Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[airstream]

nice to see the sky science team is back. even when trying as hard as possible to make Froome look clean you didnt even get him below 6.0w/kg

where does Lance say his time was after a 5+ hour ride?
Froome implies that he did 130km before the climb
Froome says nothing about what kind of bike he was using
He says his best time is 32 minutes

Sorry, not normal

Sorry for the last time, do you see any clean alternative champion or Froome must break this dirty wall, get clean to be 'normal'?

 

[Snails]

nice to see the sky science team is back. even when trying as hard as possible to make Froome look clean you didnt even get him below 6.0w/kg

where does Lance say his time was after a 5+ hour ride?
Froome implies that he did 130km before the climb
Froome says nothing about what kind of bike he was using
He says his best time is 32 minutes

Sorry, not normal

I didn't state that Armstrong did his best time after a 5-hour ride. I stated that in terms of physiological limits, the values are plausible because Froome would be expected to have been fresh for the climb, having not ridden 5+ hours of a Tour de France stage beforehand. At the end of a long, hard stage, a 30-minute power output of 6.2 W/kg is considered close to the physiological limit, but this value is higher when the rider is in a fresh state. I think it is fair to assume that his fastest time was achieved in a relatively fresh state, but you can make your own mind up about this point.

As Froome did not state what bike he was using, I considered his values using both a aero bars and a normal road bike. I deliberately did both analyses to avoid making any assumptions.

If Froome's time was, for example, 32:14, I doubt we would have been bothered to state this exactly. Nevertheless, I did the analyses for both 32 minutes and 33 minutes, again to avoid making any assumptions. Purely as a point of interest here, in a French interview he did a few days ago, he spoke about the times of Danielson and Armstrong up this climb, and rounded them to the nearest minute rather than using exact figures.

I believe the only thing that can really be gained from this analysis is this: We don't know all of the facts. Froome may or may not be doping, and his time up the Col de la Madone may or may not have been drug-assisted. But either way, these comments and these comments alone are not the proof of guilt that some would like them to be, as a lot of assumptions need to be made for that to be true. The proof will be in the pudding, and after the Tour de France we will know a lot more and have a much better idea of his current ability and whether his values are damning, suspicious, or encouraging.

 

[vrusimov]

Here's what we know based on the direct quotes and facts we have:

- Froome did the Madone in a time between 32 and 33 minutes;
- According to Kerrison, at one stage Froome did the ride using aero bars (possibly the same ride, but we can't be sure);
- Froome weighs approximately 67kg;
- Armstrong did 30:45 using a road bike.
- The Madone is 13.6km long at an average gradient of 6.7%

Ignoring possible wind effects, which could be positive or negative, here's what this all translates to:

If Froome was using aero bars during his quickest time, his power output would have been between 6.25 and 6.35 W/kg. If he was using a normal road bike, his power output would have been between 6.4 and 6.5 W/kg.

When Armstrong did his best time, his power output would have been around the 7 W/kg mark.

Considering Froome would have been doing the climb fresh, and not after a 5+ hour ride, these values are within the physiologically possible range and around what we'll see from a few riders in the first ITT. If Froome is 24% efficient and was riding at 90% of his maximum effort, this performance predicts a VO2max of around 84-85 ml/kg/min. Very, very good, as you'd expect, but plausible.

Armstrong's output might have been higher because we would not know his true weight, which before the Tour would probably be around 75kg...because he admitted that he never raced below 74. What is plausible as human performance is not always a syllogism that can be applied to any given rider without reservation. Just because it is possible does not mean that it is achieveable by the rider in question. I would say his performance gets more questionable as he approaches 32 min. At 32 min, the VAM [Ferrari] model for 67kg shows about 1740m/hr [6.5w/kg Ferrari] and the power model = 460W [6.89w/kg]. What it all boils down to is a 450 - 460W performance for 32 - 33 minutes. At 32:30 [1710 m/hr] he requires 450W [6.74w/kg] At 74kg, Armstrong would have been at about 1810m/hr [6.78w/kg Ferrari] and 525W [7.09 w/kg]. Again, these assumptions rely on accurate weights and we do not know if the riders are actually at their Tour weights when the tests were taken. In any event, they should not be capable of these types of performances in the third week of a Grand Tour.

http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/VAM.aspx

 

[FrankChickens]

Daryl Impey on Froome 7 minutes in.

https://soundcloud.com/cycling-central/podcast-4-july-2013-daryl

 

[Snails]

Armstrong's output might have been higher because we would not know his true weight, which before the Tour would probably be around 75kg...because he admitted that he never raced below 74. What is plausible as human performance is not always a syllogism that can be applied to any given rider without reservation. Just because it is possible does not mean that it is achieveable by the rider in question. I would say his performance gets more questionable as he approaches 32 min. At 32 min, the VAM [Ferrari] model for 67kg shows about 1740m/hr and the power model = 460W [6.89w/kg]. What it all boils down to is a 450 - 460W performance for 32 minutes. At 32:30 [1710 m/hr] he requires 450W [6.74w/kg] At 74kg, Armstrong would have been at about 1810m/hr [6.78w/kg Ferrari] and 525W [7.09 w/kg]. Again, these assumptions rely on accurate weights and we do not know if the riders are actually at their Tour weights when the tests were taken. In any event, they should not be capable of these types of performances in the second or third week of a Grand Tour.

http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/VAM.aspx

Even if Armstrong's weight was as high as 75kg, his power output would still have been above 6.8 W/kg. By my calculations, a time of 32 minutes would not have Froome's average power at above 440 W (~6.55 W/kg), even on a normal road bike with no wind assistance. With aero bars, that figure would be down to around 424 W (~6.3 W/kg). Either way, the performances remain physiologically plausible, and are not a guilty verdict on their own.

 

[vrusimov]

I didn't state that Armstrong did his best time after a 5-hour ride. I stated that in terms of physiological limits, the values are plausible because Froome would be expected to have been fresh for the climb, having not ridden 5+ hours of a Tour de France stage beforehand. At the end of a long, hard stage, a 30-minute power output of 6.2 W/kg is considered close to the physiological limit, but this value is higher when the rider is in a fresh state. I think it is fair to assume that his fastest time was achieved in a relatively fresh state, but you can make your own mind up about this point.

As Froome did not state what bike he was using, I considered his values using both a aero bars and a normal road bike. I deliberately did both analyses to avoid making any assumptions.

If Froome's time was, for example, 32:14, I doubt we would have been bothered to state this exactly. Nevertheless, I did the analyses for both 32 minutes and 33 minutes, again to avoid making any assumptions. Purely as a point of interest here, in a French interview he did a few days ago, he spoke about the times of Danielson and Armstrong up this climb, and rounded them to the nearest minute rather than using exact figures.

I believe the only thing that can really be gained from this analysis is this: We don't know all of the facts. Froome may or may not be doping, and his time up the Col de la Madone may or may not have been drug-assisted. But either way, these comments and these comments alone are not the proof of guilt that some would like them to be, as a lot of assumptions need to be made for that to be true. The proof will be in the pudding, and after the Tour de France we will know a lot more and have a much better idea of his current ability and whether his values are damning, suspicious, or encouraging.

There are performances recorded by Froome that have "already" been labeled as suspicious, namely his duel with Cobo at the Vuelta [Pena Cabarga] 2011 and Planche des Belles Filles at the Tour in 2012. In both instances a performance standard of 465 - 470W for about 16 - 17 minutes.

 

[vrusimov]

Even if Armstrong's weight was as high as 75kg, his power output would still have been above 6.8 W/kg. By my calculations, a time of 32 minutes would not have Froome's average power at above 440 W (~6.55 W/kg), even on a normal road bike with no wind assistance. With aero bars, that figure would be down to around 424 W (~6.3 W/kg). Either way, the performances remain physiologically plausible, and are not a guilty verdict on their own.

You probably replied before I finished updating...the model indeed has Froome at ~6.51w/kg for 32 min [Ferrari's gradient factor model that is].

 

[goggalor]

Here's what we know based on the direct quotes and facts we have:

- Froome did the Madone in a time between 32 and 33 minutes;
- According to Kerrison, at one stage Froome did the ride using aero bars (possibly the same ride, but we can't be sure);
- Froome weighs approximately 67kg;
- Armstrong did his record time of 30:45 using a road bike;
- The Madone is 13.6km long at an average gradient of 6.7%.

Ignoring possible wind effects, which could be positive or negative, here's what this all translates to:

If Froome was using aero bars during his quickest time, his power output would have been between 6.25 and 6.35 W/kg. If he was using a normal road bike, his power output would have been between 6.4 and 6.55 W/kg.

When Armstrong did his best time, his power output would have been around the 7 W/kg mark.

Considering Froome would have been doing the climb fresh, and not after 5+ hours of a Tour de France, these values are within the physiologically possible range and around what we'll see from a few riders in the first ITT. If Froome is 24% efficient and was riding at 90% of his maximum effort, this performance predicts a VO2max of around 84-85 ml/kg/min. Very, very good, as you'd expect, but plausible.

You're using Armstrong's fastest ever time here, remember. It's likely he was riding in very favorable conditions.

 

[thehog]

You're using Armstrong's fastest ever time here, remember. It's likely he was riding in very favorable conditions.

More to the point Armstrong did his time prior to OoC testing, a weak EPO test (if any) and no Bio (and #UCI protection).

The Dawg is punching insane numbers with all the current anti-doping in place. If you were able to graph Froome's Madone time from 2009 to present day there literally would be enough space on the graph to print the trajectory

This is old hat. Just tell us the Dawg is not climbing as fast as Pantani to prove the Dawg is clean

It's not like Armstrong was the only one doping.

 

[Snails]

You're using Armstrong's fastest ever time here, remember. It's likely he was riding in very favorable conditions.

I'm using Froome's fastest ever time too, and it's therefore likely he was also riding in favourable circumstances. What I feel it shows is that a lot of negative assumptions have been made in order to "prove" that Froome is doping, whereas the real picture is far less clear cut.

 

[webbie146]

You're using Armstrong's fastest ever time here, remember. It's likely he was riding in very favorable conditions.

That time was in 1999 on a normal rode bike that weighted 8.6kg (trek 5500) with rain jacket and everything. Imagine Lance 99 do that climb on a aero lightweight bike, absolute destruction lol

 

[goggalor]

I'm using Froome's fastest ever time too, and it's therefore likely he was also riding in favourable circumstances. What I feel it shows is that a lot of negative assumptions have been made in order to "prove" that Froome is doping, whereas the real picture is far less clear cut.

Armstrong had a 7 year run at the top of the sport while Froome came from out of nowhere in the 2011 Vuelta, so he's only had 2 years to set a record. The point is the wind effects you ignore more likely favored Armstrong. Froome's time of 32 minutes is probably well within a minute of some of Lance's slower rides, which is definitely suspicious considering what that guy had in his diet.

 

[webbie146]

Armstrong's output might have been higher because we would not know his true weight, which before the Tour would probably be around 75kg...because he admitted that he never raced below 74. What is plausible as human performance is not always a syllogism that can be applied to any given rider without reservation. Just because it is possible does not mean that it is achieveable by the rider in question. I would say his performance gets more questionable as he approaches 32 min. At 32 min, the VAM [Ferrari] model for 67kg shows about 1740m/hr [6.5w/kg Ferrari] and the power model = 460W [6.89w/kg]. What it all boils down to is a 450 - 460W performance for 32 - 33 minutes. At 32:30 [1710 m/hr] he requires 450W [6.74w/kg] At 74kg, Armstrong would have been at about 1810m/hr [6.78w/kg Ferrari] and 525W [7.09 w/kg]. Again, these assumptions rely on accurate weights and we do not know if the riders are actually at their Tour weights when the tests were taken. In any event, they should not be capable of these types of performances in the third week of a Grand Tour.

http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/VAM.aspx

Armstrong said in a interview he pushed 495 watts average on his best time at the madone.

 

[ebandit]

hear say

Armstrong had a 7 year run at the top of the sport while Froome came from out of nowhere in the 2011 Vuelta, so he's only had 2 years to set a record.

is this a certified record..............or merely hearsay?

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

Rominger set a time of 31.25 on the Madone in 1996 and the record stood until Lance Armstrong did 30.47 just before the 1999 Tour de France, a clue he was going to “win” that year. Later Tom Danielson set the fastest time of 30.24. Perhaps there was a tailwind that day because he’s never got the results to match this performance.

Dawgstrong will destroy this tour if he goes full gas

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

"Dawgstrong will destroy this tour if he goes full gas..."

And what does that mean if Froome is doping, respectively more doping than AC or Valv-Piti? Do we know if he´s doping at all? Or is Sky just pushing the lines as any other team (including the french teams like Fdj, Sojasun, Europecar)?

Other than super suspicious roller-coaster Cobo, Froome is on a constant level. Like Hinault, Lemond or Fignon were as they destroyed the tours by going full gas.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

"Dawgstrong will destroy this tour if he goes full gas..."

And what does that mean if Froome is doping, respectively more doping than AC or Valv-Piti? Do we know if he´s doping at all? Or is Sky just pushing the lines as any other team (including the french teams like Fdj, Sojasun, Europecar)?

Other than super suspicious roller-coaster Cobo, Froome is on a constant level. Like Hinault, Lemond or Fignon were as they destroyed the tours by going full gas.

Are u related to Krusty?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Why? B/c i vehemently disagree with your stance on Ullrich or Froome, you must get abusive (even tough you try to hide it by pretening to be sarcastic)?
Is that all your arguments?

 

[The Hitch]

"Dawgstrong will destroy this tour if he goes full gas..."

And what does that mean if Froome is doping, respectively more doping than AC or Valv-Piti? Do we know if he´s doping at all? Or is Sky just pushing the lines as any other team (including the french teams like Fdj, Sojasun, Europecar)?

Other than super suspicious roller-coaster Cobo, Froome is on a constant level. Like Hinault, Lemond or Fignon were as they destroyed the tours by going full gas.

Wait why is Cobo suspicious?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Why? B/c i vehemently disagree with your stance on Ullrich or Froome, you must get abusive (even tough you try to hide it by pretening to be sarcastic)?
Is that all your arguments?

You think europcar maybe clean?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Wait why is Cobo suspicious?

1.) from spain, which is suspicious itself
2.) serious: riding for the infamous Saunier (later becoming Geox) team he had results; while being on other teams he is just another also-ran... If that is not suspicious, than i don´t know what should be.

Certainly Sky is wayyy less suspicious. They have yet to have any doping scandal... Even suspicious Wiggins got his transformation before joining Sky, in particular with the "clean" team Garmin.

After all, i really don´t get all the Sky/Froome bashing. They are no worse than any other team, and are certainly cleaner than the suspected shady and doping related spaniards...

 

[the sceptic]

"Dawgstrong will destroy this tour if he goes full gas..."

And what does that mean if Froome is doping, respectively more doping than AC or Valv-Piti? Do we know if he´s doping at all? Or is Sky just pushing the lines as any other team (including the french teams like Fdj, Sojasun, Europecar)?

Other than super suspicious roller-coaster Cobo, Froome is on a constant level. Like Hinault, Lemond or Fignon were as they destroyed the tours by going full gas.

Hinault Lemond and Fignon were climbing a lot slower than Froomestrong. And they didnt spend the vast majority of their careers in the gruppetto, hanging on to motorbikes and zig zagging to get up hills. Pretty laughable comparison to be honest.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

You think europcar maybe clean?

No........

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Hinault Lemond and Fignon were climbing a lot slower than Froomestrong.

Maybe, just maybe the material was not as good as nowadays (speak heavier bikes)? Maybe, just maybe evolution and bigger talent pools lead to faster times?
Maybe nutrition in sports improved over the decades (as doping did, as we know from the 90s on)?
Maybe roads improved over the last couple of decades?

I am just asking.

 

[Havetts]

No........

So Spaniards are dirty, Europcar is dirty, but the guy that curbstomped them all season rides clean because of technological and dietal improvements?