Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

DeadCalm

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

What I've never heard from anyone like Ross etc is their theory around the improvement? If they think it's doping, what kind of regime? Or is this one of those "oooh, they use a secret drug" things.

They always go "name me another current rider that's made such a transformation". To which the answer is surely "I can't, but if it was down to doping surely there would be lots of them."

But the transformation is also so stark because he's now the best. Not everyone can have such an obvious transformation because not everyone can be the best overall or even in their team. Cycling doesn't work like that. It requires that some riders forsake individual glory and so some riders set their ambitions accordingly. Meanwhile a race can only ever have one winner so...

Not just the best though but one of the best of all time. And arguably, if he does the quat-trick, the greatest GC rider of all time.

Which begs the question 'how did they transform him to that from being a donkey' even more? And how are they keeping him there without drugs on the current banned list?

Some new super drug or he was never a donkey to start with?

Dunno. I'm neither convinced he is doping nor convinced he's clean.

bobmcstuff

There's documentary evidence of them x-raying riders bikes during the Giro.

How anyone still thinks this is possible to get away with is beyond me. It's even easier to detect than salbutamol.

slim_boy_fat

DeadCalm wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

What I've never heard from anyone like Ross etc is their theory around the improvement? If they think it's doping, what kind of regime? Or is this one of those "oooh, they use a secret drug" things.

They always go "name me another current rider that's made such a transformation". To which the answer is surely "I can't, but if it was down to doping surely there would be lots of them."

But the transformation is also so stark because he's now the best. Not everyone can have such an obvious transformation because not everyone can be the best overall or even in their team. Cycling doesn't work like that. It requires that some riders forsake individual glory and so some riders set their ambitions accordingly. Meanwhile a race can only ever have one winner so...

Not just the best though but one of the best of all time. And arguably, if he does the quat-trick, the greatest GC rider of all time.

Which begs the question 'how did they transform him to that from being a donkey' even more? And how are they keeping him there without drugs on the current banned list?

Some new super drug or he was never a donkey to start with?

Dunno. I'm neither convinced he is doping nor convinced he's clean.

I've got no idea if he's doping or not. And I would prefer to live in a world were we are all innocent until proven guilty. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that he is and therefore have to assume he is clean whilst hoping the authorities are best placed to uncover anything untoward.

Pross

TailWindHome wrote:

The state of that chain!

Not to mention the flat pedals off a £99 supermarket special attached to Dura Ace cranks!

smithy21

Why pick a donkey to transform? Who is the lucky donkey to get picked? On what basis?

From a marketability perspective Froome would have been well down the list.

No_Ta_Doctor

Just to point out that nobody - not even Merckx - has a quadruple of consecutive GTs with *two* TdFs in it (Merckx had two Giros in his). Hinault *only* managed three GT wins in a row. It would be the single biggest GT achievement ever, imo. FFS, it's only Merckx, Hinault and Froome that have three in a row. There are only ten riders that have won two GTs in a season (not sure how many have won two consecutive but across seasons). If he wins he'll join Merckx, Hinault, Indurain and Anquetil in the 5 TdFs club.

No_Ta_Doctor

smithy21 wrote:

Why pick a donkey to transform? Who is the lucky donkey to get picked? On what basis?

From a marketability perspective Froome would have been well down the list.

The doperati like to think that Froome's relatively late development can only be explained by doping, and claim Occam's razor as their argument (there are less factors in "doping" than in weight loss, bilharzia, learning racecraft late..etc). But in reality, Occam's razor cuts the other way. They need to explain which undetected doping program transformed him from a "donkey" into one of the greatest GT riders of all time, and kept him there - from 2011ish to 2018 and counting. There really just isn't anything other than "magic". If he was as rubbish as they think he was in natural, clean, state then what the hell has turned him into the 7th most winning GT rider, with a 3 in a row (only done by two others) and 4 TdFs? We're way past the days of 60% hematocrit.

above_the_cows

smithy21 wrote:

Why pick a donkey to transform? Who is the lucky donkey to get picked? On what basis?

They go to Pedro Delgado's donkey sanctuary and the one that looks the best in yellow, pink and red gets picked to be the 'Transformer Donkey in Disguise'™



Don't ask what happens to the poor ones left in the polka dots or the green...

mattsaw

I suspect also an element of it it that really it's the weakest crop of GC contenders that we have had for some time.

Sky are doping, but the available evidence says that it's financial rather than pharmaceutical.

I suspect that peoples real bugbear whether they realise it or not is that they have taken a sport full of romance and legend and boiled it down to numbers, money, nutrition, physiology, team strategy and watts.

With the resources and riders available to Sky it's not really a surprise that they have the ability to strangle a race and reduce it down to a couple of key stages and rely on a strong ITT.

It's easier to look for the easy fix and proclaim doping than look at the harder fixes within the sport for why races are lacking in excitement.

No_Ta_Doctor

Mattsaw wrote:

I suspect also an element of it it that really it's the weakest crop of GC contenders that we have had for some time.

Sky are doping, but the available evidence says that it's financial rather than pharmaceutical.

I suspect that peoples real bugbear whether they realise it or not is that they have taken a sport full of romance and legend and boiled it down to numbers, money, nutrition, physiology, team strategy and watts.

With the resources and riders available to Sky it's not really a surprise that they have the ability to strangle a race and reduce it down to a couple of key stages and rely on a strong ITT.

It's easier to look for the easy fix and proclaim doping than look at the harder fixes within the sport for why races are lacking in excitement.

Well yeah, they've won a lot of tours, and quite a few have been defensively ridden, but stage 19 of the Giro, were you not entertained? That was the most incredible solo attack ad victory I've ever seen. He's also shown attacking instincts elsewhere - like the downhill attack with Sagan in the Tour.

I've got no problem with people that cheer the underdog and hope he loses - I wanted Yates to win the Giro - but I think Froome is far more exciting as a rider than he's given credit for.


Jesus, I'm starting to sound like a real fanboy. Can I underline that I've never liked him at all but respect him as a rider, even if he is ugly as sin on a bike?

above_the_cows

Ja ja ja ja ja ja maar, kom op België!!!!!


Sorry wrong sport.

kleinstroker

No tA Doctor wrote:

....

Jesus, I'm starting to sound like a real fanboy. Can I underline that I've never liked him at all but respect him as a rider, even if he is ugly as sin on a bike?

Yeah, I feel like that. Especially on Twitter arguing with the doperati

mattsaw

Agreed that was fantastic, but in some ways it's the exception that proves the rule. He went into the Giro undercooked and other elements like the TT crash which went against him meant Sky were underprepared and fighting to attack rather than defend. This years Giro was one of the most exciting grand tours for years.

When Sky don't have a stranglehold on the peleton it shows just how entertaining races can be when riders have to throw caution to the wind and are forced to attack rather than defend.

My point really was that there are plenty of things Sky can be criticised for rather just throwing out an unfounded accusation of doping. Even then other teams and the UCI have to take some responsibility for how things have unfolded over the past 5-6 years.

For example the reduction in team numbers is progress, shorter stages etc, but I would also like to see radios and power meters banned. It's not Sky, it's the sport, not all technological progress helps to create excitement and unpredictability - exactly what you want to see from top level sport.

No_Ta_Doctor

Mattsaw wrote:

Agreed that was fantastic, but in some ways it's the exception that proves the rule. He went into the Giro undercooked and other elements like the TT crash which went against him meant Sky were underprepared and fighting to attack rather than defend. This years Giro was one of the most exciting grand tours for years.

When Sky don't have a stranglehold on the peloton it shows just how entertaining races can be when riders have to throw caution to the wind and are forced to attack rather than defend.

My point really was that there are plenty of things Sky can be criticised for rather just throwing out an unfounded accusation of doping. Even then other teams and the UCI have to take some responsibility for how things have unfolded over the past 5-6 years.

For example the reduction in team numbers is progress, shorter stages etc, but I would also like to see radios and power meters banned. It's not Sky, it's the sport, not all technological progress helps to create excitement and unpredictability - exactly what you want to see from top level sport.

I agree with you mostly, tbh. Though if you want race radios/power meters debate then please find one of the many thread already devoted to it ;-)

I do think that the past is seen with hugely rose tinted spectacles though. Yes, Sky have a massive budget, yes, they ride defensively when it suits them. But there have been many big budget defensive teams in the past. I lived through 5 TdFs of Indurain. It wasn't all Fignon V Lemond or Roche V Delgado.

r0bh

Mattsaw wrote:

Agreed that was fantastic, but in some ways it's the exception that proves the rule. He went into the Giro undercooked and other elements like the TT crash which went against him meant Sky were underprepared and fighting to attack rather than defend. This years Giro was one of the most exciting grand tours for years.

When Sky don't have a stranglehold on the peloton it shows just how entertaining races can be when riders have to throw caution to the wind and are forced to attack rather than defend.

My point really was that there are plenty of things Sky can be criticised for rather just throwing out an unfounded accusation of doping. Even then other teams and the UCI have to take some responsibility for how things have unfolded over the past 5-6 years.

For example the reduction in team numbers is progress, shorter stages etc, but I would also like to see radios and power meters banned. It's not Sky, it's the sport, not all technological progress helps to create excitement and unpredictability - exactly what you want to see from top level sport.

If only you remembered the Indurain years then maybe you would appreciate that the current era of racing is actually pretty bloody good.

RichN95.

You get rid of power meters and radios, you can have salary caps, you can reduce teams, you can change stage lengths, but there's one thing you will never be able to change.....

....the geography of France.

It's terrain just isn't conducive to particularly exciting racing in the modern era

mattsaw

What I'm trying (not particularly successfully) to say is that i think these are issues which overwhelmingly contribute to the dislike of Sky.

Nobody likes a success unless you're invested in them. Nobody likes domination in a sport. Nobody likes someone taking the unpredictability out of it. Especially when they're the newcomers with no history and grating personalities.

Doping is an easy and lazy stick to beat them with when you can't prove a negative.

It's not easy to suggest resolutions to the issues that are deeper within the sport rather than just level accusations of cheating.

mattsaw

r0bh wrote:

If only you remembered the Indurain years then maybe you would appreciate that the current era of racing is actually pretty bloody good.

I grew-up with Indurain.

Maybe it's the golden EPO years that I'm romanticising

Lanterne_Rogue

The lazy caricature of how Sky race overshadows reality. It might well have been how they secured the WIggins win, but Froome is a very different animal. The Fenton nickname really is deserved - from what we now know I think it's clear that Wiggins was very, very lucky.

Dorset_Boy

Froome has often attacked, but when its been early in the race, e's then been able to use his team to ride defensively, but when has he been defensive throughout a GT?
You're never going to win a diveball match if you don't get the ball in the net at least once...

DeVlaeminck

RichN95 wrote:

You get rid of power meters and radios, you can have salary caps, you can reduce teams, you can change stage lengths, but there's one thing you will never be able to change.....

....the geography of France.

It's terrain just isn't conducive to particularly exciting racing in the modern era

I'm not sure about that Rich it's a pretty varied country. Maybe they could do more with what there is, I think sometimes they don't want too much selection on stages which aren't in the high mountains.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

You get rid of power meters and radios, you can have salary caps, you can reduce teams, you can change stage lengths, but there's one thing you will never be able to change.....

....the geography of France.

It's terrain just isn't conducive to particularly exciting racing in the modern era

I'm not sure about that Rich it's a pretty varied country. Maybe they could do more with what there is, I think sometimes they don't want too much selection on stages which aren't in the high mountains.

But French road builders kept gradients of climbs fairly even and shallow. There aren't many roads which don't lend themselves to a mountain train style of riding.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The French view Froome as the English view Maradonna

Maradonna definitely was/is on drugs though. Boat loads of them.

Froome definitely is not LOLOLOL

DeVlaeminck

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

You get rid of power meters and radios, you can have salary caps, you can reduce teams, you can change stage lengths, but there's one thing you will never be able to change.....

....the geography of France.

It's terrain just isn't conducive to particularly exciting racing in the modern era

I'm not sure about that Rich it's a pretty varied country. Maybe they could do more with what there is, I think sometimes they don't want too much selection on stages which aren't in the high mountains.

But French road builders kept gradients of climbs fairly even and shallow. There aren't many roads which don't lend themselves to a mountain train style of riding.

Maybe, or does the Tour tend to stick to bigger roads because it's such a big event? You might be right, I'm in France now and will have done about 2k miles in the car by the time I get back to England and it's not something that's struck me but that's not to say it's not true.

slim_boy_fat

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The French view Froome as the English view Maradonna

Maradonna definitely was/is on drugs though. Boat loads of them.

Froome definitely is not LOLOLOL

What drugs is Froome on?

gsk82

Did we know his wife was due to pop fairly soon?

slim_boy_fat

gsk82 wrote:

Did we know his wife was due to pop fairly soon?

Saw that on twitter tonight. It's touch and go whether his unborn little girl will wait until after the tour.

tangled_metal

Does anyone know if the 5 TdF riders dominated their era's? Was it boring to see Merckx winning each year or Hinault or Anquetil?

Actually, merckx and anquetil did 4 straight wins then one apart. Hinault did two lots of two wins and a single win with a gap of a year between them. So I wonder if Froome will follow the likes of Merckx and Anquetil with four straight wins with one separated by a year.

Whatever happens he has 3 straight wins. That's one more on a run than Hinault and one less than the other two. Did the other two strangle the competition out, where they considered boring or not? Is it just Froome out of the greats that's considered as negatively affecting the sport?

darkhairedlord

Wiggins was lauded, even by the French, as le gentleman. Froome attacked and subsequently deposed him to prevent him defending his Jersey the following year. Thats froomes ground zero for how he is treated by the race going public.
Just my opinion!

Lanterne_Rogue

Tangled Metal wrote:

Does anyone know if the 5 TdF riders dominated their era's? Was it boring to see Merckx winning each year or Hinault or Anquetil?

There's long been a rumour that Merckx was explicitly banned from entering the 1973 Tour because the French public were getting a bit fractious about it, if that gives you a clue?