GaIslander

It does not seem to me that Froome was really tough enough for the Tour. Great bike rider, no question, but when it comes down to toughing it out, he wouldn't. After the 2nd crash, he hurt, he knew he was in big time trouble, the peloton was moving fast, and he may not get back on, blah, blah, blah. You would think the defending Tour champion would get on his bike and pedal as long as he was conscious and his body would world work despite those factors. Others would have including me.

To his defense he could have been more injured from previous crashes the month and days before than the team would let on. There may have been more going than we know. Note- In Porte's interview he stated, "We had to see how Chris could cope today". Porte knew something more we didn't.

I am still disappointed in Froome.

Caretaker

How many Tours have you ridden?

DiabloScott

The problem is that the Tour recipe has favored the Nancys for too long... guys who can only climb and time trial; not the serious hardmen like in the good old days (pre-Indurain).

Number400

I am sure it is killing him to drop out. Same with Cav. But, these guys are in it for the long haul and have moved on to the next upcoming race and want to heal up and get back at it, not struggle and suffer or be a potential hazard to others just to finish the tour.

I personally continued to ride and finish the last 45 minutes of a silly CAT4/5 race with a broken shoulder and ribs and a bike that would barely shift. I could not catch the group after the crash so I was not a danger to anyone and in hindsight was very silly to not head right to the ambulance, but the race meant a lot to me and I always want to finish. I cannot imagine being injured and having weeks of a race left, yikes.

Jed19

And it depends on what kind of injury too. I read where Froome said his wrist was so damaged he could not control his bike. If your livelihood depends on how well you can ride and race a bike, why risk further damage that could pose future problems?

RJM

Funny...and true.

ColnagoC40

Not a Froome fan, but believe the pressure of being a defending champion, public, professional and competitive resulted in a different rider 2014, compared to last year. True champions are consistent.

jyl

No reason to struggle on just to finish 30th. He's not a neo trying to prove he can last through his first tour. If he can't finish on the podium, don't bother.

If you're asking, why does he (seemingly) crash so much and why does he (seemingly) get so banged up with every crash - I don't know if that is true or just a string of bad luck, but also he is a tall guy, high CG, not much padding.

Mvcrash

Sorry, Off topic But........
I am more interested in St. Simons Island. Will be there last 2 weeks of August. Spent a few weekends on the island a few years back and really enjoyed it. Any recommendations for riding 15-20 miles per day?

SpeshulEd 

He fell hard early in stage 4, landing on the same side he crashed on during the Dauphine. Go jump out of a car going 30mph...then go jump out of it again two weeks later, see how badly you want to get back on the bike and finish the race. On stage 5 it looked like he ran into a street sign and then fell off the bike a second time before he even hit the cobbles. I don't blame the guy for saying f' it.

paperbackwriter

Contador won his first Giro with a fractured elbow. Cadel Evans once finished the Tour with a fractured wrist - even though it must have been a humilating experience (he lost yellow because of this and he was losing more and more time as Schleck and Contador were playing with each other). Both came back from injuries, in fact Bertie won the Vuelta the same season. Hoogerland finished the Tour despite being thrown onto barbed wire (remember how his leg looked?).
And no, it wasn't responsible. But true champions can't really be responsible; greatness has a touch of insanity to it. What Nibali did yesterday also wasn't responsible - he almost crashed 3 times and could destroy his whole race. What Contador did in 2011 Tour, when he attacked on Alpe d'Huez stage 100 kms from the finish also wasn't responsible - it was an unnecessary waste of energy and a Sky rider would never do anything like that (same for Fuente De, a move that won him La Vuelta). Vino on Champs Elysees, Pantani on the stage to Les Deux Alpes... the toughest, greatest riders are always a bit mad.

And Froome definitely has yet to prove that he's a true champion. This Tour doesn't prove that he isn't, this season doesn't prove that he isn't either. For now we only know that his technique isn't too good. But it does look like he's only capable of winning when everything goes his way - he's the strongest physically, protected by his team at all times etc. When it comes to coping with pressure - Contador and Nibali are MILES ahead. Or so it seems.

buckwheat987

if you need to be able to be a pro to comment then why televise? Why watch? Why sell tickets to sporting events and pay big money to sponsor.

The ability to discuss sports is one of the reasons we watch.

buckwheat987

I am not disappointed in Froome. His body was a mess. Why risk further, more serious injury when it was obvious he couldn't handle the bike.

chasm54

I'm not a particular fan of Froome, he seems like a bit of a dick. But really, for armchair critics to dismiss him as too soft because he has retired from the Tour after multiple crashes saying his wrist is too banged up to allow him to control his bike - wtf?

The guy is the reigning TdF Champion and a multiple winner in other big races. He's come back from a parasitic disease to be one of the top riders in the world. That makes him a pretty hard man in my book.

And for the record, I have crashed when competing and finished the race with a fractured elbow. Could I have survived a further crash and continued? Not a chance. Could I have got on the bike the following day? No way. Some of you have absolutely no idea.

bbbean 

I'm sure that is exactly like riding 3-4 hour centuries while racing with 200 of the world's fastest riders every day for 3 weeks.

seypat

I don't know enough about Froome to know if he is a wimp or a hardman. But I do know that these days it's all about the money. What Froome is, is somebody's high dollar investment. If he couldn't handle the bike on the smooth pavement then he would risk serious injury on the cobbles. He also might have been a hazard to the riders around him. If he was in the twilight of his career, that is different.

seypat

Somewhat OT but relevant, what if some of the riders had ran the cobbles carrying the bikes like they did in the P-Rs of old? What would the viewing public think of that?

longbeachgary

Some of you are missing the point. It wasn't that he was so hurt that he couldn't go on - it was that he hurt enough the he was unable to control his bike. He would have just kept on crashing and that was even before the horrors of the cobblestones.

Caretaker

Asking if someone who has ridden 2 tours is tough enough isn't comment it's just plain silly.

DiabloScott

You're probably thinking of Flanders - some of the cobbled bergs are so steep that once you stop (crash or otherwise) you can't really get going again and have to run to the top. Sometimes it's even been used as a strategy to create a gap. Not the case in any of the P_R secteurs.

Jed19

This is what happens when the internet runs amok! And as pointed out by seypat in post #16 , Froome is himself and someone's real money (as in millions of dollars) investment, and why risk further damage. I am sure Brailsford (he'll be losing Wiggins from Sky soon) wanted Froome to live and fight another day.

paperbackwriter

Since when critical thinking is a bad thing? No one is saying Froome is soft, no elite level cyclist can be called "soft" (yes, even Andy Schleck). But that does not mean he can't be thought of as "soft" compared to other GT winners - it's the way of praising the others and the way of praising cycling as a unique sport in which participants have to show unimaginable toughness. It's just like in any other discipline, really. You can't say that a writer who has published multiple books can't put two sentences together (or rather, you can, but it might make you look silly) but you could say his prose is weak compared to, say, Thomas Pynchon. Even if you have no talent whatsover when it comes to writing.

Comparing their history, Froome has not shown he's as tough as Contador. It's partially because Contador is pretty "unlucky", I mean, in his career PLENTY of things didn't go his way. And he always came back. Without his wife whining on twitter, by the way. We will see if Froome can do the same.

DrG0nz0

I would never question the toughness of anyone who rides professionally. If the injury made him unable to control the bike, to me it's a no-brainer. These guys go fast enough in the descents that a crash could end your career or your life.

Caretaker

Yeah, but the OP wasn't about Froome being tougher than Contador or Sean Kelly who also pulled out of a Tour due to injury. The OP asked 'is-was Froome tough enough for the Tour' , it's a silly question to ask about someone who has completed two Tours, not to mind that he finished in the top two in both.

ttusomeone

He just announced that the MRI showed he had a broken left wrist and a broken right hand. Would sorta have made it hard to ride a bike for two more weeks...