Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

I corrected that Hog to 5th rider, come on. Anyone that's ridden TTT or studied it a little will know what I mean. Team Sky could only ride at the speed their slowest riders. They finished with 5 so at the end they finished at a speed set off the 5th fastest rider, I thought they finished off their 4th fastest rider that's all. By having to keep up (in the wheels more) he is slowing the stronger riders down, therefore the team as a whole is riding at the pace dictated by the next slowest rider.

Anyone can follow in the wheels regardless of the speed. The shorter and lesser turns of the worst rider will only marginally lower the final average speed. So no, the speed is not determined by the slowest rider. This is only true on uphill sections where it is easy to ride someone out of your wheel.
Take a Michelton-Scott team with Chaves. Chaves is only following in the wheels. Yes, that will slow down the team as they have 1 rider less doing turns so more work load on the others so they go slower, but they don't have to adjust their speed so Chaves can follow.

So we've a simultaneously got a situation where the slowest rider is marginally lowering the average speed yet the team is not going slower?!

And then the team don't adjust their speed yet are going slower?!

I'd suggest a re-read of what you've written!

The slowest rider by talent is still doing less watts than the other seven taking less turns and spending less time on the front, thus is not slowing the team down by his exact talent level. Drag coefficient will come into play depending on size of rider and wind direction.

Sam told us there were hundreds of articles on google to support his claim, there are none. With good reason. It’s simple mathematics in how you set up your TTT team and sequence.

I am not sure if I should intrude on all this wrangling, but La Florecita and you put it somewhat better than Sam. Some of what he says is right too, but possibly an over-simplification. Skilful sheltering of less strong riders can prevent the overall time increasing in direct proportion to their lesser ability. The riders do not ride at the speed the least able can manage. Looking at it the other way, however, it's easier to organise a team if one of them doesn't have to compensate for another and probably with a better outcome. But "anyone that's ridden TTT" will not be in full agreement with Sam.

If not all the riders are required to record the team time (as is the case in the TdF) some of those dropped will have been putting in a higher effort to boost the time for all, but over a shorter distance and should have been riding at a higher speed than they could have maintained for the full distance (but that's obvious as well, of course).

I also ride in competition at amateur level and my disagreement is based only on personal experience.

I like Sam and like many of the point he makes. Some here are unkind to Sam, as some have been in the past to me. I often wish that disagreement could be expressed more kindly.

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

I corrected that Hog to 5th rider, come on. Anyone that's ridden TTT or studied it a little will know what I mean. Team Sky could only ride at the speed their slowest riders. They finished with 5 so at the end they finished at a speed set off the 5th fastest rider, I thought they finished off their 4th fastest rider that's all. By having to keep up (in the wheels more) he is slowing the stronger riders down, therefore the team as a whole is riding at the pace dictated by the next slowest rider.

Anyone can follow in the wheels regardless of the speed. The shorter and lesser turns of the worst rider will only marginally lower the final average speed. So no, the speed is not determined by the slowest rider. This is only true on uphill sections where it is easy to ride someone out of your wheel.
Take a Michelton-Scott team with Chaves. Chaves is only following in the wheels. Yes, that will slow down the team as they have 1 rider less doing turns so more work load on the others so they go slower, but they don't have to adjust their speed so Chaves can follow.

So we've a simultaneously got a situation where the slowest rider is marginally lowering the average speed yet the team is not going slower?!

And then the team don't adjust their speed yet are going slower?!

I'd suggest a re-read of what you've written!

The slowest rider by talent is still doing less watts than the other seven taking less turns and spending less time on the front, thus is not slowing the team down by his exact talent level. Drag coefficient will come into play depending on size of rider and wind direction.

Sam told us there were hundreds of articles on google to support his claim, there are none. With good reason. It’s simple mathematics in how you set up your TTT team and sequence.

I am not sure if I should intrude on all this wrangling, but La Florecita and you put it somewhat better than Sam. Some of what he says is right too, but possibly an over-simplification. Skilful sheltering of less strong riders can prevent the overall time increasing in direct proportion to their lesser ability. The riders do not ride at the speed the least able can manage. Looking at it the other way, however, it's easier to organise a team if one of them doesn't have to compensate for another and probably with a better outcome. But "anyone that's ridden TTT" will not be in full agreement with Sam.

If not all the riders are required to record the team time (as is the case in the TdF) some of those dropped will have been putting in a higher effort to boost the time for all, but over a shorter distance and should have been riding at a higher speed than they could have maintained for the full distance (but that's obvious as well, of course).

I also ride in competition at amateur level and my disagreement is based only on personal experience.

I like Sam and like many of the point he makes. Some here are unkind to Sam, as some have been in the past to me. I often wish that disagreement could be expressed more kindly.

I think its accepted that there's various strategies you could use to get a given 8 riders along a TTT course such that the 4th rider crosses the finish line as quickly as possible. What strategy you use depends on what the strengths of your riders are (e.g. keep all riders together as long as possible, protect a leader who's weak in the TT, sacrifice two or three weaker riders early so they do the first half all out and then drop off etc. etc. the possibilities are endless).

But there seems to be some sort of idea that the deficiencies of the weakest rider can somehow be removed completely.

Two responses to this -

1 - what about the second, third weakest rider, are they irrelevent to your performance too?
2 - would you rather have a weakest rider who's 6 feet tall, weighs 73kg and can sustain 300 watts for an hour or his more talented twin who can sustain 320 watts for an hour?

 

[wrinklyvet]

I read the posts and I didn't gain the impression that anyone was saying or had the idea that "the deficiencies of the weakest rider can somehow be removed completely" - at least in every case. I suspect we should now leave the lads and lasses to get on with a discussion more relevant to the Clinic

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

Have to agree with Brown Bobby. TTT's are about catering to your weakest rider.

What has this got to do with the CLINIC

M O D S ! ! !
BLATANT OBFUSCATION
has been going on in the clinic for the last two days

update: it continues below with (anyone else wanna join the list?)

bobbybrown
Singer01

You are showing blatant bias here.

Why haven't you included:

thehog
La Florecita

 

[TourOfSardinia]

just gave up updating
the discussion isn't so that it keeps you awake

Ps: how did donkey Froome transcend himself and become a GT winner.
Any new explanations guys/gals

 

[JosephK]

Re:

just gave up updating
the discussion isn't so that it keeps you awake

Ps: how did donkey Froome transcend himself and become a GT winner.
Any new explanations guys/gals

The talent was always there. Top 100 in the Tour of Poland in the Year of Transformation. Froome just had to lose the fat.

 

[macbindle]

Re:

just gave up updating
the discussion isn't so that it keeps you awake

Ps: how did donkey Froome transcend himself and become a GT winner.
Any new explanations guys/gals

Nope.

Bilharzia and marginal gains or loads of undetectable drugs.

Take your pick.

 

[topcat]

Anyone think CF will test positive in this tdf? I wouldn't be surprised myself.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Have to agree with Brown Bobby. TTT's are about catering to your weakest rider.

What has this got to do with the CLINIC

M O D S ! ! !
BLATANT OBFUSCATION
has been going on in the clinic for the last two days

update: it continues below with (anyone else wanna join the list?)

bobbybrown
Singer01

Nope. I didnt say a single word on the debate. I just answered your question 'What has this got to do with the clinic'.

You're welcome

 

[Benotti69]

WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

"clarifies"????? Are they having a laugh

so...it would appear to all come down to the data supplied by Froome over the course of the Vuelta...the inputs of which can only be self-reported

 

[thehog]

Re:

WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

Why were WADA attempting to intervene?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

Why were WADA attempting to intervene?

Game of chess, Knight takes Frenchie.......

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Who were the WADA people who decided this?
What's their pedigree?

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Who were the WADA people who decided this?
What's their pedigree?

Friends of Brailsford.

 

[MartinGT]

Re: Re:

WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

Why were WADA attempting to intervene?

Game of chess, Knight takes Frenchie.......

:lol: oh I lold hard at that one.

 

[Escarabajo]

Why some people post in the clinic and not in the road forum?
Especially some that defend Sky or Froome. That is weird.

 

[JosephK]

WADA looks worse every time they release a statement on the Froome AAF case.

 

[bambino]

Re:

WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?

 

[Robert5091]

It took Froome more then 8 months to come up with an explaination. Speedy!

 

[thehog]

Re:

It took Froome more then 8 months to come up with an explaination. Speedy!

Took 8 months for Sky to lean on WADA enough to pressure the UCI out of sanctioning Froome.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?

WADA is a smoke screen. Nothing more.

They intervened because Sir David got on the phone to Sir Craig and who knows if anything was promised but Froome got off an obvious doping AAF and Sky keep up the pretence to their fans they are squeaky clean, when it is at this stage as obvious as USPS were a dirty team.

 

[ahsoe]

Re: Re:

WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?

WADA is a smoke screen. Nothing more.

They intervened because Sir David got on the phone to Sir Craig and who knows if anything was promised but Froome got off an obvious doping AAF and Sky keep up the pretence to their fans they are squeaky clean, when it is at this stage as obvious as USPS were a dirty team.

Luckily, I think that this case has opened the eyes of a lot of fans except the most committed ones.
General cycling fans can see through the outcome of the case, and Sky's spin efforts to appear whiter than white, and recognise that the process and the situation is suspicious. And even if everything has been done by the book in the Salbutamol case, it would be foolish to think, that Froome is racing solely on asthma medicine.

Even though Sky would want us to forget the past and particularly the last 30 years of cycling history, it is hard not to think doping and possibly collusion when you see this case and Sky's domination with the history in mind.

At least that is my opinion.

 

[wirral]

Re: Re:

WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?

WADA is a smoke screen. Nothing more.

They intervened because Sir David got on the phone to Sir Craig and who knows if anything was promised but Froome got off an obvious doping AAF and Sky keep up the pretence to their fans they are squeaky clean, when it is at this stage as obvious as USPS were a dirty team.

I tend to think this is along the lines of what happened. It certainly fits the unusual twists and turns and timeline of this case. It also fits the modus operandi of people and organisations (Teflons?) that seem immune from the penalties, censures and restrictions normal mortals face. That is to say when you are facing a guilty verdict, a reverse, a decision you don't like, don't fight facts with facts, rather go for the figures of authority who make the decisions. Attack them, get them changed, bribe them, have them transferred, blackmail them, leverage them, go to their boss and have their boss do it, do it any way you can. Widen the playing field, offer a Brexit deal, offer an improved knighthood, whatever.

 

[macbindle]

What is interesting about this case is the precedent it sets for future Sabutamol cases.