UKH

came across this on the bbc website today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44372328

i thought it was very interesting, and plausible- i'm inclined to accept it as one of the great performances in  sport, rather than evidence of foul play. 

The trouble is, even if it was clean great performance, the sport has been tainted and by association all the people involved. It's a massive pity but I'm not sure what they can do about it now.

They just have to keep on going; keep on articulating how things like that Giro stage were done so that people understand how great performances are delivered.  I can't wait to see how the grid-based start for one of the TdF stages will work - should be a fine arena for creative thinking, planning and execution.  It should also be a nightmare for the sprinters at the back, with no distance (and time) to absorb their losses on the hills, which will change the dynamic for the teams contesting the maillot vert too.

I watched this stage of the race from start to finish.

The amount of effort that the riders put in never ceases to amaze me.

Although Sky will give you facts and figures to tell you exactly how much effort a rider can produce there’s always that certain something that lets an athlete produce an extraordinary performance.

From 80km our it was obvious that Froome was going for it.

Parts of his ride are believable and other parts are, in my opinion and the words of most of the commentators that day, unbelievable.

As Krikoman said the sport and Froome himself are tainted by past events.

It would be a truly marvellous performance if it’s a clean one.

In fact it’s a marvellous performance even if it’s drug fuelled.

Will we ever know?

It was a very special set of circumstances, 

the strongest rider was 3 minutes back,

the race leader was knackered

the 3rd and 4th strongest riders were fighting for the young riders jersey so weren’t interested in chasing.

pinot should have been chasing with TD but was clearly knackered.

froome got away from a group (as he should bring he strongest), he pulled out a good lead on the descent (as he should bring the best descender), then TD couldn’t get the group to chase him down for the reasons above.

it was a once in a lifetime set of circumstances for Froome, but I don’t think it was truly amazing or unbelievable. He needed to be the best to pull it off and he was.

Froome put how many minutes into TD on the flat?

When was the last time you saw a performance that even came close to Froome’s?

And all while cycling within himself to use his own words.

Well... Of the three earlier ascents of the Finestre (2005, 2011, 2015) Froome's was the slowest, even with the Yates-dropping train to start. Perhaps the last climb (Jafferau)? Carapaz (in the chase group) was faster. Nibali in 2014 was 3 minutes faster. Most of Froome's advantage was gained on the first downhill when Demoulin et al were faffing around deciding who's going to do the work. There was nothing particularly exceptional about Froome's climbing.

* Data from www.climbing-records.com

I agree that neither Froome’s climbing nor his descending were unbelievable but his ability to put so much time into TD over such a long and relatively flat section is the bit that I find the hardest to understand.

TD didn’t have a bad day, he can time trial with the best and he wasn’t solo. Yet, despite giving his all he didn’t just lose a few seconds but over a minute to Froome who stated that he was also trying but riding within himself. Really?

But sport does throw up exceptional, historic performances at times- seb Coe breaking his own 800m record by 2/3 of a second in 1981, Michael johnson’s taking a third of a second out of the 200m world record in 1996, bolt’s 100m at the Beijing olympics, slowing up 10m from the line and still 0.05 seconds faster than anyone else in history- all of these were unprecedented, era-defining performances, and that’s just from men’s track athletics- other sports will have similar stories. 

Froome is clearly the best rider of the current generation, riding with the best resourced team. That he should be capable of a performance that transcends his peers, aided by a very particular set of circumstances, should be less of a shock than it seems; indeed, if cycling never threw up events like this, that would be the bigger surprise 

But; it’s cycling; and with its history of ‘too good to be true’ so often turning out to be indeed too good to be true, then there is always going to be suspicion whenever an exceptional performance occurs- all the more so because of the vuelta adverse result. 

Was this drug assisted? On this occasion, I don’t think so. But that’s a choice, just as I choose to believe that Usain Bolt’s superhuman performances in another sport where cheating is endemic weren't drug assisted. I accept I may be kidding myself; but the alternative- to assume that every transcendent performance is a sign of cheating - is worse to me.

This sums it up better than I could...

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/the-secret-pro-an-insiders-view-on-chris-fr...

"Reichenbach was ... basically a parachute on the downhills."

Not sure, possibly zero if you round 15 seconds to minutes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44372328

Has some (incomplete?) timings: 38 s on climb, 1m 15s on the descent,  25 s on the descent,  15 secs in the valley.

Oversll time gain relative to TD about 3 m 40s of which about 1m 40s on descents.

TD finished 3.23 behind Froome’s time.

Froome gained far more than 15 seconds on the ‘flat’.

TD admitted that he should have descended more aggressively.

That’s not the part that bothers me.

I love that sport throws up outstanding performances but there’s a world of difference between your examples and what we witnessed in the Giro.

Froome should be basking in the glory of a magnificent achievement.

That some of us doubt him is due to his and his teams actions - allegedly.

Why? 

And how do you explain the dominance of Roger Federer in tennis or Michael Schumacher in F1 or the many TDF stages that were won by minutes by Eddie Merkx. How do you explain Man U winning the European Cup in the final 2 minutes.?

I feel a bit sad for sport that nothing extraordinary is allowed to happen now without it being questioned.

I was watching this, Froomes time stayed basically the same on the flat and only went up a bit as the final hill rose up. You keep going on about TD being the best TT guy and that is true but when you ride a TT you don't have 150 miles and a few gnarly hills in your legs. I find it interesting that you are so determined to question Froome's performance when the question could just as easily be how the world's best specialist TT guy is keeping up with GC specialists at the end of a gruelling stage.

Exactly this. 

Best rider in the world (tm ) rides faster than 2nd best rider in the race. Shock Horror. 

Because according to those commentating on and after the race they couldn’t remember seeing such a performance in recent times.

I guess one has to put their own interpretation on what they meant by  recent times.

I’m not doubting that Froome is a very good rider, his record speaks for itself. It’s his ability to turn around an entire race with a performance that never looked likely.

That’s the stuff of sporting legend and what makes sports so good.

However, there’s a large black cloud hanging over Froome and until he addresses the issue is it any wonder that some of us have our doubts?

I don’t see how that makes it different from the examples I gave though. Most strikingly, bolt’s 100m- in a field including a previous world record holder at the distance, he started his celebration 20+ metres from the line, yet still broke his own world record. I don’t expect to see a performance like that ever again- truly legendary stuff. 

Great athletes sometimes produce great moments of sporting genius- the mere fact it was a remarkable performance doesn’t mean Froome cheated, and the reactions of some pundits watching it doesn’t prove it either, as there are others who accept it was legitimate, and can back up that view with an explanation of why they hold it.

Froome should have lost time on the flat to a group of chasers.

That’s what the cycling theory tells us. But he didn’t, he gained time, according to Brailsford.

Commentators with far more experience than me struggled to find the words to describe what was happening.

Well I’m sure that they had the words but didn’t want to use them.

He wasn't on a good day either, he couldn't match the initial attack and was already isolated at the time of the attack.  Not being alone wasn't necessarily have helped 'on the flat'.  The only one of the group wanting to put in a shift was Reichenbach and he wasn't going to pull as fast as Froome or Demoulin.

This debate will probably run and run so we’ll have to agree to differ.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter

There weren't a group of chasers.  There was a slower guy, Demoulin and 3 passengers chopping up the rythm

OK, so which bit 'bothers' you?

Here's the table of Froome's lead over Demoulin...

1. Top of Finestre : 37s

2. Bottom of descent (Pourrieres) : 1m30s

3. Intermediate sprint (after 100m/6km up, just before start of Sestriere climb) : 1m51s

4. Top of Sestriere : 2m41s

5. Bottom of valley (start of A32 200m/15km uphill drag) : 3m10s

6. Start of Jafferau climb : 3m20s

7. Top of Jafferau : 3m23

?

He should of lost time on the flat if the chase had been working together properly, they weren’t.

He should of lost time if TD had tried to time trial him back. He didn’t, either because TD was too knackered (remember he had been defending attacks from Yates for 2 weeks and was well in to a big stage) or TD had lost focus a bit.

And other commentators with just as much experience have given a clear explanation of why the result was plausible without invoking cheating. 

You appear to have made up your mind from the outset and only to give acknowledgement to views that support this position... 

yes, maybe he cheated; and maybe bolt did, and Coe, and Johnson (that’s Michael, we all know Ben did...), and tiger woods, and roger federer, and Cristiano Ronaldo, and sachin tendulkar; but making a blanket assumption that exceptional performance = cheating just seems to be cheating yourself out of the excitement that sport can offer...

The bit where Froome tests positive for a banned substance but is still allowed to complete and thinks it’s OK to do so, where a rider not on form cycles away from the rest of the field over 80kms while cycling within himself and the bit where it’s all down to fuelling.

Other than that I’m perfectly happy.

worth listening to the full interview on the bespoke podcast. You get a real sense of the planning and excitement of it all. 

Ah OK. So...

1. Salbutamol isn't a 'banned substance'. Agreed?

2. Rules and due process allow him to race. Agreed? 

3. What evidence have you got that he was 'not on form'?

4. Which section of the 80km raid did you think was suspicious? 

Or is it something else now?

Look at it from the other end of the telescope. 

Did Froome win it that day, or did the others lose it. I am inclined to the latter. 

Sky picked the tactics just right, and the rest of the GC contenders played into their trap. Froome is one of those athletes that whilst not necessarily gets stronger in a Gt, suffers the attrition much better than his rivals. He can go that little bit further - like Bolt can still be accelerating an extra 10m while his rivals have started to slow. 

His break off the front was not epic - it was measured and the gap pretty much remained static. what worked in his favour was his chasing teams having spent their support, a mixed group that would not work together, rivals looking to secure their podium place thus not working to aid Domoulin, and several who descend like Mrs Overall. 

Now we have the power data, it matches what we saw - a spike then settling back to sustainable power for someone of Froome's ability. 

The Giro this year was pure attrition - played like a manual from Sandhurst circa 1918. 

I think you are trying to reason with a closed mind

Excellently put. I've seen a few performances that were 'astounding' and this wasn't one, this made sense. As for the hyperbole offered by the commentators: That is what they are paid for.

Not if those chasers were ' playing games' with each other, no one willing to commit to the chase for fear of giving one of their fellow chasers an advantage, the irony was that if TD had been on his own he would have had a much better chance of closing down Froome.

See above, the chasers deliberately lost time waiting for weaker members of the group to catch up, a poor tactical decision. 

I disagree, the consensus seems to be that Froomes ride was good but not incredible, indecision and game playing by the chasers all worked to Froomes advantage.

You clearly hate Sky and Froome and therefore he is obviously a cheat in your opinion despite absolutely no evidence to support your views. Nothing is going to change your mind so keep on hating if it makes you happy.

The very cruel thing is that the really exceptional performance that day was Yates. A GC jersey holder losing more than half an hour

It's all relative - the guy who started second on that day gained 36 minutes on the guy who started first.

Does that mean Dumoulin is 100% on drugs and Froome is 110% on drugs?

Does that mean Dumoulin is clean and Froome is 100% on drugs?

Or does it mean Dumoulin had a 100% bad day and Yates had an unprecedented 1000% bad day for a GC jersey holder? 

It can all be explained any of the above or by Dumoulin not being as good as Froome.

It's impossible not to have doubts about cycling but I don't really have special doubts for that day.  

That was as thrilling to read as it was to watch. The Times published a similar explanation of Froome's performance.

Both Froome and Yates are at the top of their game physically; the difference is that Yates, who was going like a train only three days before, had been out in the wind for much of the three weeks while Froome had been sitting in the peloton and doing 25% less work than Yates. Once Yates has the same maturity and cunning as Froome he can beat him.  

Yesterday at the Dauphine they repeated the same old tactic of a strong Sky train forcing a fast pace at the start of a climb. Strength in depth also apparent in the Dauphine team time trial.

Will Sky exploit that strength in depth to get a Sky contingent into the pole position quintile of the weird F1 grid start for one day in the TdF? It puts pressure on other teams to make sure their GC contender has super-domestiques high in the GC.

There could be some interesting tactics before that day and some desperate tactics on that day. Or I might be talking rubbish. That has been known.

That is fascinating listening. It would be interesting to hear too the perspective of leading lights from Sunweb/MS... of that day, to get an insight on how they saw it and planned it. 

Didn't Froome just go faster on the descents cos he was packing some extra timber?

That TdF stage will be an interesting watch.  So much depends on just how far apart the groups are on the start and how much space there is to manoeuvre.

Well, with Sky 1st, 2nd and 3rd in GC the frothers in The Clinic are now comparing them to Gewiss. maeks a change from USPS I suppose. 

I think you've got right - they have a real strength in depth. half their team could be a GC  protected rider in one o the other teams. I don't think any other outfits come close - BMC possibly. 

They are a team built to compete grand tours. there's no pressure to have classics riders like the Belgians or Dutch - which is why TD lacks a real support train. I see Bardet and Alaphillipe as being the French versions of TJ - great on a good day, porridge on a bad day. 

Could the last team member at each summit have handed Froomey a bidon packed with lead shot, I wonder?  There's an idea for a marginal gain!

Great idea !   even a full water bottle adds half a kilo, never really considered this but it perfectly valid in the world of marginal gains.

Er, yes, but I bet Brailsford had a guy to advise against that. It takes more work to push a heavy weight to the top of a hill, but gravity accelerates all weights equally on going down.

So why do all the fat blokes pull away from me when freewheeling down hill ?

If that were me, I'd hear the call of n+1.

Shortly to be followed by the sound or 'er indoors' beating me to death with one of my own severed limbs

Hmm, me too. I only said I'd hear the call.

That's nothing! What about Vuelta 2017 when BMC had to top 6 places in GC? Hate to think what they must have been on (other than TT bikes). On the other hand it doesn't seemed to have worked too well since then.

Sunweb did a good video where they filmed some of the key parts - but didn't really get into tactics. The Cycling podcast interviewed MS sports director and asked him about nutrition and he said they just treated it as a normal day. didnt do anything special. 

I neither hate nor love Sky or Froome. They’ve provided some memorable cycling days in recent years.

I dislike a person competing in an event when they have been found to have an unacceptably high level of a particular substance. The rules might allow it but Froome’s insistence on being innocent would carry more weight if it came with a viable explanation.

Somehow the Sky team can find the time and the words to explain in detail how they achieved a victory but when will they explain Froome’s salbutamol level?

I have to admit to having a strong opinion about that days events.

Everything you write indicates otherwise.

As you say, the rules allow him to compete until he is proven guilty of an offence.  I suspect that if you have ever driven a car then, you may at some point, have exceeded the speed limit, therefore because I suspect you of this, I expect you to give up driving until I am satisfied that you are innocent ?  

Do you expect Sky to release Froomes personal medical information to the general public so that the lynch mob can try to pick holes in it ?  The UCI will (eventually) decide and if guilty issue the appropriate punishment.

"The haters gonna hate."

Do you not find it strange that a person, who in this case is Froome but could be any cyclist, can be flagged up as having unacceptable elevated levels of a substance but is still allowed to race?

As I understand it even if Froome is found ‘guilty’ it’s only his Vuelta result that will be affected.

Remember this is Sky, the team who promoted themselves as being clean but seem very reluctant to discuss the salbutamol, and other, issues.

Your mind is as made up as mine and I doubt we’ll either agree or change each other’s mind.

Thanks for the discussion

No, the UCI says “Pursuant to Article 7.9.1 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the presence of a Specified Substance such as Salbutamol in a sample does not result in the imposition of such mandatory provisional suspension against the rider.”

Are you still driving ?

>Your mind is as made up as mine and I doubt we’ll either agree or change each other’s mind.

Well at least you have admitted that your opinion is fixed and unchangable, I on the other hand will wait for 'due process' before preparing the guillotine, if he is found guilty and punished then I will accept that, I very much doubt that you would accept the reverse.

I don’t understand the fuss about Froome racing. How can it possibly be right that someone gets suspended de facto while they investigate, when he might be found innocent in the end? 

jcm

I saw Dumoulin quoted somewhere as saying he’d have done better chasing on his own. Assuming he’s right - and I expect he knows best - the margin becomes a bit less surprising.

jcm

Just did- brilliant interview, insightful and enthralling- thanks for putting me onto it...

That’s true, but with the same resistance, the heavier bike will have a higher top speed. I have played around with this quite a bit, both the heavy bloke and skinny bloke accelerate at the same rate, but the heavy bloke keeps accelerating for longer, so wins.

if you draw the force diagram of a bike at terminal velocity going down a hill it’s obvious that extra weight will give you a higher terminal velocity.

i honestly don’t know why the pros don’t employ this tactic.

im going to start a new thread about it.