Anyone following Paul Kimages' TdF video diary? **Mod Warning OP**

Mcofferon

As usual I'm a little late to the party, but here's a link to day 4.
http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/day-4-paul-kimmages-tour-de-france-diary-29381296.html

You can follow the rest on the Indos sports web page.

Mod Warning - below is a copy of the warning in post 126

OK no more Froome or Sky talk unless Kimmage mentions either in his diary. Any further suggestions of doping by specific riders/teams within this forum can expect appropriate sanctions (and to be clear if I had not been largely AFK for the past few days some "contributions" to this thread would already have been sanctioned

Also no more general doping talk in this thread (again unless it comes up in the diary, but again subject to forum rules on doping

snollup

Have been following but the sound quality is so bad I'm not sure how much more I can take.

t'bear

I think its terrible

Mcofferon

snollup wrote: »

Have been following but the sound quality is so bad I'm not sure how much more I can take.

I know. It's a shame he can't lift audio from one of the TV or radio Journos.

Maybe if he asks nicely?

Jawgap

Yes......I expect it be decent car crash television.....

happytramp

I think it's a good question he poses regarding EBH. Also the attitude of the team sky press conference just reconfirms why I find them so irritating. "Yes you can ask any question you want...... as long as it exalts the unquestionable magnificence of the dark blue sky god's"

dastardly00

Yeah the sound quality is awful.

There wasn't much going on during the first 3 days of the diary, but I thought Day 4 was pretty good.
It's worth watching each day I think.

endacl

Hey was on Newstalk earlier commenting on today's clusterfcuk. His proposed documentary on this year's tour is looking touch-and-go after the theft of three Macs from his vehicle. So, if anybody's feeling generous, and really wants to see his documentary.....

MungoMan

http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/day-4-paul-kimmages-tour-de-france-diary-29381296.html


someone explain this to me...........its probably obvious to everyone else

so Kimmage was talking about the Norweigan rider, who showed massive promise a few years ago, and looked like someone who could progress into something special

and Froome, 3 years ago had yet to show serious form

And now Froome is better than than the Norweigan guy.


Why was this a question worth asking ?

bwcallaghan

Anywhere online that you can view the Sunday Indo pieces that Kimmage has been doing , also is David Walsh doing a regular piece on his embedment in the Sky camp or is it just a wrap up at the conclusion (which is the impression I get)

nak

MungoMan wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/day-4-paul-kimmages-tour-de-france-diary-29381296.html


someone explain this to me...........its probably obvious to everyone else

so Kimmage was talking about the Norweigan rider, who showed massive promise a few years ago, and looked like someone who could progress into something special

and Froome, 3 years ago had yet to show serious form

And now Froome is better than than the Norweigan guy.


Why was this a question worth asking ?

It made no sense to me and came across as more of an attack than a question. He was questioning why Team Sky were able to develop Froome as a rider but not EBH. Kimmage thought EBH could have been the next Merckx. If EBH wasn't happy at Sky, all he had to do was leave. He was never going to be a grand tour winner (in my humble opinion) and seems to want to focus on the classics anyway. Would love to have seen their faces.

laraghrider

I've read a few places that EBH had mental issues over the past couple of years. The pressures, the lifestyle and lacking that mentality to really take him up a level. Apparently getting over them now so maybe expect good things from him over the next year or two. Also he is 26 so not like he is washed up or anything.

nak

laraghrider wrote: »

I've read a few places that EBH had mental issues over the past couple of years. The pressures, the lifestyle and lacking that mentality to really take him up a level. Apparently getting over them now so maybe expect good things from him over the next year or two. Also he is 26 so not like he is washed up or anything.

I read that too, which is one of the reasons why I didn't think his question was particularly appropriate.

happytramp

MungoMan wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/day-4-paul-kimmages-tour-de-france-diary-29381296.html


someone explain this to me...........its probably obvious to everyone else

so Kimmage was talking about the Norweigan rider, who showed massive promise a few years ago, and looked like someone who could progress into something special

and Froome, 3 years ago had yet to show serious form

And now Froome is better than than the Norweigan guy.


Why was this a question worth asking ?

In a nutshell, he's implying that visible natural talent from a young age is preferable to a relatively unknown rider turning into the greatest rider on earth over night.

Jawgap

nak wrote: »

It made no sense to me and came across as more of an attack than a question. He was questioning why Team Sky were able to develop Froome as a rider but not EBH. Kimmage thought EBH could have been the next Merckx. If EBH wasn't happy at Sky, all he had to do was leave. He was never going to be a grand tour winner (in my humble opinion) and seems to want to focus on the classics anyway. Would love to have seen their faces.

I didn't get that question either - if another team thought EBH was a potential tour winner and was not being well served by Sky, wouldn't they try to lure him away?

happytramp wrote: »

In a nutshell, he's implying that visible natural talent from a young age is preferable to a relatively unknown rider turning into the greatest rider on earth over night.

To be honest I think he's implying something else - it seems from this piece that the shadow of doubt must fall on anyone who wins the Tour, if it is not their first Tour, or if they have not won it before.

Good writing, and a nice take on the Tour in Corsica, but I wish he'd change the record.....

RobFowl

Jawgap wrote: »

I wish he'd change the record.....

Because he didn't change the record Lance Armstrong has now been stripped of his "wins" from 1999 onwards.
I hope he keeps going until we no longer need to hear it.....

Jawgap

RobFowl wrote: »

Because he didn't change the record Lance Armstrong has now been stripped of his "wins" from 1999 onwards.
I hope he keeps going until we no longer need to hear it.....

Not denying the merits of his previous work - but does every piece he write have to be shot through with the same subtext?

I'd like to see some insight into this race, the day's stage etc, so I suppose the obvious thing for me to do is go read someone else.

Morrisseeee

A couple of interesting things raise their heads on that diary.

1. He asks a valid Q, ie. someone who was touted as being a very good talent but the Sky team have delivered very little, ie. in the context of EBH being a GT winner/contender.
2. How did Froome suddenly become a GT favourite/contender ?
3. Questions that the media are not allowed to ask while interviewing Team Sky !

I think 'fair play' to Kimmage for asking what most people are thinking/discussing anyway.

WilcoYHF

MungoMan wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/day-4-paul-kimmages-tour-de-france-diary-29381296.html


someone explain this to me...........its probably obvious to everyone else

so Kimmage was talking about the Norweigan rider, who showed massive promise a few years ago, and looked like someone who could progress into something special

and Froome, 3 years ago had yet to show serious form

And now Froome is better than than the Norweigan guy.


Why was this a question worth asking ?

You have to put in context some journo has asked what was Sky's vision of the future and DB said they want to take riders with good potential and turn them into world class riders. PK was curious as to why this didnt happen with EBH.

Which is very much a logical question because it suggests Sky are, in part, failing at their objective.

Beasty

WilcoYHF wrote: »

Which is very much a logical question because it suggests Sky are, in part, failing at their objective.

Really? Do you not think their objectives are more to do with winning races, which they have clearly delivered on?

There is no way every "potential" world class rider will become one - it's the same in all sports, and there are countless reasons for sportsmen and women not realising their full potential

What Sky have demostrated beyond doubt is their ability to deliver world class cyclists and to suggest they are failing in their objectives is frankly absurd

ROK ON

Morrisseeee wrote: »

A couple of interesting things raise their heads on that diary.

1. He asks a valid Q, ie. someone who was touted as being a very good talent but the Sky team have delivered very little, ie. in the context of EBH being a GT winner/contender.
2. How did Froome suddenly become a GT favourite/contender ?
3. Questions that the media are not allowed to ask while interviewing Team Sky !

I think 'fair play' to Kimmage for asking what most people are thinking/discussing anyway.

I am sorry but I completely disagree. Sport (and life in general is replete with people that peaked in early 20's and never delivered on promise. It can be for a hufe amount of reasons. Then other people develop at a slower rate and peak later.

Athletes that are consistenly top class for the 10-15 years of a top class athletes career are as rare as hends teeth. The subtext from PK I believe is that Sky must be up to no good for Froome to come from no where to world class in three years. Maybe he is correct. I have stated before that I do not believe that any Sky rider is doping. I do believe that they are playing yp to the absolute limit of the rules - but in pro sport that is what being professional is all about.

The Kimmage question while maybe suitablle for a broad interview with Brailsford or EBH for that matter, I think was appaulingly timed. It must of been tough for EBH to hear those questions on the cusp of a tour. Effectively being called a loser or all washed up. I hope that he uses it as motivation.
To my mind the question was all about PK - look at me. I ask the tough questions.

No - he used to ask the tough questions. He now is a troll IMHO.

happytramp

ROK ON wrote: »

No - he used to ask the tough questions. He now is a troll IMHO.

I like Chris Froome but I've just looked through his Palmares on his Wikipedia page and to be honest I wouldn't be in a hurry to criticize someone for asking Brailsford the question. All doping accusations aside it'd be interesting to figure out how from a training/sporting point of view how an absolute nobody (comparatively speaking of course) can become the dominant force in world cycling over night.

Fr D Maugire

ROK ON wrote: »

I am sorry but I completely disagree. Sport (and life in general is replete with people that peaked in early 20's and never delivered on promise. It can be for a hufe amount of reasons. Then other people develop at a slower rate and peak later.

Athletes that are consistenly top class for the 10-15 years of a top class athletes career are as rare as hends teeth. The subtext from PK I believe is that Sky must be up to no good for Froome to come from no where to world class in three years. Maybe he is correct. I have stated before that I do not believe that any Sky rider is doping. I do believe that they are playing yp to the absolute limit of the rules - but in pro sport that is what being professional is all about.

The Kimmage question while maybe suitablle for a broad interview with Brailsford or EBH for that matter, I think was appaulingly timed. It must of been tough for EBH to hear those questions on the cusp of a tour. Effectively being called a loser or all washed up. I hope that he uses it as motivation.
To my mind the question was all about PK - look at me. I ask the tough questions.

No - he used to ask the tough questions. He now is a troll IMHO.

How is it that he used to ask the hard questions but now he is a troll when in fact he is still asking the hard questions. As an example.

Back in 99, Kimmage was one of the few journalists not willing to fall at the feet of Armstrong when he won the Tour. He wrote an article in a cycling mag on how Christophe Basson's was his hero of the 99 Tour and why he was refusing to applaud Armstrong. He knew the score but of course couldn't state it(due to libel) but the subtext was clear. He was labelled a troll then but history proved him correct.

Now we have an athlete who has undergone an even bigger transformation than Armstrong(at least Armstrong had been a top level rider) Kimmage is back probing but is now somehow trolling!!! Are people aware that Froome had not a single win to his name before he suddenly morphed into a top dog.

Before EPO arrived in the 90s, there was no transformations like Froome. It is only with the introduction of Oxygen vector doping that these amazing transformations began to happen. Chiappucci, Indurain, Riis, Armstrong, Wiggins the list is endless. I think Kimmage is totally valid in his line of questioning especially as this is all happening on one team.

To give this an Irish context, imagine if Philip Deignan rocked up to the Vuelta in Septemeber and won the bloody thing. Would we be saying its a late development or would we be saying "err, hold on a second" and Deignan has more results to his name than Froome had.

boege

happytramp wrote: »

I like Chris Froome but I've just looked through his Palmares on his Wikipedia page and to be honest I wouldn't be in a hurry to criticize someone for asking Brailsford the question. All doping accusations aside it'd be interesting to figure out how from a training/sporting point of view how an absolute nobody (comparatively speaking of course) can become the dominant force in world cycling over night.

His time trialling ability has always been good. He is also a light rider so he had the core asserts a GT winner required. He turned pro in 2007 so an underdeveloped climbing ability could have been what Sky saw. Wiggo was never a great climber so look what happened there. Sky seem to put a lot of emphasis on training blocks in Majorca where they do enormous amounts of climbing. I watched Wiggens training schedule last year and the climbing numbers are mind numbing, never mind what the legs might think:eek:

In the end of the day allegations need to have some basis beyond improved performance as otherwise how do you move the debate on?

laraghrider

boege wrote: »

In the end of the day allegations need to have some basis beyond improved performance as otherwise how do you move the debate on?

Well without falling on one side of the fence or another it's performance spike that has always rang alarm bells. Take Armstrong for example. Now some would say well he was US champion and World Champion in 1993 so he had performance. True yes but then you look at his GT record and I think something like 48th was his best. Then he comes back from cancer and wins the tour 7 years running. Now that's a spike of epic proportions and it rang alarm bells.

Now does Chris Froome have a "spike"? Well lets look at pure stats. 28 years of age turned pro at 22 with the South African Konica team before going to continental team Barloworld. Winning absolutely nothing at all, not even a national in either Kenya or South Africa (where he grew up). Until 2011 that is, a whole 2 years ago when he won 1 stage of the Vuelta and last year 1 stage of the Tour. Then 2013 he sweeps everything and is an absolute shoe in for the biggest of them all.

What kind of spike does that look like to you? To me it's pretty bloody epic and will raise alarm bells. Like the question or not Kimmage's question was a valid one. What's even worse is apparently Team Sky told all affiliated reporters on their way in that they were not allowed to ask any questions regarding performance enhancing or training regimes. Why would a supposed "open" team make that demand.

nak

laraghrider wrote: »

Like the question or not Kimmage's question was a valid one. What's even worse is apparently Team Sky told all affiliated reporters on their way in that they were not allowed to ask any questions regarding performance enhancing or training regimes. Why would a supposed "open" team make that demand.

I don't know, but they way things have gone in the sport it must be very frustrating for riders being asked the same questions all the time. Marijn de Vries did an interview at the start of the Giro Rosa with the idea of promoting the race, all she was asked about was doping. She has said in the past that most female riders are lucky if they can afford a coffee. The press only seem to be interested in cycling doping stories. Veronica Campbell-Brown (multiple Olympic medalist) tested positive and I heard nothing about it in the news (it was reported, just not widely from what I saw).

laraghrider

nak wrote: »

I don't know, but they way things have gone in the sport it must be very frustrating for riders being asked the same questions all the time. Marijn de Vries did an interview at the start of the Giro Rosa with the idea of promoting the race, all she was asked about was doping. She has said in the past that most female riders are lucky if they can afford a coffee. The press only seem to be interested in cycling doping stories. Veronica Campbell-Brown (multiple Olympic medalist) tested positive and I heard nothing about it in the news (it was reported, just not widely from what I saw).

I can fully understand that frustration but at the same time the riders and teams have to take responsibility for their part in that as well. When people like Wiggins and Cav come out and say things like "that was years ago" & "it's a bygone era" etc... No, it was 2 years ago!!!! That just adds to the suspicion.

Hermy

nak wrote: »

I don't know, but they way things have gone in the sport it must be very frustrating for riders being asked the same questions all the time...

The way things have gone in the sport you'd think riders would be going out of their way to condemn the dopers. Their reluctance to do so does not inspire confidence that things have actually changed.

mistermatthew

Apparently froome since junior had incredible talent but was not focused, and now he seems to have become focused. Also it's hard to know what his performance was on '07 as if he's a clean rider he was competing against dirty riders those years and perhaps now his performance level only shows as the sport is cleaner.
It is impossible to know, only to trust.

RobFowl

mistermatthew wrote: »

It is impossible to know, only to trust.

Trust is gone a long time. It's up to riders and teams to prove that they are clean.
Unpalatable for many but simply the truth.

mcgratheoin

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Now we have an athlete who has undergone an even bigger transformation than Armstrong(at least Armstrong had been a top level rider) Kimmage is back probing but is now somehow trolling!!! Are people aware that Froome had not a single win to his name before he suddenly morphed into a top dog.

I'd have to disagree that Froome's transformation is bigger than Armstrong - just because you're a top rider doesn't make it less of a transformation into a GC contender - Armstrong was a classics man, a one-day racer who won the world championship. It'd be like Phillipe Gilbert turning up and winning a grand tour next season.

It's also worth considering the lack of any decent coaching that Froome had as a developing rider coming from South Africa. Stick him in the UK instead of Jo'burg as a teenager and he ends up in the GB cycling programme and progressing a lot earlier than he actually did. Essentially he didn't turn pro till his last year in university - who knows whether he actually trained to his full ability while studying? Couple that to his bilharzia infection and his progress from age 22 to 28 actually looks quite steady.

Chiappucci, Indurain, Riis, Armstrong, Wiggins the list is endless.

Putting skinny Wiggins (a rider with a very strong endurance pedigree) into the same category as the Indurain's and Riis's of the cycling world is stretching it a bit. Those were big strong-men (Indurain was 80kg) who were able to grind over mountains with the climbers - I don't think Twiggo (who shed a heap of weight) fits into that category.



I agree that the questions still need to be asked, and that the riders still need to be reminded that the public are fed up with dopers. I've commented on that several times before, especially from the perspective of what riders need to do and say in public to win over the sceptics. I get very annoyed with riders who say it's all in the past, particularly when you consider that last year was the first year in decades that the TdF podium didn't have a confirmed doper on it. However, I get the impression from Paul Kimmage's writing that he takes it all very very personally. While this can have it's benefits (Lance), there are times when it detracts from his work. It seems sometimes that he has a grudge/chip on his shoulder over SKY, which I can completely understand given the discrepancy between what they say and what they do.

The nub of the issue is that most of the teams are unwilling to do what it would take to convince PK and the more sceptical end of the spectrum, and they're ok with that, as long as they can keep the majority of people happy with them.

nak

Hermy wrote: »

The way things have gone in the sport you'd think riders would be going out of their way to condemn the dopers. Their reluctance to do so does not inspire confidence that things have actually changed.

I think as far as some riders are concerned you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Some journalists these days only seem to be interested in the doping story. I think that time and money should be spent on testing the athletes competing today and not retesting samples from the past, especially those of the dead.

Hermy

nak wrote: »

I think as far as some riders are concerned you're damned if you do...

Why so?

mcgratheoin

Hermy wrote: »

Why so?

Because the more you comment on dopers, the more you become the go to guy for quotes about dopers and the less the media want to talk about your cycling. Plus sooner or later you're going to have to stand up and comment on a friend or team mate and you're going to get lambasted if you don't say the same thing about him as you did about Danilo di Luca...

Hermy

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Because the more you comment on dopers, the more you become the go to guy for quotes about dopers and the less the media want to talk about your cycling. Plus sooner or later you're going to have to stand up and comment on a friend or team mate and you're going to get lambasted if you don't say the same thing about him as you did about Danilo di Luca...

Fair point.

I'm looking for a collective stance from the pro peloton, a clear message that doping is wrong and has no place in the sport. The continued absence of this is worrying for cycling and flies in the face of the repeated line that it's all in the past, let's move on.

Jawgap

It may be a bit of a red herring, but the swimming guy Sky took on as a coach has spoken in the past of the lack of coaching in cycling relative to other sports.

One of Sky's 'revolutionary' ideas was to provide constant one-on-one coaching to each rider - something it seems a lot of the other teams don't do or only do it sporadically. Perhaps it's that kind of attention and focus that helps riders come through, or quickly identifies what their strengths are and where they might be best applied.

ROK ON

To clarify my issue was not the questioning of where CF has come from as a cyclist. It was the continued reference to EBH when the athlete was in the room the day before the tour begun.

I think the line of questioning persued by Kimmage and the manner o that questioning was very disrespectful to the athlete and effectively accused him of being all washed up.
Personally I think that is unfair and I thought it was grandstanding a bit.
I think Kimmage has begun to take a hectoring and abusive stance in questions.

In the past he was aware if evidence. He was aware of the cover ups. It was not circumstantial.

I do nit see that he has anything other than hunch nowadays. I'm sorry even if there is doping going on without evidence you need to STFU.

Captain Havoc

I wouldn't have been so calm if I was Brailsford. The question about EBH was well out of order.

mcgratheoin

Jawgap wrote: »

It may be a bit of a red herring, but the swimming guy Sky took on as a coach has spoken in the past of the lack of coaching in cycling relative to other sports.

Very good point - it's only perhaps somebody from outside the sport who could see issues like that - here's a bit of what Tim Kerrison had to say.

In the previous era of cycling, I guess the teams did a cost-benefit analysis and the best way to invest their limited amount of resource for some teams was to invest in doctors and doping programmes, and coaching suffered. That's left a window of opportunity for us. Quite uniquely, in this sport the development of coaching systems has been retarded by the effects of the last decade.

It's still a shock how unstructured a lot of other riders and teams are. Swimmers very rarely do anything without a coach, rowing a bit more, but in cycling a huge amount of training is done without a coach. The concept of coaching seems to be hit and miss: some teams have a coach; some teams leave their riders to their own devices; in some the directeurs sportifs oversee what they do between races but we know it's hard for them.

@ROK ON - Agree completely on Kimmage being out of line towards EBH

petethedrummer

Well, it was more exciting than the preceding question. "Your Holiness Sir Doctor Brailsford, you have been incredibly awesome up until this point. How do you plan to continue the Magnificence of Team Sky?" <Genuflect>

YYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Maybe there's a balance to be struck somewhere in between the 2 approaches.

RobFowl

petethedrummer wrote: »

Maybe there's a balance to be struck somewhere in between the 2 approaches.

+1

Morrisseeee

RobFowl wrote: »

Trust is gone a long time. It's up to riders and teams to prove that they are clean.
Unpalatable for many but simply the truth.

And indeed it is the truth and a very good point raised, what are pro riders & teams doing to prove their 'clean-ness' ?
When Froome is removed from Bikepure's list of endorsed riders because he (Sky) won't release his performance data, actions like this only add petrol to the 'he must be doping' fire (or at the very least doesn't enhance his trust as a clean rider).

Actually, personally speaking, I'd like to see this happening in the future, ie. all pro riders must release their data, HR, speed, power etc. Examples like the Pro's on Strava, the Pro's that submit their data every so often to SRM.de, to the Garmin site etc, why do we not see the top guys doing it ?? it can't be just for race tactics, that's too simple of an excuse.

As for Kimmage's Q on Sky/EBH/Froome, it's a totally valid Q, and I don't see why people are saying he can only ask it at a certain time

FWIW I never rated EBH as a future GT contender, I always imagined he'd go down the classics route.

Edit: I see some are saying Kimmage's EBH Q is totally out of order, out of order me arse, EBH is a grown man, Sky are a very professional team, the Q is a valid one, so Kimmage should have gotten a very professional answer, and in fact the way they did answer it only adds fuel to the 'Sky are doping' bandwagon-firestarters.
My Q to ye is: is Sky's policy on the media, where they are only able to ask 'certain' Qs, totally out of order ?

petethedrummer

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Edit: I see some are saying Kimmage's EBH Q is totally out of order, out of order me arse, EBH is a grown man, Sky are a very professional team, the Q is a valid one, so Kimmage should have gotten a very professional answer, and in fact the way they did answer it only adds fuel to the 'Sky are doping' bandwagon-firestarters.
My Q to ye is: is Sky's policy on the media, where they are only able to ask 'certain' Qs, totally out of order ?

Another example of Sky not being able to handle something that has not been planned for.:pac:


If they normally planned for 1 dump a day would team sky just sh!t their pants if they needed a second.

mcgratheoin

Morrisseeee wrote: »

it can't be just for race tactics, that's too simple of an excuse.

From Sky's point of view - it's not at all an excuse. If you look at the way they rode the tour last year in the mountains, then knowing what a rival's power numbers are is a huge advantage. If they know that their rider can ride at a higher threshold, or even the same threshold, then they can set up their team at that level and nobody can attack and stay away. If they don't know whether an attacker can jump clear and stay clear, then they have to mark the breaks. That's a massive difference in how they would have to approach a stage.

Morrisseeee

mcgratheoin wrote: »

From Sky's point of view - it's not at all an excuse. If you look at the way they rode the tour last year in the mountains, then knowing what a rival's power numbers are is a huge advantage. If they know that their rider can ride at a higher threshold, or even the same threshold, then they can set up their team at that level and nobody can attack and stay away. If they don't know whether an attacker can jump clear and stay clear, then they have to mark the breaks. That's a massive difference in how they would have to approach a stage.

They all know each other's power, they all have power meters, they ride with each other pretty much all year, they ride the climbs side-by-side (for the majority of the climb) so there's no outstanding advantage there. The only time you would gain a huge advantage is knowing when your adversaries are on a bad day, but looking at yesterday's data is not going to help you there, it'd be mere speculation.

Morrisseeee

Inside the mind of Dave Brailsford

An interesting article (from May 2011) and it also has an interesting graph.

Fr D Maugire

mcgratheoin wrote: »

I'd have to disagree that Froome's transformation is bigger than Armstrong - just because you're a top rider doesn't make it less of a transformation into a GC contender - Armstrong was a classics man, a one-day racer who won the world championship. It'd be like Phillipe Gilbert turning up and winning a grand tour next season.

It's also worth considering the lack of any decent coaching that Froome had as a developing rider coming from South Africa. Stick him in the UK instead of Jo'burg as a teenager and he ends up in the GB cycling programme and progressing a lot earlier than he actually did. Essentially he didn't turn pro till his last year in university - who knows whether he actually trained to his full ability while studying? Couple that to his bilharzia infection and his progress from age 22 to 28 actually looks quite steady.




Putting skinny Wiggins (a rider with a very strong endurance pedigree) into the same category as the Indurain's and Riis's of the cycling world is stretching it a bit. Those were big strong-men (Indurain was 80kg) who were able to grind over mountains with the climbers - I don't think Twiggo (who shed a heap of weight) fits into that category.



I agree that the questions still need to be asked, and that the riders still need to be reminded that the public are fed up with dopers. I've commented on that several times before, especially from the perspective of what riders need to do and say in public to win over the sceptics. I get very annoyed with riders who say it's all in the past, particularly when you consider that last year was the first year in decades that the TdF podium didn't have a confirmed doper on it. However, I get the impression from Paul Kimmage's writing that he takes it all very very personally. While this can have it's benefits (Lance), there are times when it detracts from his work. It seems sometimes that he has a grudge/chip on his shoulder over SKY, which I can completely understand given the discrepancy between what they say and what they do.

The nub of the issue is that most of the teams are unwilling to do what it would take to convince PK and the more sceptical end of the spectrum, and they're ok with that, as long as they can keep the majority of people happy with them.

Tell you what, if you had asked anyone in 2011 which was more likely, Gilbert to win a GT or Froome to become the top rider in the world within a year, I think we all know what the answer would have been, indeed most people would have said "Froome who??"

Froome did not progress at all for 4 years and them boom, almost wins the Vuelta. That is not a steady progression, that is a jump of gigantic proportions. Dan Martin is a perfect example of showing steady progress and he skipped the British development system to ride for Ireland, he is doing ok without the amazing coaching prowess of the Brits.

The whole South African coaching thing is also a fallacy, do you think South Africa is somehow inferior to Ireland when it comes to cycling development. Lets not forget Froome spent 6 months at the UCI development center designed specifically for improving cyclists and he still didn't show much when he turned pro.

The coaching matter this is exactly what Kimmage is asking about, if Froome's development is down to better coaching, how is it SKY have not been able to improve EBH. To me its a logical reasonable question.

People are also moaning about Kimmage slamming EBH, well in most sports if a highly talented player moves to the top dogs and doesn't perform, it doesn't take long for the press to get on their case, it's called being a pro athlete. If you are not performing up to scratch, prepare to be asked about it.

kfod

Morrisseeee wrote: »

An interesting article (from May 2011) and it also has an interesting graph.

That graph is interesting. It does have a disclaimer on it, but they obviously thought very highly of "EBH" and not so much of "CF"

Diarmuid

nak wrote: »

. Marijn de Vries did an interview at the start of the Giro Rosa with the idea of promoting the race, all she was asked about was doping. She has said in the past that most female riders are lucky if they can afford a coffee. The press only seem to be interested in cycling doping stories.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/14/nicole-cooke-retirement-statement

Straatvark

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Tell you what, if you had asked anyone in 2011 which was more likely, Gilbert to win a GT or Froome to become the top rider in the world within a year, I think we all know what the answer would have been, indeed most people would have said "Froome who??"

Well, then the 'anyone' in 2011 did not look at both riders GC results in GTs in the previous 3 years (Both took part in the same GTs in 2007 & 2008 - A team would rather have signed CF as a GC contender. )

EDIT - sorry, thought you mentioned GT on Sky. But Gilberts GC results is also worse.

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

The whole South African coaching thing is also a fallacy, do you think South Africa is somehow inferior to Ireland when it comes to cycling development. Lets not forget Froome spent 6 months at the UCI development center designed specifically for improving cyclists and he still didn't show much when he turned pro.

It is sad to argue this one, but err yes. It is inferior - I need to mention the number of SAFFAS in the pro peloton compared to Irish riders. (per capita especially)

I don't mind at all that journalists question CF's results - I'm past the blind trust. One thing though - I would not call EBH under-performing...

Beasty

Before anyone strays to far, just a reminder of the doping speculation rules.

Thanks

Beasty