Well, is he? Chris Froome that is, the Keynan-born Britton who will ride into Paris tomorrow to claim his second Tour De France victory. I don’t know and I’d be none the wiser if his ‘power data’ or his blood passport were released in all honesty.
His race winning destruction of the field on stage 10 was probably the moment when the questions came into focus. As the post-Armstrong saying goes ‘if it’s too good to be true, it probably is’ and that’s been Froome’s problem.
Certain media commentators, including ex-riders with their own doping questions to answer, seemed happy to take that as all the evidence required. But the Armstrong trick was to be dominant day after day - Froome and his Sky team had a good few days in the Pyrenees, but the Alps was all about hanging on and keeping the losses manageable. Which they did as a team.
Ah, the team. Let’s face it, there are people queuing up to knock Team Sky - and I’m no cheerleader for the source of their funding. Yes, they are big, brash and bold. The biggest team bus, the largest support team and (in all likelihood) the best paid riders, so there’s an element of the ‘anyone but United’ syndrome, which is entirely understandable.
Team Sky haven’t ‘paid their dues’, working their way up the professional cycling ladder. They arrived fully formed at the elite level and brashly announced their intention to win the Tour with a British rider in 5 years. Pretty arrogant? Perhaps, when no British rider had previously managed it. But they did it. Oh and it didn’t take 5 years either.
Team Sky have now won 3 of the last 5 tours. Like Real Madrid & Barcelona, if you’re not a fan, it gets boring seeing money buy the best and sweep the board. But like those other serial winners Sky are obsessive about staying on top. They do try to buy the best, they do lavish resources on their team in the pursuit of performance and being in a less well resourced team must be hard to take sometimes. But does that make them cheats?
Post-Armstrong every cyclist is - and should be - scrutinized. As Fox Mulder would have it - I want to believe. If Froome’s under the microscope just because he’s winning, fine. Except it’s not that. Last year Vincenzo Nibali gave a great hard man performance to defend the yellow jersey all the way from a hillside in Sheffield to Paris. For Astana, of all teams - hardly whiter than white and managed by Alexander Vinokourov of all people!
A fair bit of smoke there, yet no fire last year. Perhaps there is some jealousy at work here, only natural. In fact it looks set to be the closest finish to a Tour in the last seven years. The battle of the super-rich billionaires to win the English Premier League bores me, so I guess it’s the same feeling that leads people to question how an upstart team like Sky can keep beating their established opponents.
But I think the doubters might be wrong.
Not because of the performances, the data, or any other ‘marginal gains’ that Sky are so fond of. No, the clue’s in the name. And the money. Sky have put an awful lot of it into their cycling team (and British cycling in general for that matter).
Sky are not stupid. The return on this investment has been a huge reputational boost for old Rupe’s empire. What’s the one thing that would undo all that? Yup, an Armstrong mk2 scandal. For that reason alone, I reckon it’s got to be pretty difficult for any Sky rider to get their sponsor into that kind of trouble.
While Sir Dave Brailsford cruises around France in a Jaguar and race director Christian Prudhomme has to make do with a race sponsored Skoda, Sky will alway get up some people’s noses, just like Chelsea, Manchester City and all the other billionaires-come-lately - plus ça change.
His race winning destruction of the field on stage 10 was probably the moment when the questions came into focus. As the post-Armstrong saying goes ‘if it’s too good to be true, it probably is’ and that’s been Froome’s problem.
Certain media commentators, including ex-riders with their own doping questions to answer, seemed happy to take that as all the evidence required. But the Armstrong trick was to be dominant day after day - Froome and his Sky team had a good few days in the Pyrenees, but the Alps was all about hanging on and keeping the losses manageable. Which they did as a team.
Ah, the team. Let’s face it, there are people queuing up to knock Team Sky - and I’m no cheerleader for the source of their funding. Yes, they are big, brash and bold. The biggest team bus, the largest support team and (in all likelihood) the best paid riders, so there’s an element of the ‘anyone but United’ syndrome, which is entirely understandable.
Team Sky haven’t ‘paid their dues’, working their way up the professional cycling ladder. They arrived fully formed at the elite level and brashly announced their intention to win the Tour with a British rider in 5 years. Pretty arrogant? Perhaps, when no British rider had previously managed it. But they did it. Oh and it didn’t take 5 years either.
Team Sky have now won 3 of the last 5 tours. Like Real Madrid & Barcelona, if you’re not a fan, it gets boring seeing money buy the best and sweep the board. But like those other serial winners Sky are obsessive about staying on top. They do try to buy the best, they do lavish resources on their team in the pursuit of performance and being in a less well resourced team must be hard to take sometimes. But does that make them cheats?
Post-Armstrong every cyclist is - and should be - scrutinized. As Fox Mulder would have it - I want to believe. If Froome’s under the microscope just because he’s winning, fine. Except it’s not that. Last year Vincenzo Nibali gave a great hard man performance to defend the yellow jersey all the way from a hillside in Sheffield to Paris. For Astana, of all teams - hardly whiter than white and managed by Alexander Vinokourov of all people!
A fair bit of smoke there, yet no fire last year. Perhaps there is some jealousy at work here, only natural. In fact it looks set to be the closest finish to a Tour in the last seven years. The battle of the super-rich billionaires to win the English Premier League bores me, so I guess it’s the same feeling that leads people to question how an upstart team like Sky can keep beating their established opponents.
But I think the doubters might be wrong.
Not because of the performances, the data, or any other ‘marginal gains’ that Sky are so fond of. No, the clue’s in the name. And the money. Sky have put an awful lot of it into their cycling team (and British cycling in general for that matter).
Sky are not stupid. The return on this investment has been a huge reputational boost for old Rupe’s empire. What’s the one thing that would undo all that? Yup, an Armstrong mk2 scandal. For that reason alone, I reckon it’s got to be pretty difficult for any Sky rider to get their sponsor into that kind of trouble.
While Sir Dave Brailsford cruises around France in a Jaguar and race director Christian Prudhomme has to make do with a race sponsored Skoda, Sky will alway get up some people’s noses, just like Chelsea, Manchester City and all the other billionaires-come-lately - plus ça change.
No comments:
Post a Comment