Like team-mate Bradley Wiggins before him, Chris Froome has spend much of the Tour de France’s second rest day parrying accusations of foul play from the world’s media.
“It is just quite sad that we are sitting here a day after the biggest victory of my life, quite an historic win, talking about doping,” said Froome less than 24 hours after he became the first rider wearing in yellow to win atop Mont Ventoux since Eddy Merckx in 1970.
Echoing his protégé, Sky’s manager David Brailsford, the mastermind behind what looks increasingly like a second successive Tour victory for the British team, said:
“It’s a rest day, it’s 10.00am, and the bottom line is I’m defending somebody who’s done nothing wrong.”
Froome is 28 years old and entering the prime of his career.
This likely Tour victory has hardly come from nowhere: he has finished in the top four in his past three Grand Tours and many believe he could have beaten Wiggins last year had he been let off the leash.
The way he has brushed aside his opponents in both the mountains and in time trials suggests the softly-spoken Froome could go on to dominate the sport in the same way as some of the previous greats who won the Tour five times.
Some sceptics are worried he may go about it in exactly the same way as the last man to join (and be dismissed from) the five-Tour club – a certain Lance Arnstrong.
Froome was clearly agitated when put in the same bracket as the Texan, perhaps regretting his earlier comment to a Norwegian journalist atop Ventoux that he found comparisons to Armstrong as “complimentary”.
“Lance cheated. I do not cheat. End of story,” snapped Froome.
“My team-mates and I have slept on volcanoes to get ready for this, we have been away from home for months training together, working hard to get here.
“Here I am being accused of being a cheat and a liar, and that is not cool,” he added – understandably losing said cool.
Put simply: in Froome, cycling possibly has a rider on the cusp of a period of Tour domination not seen since the likes of Merckx and Hinault. He should be on top of the world – but instead the world is on his back.
Quite literally, in the case of the French newspaper Le Monde.
Le Monde was one of the most vocal opponents of Armstrong during his era – and along with The Sunday Times for which David Walsh wrote, the French daily always questioned the legitimacy of the American’s reign.
Unsurprisingly, Le Monde has been dining out on Froome’s “super-human” performances – most notably with their employment of former Festina doctor Antoine Vayer as a glitzy guest columnist.
Now, as you can imagine with such credentials, Vayer knows a thing or two about doping – but, like Armstrong, he is so imbued in his own nefarious past that he can not comprehend the sport without doping.
On the eve of the Tour, Armstrong told Le Monde that the world’s greatest cycling race could not be won without doping.
(Well, he didn’t actually say this for his words had been taken out of context – in all likelihood, deliberately – by the paper).
Anyway, not to let the truth get in the way with a good soundbite, Le Monde have pressed Vayer to hammer home this point in a series of articles on the 100th Tour.
You have to give it to him – his dry, accusatory vernacular is quite brilliant, blending humour and a sense of faux-naivety that (and this is the worrying thing) probably goes over the head of many of his readers.
His – and Le Monde’s – agenda is clear: do their best to show that Froome is a cheating doper without actually printing those words in that order.
So, for example, Vayer will use the fact that Froome rode his 32km time trial at an average speed of 54.25 km/h and then add, matter-of-fact, that this time was “almost as quick as the entire Argos team, nine riders pulling as one, riding the 25km team time trial”.
Of course, Vayer didn’t bother comparing Froome’s time to that of the ITT winner Tony Martin, which would have been the most logical thing to do.
Instead, he compared it to a team whose decision to ride their TTT with their foot off the gas was vindicated by Marcel Kittel’s second of three stage wins the next day.
After Ventoux, Vayer then used his (estimated) power figures for Froome to make his not-so-laboured point that Froome’s ascent was quicker than that of previous records set by both Armstrong and Marco Pantani, concluding that “Froome is the best climber of all time”.
Although elsewhere other people have made the calculations that Froome’s total ascent was only the second-fastest and slower even than efforts from the likes of Andy Schleck and David Moncoutie.
Of course, Vayer’s rhetoric would be more believable should he actually have the numbers to go by – but he doesn’t.
No one does. Sky don’t release their rider’s power data – for fear of exactly this: that they will be used by ‘pseudo-scientists’ like Vayer in a squinted fashion to fit a premeditated narrative.
But with the spotlight increasingly on Froome and his riders, Brailsford did say – for the first time – on Monday that his team were ready to start making all their data available – not to members of the public, but to haematological experts at WADA.
Sure, this won’t help shut up people like Vayer who want to be able to make their own conclusions – but it should at least end the on-going accusations of Sky’s lack of transparency.
Le Monde’s near namesake Greg LeMond, the former three-time Tour champion and a rider widely considered to be the last clean winner of the race before the EPO era of the 90s came in, was present at the top of Ventoux to witness Froome’s swashbuckling performance.
When quizzed on live French TV about whether or not he thought Froome was clean, a flustered LeMond said:
“I don’t like it when people ask me questions like that and I want to believe in what I’m seeing. There can be spectacular performance without doping.”
It was a very familiar answer for it was something the 52-year-old had told me himself when I interviewed him for Cyclist magazine last month in the French Alps.
In a nutshell, LeMond – although admitting that he could be rather naïve on the topic of doping – said that a cleaner sport had levelled the playing field in the opposite way to doping, but had resulted in the same reactions from the public, ie. disbelief of any extraordinary performance.
But he stressed that riders who previously were held back by others who were doping now had the chance to come through and shine – which was what we could see with the likes of Ryder Hesjedal, Vincenzo Nibali and Bradley Wiggins winning Grand Tours.
LeMond and Froome have a lot in common – most obviously, a huge natural talent and powerful engine that even doping can’t improve (LeMond’s VO2max is said to be the highest of any cyclist in history – even than those doped to the gills).
In 1985, LeMond finished second to team-mate Bernard Hinault in the Tour after being given the Badger’s word that, a year later, the compliment would be returned – a scenario that was echoed by the Wiggins-Froome saga that had us enthralled earlier in the year.
This is perhaps one reason why LeMond feels a certain level of solidarity with Froome.
But it’s also worth bearing in mind that LeMond himself was robbed of some of his best years by the scourge of doping – and that LeMond himself was vocal about Armstrong’s suspect performances.
In short: he is no doping apologist.
When LeMond stood atop the podium after his third and final win in Paris in 1990, he was only 29 and there was little to stop you thinking he wouldn’t become the first – and only – American to win five Tours.
Provided he comes through the rest of the race unscathed – plus there are no scandals in the next year – Froome will be 29 next July when he defends his yellow jersey.
If cycling is cleaner – of which he says he is the living proof – then Froome won’t face similar obstacles as LeMond.
Froome is already six years younger than Cadel Evans, and five years younger than Wiggins, were when they won their first Tours.
Unlike Evans and Wiggins, there should be more in store for Froome. Despite Le Monde pulling him down, Froome also has the world at his feet.
Once his performances can be accepted as genuine – and don’t get me wrong: measured, intelligent suspicion is both understandable and healthy – Froome’s accomplishments will be something to celebrate.
It will take time – and for some, for whom cycling’s image is irreparably tainted, it may never happen – but Sky’s willingness to play ball with their power data is a step in the right direction.
Lroy
Guest
.."Put simply: in Froome, cycling possibly has a rider on the cusp of a period of Tour domination not seen since the likes of Merckx and Hinault. " Which is kinda ironic given Eddie Merx tested positive to amphetamines and steroids 3-4 times (depending which source you cite)... The comparisons to Lance Armstrong have not been lost on anyone... when the commentators claim; "that performance was unbelievable" maybe they are calling just as it really is. Sorry, I dont believe anyone on the tour has ever been clean, including Le Monde.
SueN
Guest
The rules were relaxed on the day due to the length and heat of the stage prior to Ventoux. I believe some other teams did take bottles (Garmin?). I am not sure why more didn't take advantage of the rule change.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
I read a forumer elsewhere say that it's forbidden for team officials only to hand food bags in the last 20km but as this guy wasn't a Sky official it was ok. No idea if it's correct or not though.
rickonvelo
Guest
Didn't the Sky team hand out food bags to the riders 10 km from the finish at Mt Ventoux, which is against the rules. Isn't that cheating?
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Colin, i dont disagree with what you say re other riders. For the record, Froome or Sky arent the only suspicious riders in my eyes. A few months ago a couple of french riders, vastly unknown, were caught for doping. Sure we didnt hear much about that in anglo media but the french did report it. What i mean is that i disagree with felix when he tries to make us believe there is anti-english campaign from Le Monde like there was a anti-american one against LA. Virenque and other french riders who got caught coped even more flak from french media. Lemond was loved by the french public, even more than Hinault. Same with LA at the beginning, although it quickly changed (i believe the french might not be as gullible as others, look at the WMD stuff a while ago). Sure Froome is now the main target as he is the one riding away whenever he wants. But i really dont think its an anti-Froome thing. We just dont know anymore about anyone. I just read this morning that Dave Brailsford just gave a very detailed interview to FTV about Froome's Ventoux climb saying he could even have gone faster. Tbh, i liked what he says, he made some valid points But as he himself said, its normal that ppl have doubts when they see en exceptional performance like this. And thats exactly my point, i want to believe he, and others, are clean but I just cant be 100% sure.
Colin N
Guest
He can't complain, I agree, and I don't think he has particularly. He's generally handled the questioning well, but it's human nature to get frustrated over time having to answer the same question. If you look at Contador, he apparently said in his presser that he would only answer two questions about doping otherwise he would walk out! As for his form, he came to professional cycling relatively late didn't he? He signed a contract at the age of 22 and in his first two Grand Tours came 84th and then 36th which is a pretty good effort for an inexperienced rider not racing for one of the top teams who don't have access to the same facilities etc. He actually had a decent 2011 before the Vuelta having good placings in stage races, particularly for a guy still learning his trade. And then after his illness in the early part of 2012, he came to the fore. Anyway, I understand the scepticism - I share the same view - and it's right to continue to question performances, but like Nibali I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt for now.
Boba
Guest
Any team that wants us to believe they are not doping, yes.
Boba
Guest
Nope, sorry - this is not a court of law, it is the court of public opinion (and perception). In cycling - guilty until proven innocent. Over to you Sky.
Bobo
Guest
Colin, I point out Froome's form because it is the most striking thing about him, aside from his current DpVAM - his transformation from struggling domestique to freak overnight in August 2011. I have only seen such transformations with doped riders- Chiapucci being the most obvious. Even Riis and Armstrong were senior domestique and team leader respectively when they grew rockets in their cleats. It's relevant because once-in-generation talent (which his performance on Ventoux was for a clean athlete) doesn't hide until the mid-twenties and then suddenly appear. The very greatest show their class from the start. Froome may be an exception, but he can hardly complain about people being sceptical-which is the point.
Colin N
Guest
"But regarding your main point- it’s no answer to one suspicious rider to point at another one." That wasn't my main point, it was about pointing out the hypocrisy. There were plenty of articles about the Giro here - just nothing about being suspicious of Nibali. "Nibali at least has been impressing in big races since the 2005 Tour de Suisse. Froomedog? Not so much." Again, that's rather simplistic don't you think? It's typical of people pointing to one particular thing which somehow 'proves' he's doping without looking at the whole picture.
James
Guest
wait what? the onus is on froome to prove he is clean? that is bollocks its innocent till proven guilty. its statements like that that this article is attacking. you cant say that lack of evidence is evidence of cheating. what sky and froome have done is take hundreds of drug tests throughout the year and during the tour. they pass them then the onus is on you to prove them guilty not on them to defend attacks that are based on the lack of evidence and on the cheating history of others.
Bobo
Guest
Colin - google 'Nibali and Ferrari' and then tell me everyone was cheering. I don't know why no articles were written here - maybe because the TdF is the biggest bike race in the world? No-one was writing Froome-doper articles here in the 2011 Vuelta either. But there was plenty of talk elsewhere. But regarding your main point- it's no answer to one suspicious rider to point at another one. Nibali at least has been impressing in big races since the 2005 Tour de Suisse. Froomedog? Not so much.
Colin N
Guest
That should apply to all teams then, so surely there should be pressure on all teams to release data?
Boba
Guest
To clarify - I believe that the Sky riders are doping. Guilty until proven innocent.
Lamby
Roar Rookie
His miraculous transformation from an also-ran to the greatest climber the world has seen (if he is clean) AND one of the greatest Time Trialers going round coincided with the arrival of Geert Leinders (the doctor behind the drug program at Rabobank and Rasmussen) as the doctor for Sky. Apparently had not bothered to do a background check on Leinders and had no idea he was under such a doping cloud. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles!
Colin N
Guest
"So what should we do? Watch and clap?" Well, that's what everyone did with Nibali at the Giro when his performances and power outputs were equally suspicious. In fact, the only guy who could get close to him in the mountains got done for doping. Plus, I can't remember any articles on here raising questions about that. You've got a guy that wins the Giro with a remarkable performance, in a team which controlled the race on some of the toughest terrain arguably better than Sky have ever done, whose general manager is Vinokourov! I might be showing some igorance here but I can't remember the same suspicions being cast over that performance, However, I'm slightly going off tangent here. It's the hypocrisy, the intensity of it all and, worst of all, the insinuation that gets me.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Great post bobo. Felix, I found that a bit simplistic, and misleading, to say that one newspaper, Le Monde, is on Froome's back. There are many other papers, journos, cyclists, scientists etc who are sceptical and ask questions, and rightly so (if you read French, check Liberation or L'Equipe and you will see Le Monde is not the only one asking questions. And am sure its pretty much the same in other countries). So what should we do? Watch and clap? Bobo, myself and the other posters so far arent saying Froome or Sky are guilty of anything. What we are saying is that some performances appear to be suspicious, no more no less than other performances which ended up being 'positive'. And as such we just dont know. Nothing wrong with having doubts or being sceptical imo.
colch
Guest
Sadly, Le Monde say probably right. They had right on Armrstrong and nobody wanted to heard.
Bobo
Guest
Ignore the hold, then. Concentrate on the transformation. If this guy is the genuine clean outlier, the greatest talent of his time, why did he not show one iota of that talent for five years until 2011, and then suddenly climb with the best in the world? He weaved sideways like a paperboy in the 2009 Giro to San Luca. He didn't need medical attention that day - he just couldn't climb. His subsequent transformation in 2011 was greater than even Armstrong's between 1995/6 and his return. It exceeded Chiapucci. To clarify, none the above is proof of anything, and I'm not trying to convince you of his doping - I'm not yet convinced he is doping. But his transformation was amazing, and the numbers he is putting out have only been matched by dopers. That, combined with the sordid recent history of cycling, renders it inevitable that cycling fans will ask questions and remain sceptical. If you think that being sceptical in those circumstances is a ridiculous position, then we will just have to disagree.
Felix Lowe
Expert
Some ridiculous comments here. Froome cheated on the Giro in 2010? Chuck out the whole peloton then. The context of that motorbike hold had been completely lost - he held on to get to the top of a climb, where he was going to get medical treatment before retiring from the race. He and Brailsford were angered about the principal of getting kicked out of the race - but he was going to retire anyway. Slanting the facts like that is as bad as the pseudo-scientists using the (estimated) numbers and then skewering them...