Chris Froome's dominant Tour

 Watching daily excellence from Chris Froome, it's hard to ignore the magnitude of his performance. Best in the Time Trials, best in the mountains, it's only the sprint stages where he doesn't dominate. This dominance has led to new doping allegations....but what should he do....lose?

Legendary Sir Chris Hoy has come out  unreservedly in Froome's corner. To me this St Johns College product seems like a straight shooter. Everything about his attitude seems honest and almost naive in a way.....not secretive or manipulative. What a shame that this performance which may be the best in any sport so far this year, should be tainted.

But if it's not drugs, it's just pure excellence.....and rather than a fake, his performance on Mont Ventoux  is probably the high point in the Tour over the last decade. Sometimes you have to go with your gut instinct, my sense is Froome is legitimately burying the best cyclists on the planet.

I've been following cycling for a long time. Let's just say on stage 8, when Froomestrong went up AX 3 Domaine, his time was the 3rd fastest EVER up that mountain. You know whos time he couldn't beat? Do you know who has the 2nd fastest time ever up that mountain? Do you know who has the 4th best time?

If you don't know the answers, here the list of the top 10 best times up that mountain.

1. Laiseka 22:57, 2001
2. Armstrong 22:59, 2001
3. Froome 23:14, 2013
4. Ulrich 23:17, 2003
5. Zubeldia 23:19, 2003
6. Ulrich 23:22, 2001
7. Armstrong 23:24, 2003
8. Vinokourov 23:34, 2003
9. Basso 23:36, 2003
10. Armstrong 23:40, 2005

In case you didn't know, EVERY single one of those guys except Laiseka has been busted for doping. Laiseka though has been connected to many shady doctors. So he is very suspect.

Also, to be a great climber pretty much means you can't be a great time trialist. You can be good, but not great like Froome. It's just not physically possible. Even Armstrong couldn't win flat ITT's. Froome went out and almost beat the World time trialist Champion Tony Martin, and then proceeds to speed up Mount Ventoux a few days later destroying all of the other, supposedly, great climbers???

C'mon, Moz. Wake up.

I'm not even getting into the power and wattage he produces for such a small person either. The numbers are through the roof!

Read.

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/biking/Analysing-Froomes-Performance.html?page=2

Especially pay attention to the part where he goes into Climbing speeds(VAM)

Interesting, but not persuasive would be my assessment. You could as a counter example, take Bolt vs Ben Johnson. Johnson was heavily doped but Bolt a superior, supposedly clean athlete, with physical advantages, blew his times out of the water. Superior performance does not have to be evidence of doping. In this sport, if there's smoke, there is probably fire. But where is the smoke? - But you could also say Osafa Powell, Veronica Cambell Brown and Tyson Gay are also believabe athletes who have just been caught for doping. - Nobody knows for sure, and the excellent Tour commentators are not very forthcoming on the subject. Until it's proven nobody knows, if nothing is proven, nobody knows. So you have to rely on your judgement. - My sense is British cycling as a whole has a lot to lose.....all the accomplishments of Wiggins, the dominance in the Olympic Velodrome. I, therefore, put credence in Hoy and Wiggins supporting Froome. I also like the cut of his jib.....he looks like a simple honest character. - You also have to believe in this Tour, after the Lance disaster, that sponsors are all over the doping thing, trying to make sure their products aren't associated with cheating. And the Tour itself must be especially vigilant. - For Froome to be doping this year would be an exceptionally brazen and risky act. I just don't read him that way. - So why not give a guy with South African roots the benefit of the doubt.

Wow fellas - interesting debate, well laid out points from both sides.

It is frankly pathetic that Froome even has to defend himself against these allegations as what he is doing this year seems in many ways a NATURAL progression from how he looked last year where he looked in many ways like a young pup filled with boundless energy but remaining dutifully leashed to his master. He does seem to be the antithesis of Armstrong who is a POS, arrogant until the end, even in apology. I hope he (armst is bankrupted and rots in ignominy for the shame he brought on the sport and the shadow he has cast. Of course he was not alone, but he was by all accounts the worst offender.

What gives me hope that Froome is legit is that it takes a real conspiracy amongst teammates, coaches and staff to cover up doping at that level. Armstrong couldn't keep his together and there was a lot of smoke and allegations from people close to him from even early in his career that were ignored. So far I am not aware of anything like that with Froome and I think with what has transpired in cycling, it would be difficult to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. That is what my heart believes and it is reinforced by the person that Froome appears to be, while my head watches his performances in disbelief and doubt, almost protecting itself from the disappointment of the doping revelation that feels like it is lurking around the corner..

That disbelief and doubt is Armstrong's true legacy.

Canrugby, for someone who claims he's followed cycling for a long time, you're making some pretty bizarre statements here.

First off, you say "EVERY" one of the riders on your list has been bust for drugs? When did Haimar Zubeldia fail a doping test or get involved in any drug scandal?

Then this: "also, to be a great climber pretty much means you can't be a great time trialist." Really? What about Eddie Merckx or Miguel Indurain? What about last years winner Bradley Wiggins? Are you saying Wiggins cant climb or can't time trial . . . or are you just going to write off any Tour de France success as the result of drugs?

As for power and wattage, what has size got to do with that? How many Tour de France winners have been big men? Huh? Was Greg LeMond a big man? Do you know what his VO2 max scores were like?

If you think it's all about drugs and has nothing at all to do with talent, stamina and guts then why do you bother following the sport?

Chris Froome is putting in one of the all-time great Tour de France performances but he's getting no recognition or for it, instead he's being hounded by sensation-seeking reporters (the same ones who tried so desperately to discredit Brad Wiggins last year and failed) and people like you telling him that his performances are too good to be true. Well, if Froome is busted for drug abuse one day then feel free to come and crow at my expense, but until then, show some respect to a great champion.

 I sincerely hope Froome is clean but no wonder there are suspicions and Canned rugby is expessing these. The fact remains rooiwit drugging has been prevalent so superb performances will come under suspicion. Time will tell whether we have a true champion or not.

Great pity these suspicions have arisen but very understandable.

Froome, what's the SA connection ?

Blob, Chris Froome was born in Nairobi but grew up in Johannesburg and attended St Johns school. As far as I know his parents still live in Parktown North and he visits them regularly.

Rooi, thanks & what has happened to the SAn that got the yellow early in la tour ?

Daryl Impey? He's still going strong. No-one really expected him to hold on to the Yellow jersey once the Tour hit the first big mountain stage but he showed a lot of guts and character and he survived a lot longer on the stage than some specialist climbers and team leaders, finishing about 30th or something which is actually very impressive for a sprinter.

Since then he's back to his normal job of riding for his team and trying to lead out the team's #1 sprinter who has been pretty rubbish the whole tour. Wish the team would dump Matt Goss and make Impey the main sprinter then we could at least hope for a stage win on the Champs Elysees on Sunday!

Rooinek,

Read my quote again. You can't be a GREAT Time Trialist, and be a GREAT climber. It's like being great at playing prop and scrum half. You can't be great at both. It's two different styles of biking, and two different styles of body type. You can be a great climber and a GOOD time trialist, but not great at both. It's physically impossible. Great time trialist have massive legs, and are much heavier then great climbers.

As for Merckx and Indurain. It's a competely different time now. And you do know Merckx has been busted for doping, right?

As for Laiseka, I said this.

"In case you didn't know, EVERY single one of those guys except Laiseka has been busted for doping. Laiseka though has been connected to many shady doctors. So he is very suspect."

I don't know how hard that is to understand. But I guess if Laiseka didn't dope then it's okay right? I mean beating Armstrong, Ulrich, basso, Vino. Bah!! Whatever, Laiseka didn't dope so it's fine, right? LOL - C'mon Rooinek.

All I know is this, Froome is doing what no one has done that hasn't been on dope since the mid 90's. No one has dominated like this and hasn't been busted or admitted to doping.

How many does he need to win in a row to make you suspicious? 3, 5, how about 7? Will that make you clue in?

Oimatey, When Armstrong won his first tour there was little suspicion. It took winning a few more to really get it going. It then took about 15 years to bust him and for it to all fal apart. The bullying he did didn't help.

The absolutely most disgusting thing I'm seeing today is the same exact quotes from the years Armstrong won from the people defending Froome right now. It's like I've gone back in time or something. People need to realise there is no Santa Clause, there is no "miracles" like this.

Froome has not progressed in a natural way either. About 3 years ago he was being dragged up the mountain in the Giro d'Italia. He hasn't won, or even come close to winning anything of significance before 2 years ago. He hasn't even placed in a top 20 of an individual time trial of a stage race, and all of a sudden he's almost beating the World Champion at it??? That's not a natural progression.

C'mon you guys. Use your eyes!! I know some of you like him because he's British and has some South African connection, but take the googles off for two seconds.

Moz,

Armstrong had a whole lot to lose as well.

I will use my judgement and pretty much say he's doping. Everyone is on that road. Sky has either made a deal with the UCI (which is very plausible, see Armstrong and his team) or they have found a new drug, or they have found a new way of administering an existing drug to not get caught.

To me it just doesn't make sense that a guy can destroy the competition like this day in and day out for three weeks. In the mountains and in time trial. In this day of cycling that doesn't happen without "help".

You make a good case Can, but its not conclusive enough for me to assume this guy is cheating. I can't be that skeptical. Especially when you have articles like this with respected opinions who think what he is doing is humanly possible. 

So you can leave me alone in my happy naivety  :))

LOL- Oimatey.  I was just coming in here to post that article.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-releases-froomes-power-data

First off, that doctor also confirmed Armstrongs numbers...

Second. Sky released no numbers to the public. I see no numbers. Do you?

Third. I want to see his numbers from 2011 compared to PRE 2011. How can a man become so good on a bike in just ONE year? (last year he was the best rider in the Tour, but Wiggins was the "leader")

When a man is doping from 2011 to 2013 obviously his power data is going to be the same in that time frame. They have blood "passports" now kept all year round. If you are doping you have to dope all year round now to keep your blood at the same levels or the numbers will change, which will send out red flags to your passport.

You can't honestly tell me you believe a man can dominate at the top level of any sport after just one year?

Fourth. They released no blood values. Even if they released them from 2011 to 2013 it wouldn't be good enough. I want to see them all.

Fifthly. The article states this. "It is evident that to be able to operate with a power profile near 100% of his maximum, Chris Froome must have excellent ability to recovery between stages. Because if the level of fatigue accumulates too much, it is no longer possible to be close to his records."

REALLY? Huh?..... I've never heard of steroids that help with recovery, have you?? It must be a miracle he can recover so quickly. ( If you already didn't know, I'm being sarcastic) ;)

Believe all you want, but i've heard and seen it all before. Here's some quotes. Guess who they are from?

"The simple truth is that we outwork everyone. But when you perform at a higher level in a race, you get questions about doping."

"How many times do I have to say it? … Well, it can't be any clearer than 'I've never taken drugs.'

"We are completely innocent. We run a very clean and professional team that has been singled out due to our success … Before this ordeal I had never heard of [the performance-enhancing drug Actovegin]."

"Finally, the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics: I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles."

I'll give you a hint. His first name rhymes with Dance. :D

Just one more point about team Sky. Do any of you know who James Murdoch is?? His Dad?

I know they've "moved on", but that was only a short time ago.

Can you honestly trust this team?

There is big big money involved here. Froome is just the tip of the iceberg.

Great thread, coming from someone that knows sweet f.a about the sport..... thanks to all the posters .

Must agree blob.

Found myself watching last night because of this interesting thread.

Not sure what the point is though with everyonne taking stimulants. Like supporting a whole bunch of cheats only to crown the biggest cheat as champ at the end of it all.

Sad how things have come to this.

Thanks for the info there canned rugby. I like Bobbok dont follow the sports although in this younger days my boet, who died of cancer a few years ago was very keen and was the Zambian Best Allrounder one year. Not that there were many cyclists in the country!

I think ou rooitwiot has been again truly schooled and fear the chances are better than even that Froome is on something. otherwise he is a freak of nature!

No one has been "schooled". I hope they don't take it that way. I welcome discussion on this topic. I just don't think people realise how deep some of these things go in cycling. Team Sky is owned my a massive media corporation. They want viewership in Britain, and what better way to get that then having two Brits win the biggest bike race in the world back to back. This thing probably goes deeper then we know.

With Lance Armstrong there was a ton of money involved, and power. Armstrong gave a "donation" to the UCI of $200,000 dollars at one point during his reign. The people that headed the UCI back then are still in power today. I wouldn't be surprised if they are raking in the dough with Team Sky.

Froome is just a pawn in all of this...A well doped up pawn.

 So what now canrugby? Tiny little Quintana, on the day matched Froome's acceleration and climbing speed.  Was he also well doped...or is the fact that he isn't much of a time trialist  sufficient to give him a pass?

Moz,

As I said in a previous post, everyone on that road is doped. It just depends on how well doped you are, what type of "program" you're on(money plays a big part in that), and if you have "protection'.

They have no test to catch blood doping. Yes, I'm serious. You basically have to be caught red handed doing it. So you would be an idiot not to do it. It's why I continue to try to tell you Chris Froome is cheating in some way whether you like it or not. It's really only a matter of how much is he cheating.

Also, both there power datas weren't through the roof like Froomes were on AX 3 Domaines, the time trial, and Mount Ventoux.

So in other words this sport is a farce.

We're not watching talented cyclists but doped up cheats trying to out do each other with stronger and better meds.

What a crock of shit!!!

Reckon I'll avoid it next time round!!

Pretty much. Scientists that used to work for the UCI have said if a rider isn't blood doping he's an idiot.

Just before Lance Armstrong arrived to win his first tour de france, there was a huge drug scandal with the Festina cycling team, and a lot of spanish riders. Armstrong and a few others came along and it was a "new era" of cycling. The Head of cycling (the UCI) decide that Lance Armstrong would be "the guy" and they would crack the big American market with a cancer survivor. It worked very well for a decade or so. Well, 15 years later and we have what we had late last year with Lance Armstrong, and before that all his rivals from back then, getting caught. Now, AGAIN, we supposedly have a "new era" of cycling. We have the same people in power at the UCI deciding Froome will be there guy and they will crack - not only the British market - but the whole African one as well with the help of a tiny little company called Sky.

The Start of next years Tour de France is in Yorkshire England. Hmmmmm

Also, look what Froomes win has started in South Africa.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/africans-inspired-by-froomes-tour-de-france-victory

The UCI is not stupid. They are a very corrupt organization, and probably see no wrong in what they are doing because they think they are growing the sport. South Africa and Britain have a combined population of over 100 million people. That's a big new market to crack, and Sky Media can help them do that.