Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1320 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Benotti69 said:
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.
 
Sep 11, 2016
122
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
bambino said:
Benotti69 said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
bambino said:
Benotti69 said:
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.
 
That is the same in many aspects of life. You can reanimated wrongly convicted murderers in the US just as you can't give years back to gay men imprisoned pre-1967.

Problem with anti-doping is that it is pretty crap in every way.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Benotti69 said:
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?
Isn't that obvious? Do you think Froome would be exonerated if WADA didn't interfered?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
bambino said:
Benotti69 said:
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?
Isn't that obvious? Do you think Froome would be exonerated if WADA didn't interfered?
Nope. Sir Dave rang Sir Craig shared a large port and cigar saying the boy Chris is a guud'un.
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
macbindle said:
What is interesting about this case is the precedent it sets for future Sabutamol cases.
yes without recourse to past cases.
There is no precedent in sports law, a tribunal does not refer to another case for making its decision. That was the point of WADA press release. Nothing has changed in regards Salbutamol, nothing. The very next case, same set of circumstances will most likely result in sanction.
 
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
Let’s see what they means for his power-to-weight ratio. Taking the 458 watts reading we can work backwards. By finding 5% of that number (22.9) and subtracting that you can find an estimate of what Contador’s FTP for an hour would be. This is a generally accepted rule of thumb for cyclists.
The power at 1 hour is 95% that at 20 minutes? I never heard that before. E.g., when Grappe studied Froome’s power files in 2013, he said:

Grappe pointed out several key indicators. He noted that the drop in Froome's power profile was consistent over intense efforts between 20 and 60 minutes – the point being that there should always be a drop-off in power output as the body struggles with the effort. Froome's drop-off is about 60 watts, as against an average of 50 watts for most of the riders Grappe has studied.
If you take the difference between 20 and 60 minutes as a %, which makes much more sense than some fixed value of watts, and apply to Contador, you get about 6.3 W/kg. That’s still very high, and I’m not sure why he’s bragging about it, since it’s almost certainly a juiced value.

But I'd be interested to hear what Alex says about 20 vs. 60 minutes power.
 
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
Let’s see what they means for his power-to-weight ratio. Taking the 458 watts reading we can work backwards. By finding 5% of that number (22.9) and subtracting that you can find an estimate of what Contador’s FTP for an hour would be. This is a generally accepted rule of thumb for cyclists.
The power at 1 hour is 95% that at 20 minutes? I never heard that before. E.g., when Grappe studied Froome’s power files in 2013, he said:

Grappe pointed out several key indicators. He noted that the drop in Froome's power profile was consistent over intense efforts between 20 and 60 minutes – the point being that there should always be a drop-off in power output as the body struggles with the effort. Froome's drop-off is about 60 watts, as against an average of 50 watts for most of the riders Grappe has studied.
If you take the difference between 20 and 60 minutes as a %, which makes much more sense than some fixed value of watts, and apply to Contador, you get about 6.3 W/kg. That’s still very high, and I’m not sure why he’s bragging about it, since it’s almost certainly a juiced value.

But I'd be interested to hear what Alex says about 20 vs. 60 minutes power.
Alex may correct me and if he does I won't argue....but the general rule of thumb I've always heard used to calculate (1 hour power) FTP from a 20 minute test is exactly that, 95%. It's certainly the protocol that the likes of Joe Friel, Allen/Coggan refer to.

Of course this is just estimation, the only true way to find 1 hour power is to ride and see what you can sustain for the full hour....but that's not a test that many people like to do!
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
For Pinot, it's 85-90%, this is consistent with what Grappe said about Froome and makes much more sense.

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf
I'm not sure there's any such thing as 'makes sense' in this regard.

The 95% has always been fairly accurate for me in terms of translating what i can do in a 20 minute test into what i can hold for a hour if i really have to.

Of course, we're all different in terms of power profiles, what we can sustain and the rate of drop off over time.

But most coaching manuals use the 95% rule for establishing power zones when going along with Allen/Coggan principles of training with power, which i think is still considered by many to be 'the bible' in this field.

https://help.trainingpeaks.com/hc/en-us/articles/204071934-How-to-Calculate-Threshold-Power-Heart-Rate-or-Pace

PS. That's a great feature on Pinot, never seen that before. Cheers.
 
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
He said it is pre-Tour data for 2014 or maybe 2016 on Spanish eurosport. I don't know exactly what he said but this is what I've read. Actually it was probably 2014 as he claimed many times he had his best numbers ever.
 
Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
Yeah, someone is lying, take a guess who? :lol:
Lol :cool:

mrhender said:
Used to be Froome dragged into Bertie thread. Now the sky fans miss bertie for the dirty laundry?
Damn right. Oh, dirty Bertie's dirty numbers overshadow Froome's, proof Froome is squeaky cleans!
Or proof he is a lying POS
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
The 95% thing only works if you have done a 5 minute blow out prior to the 20 minute test to clear your FRC/W'/whatever its called now.

Otherwise it's lower, hardly anyone I know or whose results I follow can do 95% of their best power for a 10 mile TT for an hour.
 
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
Let’s see what they means for his power-to-weight ratio. Taking the 458 watts reading we can work backwards. By finding 5% of that number (22.9) and subtracting that you can find an estimate of what Contador’s FTP for an hour would be. This is a generally accepted rule of thumb for cyclists.
The power at 1 hour is 95% that at 20 minutes? I never heard that before. E.g., when Grappe studied Froome’s power files in 2013, he said:

Grappe pointed out several key indicators. He noted that the drop in Froome's power profile was consistent over intense efforts between 20 and 60 minutes – the point being that there should always be a drop-off in power output as the body struggles with the effort. Froome's drop-off is about 60 watts, as against an average of 50 watts for most of the riders Grappe has studied.
If you take the difference between 20 and 60 minutes as a %, which makes much more sense than some fixed value of watts, and apply to Contador, you get about 6.3 W/kg. That’s still very high, and I’m not sure why he’s bragging about it, since it’s almost certainly a juiced value.

But I'd be interested to hear what Alex says about 20 vs. 60 minutes power.
Berto FTP is or was 420W
So not quite 95% but 92%
 
LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
He said it is pre-Tour data for 2014 and 2016
Did he...when i read the article it was very specific about not saying when it was from, only that it was from tests before he won the tour. He didn't win the Tour in 2014 and 2016.

Has he since updated/changed this?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY