Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1002 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

MikeS369 said:
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
brownbobby said:
Gung Ho Gun said:
Keep in mind that the Bilharzia thing popped up mid-Vuelta in 2011. Froome was far from a cycling great back then, to the point where he was still being sacrificed for Wiggins' sake. I doubt the whole thing was planned or even truly envisioned; and it's not that hard to believe that they made up a simple explanation, and then later had to adapt it, when certain holes became apparent. The first interview also doesn't mention the fact that he suffered from it in earlier years, for instance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible
Valid points but both with possible credible counterarguments, ie. why bother coming up with an excuse at all at the 2011 Vuelta. Through history cyclists have come up with one off performances that raise eyebrows. Whilst the questioning would have grown in intensity as this kind of performance became the norm for him, Froome could have easily deflected such questions at the 2011 Vuelta without having to come up with such an ill thought out and easily discredited lie. Whatever the Froomes may be, i dont believe that they're stupid. Quite the opposite in fact.
The fact he didn't mention previous issues doesnt automatically mean they didn't exist. I dont automtically recount my full life story every time someone asks me a question about a certain point or event in my life.
It reminds of the Armstrong cortisone positive. They spent 30 minutes on the Internet looking for the same drug in other treatments. When they found the saddle sore cream that became the “story”. I think Froome was much the same. When he started going full genius at the 2011 Vuelta they needed a quick back story and Badzhilla became that story without the time to do all the nessacary research into the lie.
Maybe, but as i said earlier why bother at all at this stage....its quite a different scenarion from LA's positive drug test that absolutely needed some kind of explanation in a hurry.

Whilst there were definetely eyebrows being raised, no one was pushing so hard for answers in 2011 that the Froomes would have felt compelled to hurriedly come up with excuses.

Hell, Froome didn't even have his own thread on the Clinic until 2012!
I don't think I have ever heard someone say another person is telling the truth due to the numerous inconsistencies in their story. It's lying that makes it hard to stay consistent.
So i guess you either didn't read or choose to ignore my reasoning behind such a statement then.

On the contrary, good liars are often metronomic in their recounting of dates and events to support a lie. It's often this unnatural, practiced robotic consistency which can give them away.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
MikeS369 said:
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
brownbobby said:
Valid points but both with possible credible counterarguments, ie. why bother coming up with an excuse at all at the 2011 Vuelta. Through history cyclists have come up with one off performances that raise eyebrows. Whilst the questioning would have grown in intensity as this kind of performance became the norm for him, Froome could have easily deflected such questions at the 2011 Vuelta without having to come up with such an ill thought out and easily discredited lie. Whatever the Froomes may be, i dont believe that they're stupid. Quite the opposite in fact.
The fact he didn't mention previous issues doesnt automatically mean they didn't exist. I dont automtically recount my full life story every time someone asks me a question about a certain point or event in my life.
It reminds of the Armstrong cortisone positive. They spent 30 minutes on the Internet looking for the same drug in other treatments. When they found the saddle sore cream that became the “story”. I think Froome was much the same. When he started going full genius at the 2011 Vuelta they needed a quick back story and Badzhilla became that story without the time to do all the nessacary research into the lie.
Maybe, but as i said earlier why bother at all at this stage....its quite a different scenarion from LA's positive drug test that absolutely needed some kind of explanation in a hurry.

Whilst there were definetely eyebrows being raised, no one was pushing so hard for answers in 2011 that the Froomes would have felt compelled to hurriedly come up with excuses.

Hell, Froome didn't even have his own thread on the Clinic until 2012!
I don't think I have ever heard someone say another person is telling the truth due to the numerous inconsistencies in their story. It's lying that makes it hard to stay consistent.
So i guess you either didn't read or choose to ignore my reasoning behind such a statement then.

On the contrary, good liars are often metronomic in their recounting of dates and events to support a lie. It's often this unnatural, practiced robotic consistency which can give them away.
And who are you, professor of lying studies at Harvard?
Your make quite the rep as a lawyer.
"Can you explain why your client gave the police 10 different alabis for where he was on the night, sevral of which have been disproved"
"Well liars are usually very good at remembering their lies. So my client must have been telling the truth"
 
Re: Re:

I don't think I have ever heard someone say another person is telling the truth due to the numerous inconsistencies in their story. It's lying that makes it hard to stay consistent.[/quote]

So i guess you either didn't read or choose to ignore my reasoning behind such a statement then.

On the contrary, good liars are often metronomic in their recounting of dates and events to support a lie. It's often this unnatural, practiced robotic consistency which can give them away.[/quote]
And who are you, professor of lying studies at Harvard?
Your make quite the rep as a lawyer.
"Can you explain why your client gave the police 10 different alabis for where he was on the night, sevral of which have been disproved"
"Well liars are usually very good at remembering their lies. So my client must have been telling the truth"[/quote]

This is a forum which invites opinion. I've never been to Harvard and i'm no Professor of anything, but that's not to say i don't have some experience which leads me to form such opinions. I don't however feel the need to demonstrate or discuss said experience here.

For the record, i've never said anyone 'must' be telling the truth because of inconsistencies in the story. What i said is inconsistencies in a story do not always mean a person 'must' be lying.

There's a difference here which is very relevant to the whole Bilharzia discussion.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.
 
Re:

deviant said:
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.
Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:
 
Re:

deviant said:
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.

Ah the old, "all possibilities are always exactly equal" defense.

Did oj Simpson kill his wife? Or did the illuminati do it and frame him to make him look guilty and force him to write a book about how he would have done it. All entirely down to ones suspicion and opinion really.

And to back it up. Lets find an absolutely irrelevant example of someone who has a good story and was caught lying, and Not an example of someone who had a *** story but was telling the truth.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
deviant said:
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.
Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:
You guys have similar thoughts on this? Did you plan this by pm or something. Because there is like a very obvious flaw in your argument.

The fact that occasionally someone who is very convincing is caught lying, does not under any circumstances prove that people who are very clearly lying are, errr telling the truth.


Did that small counterpoint not cross your mind before developing that "thought"?
 
WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
The TV program and the thoughts of the police officer I referenced are available online and can probably be viewed on ITV's internet/catch-up services.
His thoughts on liars and how he spotted them in relation to the Becky Watts murder come quite early in the program so it's worth watching...just thought I'd share a different point of view as it gets like an echo chamber on here otherwise...there's only so much "Sky are ruining cycling...Froome has a motor...the Bilharzia story is a lie" talk before it just looks like a circle jerk in here with all the big hitters patting themselves on the back for their theories...offering up something different is good and also lets me identify those in here with a closed mind and no appetite for discussion...thank you.
 
deviant said:
The TV program and the thoughts of the police officer I referenced are available online and can probably be viewed on ITV's internet/catch-up services.
His thoughts on liars and how he spotted them in relation to the Becky Watts murder come quite early in the program so it's worth watching...just thought I'd share a different point of view as it gets like an echo chamber on here otherwise...there's only so much "Sky are ruining cycling...Froome has a motor...the Bilharzia story is a lie" talk before it just looks like a circle jerk in here with all the big hitters patting themselves on the back for their theories...offering up something different is good and also lets me identify those in here with a closed mind and no appetite for discussion...thank you.
I get what you’re trying to say, but you’re bringing up inconsistencies and vagaries over a period of a couple of days at most. Your defence of Froome’s Badzhilla spiel is relying on inconsistencies over a period of more than a year.

Please, keep things rooted in reality.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
brownbobby said:
deviant said:
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.
Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:
You guys have similar thoughts on this? Did you plan this by pm or something. Because there is like a very obvious flaw in your argument.

The fact that occasionally someone who is very convincing is caught lying, does not under any circumstances prove that people who are very clearly lying are, errr telling the truth.


Did that small counterpoint not cross your mind before developing that "thought"?
Nope. Came up with this alternative viewpoint all by myself. Go me :cool:

Guess that means Deviant must have too. Two people, without consulatation, both having similar thoughts that don't necessarily echo the majority. Incredible eh?!

I don't recall either of us mentioning the word or theory of 'proof' in any of our posts, just alternative theories for discussion.

Look forward to your next overly aggressive response which aims to belittle me or anyone else for daring to challenge the status quo on here.

It's ok, i don't take it personally, its just an internet forum after all
 
Re:

42x16ss said:
WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:

I wasn't here for the whole of the Lance wars but did the Lance bots ever go this far?

"We know Lance is telling the truth because he looks so dodgy. If he was really lying he would have looked clean".

I guess if you believe in an implausible theory, any argument looks as if it is clever
 
deviant said:
The TV program and the thoughts of the police officer I referenced are available online and can probably be viewed on ITV's internet/catch-up services.
His thoughts on liars and how he spotted them in relation to the Becky Watts murder come quite early in the program so it's worth watching...just thought I'd share a different point of view as it gets like an echo chamber on here otherwise...there's only so much "Sky are ruining cycling...Froome has a motor...the Bilharzia story is a lie" talk before it just looks like a circle jerk in here with all the big hitters patting themselves on the back for their theories...offering up something different is good and also lets me identify those in here with a closed mind and no appetite for discussion...thank you.
And sometimes people who appear guilty, are guilty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzCJFGFxZRg
(there's plenty more where that came from).

The rest of your posts just seems like classic ad hominem on the clinic. yeah we are all losers, yeah we pat ourselves on the back. Great that you got that out of your system.

But you seemed to end your post just before you were about to go after the actual substance.
funny that :eek:
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
42x16ss said:
WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:

I wasn't here for the whole of the Lance wars but did the Lance bots ever go this far?

"We know Lance is telling the truth because he looks so dodgy. If he was really lying he would have looked clean".

I guess if you believe in an implausible theory, any argument looks as if it is clever
Ha ha classic....we're now sky/froomebots if we don't share every one of your opinions, or even if we do probably agree with most of your opinions but dare to occasionally go off script :lol:
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
The Hitch said:
brownbobby said:
deviant said:
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.
Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:
You guys have similar thoughts on this? Did you plan this by pm or something. Because there is like a very obvious flaw in your argument.

The fact that occasionally someone who is very convincing is caught lying, does not under any circumstances prove that people who are very clearly lying are, errr telling the truth.


Did that small counterpoint not cross your mind before developing that "thought"?
Nope. Came up with this alternative viewpoint all by myself. Go me :cool:

Guess that means Deviant must have too. Two people, without consulatation, both having similar thoughts that don't necessarily echo the majority. Incredible eh?!

I don't recall either of us mentioning the word or theory of 'proof' in any of our posts, just alternative theories for discussion.

Look forward to your next overly aggressive response which aims to belittle me or anyone else for daring to challenge the status quo on here.

It's ok, i don't take it personally, its just an internet forum after all
Maybe its not the majority. The majority like to just see the circus(aka Clinic) :lol:
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
The Hitch said:
42x16ss said:
WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:

I wasn't here for the whole of the Lance wars but did the Lance bots ever go this far?

"We know Lance is telling the truth because he looks so dodgy. If he was really lying he would have looked clean".

I guess if you believe in an implausible theory, any argument looks as if it is clever
Ha ha classic....we're now sky/froomebots if we don't share every one of your opinions, or even if we do probably agree with most of your opinions but dare to occasionally go off script :lol:
Lets just discuss the substance of your argument then. Does a murder trial some poster watched in a documentary, really back up the idea that Froome must be telling the truth about Bilharzia?

No it doesn't. People lie for a reason.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.

A) Bilharzia. Nope. For all the mentioned reasons from implausibility to absence of markers in his passport.
B) Lost the fat. That's one hell of a diet!! But also one of the reasons I chose flat TTs to analyze. It removes the confounding factor of W/kg. Flat TTs are all about W/CdA.
C) He improved his TT position. Possible, but we know he never went to a wind tunnel. It also doesn't account for the fact that he transformed into one of the world's best climbers.
D) He improved W/kg and W/CdA simultaneously. Perhaps... But means a big weight loss and some big position/equipment improvements in a 3 week span. So very, very unlikely.
E) Doping of whatever form. Maybe, but the transition was awfully quick. Without blood passport data, it'd be difficult to zero in on what substances are plausible.
F) Motors. Maybe, but his performance is very consistent which means he's using them on a near daily basis. Risky!!!

So in the end, I'd go with a multivariate combination of D, E, and F with E being most likely though we don't know what form that takes.

John Swanson
 
Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.
I've told you the best explanation several times. Riders who aren't specialists or challenging for GC don't ride full gas in Time Trials. Your analysis is fatally flawed. The fact that you won't even consider this option says more about you than it does about Froome.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
brownbobby said:
The Hitch said:
42x16ss said:
WTF? Having inconsistencies of nearly 12 months is a sign of a plausible story now? This is taking clutching at straws to a new level - even for the clinic.

I’m with The Hitch here, not sure that even BikeRadar would buy that argument :lol:

I wasn't here for the whole of the Lance wars but did the Lance bots ever go this far?

"We know Lance is telling the truth because he looks so dodgy. If he was really lying he would have looked clean".

I guess if you believe in an implausible theory, any argument looks as if it is clever
Ha ha classic....we're now sky/froomebots if we don't share every one of your opinions, or even if we do probably agree with most of your opinions but dare to occasionally go off script :lol:
Lets just discuss the substance of your argument then. Does a murder trial some poster watched in a documentary, really back up the idea that Froome must be telling the truth about Bilharzia?

No it doesn't. People lie for a reason.
Brilliant. you ask me a question and then answer it yourself on my behalf.

I'll leave you to continue this argument (which started as debate) with yourself.
 
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
brownbobby said:
The Hitch said:
brownbobby said:
deviant said:
A programme on British TV last week about the murder of a 16 yr old girl (Becky Watts) was interesting, the police released tapes of the suspect's interviews for the first time.
When the head investigating police officer was asked by the TV presenter how he came to suspect Becky's step brother and the girlfriend, he said that during the interviews of family and close friends the step brother and his girlfriend's stories were so consistent, precise and well matched that he believed they'd obviously got their heads together to concoct a perfect account of their whereabouts during her disappearance...he said this is unusual as most people are having a normal boring day when something like this happens and end up giving a much more vague account of their day and whereabouts.
It is a known phenomenon and the police in this case used it to correctly identify the step brother and his girlfriend and focus the investigation on them.
Nobody, in his experience as a police officer, (especially a couple) can recollect a story that accurately unless they've prepped themselves for it and are colluding in a lie.
The Froome/Bilharzia story and his and Michelle's recollection of it can be taken either way...they're vague because its the truth and it's just part of his life and some people tend not to bookmark these things mentally...or he's vague because he's lying and cant remember the lie properly and apply any kind of consistency to it....entirely down to the individual's suspicion and opinion really.
Excellent. Thankyou; and i didn't even need to spend years at Harvard studying and teaching lying studies to come up with similar thoughts of my own :cool:
You guys have similar thoughts on this? Did you plan this by pm or something. Because there is like a very obvious flaw in your argument.

The fact that occasionally someone who is very convincing is caught lying, does not under any circumstances prove that people who are very clearly lying are, errr telling the truth.


Did that small counterpoint not cross your mind before developing that "thought"?
Nope. Came up with this alternative viewpoint all by myself. Go me :cool:

Guess that means Deviant must have too. Two people, without consulatation, both having similar thoughts that don't necessarily echo the majority. Incredible eh?!

I don't recall either of us mentioning the word or theory of 'proof' in any of our posts, just alternative theories for discussion.

Look forward to your next overly aggressive response which aims to belittle me or anyone else for daring to challenge the status quo on here.

It's ok, i don't take it personally, its just an internet forum after all
Maybe its not the majority. The majority like to just see the circus(aka Clinic) :lol:
Ok, on this we agree. Maybe i am with the majority after all :lol:
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ScienceIsCool said:
According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.
I've told you the best explanation several times. Riders who aren't specialists or challenging for GC don't ride full gas in Time Trials. Your analysis is fatally flawed. The fact that you won't even consider this option says more about you than it does about Froome.
You describe this as “law”, which of course it’s not. Froome by his own admission in his book rode TTs to the best of his abilities pre-transformation. Yes, in set circumstances a rider may rest in a ITT to help their leader the next days.

One look at the 2011 Vuelta and Froome even though he was helping Wiggins rode “full gas”.

Your argument is paltry at best.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
You describe this as “law”, which of course it’s not. Froome by his own admission in his book rode TTs to the best of his abilities pre-transformation. Yes, in set circumstances a rider may rest in a ITT to help their leader the next days.

One look at the 2011 Vuelta and Froome even though he was helping Wiggins rode “full gas”.
He was fifth on GC only seven seconds off the lead. Of course he would go full gas in that case. He wouldn't have done if he was ten minutes down.

Have a look at Kiryienka's TT results - very inconsistent. Or Moscon at the Vuelta - he came second last in the TT two weeks before coming 6th at the World Champs.

Or better still ask any pro.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ScienceIsCool said:
According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.
I've told you the best explanation several times. Riders who aren't specialists or challenging for GC don't ride full gas in Time Trials. Your analysis is fatally flawed. The fact that you won't even consider this option says more about you than it does about Froome.
Yo are the one not getting it or adressing it. How did Froome go from pack fodder to GC contender in three weeks so that all of a sudden he needs to now go for it in TT instaed a saving energy to be a good domestique for Wiggins
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ScienceIsCool said:
According to the flat TT analysis I made quite some time ago, Froome made an approximately 15% boost to his FTP. Error bars are pretty big, ~5%, but the results were statistically significant based on a paired T-test. This change occurred over a three week period and was permanent. The only thing left to fight over is which explanation fits best.
I've told you the best explanation several times. Riders who aren't specialists or challenging for GC don't ride full gas in Time Trials. Your analysis is fatally flawed. The fact that you won't even consider this option says more about you than it does about Froome.
Seems appropriate to post this again:

'Full gas' TT results (championship or final stage):

B World Championships 2007 - 2nd (behind TT monster Mai Haijun)
U23 World Championships 2007 - 41st
Giro del Capo 2008 Stage 5 - 7th
Giro 2009 Stage 21 - 31st
World Championships 2009 - 17th
Eneco Tour 2010 Stage 7 - 71st

UK National Championships 2010 - 2nd (no World Tour/Pro Continental riders outside the top three)
Commonwealth Games 2010 - 5th (behind a 19-year-old Durbridge and 'Dr Hutch')
Vuelta a Murcia 2011 - 18th
Tour de Suisse 2011 - 9th


One top ten against strong opposition (bolded). Failed to win a single TT against even relatively weak opposition.

By way of comparison, his Grand Tour ITT results from the 2011 Vuelta onwards: 2, 11, 2, 3, 2, 1, 10, 63, 39, 2, 1, 1, 6, 3.

Nothing short of a Jekyll and Hyde transformation.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY