Tom Pidcock’s future at Ineos is up in the air, Mark Cavendish has been busy receiving knighthoods and chatting about future plans, and even Bradley Wiggins has been floating around, riding charity events and hanging out with Pete Wicks and Kate Garraway on Celebrity Catchphrase.
So, it was only a matter of time before Chris Froome’s name popped up somewhere.
The four-time Tour de France winner is currently racing in China at the Tour of Guangxi, where he managed to infiltrate the strong morning break of eight riders on today’s second stage, alongside the likes of Dries De Bondt, Daan Hoole, and Taco van der Hoorn.
However, with around 40km to go on the day’s only categorised climb – a Cat 3 ascent averaging 3.3 per cent – Froome drifted off the back of the breakaway, which managed to hold on until the final kilometre as Soudal-Quickstep’s Warre Vangheluwe won a chaotic sprint.
Despite its abrupt and early end and an ultimate 106th place finish, that 142km stint in the break today by Froome arguably represents the 39-year-old’s most impressive performance of what has been an almost completely anonymous 2024.
The Israel-Premier Tech rider’s best result this year so far was a 21st on stage six of the Tour du Rwanda, while his brief forays into elite European stage racing (what used to be his bread and butter during the glory years at Sky), at Tirreno-Adriatico, the Critérium du Dauphiné, and the Arctic Race of Norway yielded nothing higher than 70th.
Which is all probably why Froome – who remains one of the highest earners in the peloton – has this week been branded the “worst signing in cycling history” by former Danish pro-turned-journalist and pundit Michael Rasmussen.
Speaking to Viaplay’s cycling show, Rasmussen – who famously also had a habit of mysteriously disappearing (during training in Italy while trying to elude the anti-doping authorities, though, not at races) – once again pulled no punches when it came to evaluating the seven-time grand tour winner’s career swansong.
FroomeDog versus the Chicken, part two
“He has almost become a half-time clown who tours around to all kinds of small races. It simply has to be the worst signing in world history for a cycling team,” the spindly climber known as ‘the Chicken’ said.
“Not for Froome, though. Because it is a fantastic pension scheme that he has started there.”
Ouch.
“It is undignified to look at,” Rasmussen, who was kicked off the 2007 Tour de France while on the cusp of winning the race after he was found to have lied about his whereabouts for testing, continued.
“The wild thing is that it is his own decision. You can say that for five million euros a year you can probably take a few defeats along the way. Sportingly, it’s pretty meagre. It is an undignified end to a career like his.”
> Chris Froome downplays war of words with team owner, claims criticism of bike set-up and performances "blown out of proportion"
Of course, Rasmussen isn’t the first to question Froome’s position at Israel-Premier Tech, the squad he joined in 2021 after a hugely successful decade-long spell at Team Sky/Ineos.
Even IPT’s co-owner Sylvan Adams last year publicly stated that Froome did not represent “value for money” for his team, after the British rider claimed he felt “let down” after being omitted from the squad’s 2023 Tour de France line-up, and that his form had suffered from “frustrating” equipment issues.
(ARN/Aurélien Vialatte)
When asked on the Radio Cycling podcast whether Israel-Premier Tech’s deal for Froome – reported to be worth around €5 million a year – represented value for money, Israeli-Canadian billionaire Adams said: “Absolutely not. How could we say we had value for money? We signed Chris to be the leader of our Tour de France team, and he’s not even here. So that cannot be considered value for money.
“This is not a PR exercise. Chris isn’t a symbol, he isn’t a PR tool, he’s supposed to be our leader at the Tour de France and he’s not even here, so no, I couldn’t say he’s value for money, no.”
This week’s rant isn’t the first time that Rasmussen has publicly criticised Froome’s current form, either.
> “What a load of BS... Froome could ride his Pinarello from 2015 and still wouldn’t crack the Tour of Rwanda top 20”: Fans and former pros, including Michael Rasmussen, ridicule Chris Froome’s claim that bike set-up was “centimetres” off from Team Sky days
Last November, the four-time Tour winner made the now-infamous claim that his recent bike set-up at Israel-Premier Tech – including his reach and saddle height – was “centimetres” off from his Pinarello-riding, grand tour-dominating position at Team Sky, a claim dismissed as “bullshit” by Rasmussen.
Responding to our story on Froome’s comments (cheers Michael!), the Dane wrote: ““What a load of BS from Froome. Any pro cyclist who has done 1,000s of hours on a bike will instantly feel a change in the set-up.
“Froome could ride his Pinarello from 2015 and he still wouldn’t crack top 20 in Tour du Rwanda with his current level.”
To be fair, the Chicken was right – Froome only managed 27th overall in Rwanda this year…
Add new comment
19 comments
Without the drugs from team SKY, Chris's abilities returned to normal. Too big to fail, this is why he was allowed to fade away at IPT. If he were a bank, he'd be Natwest. I feel bad for IPT, that's a lot of money that could've paid for half a dozen riders for a couple years, maybe finding a new top-talent.
That's a bad comparison as NatWest's share performance is up 38% over the last five years and 53% in the last year.
“That’s why we’re determined to take action."
Louise Haigh's conversion to the dark (car) side didn't take long, but doubtless she's still smarting from the dressing down she got for pointing out that P&O are a rogue organisation that illegally sacks people.
She could have announced extra funding for road policing, thus cutting the number of collisions and dangerous drivers that are the reason for high insurance costs, but no, it isn't that. Intriguingly, as far as I can see the "action" she's going to take remains unspecified, and it's unclear what the government can do to reduce premiums, so this might just be complete BS, which makes me doubt whether anything she's said can be relied on.
Disappointing after such a good start.
In all fairness, she only said that because they are a rogue organisation that illegally sacks people.
It would be nice to have seen a Labour Govt finally call them out on it, IMO.
Spot on, but Labour appear to be re-learning about the age old lesson that politics is trickier when you are in charge than when sat on the opposition benches. Sometimes the Government has to do deals with the devil for the greater good (the greater good) or just suck it up like the rest of us.
What do you mean - sometimes? The devil already has a parliamentary pass and is usually to be found helpfully suggesting policy direction!
TBH I don't think that's quite fair.
I have no problem with their being a more efficient, competitive car insurance market, and her comments were about things that aren't backwards of themselves - even though there are lots of things that could have been mentioned.
If there was specific measures targetting vulnerable road users or active travel I would be shouting very loudly.
As long as all the other stuff we need happens, especially the rewriting of the underlying assumptions which liue behind our institutional problems, I won't worry about this.
Rather like in some we don't need to worry about setups like IDS and the Telegrunt venying their spleens; it would be far better for all of us if they did not do so, but these are basically noises off - a small man sitting on a tree legged stool in the corner howling at the moon. And we can for the next few years focus 99% on moving forward, rather than having to fight random, lobotimised Conservative Party ministers and their lunatic policies.
So someone (Adams) offered a very generous contract and someone (Froome) accepted it. Get over it.
The fact that he's been pottering around off the back of the action for years is irrelevant (unless there were strict performace-related clauses in that contract, in which case he's probably not being paid anywhere near as much as the media think).
Did anyone catch the bit on BBC Breakfast this morning about floating bus stops?
They had a rep from CUK and one from a guide dog charity.
I had previously asked the RNIB for the stats on visually impaired people affected by collisions with different vehicles.
They couldn't provide them but I guess we can work out where the majority of the danger lies.
Edit to add:
The only reason we have these at all is to "protect" cyclists from motorists.
With motor traffic being relatively slow in towns and cities particularly during rush hour, even in post-Covid times... cyclists should be able to navigate around stopped buses without fear of drivers.
If that wasn't an issue, then we wouldn't even need these.
Yep, a bit of chat about it buried in the comments on yesterdays blog:
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-15-october-2024-310783#co...
"Fearing for their life" "Images so shocking" "Terrifying" 🙄
Duncan Dollimore makes a good point that people may not realise the significance of the crossings. You would hope so, but they are different to the usual zebra crossings. More like a supermarket car park crossing, which has no legal significance. But these cycle lane zebra crossings do have a legal status and cyclists giving way is mandatory.
Not all of them have Belisha beacons, as they are not legally required. Nor are there any zig-zags lines, which you can see why, as parking/overtaking restrictions would not apply. But perhaps adding the zig-zag lines and Belisha beacons to these crossings would increase their prominence to both cyclists and pedestrians, making the casual cyclist more aware they must give way and encouraging pedestrians to cross at the proper place.
I think reduced height Belisha beacons could be a good thing.
I understand the need to avoid whataboutery but they showed several collisions with apparently sighted pedestrians. They suggested the cyclists were liable, even though the ped simply stepped in to the cycle lane NOT at the designated crossing point. I know we have the hierarchy but we don't have presumed liability and if a ped stepped out on to a road I think attitudes would be different. They also suggested that the cyclists hadn't slowed down but there's no way of telling that from the short clip.
Duncan Dollimores point was well made, that without some form of education how do people know how to use these facilities .
Presumed liability is another tool but it's also something that comes after the fact (the bad thing already happened). Unfortunately I don't think that's a great comfort to pedestrians any more than it is to cyclists...
Also note in NL AFAIK it only applies in civil matters e.g. compensation claims.
TBH if you blindfolded me and then sent me through e.g. part of London with all the "new cyclists" that the infra has helped facilitate I'm not sure I'd be overjoyed... nor mollified by the promise that - at some point (long) in the future everything would get better overall. Or that "don't worry, people will learn" (how)? I think that's the hard sell here.
Sadly RNIB - though they've got a thoughtful policy on some changes - seem to have taken a view against these.
I think it's a problem of "we have just got used to it being bad (because that is the "normal"). We find that change is generally worse and particularly for our members".
I'm not sure this is one that's easily countered with "statistics" (I'm not aware of these from NL where such infra is completely ubiquitous - usually in what appears to be a very good design). Particularly because I think there probably is some truth in "gets worse before it gets better" simply because it takes time for the social norms of how new systems operate to bed in, like what happened with motor traffic.
Unfortunately this leads to more "can't get there from here" effects e.g. a desire to put pedestrian crossings or even traffic lights on cycle paths. That actually works against one of the "pull factors" of cycling e.g. it can be made more convenient than driving as few if any traffic lights are required [1] [2]. As far as I'm aware once mass cycling is established these simply don't turn out to be necessary.
I was struck when the guy from RNIB suggested that one of the hazards was being dropped off/the bus stopping in the wrong place. This as you say is presented as normal. However, if this is disorienting, why wouldn't it be, and can lead to greater risk then that would be bad practice. The bus company (and driver) surely have a duty of care to all their passengers so they have a responsibility not to do that.
An appalling report by the BBC.
Leaving aside that they use videos fed to them by NFBUK (part of which looks speeded upafaics), the BBC push the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.
These are mobility tracks not cycle tracks, and are officially for use also by disabled or elderly people who use mobility aids - powerchairs and mobility scooters, in addition to cycles..
The RNIB should have been questioned on why they wish to force mobility aid users out into the motor traffic.
Agree - and as you say powered mobility scooters can be used on cycle tracks:
https://www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs-rules/classes
I don't know the motivations (is not stats driven...) but suspect it's the "silent and *far* faster than 8mph and ridden by some antisocial types" aspect which really sticks in the mind when they're talking about safety with respect to cyclists in this case. Sometimes you only need one striking image...
(IMO rather than a review of the laws on dangerous cycling we should have a look at sorting out those for "mobility" since cycles don't count and there are some other oddities. I wonder if people are aware of any of this - maybe another public educating campaign?)
I'm aiming for that as a key part of the Road Safety Review, which also means things like tactile paving defintions (they are signs on the public highway after all) being moved into TSRGD, rather than being optional for Local Highways Authorities to follow or not as they choose.
Various charities are chiselling away at intutional level eg Wheels for Wellbeing put their agenda (including, for examples cycles being recognised as a valid mobility aid) in response to the Govt consultation back in March, but recognise it is a long-term game - although we can expect more movement under the new, governing, Government.