Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1300 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
MatParker117 said:
Well that's off script!

I give it less than 2 hours before every single thing they've said/produced has been 'proven' to be

a) lies
b) proof of doping
c) manipulated to cover up doping
d) proof of motors
e) OBFUSCATION
f) lacking transparency
g) all of the above
I'll stick only with a). Would you be so kind and rewatch famous stage 19 of the Giro and tell me if time gains on Dumoulin that Sky published are accurate :confused:
I don't have the time or the means right now, i mean the numbers sound close from what my memory can recall but it sounds like you have the verified data ready to ambush me with....so please do share if you want to make this element an important part of the debate
Well, for a start we'll take time gain on Sestriere descent. Sky claims it is 45 sec, on a 8km, easy, straight, non-techical at all descent. In reality it was 15 sec.
As opposed to that, Froome took majority of time on Sestriere drag(false flat) and climb itself. Sky said it was 23 sec, but in the "real world" it was 1.19 min.
On top of everything if you add all time gains on Dumoulin, according to Sky, you get total time of 3.18 to Dumoulin, but in reality was 3.23. So, they had more than one month after Giro to prepare and adjust this files, and they came with this ***!
And I won't even bother to comment on watts and heart rate. What a load of crap!
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
MatParker117 said:
Well that's off script!

I give it less than 2 hours before every single thing they've said/produced has been 'proven' to be

a) lies
b) proof of doping
c) manipulated to cover up doping
d) proof of motors
e) OBFUSCATION
f) lacking transparency
g) all of the above
I'll stick only with a). Would you be so kind and rewatch famous stage 19 of the Giro and tell me if time gains on Dumoulin that Sky published are accurate :confused:
I don't have the time or the means right now, i mean the numbers sound close from what my memory can recall but it sounds like you have the verified data ready to ambush me with....so please do share if you want to make this element an important part of the debate

I've put it in a neat little table for you



And to top it all off Sky's claimed time gains on Dumoulin don't add up to Froome's actual time gain - they are 5 seconds short.
Such attention to detail :rolleyes:
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re: Re:

rick james said:
mrhender said:
Funny seing people like Swart gloating on twitter that WADA is flawed. Very telling as to what really matters.
So you are happy a test might be flawed as long as they pop a rider you don't like....Talk about a fair system
I like Froomie. He is the perfect face of clean cycling! New generation, transparent and all that :)

That said, your putting words in my mouth.

I am unhappy that WADA seemingly is bendable to the right kind of pressure. They should be rock solid. So should their science..

Riders before Froome was done for less. Talk about a fair system again..
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
MatParker117 said:
Well that's off script!

I give it less than 2 hours before every single thing they've said/produced has been 'proven' to be

a) lies
b) proof of doping
c) manipulated to cover up doping
d) proof of motors
e) OBFUSCATION
f) lacking transparency
g) all of the above
I'll stick only with a). Would you be so kind and rewatch famous stage 19 of the Giro and tell me if time gains on Dumoulin that Sky published are accurate :confused:
I don't have the time or the means right now, i mean the numbers sound close from what my memory can recall but it sounds like you have the verified data ready to ambush me with....so please do share if you want to make this element an important part of the debate
Well, for a start we'll take time gain on Sestriere descent. Sky claims it is 45 sec, on a 8km, easy, straight, non-techical at all descent. In reality it was 15 sec.
As opposed to that, Froome took majority of time on Sestriere drag(false flat) and climb itself. Sky said it was 23 sec, but in the "real world" it was 1.19 min.
On top of everything if you add all time gains on Dumoulin, according to Sky, you get total time of 3.18 to Dumoulin, but in reality was 3.23. So, they had more than one month after Giro to prepare and adjust this files, and they came with this ****!
And I won't even bother to comment on watts and heart rate. What a load of crap!
we wrote the same things :p
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
MatParker117 said:
Well that's off script!

I give it less than 2 hours before every single thing they've said/produced has been 'proven' to be

a) lies
b) proof of doping
c) manipulated to cover up doping
d) proof of motors
e) OBFUSCATION
f) lacking transparency
g) all of the above
I'll stick only with a). Would you be so kind and rewatch famous stage 19 of the Giro and tell me if time gains on Dumoulin that Sky published are accurate :confused:
I don't have the time or the means right now, i mean the numbers sound close from what my memory can recall but it sounds like you have the verified data ready to ambush me with....so please do share if you want to make this element an important part of the debate

I've put it in a neat little table for you



And to top it all off Sky's claimed time gains on Dumoulin don't add up to Froome's actual time gain - they are 5 seconds short.
Such attention to detail :rolleyes:
They're 5 seconds short because they didn't put a figure against the 16 second attack. I'm guessing he gained something like....errrm....maybe around 5 seconds on that attack.

You should probably pay a bit more attention to detail if you're going to roll your eyes at others not doing so.

Thanks for the table (that's genuine gratitude by the way). It's interesting, what's the source of the data please?
 
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I know there's much that is inconsistent about this comparison, but it has to be deployed: this reminds me so much of Armstrong's positive test that was 'made to go away' with a backdated TUE and 'generous donation.'

The common denominator is: money, power and brand value.
I thought the generous donation was after the Tour De Suisse EPO (slight) positive ...
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
brownbobby said:
thehog said:
MatParker117 said:
Finestre a), b) and c) the dudes heartrate didn’t break 155. I also note they kept in their infamous 6% variance and upped his weight like on PSM.
Where does the suggestion they upped his weight come from?

And reference the power readings, i understood it to be pretty much universally acknowledged that osymetric chainrings give artificially high readings in this range?

and HR...considering his max on the day was 159, 'only' getting to 155 during a 16 second attack is completely consistent with that. 16 seconds is unlikely long enough to reach max HR.
Because he simply doesn’t weigh that much due to what he has stated in the past.

I would also add phase 6, 126W avg and gaining 45" on Dumolin? or 10% of time? Huh?? :cool:
Depends when he was weighed : before or after breakfast? Before or after a couple of litres of water / drink to prehydrate for the day? Who knows.
 
samhocking said:
Winterfold said:
thehog said:
....and to add, 5.91 w/kg for 1hr 4mins on Finestre with an ave BPM of 145? Jesus Christ :eek:
This seems weird at first but I race against quite a few people who have MHR in the high 140s. They are elite amateurs/domestic pro level. Some people just have big hearts so on its own it isnt that suspiscous. It's just with Froome its combined with loads of other indicators which we have come to know and love...
Having a max HR of around 150-160 isn't unusual in elite sport. 145bpm is putting him at 129-144bpm as his anaerobic threshold, so basically he climbed at his maximum end of sustainable power for the hour which is as perfect and efficient as you could ride it. He wasn't going into VO2 Max at all that's for sure.
I dont know why people find these kind of stats hard to believe - he's at the top of his sports ffs!
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
They're 5 seconds short because they didn't put a figure against the 16 second attack. I'm guessing he gained something like....errrm....maybe around 5 seconds on that attack.

You should probably pay a bit more attention to detail if you're going to roll your eyes at others not doing so.

Thanks for the table (that's genuine gratitude by the way). It's interesting, what's the source of the data please?
The 16 second attack should be factored into the Finestre solo number. It would make sense to take the time difference at the top of the climb and quote that as the time gained on Finestre.
The source is the GPS data on screen during the television broadcast, km by km, compared to the stage profile, verified by several people.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
They're 5 seconds short because they didn't put a figure against the 16 second attack. I'm guessing he gained something like....errrm....maybe around 5 seconds on that attack.

You should probably pay a bit more attention to detail if you're going to roll your eyes at others not doing so.

Thanks for the table (that's genuine gratitude by the way). It's interesting, what's the source of the data please?
The 16 second attack should be factored into the Finestre solo number. It would make sense to take the time difference at the top of the climb and quote that as the time gained on Finestre.
The source is the GPS data on screen during the television broadcast, km by km, compared to the stage profile, verified by several people.
But the 16 second attack clearly isn't factored, to me that explains the 5 second difference. No issue there for me.

But there is clearly a big mismatch in timings between the bottom of Finestre and bottom of Sestriere descent. I'm not into denying what's in black and white, and indeed my recollection is of Froome not gaining much on the Sestriere descent, he lost a bit of time dodging the motorbike in the tunnel for starters.

I wondered if the mismatch was due to readings being taken from Froomes head unit versus timings at imprecise features on the road...but no, the difference is too great.

So, I admit...strange set of timings in the Sky document. The explanation for or importance of this? I don't know :confused:
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
https://twitter.com/Johnny_Crash/status/1014581031020744706

Great tweet.

Brailsford wants everyone to believe that they're masters of every detail, yet they let their team leader get so dehydrated he scored a record breaking AAF.

So dehydrated he won the stage to boot.

It is a circus.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-doctor-palfreeman-says-functional-dehydration-could-help-froome-climb-quicker/


As I posted earlier...you're forgetting the theory of functional dehydration :D
 
This one I like most.... one for our friend Dr. Swart :cool:

Power on the attack goes from 408 to 603

Heart rate increases by ten

Froome's lab test show, what is reported as remarkable cardiac efficency of 5 watts per beat, when moving up through the wattages here that efficency is 20 watts per beat. 4 times an already remarkable figure.
 
thehog said:
This one I like most.... one for our friend Dr. Swart :cool:

Power on the attack goes from 408 to 603

Heart rate increases by ten

Froome's lab test show, what is reported as remarkable cardiac efficency of 5 watts per beat, when moving up through the wattages here that efficency is 20 watts per beat. 4 times an already remarkable figure.
What's remarkable is that you keep posting about this with such a terrible understanding of the correlation between HR and power when transitioning from threshold to anaerobic efforts for such short efforts. :eek:

Edit: watts per beat??? WTF :confused: That is the most nonsensical metric I've ever heard. Let's think about this, in nice round numbers to keep it easy. 100 bpm = 500 watts. What about those sprinters putting out 1750 watts. 350bpm!!! And that's with incredible cardiac efficiency. God help any of them who aren't so cardiac efficient :eek:
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
https://twitter.com/Johnny_Crash/status/1014581031020744706

Great tweet.

Brailsford wants everyone to believe that they're masters of every detail, yet they let their team leader get so dehydrated he scored a record breaking AAF.

So dehydrated he won the stage to boot.

It is a circus.
don't you remember them talking about "function dehydration" before the season last year? it's just another marginal gain.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
They're 5 seconds short because they didn't put a figure against the 16 second attack. I'm guessing he gained something like....errrm....maybe around 5 seconds on that attack.

You should probably pay a bit more attention to detail if you're going to roll your eyes at others not doing so.

Thanks for the table (that's genuine gratitude by the way). It's interesting, what's the source of the data please?
The 16 second attack should be factored into the Finestre solo number. It would make sense to take the time difference at the top of the climb and quote that as the time gained on Finestre.
The source is the GPS data on screen during the television broadcast, km by km, compared to the stage profile, verified by several people.
But the 16 second attack clearly isn't factored, to me that explains the 5 second difference. No issue there for me.

But there is clearly a big mismatch in timings between the bottom of Finestre and bottom of Sestriere descent. I'm not into denying what's in black and white, and indeed my recollection is of Froome not gaining much on the Sestriere descent, he lost a bit of time dodging the motorbike in the tunnel for starters.

I wondered if the mismatch was due to readings being taken from Froomes head unit versus timings at imprecise features on the road...but no, the difference is too great.

So, I admit...strange set of timings in the Sky document. The explanation for or importance of this? I don't know :confused:
But it should be an issue, and not only for you. The team so serious about details (by their own admission), shouldn't overlook such thing, whole month after that stage. They had all time of this world, yet they made mistake like that.
I agree that it could be that 5 sec came during the attack, but they should've put it right there then. And it's not the only fault from that data, far from that. It's full of faults and false and inaccurate facts. And of course it's not the first time for them to do such thing, they do it all the time.
And then they wonder why people doesn't like them and trust them!
 
This thread gets funnier and funnier .... I used to come in the clinic for enlightenment. Now I just come for the comedy. This is a brilliant example of people with an agenda interpreting figures to suit that agenda. Not a single hint of reflection or re-consideration. The net result of this kind of thing will be that data will be withheld. And we'll be the poorer for it. In some ways the sheet sniffers ... the cycling puritans... are worse than the dopers.

There's a big world out there ... scarcely anyone cares about cyclists and what they put in their systems. There are more important issues in life.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
We discussed this in the salbutamol thread several months ago. John S I think it was had a lot to say about this theory, and not in support of it. Most studies indicate you can't lose very much water without a decline in performance that isn't compensated for by the loss of weight. John provided a lot of studies highly critical of it.

Of course if Froome/Sky want to push it, all they have to do is provide some relevant numbers after the stage.

From New Year's Day on this thread:

Report this post
Reply with quote
Link

01 Jan 2018, 05:23

samhocking wrote:
Functional Dehydration was last researched in 2015 by Stephen Cheung, a renowned kinesiologist at Brock University in Ontario. Nothing to do with Palfreeman, although Palfreeman commented on that research in 2016 after he worked at BMC to El Pais. Cheung's research published in the Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports & found upto 3% dehydration doesn't result in power loss. What tends to happen however is athletes being denied hydration and the symptoms of feeling thirsty affects motivation to hold that power. This is where taking paracetamol, menthol drinks and thirst suppressing drugs can offset the negative psychological effects of feeling thirsty and being denied hydration.
Cheung's study separated the conscious awareness of hydration or not by using fake IV drips doing nothing and real IV drips maintaining hydration I believe.


You're hanging your hat on a single study of 11 subjects. The reality is that the effects of dehydration on performance has been studied since the 1940's and there's a large body of work. Here's a review study from an author at my Alma Mater, http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/h99-014

Note that the author cites some studies that have had inconclusive results, but supposes that the length of exercise was either not long enough, or the environmental conditions not extreme enough. It's a great read because it also details some studies that mirror Cheung's, such as one by our dear friend Coyle. However, the consensus is still that even moderate dehydration will affect performance (time to exhaustion, peak output, etc) with the effects proportional to the level of dehydration.

Despite Cheung and Palfreeman, my personal belief is that "functional dehydration" is complete BS. Even by some miracle it wasn't BS, how would you even implement that in a race? You'd have to be continuously taking blood samples to keep hydration in the range of "functional".

John Swanson

I followed that with a post mentioning that from I'd seen it seemed possible to lose up to 1-2% of BM without a performance deficit.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
MatParker117 said:
Well that's off script!

I give it less than 2 hours before every single thing they've said/produced has been 'proven' to be

a) lies
b) proof of doping
c) manipulated to cover up doping
d) proof of motors
e) OBFUSCATION
f) lacking transparency
g) all of the above
I'll stick only with a). Would you be so kind and rewatch famous stage 19 of the Giro and tell me if time gains on Dumoulin that Sky published are accurate :confused:
I don't have the time or the means right now, i mean the numbers sound close from what my memory can recall but it sounds like you have the verified data ready to ambush me with....so please do share if you want to make this element an important part of the debate

I've put it in a neat little table for you



And to top it all off Sky's claimed time gains on Dumoulin don't add up to Froome's actual time gain - they are 5 seconds short.
Such attention to detail :rolleyes:
They’ve also got him gaining on the decent not the climb. It’s clear they’ve made up most of the data. Not surprising. This is Sky we are dealing with.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Benotti69 said:
https://twitter.com/Johnny_Crash/status/1014581031020744706

Great tweet.

Brailsford wants everyone to believe that they're masters of every detail, yet they let their team leader get so dehydrated he scored a record breaking AAF.

So dehydrated he won the stage to boot.

It is a circus.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-doctor-palfreeman-says-functional-dehydration-could-help-froome-climb-quicker/


As I posted earlier...you're forgetting the theory of functional dehydration :D
You're forgetting this is professional cycling and there is a dyed in the castelli culture to dope riders. :D
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
rick james said:
Benotti69 said:
The claims that Froome is some kind of perfect athlete dont stand up as why was he in the grupetto and at the back of it before 2011!!!
because he was ill...but you'll tell us that's all lies....so what the point
He was ill at last year's Vuelta too.
Sky will be telling us that 'functional illness' is a marginal gain!!!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY