something as easy to detect as testosterone, right? If you think the chasers were going all out to bring him back (which they clearly weren't) and he still just rode away from them, you have to have some other explanation. What is it, and how is he keeping it hidden during all these tests and checks?

Genuinely curious. I mean, if Sky have developed some undetectable combination of innocuous drugs that can produce performances like that, it seems more than a little careless of them to effectively rub it in everyone's faces while the whole AAF fiasco is still rumbling on in the background!

adr82

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Where did you say her piece was, I'd like to read it before commenting further.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/phi ... elievable/

mamil314

DeadCalm wrote:

I put Jerry on ignore many years ago because of some outlandish views on doping so I'm only seeing him when quoted but, if Philippa York, who knows a thing or two about cycling, also says that ride was unbelievable, I'm inclined to pay attention.

Two big mistakes by York imo:
"It was impossible to tell if Yates started cracking by the end.". Just no.
"Frome does not attack with 80km left". Really? What was he supposed to do, when there was nothing to lose. Hope to regain some seconds on the last climb and then bet on last day? No chance, Dumoulin is pretty much as strong as Froome.

With article standing on those super shaky pillars (other than usual list of Sky sins), the last sentence seems questionable, at best.

For what it matters, Jerry person with Armstrong picture could be right. As he keeps reminding again and again about his hope that one day 'truth will come out' and he will get to prance about with streamers 'I told you so'. Fine. No one here can be 100% sure that Sky are clean. There might well be heartbreaks, but we will deal with it if comes to that bridge. But those are not the facts so far!

DeadCalm

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

[
Okay. I was extremely sceptical when I watched the ride. I'd have been less so if he'd been dominant from the off but he wasn't. I've been dubious about claims of riders riding themselves into form during a Grand Tour. From my experience, that's not how the body works. Reading the Pippa York piece has raised my levels of scepticism.

Are you sceptical about the climbing times Froome produced on the Finestre and Jafferau for that stage?
Or the climbing time to Cervinia, the following day?
After all, it's climbing times that social media have leaned on so heavily in the past, to create much of the scepticism out there.

As for Pippa York: I find it a little odd that someone who rode in an era when long range attacks were commonplace and often successful, would feel this to be impossible, now.

Where did you say her piece was, I'd like to read it before commenting further.

Let me make it clear, I have no idea whether Froome or any other cyclist is doping. The point I'm trying to make, probably very badly, is that in the context of his form at the beginning of the race, that ride warranted some raised eyebrows at the very least. Anyone proclaiming it as beyond question normal is kidding themselves as much as anyone saying that it was definitely enhanced.

drhaggis

I'm skeptical because:
a) I've been admitted to hospital with an asthma attack and put on oxygen, and it didn't take 8 puffs of salbutamol to know I had to go to A&E (I actually feel insulted by all the asthma claims in the pro peloton, mind you)
b) A single person was putting time in a group with three people pushing (and two passengers). These three people were so bad at pushing they put at least an extra minute on the group behind where Pozzovivo was racing for the podium, and the Bora guys weren't precisely on the sunday social ride. So much so, that Pozzovivo's group cracked before the final climb.
c) Froome was poor for substantial portions of the Giro.
d) Froome's telemetry was stuck at 350W & 89 rpm for the whole race, and there are claims that his (and only his) data file are lost
e) Disneylandis.

blazing_saddles

DeadCalm wrote:

Let me make it clear, I have no idea whether Froome or any other cyclist is doping. The point I'm trying to make, probably very badly, is that in the context of his form at the beginning of the race, that ride warranted some raised eyebrows at the very least. Anyone proclaiming it as beyond question normal is kidding themselves as much as anyone saying that it was definitely enhanced.

It's OK, no need for a link.
I have found the piece. Figured to look on Cyclingnews.

DeadCalm

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Let me make it clear, I have no idea whether Froome or any other cyclist is doping. The point I'm trying to make, probably very badly, is that in the context of his form at the beginning of the race, that ride warranted some raised eyebrows at the very least. Anyone proclaiming it as beyond question normal is kidding themselves as much as anyone saying that it was definitely enhanced.

It's OK, no need for a link.
I have found the piece. Figured to look on Cyclingnews.

Sorry. I saw adr82 had already just posted the link in response to your request so I didn't bother. Glad you found it.

mamil314

Might have missed the point there about usual suspects

blazing_saddles

DeadCalm wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Let me make it clear, I have no idea whether Froome or any other cyclist is doping. The point I'm trying to make, probably very badly, is that in the context of his form at the beginning of the race, that ride warranted some raised eyebrows at the very least. Anyone proclaiming it as beyond question normal is kidding themselves as much as anyone saying that it was definitely enhanced.

It's OK, no need for a link.
I have found the piece. Figured to look on Cyclingnews.

Sorry. I saw adr82 had already just posted the link in response to your request so I didn't bother. Glad you found it.

Yeah.
After I read it, I saw adr82's link too. Apologies to both. :oops:

kleinstroker

The York piece was OK, but when she says things like you cannot ride into form on a GT I have to question the purpose of the whole article.
If you cannot ride into form, then logic dictates you are always at peak form, day in day out, you can't have it both ways.

As for Gerry and his brethren, it is very much as someone said earlier, just a case of bitterness, from being duped earlier on in life. Like an old lady whose Greek romance fell through spending the rest of her life telling all her friends how untrustworthy Greek men are.

pblakeney

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

I put Jerry on ignore many years ago because of some outlandish views on doping so I'm only seeing him when quoted but, if Philippa York, who knows a thing or two about cycling, also says that ride was unbelievable, I'm inclined to pay attention.

Ignore what other people say, on here, on twitter, in the press. The Pippa York piece says absolutely nothing. Just look at the facts and form an opinion. Is it unbelievable for Froome to have gained a minute and a half over two of his rivals in 80 km of racing on the queen stage in the third week of a grand tour? That's the question you have to ask yourself.

Well he/she should know as they lost a lead of over 6 minutes in the penultimate stage of the 1986 Vuelta.

knedlicky

Why isn't much about Froome's performances during the last mountain stages being attributed to his saddle change?
Presumably he was hoping to topple Yates and TD on stage 19, and it's said that hope is often at the bottom (in fact as Pandora discovered).

I suppose the main reason is that it's not good publicity for one of Sky's sponsors to have it revealed that Froome rode to victory (via stage 19 especially) on a competitor's saddle.
But looked at from another angle (yes, from below), if CF felt much more comfortable with the change, it would have brought him advantages both physically and psychologically on stage 19.

salsiccia1

It's pretty well known that Robert Millar felt very unfairly treated by British Cycling; add that to a general cynicism, a contrarian attitude and a dislike of uniformity, then it's not hard to guess which angle Pippa York's articles will take towards Sky. Especially on Cycling News.

iainf72

I'm not sure about this "Froome was poor at the beginning of the Giro" thing. I think he was nursing an injury, but if you look at his performance on the "proper" climbs to the finish, he was generally there. It was just the more classics like / Giro-tastic shorter steeper climbs where he suffered. And a lot of those time losses were down to poor positioning.

After Etna he was rarely out of the top 10 overall. The last 3 days, Zoncolan, Etna are more his type of bag.

If you look at Tom in the Sunweb video, he was shattered by the time the last 3 stages came. And he knew Froome was strong.

We shouldn't be surprised this kind of ride is possible. It doesn't happen very often but it can be done.

hypster

Salsiccia1 wrote:

It's pretty well known that Robert Millar felt very unfairly treated by British Cycling; add that to a general cynicism, a contrarian attitude and a dislike of uniformity, then it's not hard to guess which angle Pippa York's articles will take towards Sky. Especially on Cycling News.

Exactly.

gsk82

kleinstroker wrote:

The York piece was OK, but when she says things like you cannot ride into form on a GT I have to question the purpose of the whole article.
If you cannot ride into form, then logic dictates you are always at peak form, day in day out, you can't have it both ways.

Ms York is also putting a lot of emphasis on Sean Kelly saying it was unbelievable. I could understand it if he said it was extra terrestrial, but unbelievable is quite a common word to use to describe something good.

I feel that she is playing to her audience with this one.

blazing_saddles

hypster wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

It's pretty well known that Robert Millar felt very unfairly treated by British Cycling; add that to a general cynicism, a contrarian attitude and a dislike of uniformity, then it's not hard to guess which angle Pippa York's articles will take towards Sky. Especially on Cycling News.

Exactly.

To me, it came across as extremely subjective piece, in line with CN's well documented agenda.
Had I not known who had written it, I would immediately assumed Farrand or the like had.

jerry3571

Thanks for the article from Pippa York; kind of says what I was saying. I think Unbelievable is a word used for unexplicable performances and are other worldly; it's worth worth keeping an ear out for. Could even be code for naughties.
Clean cycling is a pipe dream and even little old silly me has known of someone who had a Oxygen Tent and he went from zero to going like stink. Juniors, Veterans too are on the wagon so the top of the sport is almost a certainty.

I see little advantage in me thrashing a dead horse so as I say I'm leaving the fantasy land here and thank God some of you idiots have blocked my comments as it's some kind of Kudos (hate that word). If you look back at my posts from 2008 and before you'll know I was on for same kicking then. I simply can't be arsed with it this time and will laugh at future silly sods who have come up to me and say, "When Lance was caught, I gave up cycling". This time will be a new Flock of lambs will head to the mincing machine. The Froome Fanboys; if they find that Sky had lied, in the years to come then please use "I am a gullible ****" as your avatar so you're easy to spot. Thanks but i got washing up to do.

davidof

mamil314 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

I put Jerry on ignore many years ago because of some outlandish views on doping so I'm only seeing him when quoted but, if Philippa York, who knows a thing or two about cycling, also says that ride was unbelievable, I'm inclined to pay attention.

Two big mistakes by York imo:

Three. He claims that no-one, absolutely no-one could have predicted Froome winning the Giro. Well she should look at the Froome Kaboom thread here where a few people suggested Froome would do what he did and that Yates would collapse in the third week. (not me).

Froome had some luck that only Dumoulin was a serious rival by the third week. Peanut was obviously cooked and not adding much to the stage, Dumoulin looked very tired by the time he reached the top of the Finestre. Reichenbach was little help except to protect Dumoulin from the other riders in the break.

As for why Pozzo and friends couldn't mount a chase. Very good question. Maybe they are hoping for a Sky contract.

jerry3571

Still no one has found a 3 odd minute deficit over turned in one day for the last 40 years so I'll say that's my question not answered. As Kelly would say "Its Unbelievable"
Ok Ciao! Washing up beckons

BelgianBeerGeek

I think Froome might be very good indeed. There is some potential, but it’s too early to tell.

iainf72

When are you going to explain why it's unbelievable?

Or better yet, tell me how you think it was achieved.

Here's a video of Portal guiding Froome down the first descent....

https://twitter.com/kingblem/status/1001021853090111488

tailwindhome

Stage 19 confirms everything I've always know about Froome

RichN95.

gsk82 wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

The York piece was OK, but when she says things like you cannot ride into form on a GT I have to question the purpose of the whole article.
If you cannot ride into form, then logic dictates you are always at peak form, day in day out, you can't have it both ways.

Ms York is also putting a lot of emphasis on Sean Kelly saying it was unbelievable. I could understand it if he said it was extra terrestrial, but unbelievable is quite a common word to use to describe something good.

And a word Sean Kelly, in particular, overuses.

iainf72

jerry3571 wrote:

Still no one has found a 3 odd minute deficit over turned in one day for the last 40 years so I'll say that's my question not answered. As Kelly would say "Its Unbelievable"
Ok Ciao! Washing up beckons

http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/vuelta ... 5/results/

Or Nibs 2 years ago in the Giro...

RichN95.

jerry3571 wrote:

Still no one has found a 3 odd minute deficit over turned in one day for the last 40 years so I'll say that's my question not answered. As Kelly would say "Its Unbelievable"
Ok Ciao! Washing up beckons

It's rare that a rider of significant ability has both the need and opportunity to do so. Most stages don't have something like Finistere in the middle of a stage.
Andy Schleck took 2.15 out of everyone at the Tour de France and he's a poor descend and time triallist.
In 1986 Hinault and LeMond took over four minutes out of each other on consecutive days and later together beat the whole field by five minutes. This sort of thing was more common back before EPO.

redvision

jerry3571 wrote:

Still no one has found a 3 odd minute deficit over turned in one day for the last 40 years so I'll say that's my question not answered. As Kelly would say "Its Unbelievable"
Ok Ciao! Washing up beckons

I am not froomes greatest fan. I maintain he shouldn't have ridden the giro due to his salbutamol case. However, taking 3 mins out of rivals in 1 stage isn't new. If I recall correctly, contador did so in the vuelta a few years back, and went on to win it as a result.

Froomes attack was impressive, but not unbelievable.
It was aided by the fact his rivals didn't see him as a threat (due to the first fortnight) and one by one cracked as they started to realise the situation.
If you take the 90 odd seconds he gained during the descent, he only gained 90 seconds throughout the rest of his attack, which included climbs I would have expected him to gain time on.

So whilst it was an impressive attack, he had nothing to lose and it was as much his rivals cracking as it was Froomes brilliance.

adr82

jerry3571 wrote:

Thanks for the article from Pippa York; kind of says what I was saying. I think Unbelievable is a word used for unexplicable performances and are other worldly; it's worth worth keeping an ear out for. Could even be code for naughties.
Clean cycling is a pipe dream and even little old silly me has known of someone who had a Oxygen Tent and he went from zero to going like stink. Juniors, Veterans too are on the wagon so the top of the sport is almost a certainty.

I see little advantage in me thrashing a dead horse so as I say I'm leaving the fantasy land here and thank God some of you idiots have blocked my comments as it's some kind of Kudos (hate that word). If you look back at my posts from 2008 and before you'll know I was on for same kicking then. I simply can't be arsed with it this time and will laugh at future silly sods who have come up to me and say, "When Lance was caught, I gave up cycling". This time will be a new Flock of lambs will head to the mincing machine. The Froome Fanboys; if they find that Sky had lied, in the years to come then please use "I am a gullible ****" as your avatar so you're easy to spot. Thanks but i got washing up to do.

OK, I admit it. I was too gullible, I believed too easily... I thought I could trust you when you said you were leaving this thread, back on page 35.