Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.

Page 282 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Should this thread be shut down?

  • No

    Votes: 10 35.7%
  • No

    Votes: 24 85.7%

  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
I disagree, there are a lot of people who don't want to post in the clinic. What is wrong with talking about Froome's physiology in the Froome thread?

For Red Rick who implied that scientists made up the data. No one would sacrifice their careers for a cyclist. And that is what fudging data for a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal would entail. Career suicide. FWIW, Swart isn't even British.
Scientific intergrity is never a given, especially if parties have an interest in the outcome of the research. Research is designed fulfill it's goal. In this case, the research wasn't initiated to improve out knowledge of physiology or disease, which is the case in most biomedical research.

The researchers in question aren't sacrificing their career. They basically get worldwide publicity, which is a huge thing. They gain as well from participating in it.

And as for this being in the wrong thread, I realise there's a fine line between discussing physiology and PEDs. But I was responding to a post which was (imo) full of scientific misconceptions that could be answered here.
 
Re: Re:

WheelofGear said:
PremierAndrew said:
LaFlorecita said:
WheelofGear said:
LaFlorecita said:
You really believe that Contador would have been able to hang on to Froome on Pierre St Martin if he was in peak shape?
Yes no doubt in my mind :confused: Berto has put out 5.9 W/kg before on long climbs, no problemo
Froome was at least 6 that day
I heard he was 6.1 or 6.2. Berto can't do that anymore. A 26 year old Contador could.
I don't think you can draw any conclusions from races where Froome and Contador raced each other where their circumstances weren't similar. Last time that happened Contador beat Froome due to tactical advantage he gained by being more consistent in the first 2 weeks. For the rest, 2015 can't be used to predic 2016 in any way, except for the fact that maybe Contador might be too old to reach his 2014 form again.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Scientific intergrity is never a given, especially if parties have an interest in the outcome of the research. Research is designed fulfill it's goal. In this case, the research wasn't initiated to improve out knowledge of physiology or disease, which is the case in most biomedical research.

The researchers in question aren't sacrificing their career. They basically get worldwide publicity, which is a huge thing. They gain as well from participating in it.

And as for this being in the wrong thread, I realise there's a fine line between discussing physiology and PEDs. But I was responding to a post which was (imo) full of scientific misconceptions that could be answered here.
And which scientists have an interest in the outcome of the study? The paper is published if Froome's data is less than expected or more than expected. That is the nature of a case study of this type. Our knowledge of physiology is increased by this data, albeit marginally so.

Until you can explain why researchers would threaten their livelihoods that they built up over at least a decade by falsifying data, I would say that your 'critical thinking' is more a projection of your uninformed biases.
 
May 13, 2015
2,101
0
0
I don't think you can draw any conclusions from races where Froome and Contador raced each other where their circumstances weren't similar. Last time that happened Contador beat Froome due to tactical advantage he gained by being more consistent in the first 2 weeks. For the rest, 2015 can't be used to predic 2016 in any way, except for the fact that maybe Contador might be too old to reach his 2014 form again.
I'm just trying to put things into perspective. It has been a very long time since Contador has dropped his rivals by more than a minute. Not many riders can do that against a top level field. Froome is one of the very few, if not the only one who can do that.

I'm not counting him out but with the chaotic management of Tinkov, his chance aren't looking that good.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
LaFlorecita said:
WheelofGear said:
LaFlorecita said:
You really believe that Contador would have been able to hang on to Froome on Pierre St Martin if he was in peak shape?
Yes no doubt in my mind :confused: Berto has put out 5.9 W/kg before on long climbs, no problemo
Froome was at least 6 that day
Not according to Sky's official figures.
 
Re: Re:

WheelofGear said:
PremierAndrew said:
LaFlorecita said:
WheelofGear said:
LaFlorecita said:
You really believe that Contador would have been able to hang on to Froome on Pierre St Martin if he was in peak shape?
Yes no doubt in my mind :confused: Berto has put out 5.9 W/kg before on long climbs, no problemo
Froome was at least 6 that day
I heard he was 6.1 or 6.2. Berto can't do that anymore. A 26 year old Contador could.
31-year old Contador could do that on a unicycle with 1 leg. And next year I would not at all be surprised if he reaches those numbers again. He already looks very lean :) When he was 26 he could reach 6.5 W/kg :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
Red Rick said:
Scientific intergrity is never a given, especially if parties have an interest in the outcome of the research. Research is designed fulfill it's goal. In this case, the research wasn't initiated to improve out knowledge of physiology or disease, which is the case in most biomedical research.

The researchers in question aren't sacrificing their career. They basically get worldwide publicity, which is a huge thing. They gain as well from participating in it.

And as for this being in the wrong thread, I realise there's a fine line between discussing physiology and PEDs. But I was responding to a post which was (imo) full of scientific misconceptions that could be answered here.
And which scientists have an interest in the outcome of the study? The paper is published if Froome's data is less than expected or more than expected. That is the nature of a case study of this type. Our knowledge of physiology is increased by this data, albeit marginally so.

Until you can explain why researchers would threaten their livelihoods that they built up over at least a decade by falsifying data, I would say that your 'critical thinking' is more a projection of your uninformed biases.
'Someone wouldn't risk their livelyhood on this research' is an assumption. You don't know what they're thinking. That's why methodology is so important. All assumpations you make need to be backed up by science. Thats how it works. Therefor you want as little chance of conflict of interest as possible.

Froome and his team initiated this study. Their interests, are very clear.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
dacooley said:
WheelofGear said:
LaFlorecita said:
You really believe that Contador would have been able to hang on to Froome on Pierre St Martin if he was in peak shape?
not a bad question in general, but a stupid one for laflo. :)
I'll let her respond herself, but maybe it had more to do with Aru...Top form Aru couldn't beat AC (not in tip top form) in the Giro, but he's going to be named as keeping up with Froomie?

We've seen a decent form AC and Froome go at it. Froome won, AC was on the same time though. Also Quintana gained more time on Froome in the mountains this year, yet the above poster named Aru over him as well.
the biggest problem with suchlike debates is cycling constantly changes, peak forms of riders change from season to season as well, even top dogs cannot reach their peak every season, etc. etc. i sincerely fail to understand how many guys attempt to take one's form from separate race of separate season, compare it with other rider's form and make strong conclusion. an obvious side of reality imo is contador's 2009 tour is still the highest grand tour level over the last decade, followed by froome's 2013 on par with bertie's 2011 giro. However, that's just another go to compare incomparable and a new season as always raises many questions: if froome can confirm his level, if bertie comes back to his best, are quintana and aru able to go further and continue to improve. in theory even bertie's 2009 level can be surpassed so we should have a patience and expect. :) :p
 
Bertie fans need to wake up a bit and realise that he has been an irrelevance at Le Tour for years, i can't see that changing anytime soon...the fact that some celebrated his mini sprint win against the real GC riders at last years Tour says it all
 
Re:

rick james said:
Bertie fans need to wake up a bit and realise that he has been an irrelevance at Le Tour for years, i can't see that changing anytime soon...the fact that some celebrated his mini sprint win against the real GC riders at last years Tour says it all
show me a fan who doesn't think positively about his favorite
 
Re:

rick james said:
Bertie fans need to wake up a bit and realise that he has been an irrelevance at Le Tour for years, i can't see that changing anytime soon...the fact that some celebrated his mini sprint win against the real GC riders at last years Tour says it all
Ha ha 2016 will be a big blow for you :)
 
Re: Re:

WheelofGear said:
PremierAndrew said:
LaFlorecita said:
WheelofGear said:
LaFlorecita said:
You really believe that Contador would have been able to hang on to Froome on Pierre St Martin if he was in peak shape?
Yes no doubt in my mind :confused: Berto has put out 5.9 W/kg before on long climbs, no problemo
Froome was at least 6 that day
I heard he was 6.1 or 6.2. Berto can't do that anymore. A 26 year old Contador could.
Of course he can...That stage was very easy till Pierre St. Martin. Next year should be intersting.
 
Pretty sure Contador's best performance this year was Hazallanas, which was like 5.9 at least, doing the last 7km alone in februari. Froome wasn't too far behind though, and both were chubby. Next stage they switched order. Overall was won by one second. That was the only race on the entire calender where they had somewhat similar form curve, as both were at the start.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
'Someone wouldn't risk their livelyhood on this research' is an assumption. You don't know what they're thinking. That's why methodology is so important. All assumpations you make need to be backed up by science. Thats how it works. Therefor you want as little chance of conflict of interest as possible.

Froome and his team initiated this study. Their interests, are very clear.
Quit changing the argument. I said people would not risk their livelihood by committing scientific fraud. Froome's interests are indeed clear, but you still have not given a shred of evidence that falsification of data would be in the best interests of the scientists, other than your blanket accusation that the study was done in England, ergo put 2 + 2 together. That argument has no merit. 'Little chance of conflict of interest' makes no sense either. Something is either a COI or not. And all COIs are declared during the peer-review process and are weighed by the editor when deciding to publish the article. You are setting up artificial barriers that do not exist in the real world because you dislike Froome. Rag on him all you want, but making accusations about people who are just doing their jobs is pretty cynical.
 
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
Red Rick said:
'Someone wouldn't risk their livelyhood on this research' is an assumption. You don't know what they're thinking. That's why methodology is so important. All assumpations you make need to be backed up by science. Thats how it works. Therefor you want as little chance of conflict of interest as possible.

Froome and his team initiated this study. Their interests, are very clear.
Quit changing the argument. I said people would not risk their livelihood by committing scientific fraud. Froome's interests are indeed clear, but you still have not given a shred of evidence that falsification of data would be in the best interests of the scientists, other than your blanket accusation that the study was done in England, ergo put 2 + 2 together. That argument has no merit. 'Little chance of conflict of interest' makes no sense either. Something is either a COI or not. And all COIs are declared during the peer-review process and are weighed by the editor when deciding to publish the article. You are setting up artificial barriers that do not exist in the real world because you dislike Froome. Rag on him all you want, but making accusations about people who are just doing their jobs is pretty cynical.
It's not up to me that falsifying data is in the scientists best interest. That's not how it works.

And as for the research, what is the whole goal of those researchers in the first place?
 
Re: Re:

I really hope next year we can get a tip-top Contador vs Froome. IMO Contador in his peak (Giro 2011 for example) was better than Froome, but his top shape nowadays would not match Froome
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
It's not up to me that falsifying data is in the scientists best interest. That's not how it works.

And as for the research, what is the whole goal of those researchers in the first place?
I have no idea what you mean by the bolded. I don't think you know how research works and that is the main problem. The scientists benefit from publishing the data, but they don't need to falsify anything to get this case study published, so why would they do it? That is just a poor conspiracy theory.

Read their article when it is published to find out what the aim of their study was.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY