Chris Froome's numbers released

[kosmonooit]

I think Chris has handled all the abuse pitched at him this year remarkably well, but he has a right to be a bit cheesed, although I would not say he is a winger or sour puss on an on-going basis. Whether you are a fan or not, you must give him credit for that.

[Mntboy]

What pisses me off is that we end up debating little details like this and NOT stuff like how the 5 riders from Astana get CAUGHT and nothing gets done!

 

If I was a pro cyclist right now, I would be snorting EPO cause if somebody wanted to test me I would just point at Froome and say "rather focus on him, it will sell more newspapers!" And I would be left alone!

Yeah the heart rate to power discussion should be a non starter for those that know better. Surely people ought to know by now that the fitter you are the more efficient your body is at handling maximum efforts especially for a short period.

 

As for Astana Cookson's UCI will be adamant that the 'performance monitoring' done by a Swiss varsity was a success. A little dubious over that. Cheats will find a way to cheat and Vino and his team have shown themselves to be that. Once again we are reliant not only on individual athletes' morality but also the team's morality and Astana has shown theirs to be vrot. Until we have more teams like Garmin Cannondale that's willing to deal honestly about the doping culture that existed and still does exist the sport is going to keep having these kinds of discussions. Chris doesn't strike me as the type to cheat, let's hope that doesn't get proven otherwise.

 

Edit: grammar/readability

[jcza]

Cannondale Garmin is no different from the rest. Just because you think someone is a "good" guy does not mean they don't dope. 

 

I fully agree that Froome has handled all the abuse exceptionally well. Loads of it unjustified and out of order. 

 

However, what most of us lay folk can't fathom is why a guy that showed he has the engine back in 2007 fell off a cliff in terms of performance for 4 years before suddenly discovering form. During this period nobody figured out that he had to shed some weight and body fat? Really? Then the report from the UCI went missing for 8 years and we needed detective Cound to "uncover" it. Really? 

 

I don't think anyone questions the data and test from GSK attended by Doc Jeroen Swart. The test from 2007, I'm not so sure. 

[Patchelicious]

Cannondale Garmin is no different from the rest. Just because you think someone is a "good" guy does not mean they don't dope. 

 

I fully agree that Froome has handled all the abuse exceptionally well. Loads of it unjustified and out of order. 

 

However, what most of us lay folk can't fathom is why a guy that showed he has the engine back in 2007 fell off a cliff in terms of performance for 4 years before suddenly discovering form. During this period nobody figured out that he had to shed some weight and body fat? Really? Then the report from the UCI went missing for 8 years and we needed detective Cound to "uncover" it. Really? 

 

I don't think anyone questions the data and test from GSK attended by Doc Jeroen Swart. The test from 2007, I'm not so sure. 

So your whole basis of suspicion is based on him "falling off a cliff for 4 years?" bit of a sweeping statement isnt it?

 

For somebody who seems to follow very scientific and measured processes, I must say I am a bit surprised by this speculation?

[jcza]

So your whole basis of suspicion is based on him "falling off a cliff for 4 years?" bit of a sweeping statement isnt it?

 

For somebody who seems to follow very scientific and measured processes, I must say I am a bit surprised by this speculation?

 

The numbers supposedly produced in 2007 was good enough for a Grand Tour podium, yet he was nowhere near that. 

 

Surely the 2007 numbers and results up to Vuelta in 2011 don't add up? 

[NordicElf]

The numbers supposedly produced in 2007 was good enough for a Grand Tour podium, yet he was nowhere near that. 

 

Surely the 2007 numbers and results up to Vuelta in 2011 don't add up? 

That implies though that all one needs to succeed is the potential. Clearly in 2007 he had the potential but he wasn't putting enough of it together to actually succeed. If all the factors required in your life aren't going in the right direction, all those numbers are, are potential. He's now got everything going in the right direction and he's been able to convert that potential into results. Maybe?

[Patchelicious]

The numbers supposedly produced in 2007 was good enough for a Grand Tour podium, yet he was nowhere near that. 

 

Surely the 2007 numbers and results up to Vuelta in 2011 don't add up? 

If he was producing the numbers in 2007 yet wasnt winning, how does that indicate doping?

[jcza]

That implies though that all one needs to succeed is the potential. Clearly in 2007 he had the potential but he wasn't putting enough of it together to actually succeed. If all the factors required in your life aren't going in the right direction, all those numbers are, are potential. He's now got everything going in the right direction and he's been able to convert that potential into results. Maybe?

 

It also implies that Sky knew of his potential yet were 3 weeks away from letting him go. Yet Brailsford claims he had never seen test results or checked riders weight. Call me a what you like but it doesn't add up from a team that prides themselves on the finer details. 

[jcza]

If he was producing the numbers in 2007 yet wasnt winning, how does that indicate doping?

 

I'm not saying that the 2007 numbers indicate doping. What I am saying is that I find the 2007 numbers suspicious because nothing prior to that and in the 4 years after that indicate that the "engine" was there. Up to Vuelta 2011 of course. 

[raptor-22]

We can't explain it = aliens or doping

[nochain]

I have mentioned it before but it's interesting that people don't see this as an factor how long it took for him to get to the top.

 

The biggest factor to winning is confidence and a believe in ones ability to compete with the top guy's. 

The engine is important yes but it is not by no means the only factor in pro cycling.

He's power data from 2007 is in line with what many people have said about him..out on the road the riders know a big engine when they see it and there are loads of people that have said he was strong like hell back then!

 

The problem Chris had is he did not deal with bunch riding in Europe as well as other riders that raced in that system all off their life. In fact most say he was just completely useless on the bike from a skills perspective.

The biggest engine in the world will not help a no name dodgy bike handler in a bunch full of big name riders and monster budget teams. He would not have seen the front of the bunch at all!!Positioning is everything for riders that want results!

 

The only reason he was signed with Sky in the first place was he's numbers, think about it.....why would the biggest team in the world sign a no-name riders with 0 results to speak off.

 

But he struggled like hell for consistency due to he's illness and not being able to stay at the front.

Long story short when he final got he's legs right he got a shot at riding for Wiggens at the Vuelta and that was the big change. He was "allowed" to ride at the front because he was working for the leader of one of the biggest teams in the world. He got to the climbs at the front with fresh legs and could do some damage for the first time in he's racing career.

That gave him a "name" and confidence...the 2 things that was missing.

 

Lastly everybody also knows that he showed he's ability at the TT years ago and that was the way he was spotted by the big teams.TT is simple...power and position and good equipment and you get results. Road racing in Europe is everything but simple....

 

Bottom line is it is clear the engine was always there, but people seem to think that is all it takes to succeed.Not by a long shot..

[Patchelicious]

I'm not saying that the 2007 numbers indicate doping. What I am saying is that I find the 2007 numbers suspicious because nothing prior to that and in the 4 years after that indicate that the "engine" was there. Up to Vuelta 2011 of course. 

Almost as if the 2007 numbers were inflated to make the current ones seem more plausible?

[Patchelicious]

It also implies that Sky knew of his potential yet were 3 weeks away from letting him go. Yet Brailsford claims he had never seen test results or checked riders weight. Call me a what you like but it doesn't add up from a team that prides themselves on the finer details. 

 

 

So much speculaution..

 

Ok so lets speculate, here is a straight forward question.

 

Are you more suspicious of Froome over Contador, Quintana, Aru, Valverde and Nibali? If you had to rank them in order of suspicion, how would that list look?

[jcza]

Almost as if the 2007 numbers were inflated to make the current ones seem more plausible?

 

I don't trust the 2007 numbers  

[Patchelicious]

The worst is people take his word for gossip and you have to listen to that at braais and from your father in law 

Put out lots of chewy biltong, tends to keep blabberer's traps busy.

[jcza]

So much speculaution..

 

Ok so lets speculate, here is a straight forward question.

 

Are you more suspicious of Froome over Contador, Quintana, Aru, Valverde and Nibali? If you had to rank them in order of suspicion, how would that list look?

 

Not at all. 

 

The list would read as follows:

 

Tied for 1st: Aru, Valverde and Nibali. 

Photofinish for 2nd: Froome, Contador and Quintana