An honest question. Why is there so much hate towards Chris Froome? We’re on the trust tree BTW. Yes, it’s true that there are certain incidents that aren’t very clear (TUE, salbutamol, etc.), but he seems like a good guy, and I don’t understand the rejection he generates in most of the comments I read and hear on the podcast.
3 Likes
You’re asking why he is disliked but you’re trying to disqualify the very reasons why he’s probably disliked.
It’s not that hard to create a public-facing persona to appear like a “good guy.” The reality is none of us know what he’s actually like.
And I say this as someone who’s pretty ambivalent about him, and do think it’s sad how his final years have panned out.
7 Likes
That’s why I’m asking. And I said “he seems like a nice guy”. I genuinely don’t know why he is so disliked.
1 Like
Setting aside anything to do with TUEs and Sky jiffy bags, I think it mostly comes down to the Sky Train style of Tour riding and it being so predictable (and succesful). People like the excitment of not knowing what’s going to happen and cheering for the underdog, like the Alaphilipe’s yellow jersey run in 2019.
Personally, I alwas cheered for others rather than Froome, but I never disliked the guy. His Giro and Vuelta wins were pretty exciting, it’s just that the Sky Train overshadows everyone’s memory and it’s all anyone thinks about when they think fo him.
11 Likes
I wish he’d done more stuff like this when he was racing: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pmgb-WBeo4s
3 Likes
There was fun stuff, like the time in the Tour he attacked with Sagan, or the goofy pedaling in supertuck, or the run on Ventoux.
No hate here. I think it’s sad that in his last years he’s seemed to be looking for excuses instead of just accepting that he’s not good enough to win races any more.
10 Likes
For what it was, I got the chance to chat with Chris before the race, at the inaugural Singapore Criterium. This was before Netflix’s Unchained premiered, so there was little (if any) fanfare at the event, and zero security around the paddock. Chris, was actually sitting around chatting with the team formerly known as Jumbo Visma, and I asked if I could chat and perhaps grab a few photos.
I recall him being absolutely genial, and so very easy to talk to. If he hadn’t been in IPT (then) kit, he’d easily pass off as just another bloke at the pub, He certainly had a decent following, with folks cheering him on throughout the race…
These guys were so down to earth, my other half, pre-enlightened by Netflix’s expose, actually asked if these guys were famous. Cavendish was there with Peta, as was “that little, unfriendly dude” (Vingegaard), etc were all there…
3 Likes
I never felt like there was a lot of hate for him at EC. The most I can remember is people being annoyed that for the longest time Froome was acting like he was about to be back at the top of racing. He made videos about a new change he’d just made and how it was going to get him back on top. After a couple of rounds of that it just got silly and, honestly, a bit sad. I just wished he would’ve retired earlier and not been so outspoken about how he was still one of the best etc. etc.
3 Likes
Yeah, that’s basically my take too—pretending I still got it and quietly siphoning a decent slice of the team’s budget. But considering whose money it actually was… I’m actually fine with it.
3 Likes
Concur. He also rode for (Wiggins), with (Thomas), against (Nibali) and near (Sagan, Cav) louder personalities on bike and / or in media.
I wonder how the peak of Froome’s career aligns with the relative decline of sprinting in grand tour prominence. It may also be part of what people see in him is the ASO’s prioritization of GC — even beyond stylistic elements of the Sky train versus other GC teams per se.
1 Like
Thinking about this a bit more…to be fair, it’s got to be hard to see that your power numbers are as good as ever – that you’re as strong as you were at your peak – and to accept that it’s not good enough any more. You haven’t declined, but you’ve still been left behind. You put in the hours, did the work, and the game changed. It can’t be easy.
2 Likes
His wife’s toxic social media presence certainly didn’t help him….
8 Likes
I’ve listened to a lot of people laying out the reasons in various group ride chats. I’d summarize as:
- Coming out of nowhere (almost cut by Sky) to be suddenly become the most dominant cyclist of the decade sounds too much like the ‘by-gone era’
- Explaining #1 away by ‘rare blood condition’ only after the fact, didn’t help. Felt really 90’s cycling.
- Salbutamol (which everyone else similar got banned for), jiffy bags, Freeman, Tramadol, TUE’s, London Olympics shadow really didn’t help.
- Moving on from Sky and immediately regressing to an also ran, all while making big claims about best form ever, no injury effects made no sense.
etc.etc. Nothing ever made sense. The stories, rumors, media faceplants, … just seems like a lot of BS and questionable behaviors and results. Those seem to be the ideas/complaints of the group.
I guess there are also those who just really hated the way he looked on the bike and how he rode. just didn’t look like a ‘talent’. Anyway, who cares…. I’m surprised I bothered making the list, but you asked.
10 Likes
I’m no Froome fan, but Froome’s “immediate regression” to an also-ran was largely the result of the training crash in 2019. The injuries from that crash were significant, and it would have been a challenge for anyone to return to their original form after a crash like that.
7 Likes
Froome himself said numerous times he was over the crash, fully recovered should be a contender for the Tour and was better than with Sky: Some quotes, of which there we many:
“I can finally say that I’m confident the rehab process is behind me now. In terms of the figures I’m seeing on the bike, I’ve got to the same if not even better left-right balance than I was prior to the crash. That’s extremely encouraging.” and “Being so close to the record, I can’t say I’m stopping at four [TdF] and not at least give it my best shot to try and get number five,” and “I’d also like to be on the forefront proving it can be done into your late 30s.”
1 Like
I guess then there must be no history of athletes overstating their condition, state of health, etc. There’s certainly no way they’d do that if their job depended on them being in top condition. There’s also no way that a person could ever underestimate the impact of such an accident on their condition and if they’d ever fully recover.
It’s curious you accept Froome’s statements on one topic and not on other topics.
I think it’s pretty obvious that after that crash in 2019, he was never the same as a cyclist. I think that’s supported by the history of other cyclists or other athletes who never fully regained their top form after a big accident or injury of some sort.
Agree with the list of super suspicious items. Cynical view (which is my own) is that he’s the modern Lance. Doesn’t matter how nice of a guy he is—none of it passed the sniff test.
1 Like
Because of the saddle thing perhaps?
I agree, it has taken Bernal something like 5 years after his crash to get anywhere near to in contention?
My beef with Froome as an athlete is that he’s a lot older than Bernal, and he should have quit some time ago.
I am conflicted about the salbutamol issue. I’m not sure how strong the evidence is that it’s performance-enhancing for healthy athletes in high doses. I’m not sure how large the estimated effect is. Should it be banned?
Now, he had quite a high concentration in his blood, consistent with quite a few inhalations. Salbutamol is a short-acting beta agonist. If you need to inhale that a bunch of times, you are normally stepped up in therapy. First they add a corticosteroid inhaler. If still not under control, they can add a long-acting beta agonist. Then they add other things. So, why was Froome’s therapy not stepped up?
Anyway, he appealed as we know. The rules allow you to undergo a pharmacokinetic (PK) study - that is the branch of pharmacology that shows what the body does to a drug after ingestion. Our rates of drug metabolism are known to vary. You could do a PK study and show that you metabolize salbutamol more slowly than normal, such that a therapeutic dose still has you exceeding the specified limit in your urine. (The rules stated 16 inhalations in 24h, no more than 8 inhalations in 12h - one standard dose is 2 puffs, and is usually effective for 4-6h).
Froome did not do a PK study in the lab. He was able to show the tribunal to its satisfaction that given known ranges of human variation, after adjusting for dehydration, he could plausibly have taken an approved dose and still come in over the specified limit in his urine. The UCI accepted this. I think they basically weakened their threshold for salbutamol going forward, but I don’t think they retroactively adjusted decisions. For example, Alessandro Petacchi was stripped of a number of 2007 Giro stage wins. Sucks to be him?
Basically, I think the decision could be justified, but given other public information, people had good reason to be suspicious of Team Sky.
Edit: I had forgot about Rozman when I wrote this. Froome and Rozman were close, and Ineos is trying to obfuscate about Rozman, and the text is pretty concerning. Plus Froome scrubbed him from his socials. That’s additional reason to be concerned.
1 Like
Why would he, though? He had a huge contract with IPT. I wouldn’t have retired, either. I’m far from a Froome fan, but I’m all for riders making every penny they can, while they can.
5 Likes