Chris Froome's Tour de France victory

Summary

More or Less – Chris Froome's Tour de France Victory

Podcast: More or Less (BBC Radio 4)
Host: Ruth Alexander
Date: July 27, 2013
Episode Focus: Examining the performance statistics behind Chris Froome’s 2013 Tour de France victory, and the broader debate around performance, doping suspicion, and what the numbers can (and can't) tell us.

---

Episode Overview

This episode delves into Chris Froome’s winning performance in the 2013 Tour de France. Against the backdrop of cycling’s notorious doping history, host Ruth Alexander and her guests analyze whether Froome’s race statistics are exceptional or indicative of foul play. The discussion covers the impact of new anti-doping measures, how performance is measured and interpreted, and the challenges of drawing definitive conclusions from the data.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Doping Legacy and Froome’s Achievement

• Chris Froome’s 2013 Tour de France victory is celebrated, but skepticism persists because cycling is haunted by previous doping scandals (notably Lance Armstrong and Marco Pantani).
  • “But the problem for Chris Froome was that he was racing not just against his rivals, but against the ghosts of cycling past...” (00:41, Ruth Alexander)
• Froome acknowledges public doubt but insists on his integrity:
  • “I can understand why people are asking, given the history of the sport […] but I can assure you, I'm not [a cheat].” (01:12, Chris Froome)

2. The Role of the Biological Passport

• Since the introduction of stricter anti-doping measures (the biological passport, 2008), performance levels have generally dropped compared to the notorious era of rampant doping.
• Sports scientist Ross Tucker notes performances now are more “realistic,” but Froome’s stand out:
  • “The exception was Chris Froome in the first two mountains […] he was performing at a level that was similar to those athletes who are known to have doped at the past.” (01:54, Ross Tucker)

3. How Should Performance Data Be Interpreted?

• Ross Tucker emphasizes caution in drawing conclusions from single performances, citing “pixelation”:
  • “If you look too closely at one specific performance, there's a real danger that your understanding... is blurred because you're too close to it.” (03:11, Ross Tucker)
  • Contextual factors matter: the specific stage, fatigue, race strategies, weather, and timing all impact results.

4. Analyzing Froome’s Climbing Performances

• Froome’s rapid times on climbs like Ax Trois Domaines and Mont Ventoux sparked scrutiny.
• On Mont Ventoux, Froome was still slower than the record set by Pantani in the doping era, but similar to times from Armstrong and Pantani in the 2000s.
  • “The fastest time ever on Montrom 2 is way ahead of [Froome] [...], almost three minutes faster than Chris Froome was recorded on Sunday last week.” (04:05, Ross Tucker)
  • Tailwinds and stage context are offered as mitigating factors for his speed.

5. Calls for Data Transparency

• Media and critics demand detailed power output data from Team Sky, but the team only releases some data for competitive reasons.
• Fred Grappe, a cycling coach, analyzes available stats and finds:
  • “The power profile of Chris Rohm is the same. It is the same cyclist in 2011 and now; it's not another cyclist.” (05:41, as recounted by Ruth Alexander)

6. The Importance of Signs of Fallibility

• Tucker finds it “sad” that cycling fans now look for evidence of weakness to believe a rider is clean.
  • “...it's actually a little bit of a sad situation for cycling that we look for signs of weakness to reassure us, but unfortunately, that's what it is.” (06:12, Ross Tucker)
• Froome’s performances on other climbs (such as being beaten on Alpe d'Huez) are cited as reassuring signs of “normality.”
  • Not definitive proof but suggest healthy skepticism about both domination and doubt.

7. Testing and Residual Suspicion

• Froome was tested 19 times during the 2013 Tour. There’s no performance data to indicate doping in his case.
  • “Froome was tested 19 times in just this year's Tour de France. Nothing in his performance data shows he is doping. Really. He's a victim of Lance Armstrong and the other proven drug takers who haunt the Tour de France.” (07:11, Ruth Alexander)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Ruth Alexander (Host):

  • “The programme which climbs a mountain of statistics so you don’t have to.” (00:13)

• Chris Froome (Cyclist):

  • “I can understand why people are asking, given the history of the sport and that they've been let down so many times before... but I can assure you, I'm not [doping].” (01:12)

• Ross Tucker (Sports Scientist):

  • “If you look too closely at one specific performance, there's a real danger that your understanding... is blurred because you're too close to it.” (03:11)
  • “...it's actually a little bit of a sad situation for cycling that we look for signs of weakness to reassure us, but unfortunately, that's what it is.” (06:12)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:41 – Questioning Froome’s achievement in the context of cycling’s doping history.
• 01:54 – Ross Tucker analyzes the impact of anti-doping measures and discusses Froome’s outlying early-stage performances.
• 03:11 – The concept of “pixelation” and why judging one performance is risky.
• 04:05 – Comparison of climbing times on Mont Ventoux; evaluating impact of wind and context.
• 05:41 – Fred Grappe’s assessment: Froome’s power levels have been consistent for two years.
• 06:12 – Searching for rider “weakness” as a sign of honesty.
• 07:11 – Froome’s extensive drug testing and the enduring legacy of suspicion.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a data-driven, nuanced look at Chris Froome's Tour de France triumph. The hosts and guests caution against rash judgments based solely on performance data and highlight the many variables that affect outcomes in elite cycling. While questions are reasonable due to cycling’s past, there is no evidence against Froome—only the weight of a tainted legacy.

---

This summary omits subsequent discussion of royal births and genealogical statistics, focusing exclusively on the episode’s cycling content.

Transcript

[BBC Announcer]

Thank you for downloading from the BBC. For details of our complete range of podcasts and our terms of use, go to bbcworldserveys.com podcasts

[Ruth Alexander]

hello and welcome to More or Less on the BBC World Service, the programme which climbs a mountain of statistics so you don't have to. I'm Ruth Alexander. This week, we assess the performance statistics of the winner of this year's Tour de France.

[Interviewer]

How does it feel to stand up on that podium?

[Chris Froome]

Fantastic. It's really amazing. I mean, this is. This is a special jersey. This is the one everyone's after. So to be wearing this here today, it really means a lot to me.

[Ruth Alexander]

Chris Froome won three stages of this year's gruelling cycling competition and celebrated with his sky teammates as they approached the finish line on the Champs Elysees. But the problem for Chris Froome was that he was racing not just against his rivals, but against the ghosts of cycling past life. Lance Armstrong and others who used drugs to dominate the Tour de France in the 90s and 2000s. Critics have asked repeated questions about whether Froome could be performing at such a high level without drugs. Froome has remained adamant that he is clean.

[Chris Froome]

I can understand why people are asking, given the history of the sport and that they've been let down so many times before, but I'm also one of those people who've been let down. I've also believed in people who I've turned out to be cheats and liars, but I can assure you, I'm not

[Ruth Alexander]

well, more or less. Ben Carter's here. And Ben, this is all about numbers.

[BBC Announcer]

It is. Since cycling got serious about doping and introduced a new drug testing regime called the biological passport in 2008, the performances produced by men like Armstrong and Pantani on the Tour's mountain stages have never been matched. A sports scientist at the University of Cape Town, Ross Tucker, has been analyzing performances since the new rules came in.

[Ross Tucker]

What I've seen, certainly from the top 20 men in this year's Tour de France, has been a performance consistent with last year and 2011 and 2010. The exception was Chris Froome in the first two mountains of the Tour, when he won stages up to Axtroix Domain and Mon Gentou, he was performing at a level that was similar to those athletes who are known to have doped at the pass. And that means that there's been even more questioning around those performances, because people are looking at this and saying, well, if he's not doping, then how is he at that Same level. It's not a simple question of if you go too fast, you must be doping. There are many other factors. Tactics, weather conditions, road surfaces, the race situation at the time. So we know that all these factors can influence it. And that's why I don't ever want to be dogmatic or definitive about making any conclusion. This is a process to try to measure performance, time, power and physiology so that over time we can understand a little bit better. But it will take time and distance before it becomes clearer than it is at the moment.

[BBC Announcer]

After the Act Trois Demes stage, which Froome won in a blistering time, some critics suggested Froome's performance was almost mutant, but Dr. Tucker says, not so fast.

[Ross Tucker]

Many people were looking at that and saying, well, hang on, how can you be faster than the dopers unless you're also doping? And I think that's where it gets a little bit unfair. And I called it pixelation. If you look too closely at one specific performance, there's a real danger that your understanding of what you're looking at is blurred because you're too close to it. So that climb was a relatively short climb. It was flat to the bottom, which means that the riders would have been fresher by the time they climbed it. It was also in the first week of the Tour compared to when they've done it in the past, after maybe two weeks. And it was the first mountain stir to the Tour. So there are other factors, call them extenuating circumstances, which would allow you to justify how Froome could be almost as fast as Dopers without necessarily doping.

[Ruth Alexander]

But Froome's performance wasn't a one off. He also won the legendary stage at Mont Ventou. So what should we make of this?

[Ross Tucker]

The fastest time ever on Montrom 2 is way ahead of room. The Italian climber Marco Pantani, back in the 1990s, back when doping was really rampant, particularly bad, climbed 112, almost three minutes faster than Chris Froome was recorded on Sunday last week. But Froome's time was similar to those that Lance Armstrong and Pentani recorded in the 2000s. So, again, people who were looking at this to try to accuse were saying, well, that's proof he must be doping. Whereas other people are saying, just hold on a moment. And I would say the same thing is that the performance is fast again. So, again, reason to ask a question, but the evidence seems to suggest, and there's some conflict in this, that they had a tailwind on the day, so that may have helped him up the climb faster than in previous years.

[Ruth Alexander]

However, Froome's domination meant that journalists following the Tour were no longer interested in who was going to win the race, but in how Froome compared with the ghosts from cycling's past.

[BBC Announcer]

People wanted Froome's team, Sky, to release all their performance data. They particularly wanted to know how much power Froome was outputting on those climbs. But sky refused because they thought the information might help opposing teams. But as a compromise, they gave statistics covering the last two years of Froome's riding to the French sports paper l'.

[Interviewer]

Equipe.

[Ruth Alexander]

And that data has been analysed by a cycling coach and physiologist, Fred Grapp. He says Chris Froome's performance isn't superhuman or mutant, as some critics have argued, but consistent with his previous performances during

[Ross Tucker]

the two years between 2011 on now, the power profile of Chris Rohm is the same. It is the Same cyclist in 2011 and now it's not another cyclist. But I don't know the power profile before 2011, but it would be wrong

[Ruth Alexander]

to focus on just those two climbs, Axtroire de Maine and Mont Ventoux. Ross Tucker says we should look at the other mountain stages, such as Alpe d', Huez, where Froome was beaten. Does this sign of fallibility help to appease his critics?

[Ross Tucker]

It does, and it's actually a little bit of a sad situation for cycling that we look for signs of weakness to reassure us, but unfortunately, that's what it is. So we're not saying that there's a ceiling beyond which you shouldn't go without doping, but what I'm saying is that the ability to sustain those exceptional power outputs demand certain questions be asked. And so the corollary to that is that as soon as the athlete comes down and he shows signs that he isn't able to recover like a superhuman from one day to the next, those are reassuring signals. And so, for me, when we analyze the data, for example, from Alp d' Huez, and we see for the first time in the race that Chris Froome is also below certain predictions or benchmarks from the past, that is a somewhat reassuring sign. Again, I would caution against being extremist. It doesn't prove that he's not doping in the same way that his previous performances don't prove that he is doping.

[Ruth Alexander]

Froome was tested 19 times in just this year's Tour de France. Nothing in his performance data shows he is doping. Really. He's a victim of Lance Armstrong and the other proven drug takers who haunt the Tour de France. Still, and just time to celebrate the fact that on the 22nd of July, by my rough calculations, 37,807 babies were born. Oh, and one more, His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge, the future King of England. The royal birth has caused excitement worldwide, not least, presumably, in the household of pop stars Beyonce and Jay Z. If they've been reading the newspapers lately,

[BBC Announcer]

Beyonce and Jay Z's daughter is 23rd cousin twice removed with Kate Middleton and Prince William's royal baby.

[Ruth Alexander]

How impressive. Or not, maths whiz Rob Eastaway has crunched the numbers.

[Interviewer]

Well, let's look at how many grandparents and great grandparents you had, and that way you can work out how many cousins you might have and how many second cousins and third cousins and so on. And if you do that, then if you've got British ancestry of any kind, then it seems to work out that we are all at most 30th cousins of any other person with British ancestry and probably somewhere in the twenties. For the vast majority of us, it's really nothing special at all to be 23rd cousin. Frankly, even if you're in America or Australia, many other countries, if you can find anybody in your family tree who was born in Britain, then it's very, very likely that you have some connection within 30 generations of the royal family.

[Ruth Alexander]

Rob Eastway, author of Maths for Mums and Dads if there are any numbers you'd like us to take a closer look at, do email us. Our address is more or lessbc.co.uk and you can sign up for a free download of this program at our website, bbcworldservice.com more or less.

[BBC Announcer]

There are dozens of different podcasts now available from the BBC, including news, documentaries, science, business, arts and sport. The details of them all go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts.