Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[martinvickers]

Actual Scientists do try and predict. They try their predictions out in the labs.

Now, you know that's not quite right, Benotti - they don't try to make predictions, they test hypotheses. If your calculation/hypothesis says X should happen for variable Y, you don't 'predict' it will, you test it, and then analyse what actually happened. If it matches the hypothesis, you're on your way to a working theory. No more, no less.

That's not 'prediction'; and in all fairness, i'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know that. ;-)

 

[go crazy]

Gregory James LeMond called out the Texas Turd
but he has not said anything anti-Froome.
That is good enough for me.

Lemond, in addition to being right about LA, also has issues regarding being "the best American TdF winner". Froome doesn't damage that reputation, so he may not have any reason to come forward with an opinion. He's not unbiased, just like every other person who has any opinion about who's doping and who's not.

 

[acoggan]

http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

Not sure why no one has commented on the TSS in the top right corner: 86.

Surely 86 TSS for 94.5% of one hour means 91% of FTP so his FTP as programmed into the training peaks program is 445W (if TSS is related to average power) or 452W (if TSS is related to normalized power). His weight is clearly plugged in at 70kg as they say 5.8W/kg for the tt, so that means his FTP must be plugged in at 6.45W/kg?

Obviously what he's entered into training peaks doesn't have to be correct.

Also he's on Osymmetric rings so possibly times everything by 0.96

To which I would only add: 5.8 W/kg only gives you one significant digit, i.e., the actual value could be anywhere between 5.75 and 5.85 W/kg.

(BTW, TSS is based on the normalized power.)

 

[Square-pedaller]

Now, you know that's not quite right, Benotti - they don't try to make predictions, they test hypotheses. If your calculation/hypothesis says X should happen for variable Y, you don't 'predict' it will, you test it, and then analyse what actually happened.

"X should happen for variable Y" is the prediction.

You start with a hypothesis, make predictions from it, and then test the predictions (and thereby the hypothesis).

 

[131313]

Lemond, in addition to being right about LA, also has issues regarding being "the best American TdF winner".

straight out of the playbook. It's gone from tiresome to charming. Well done.

Froome doesn't damage that reputation, so he may not have any reason to come forward with an opinion. He's not unbiased, just like every other person who has any opinion about who's doping and who's not.

He never "came forward" on Armstrong. Someone asked, he answered. And his answer wasn't "he's doping". It was simply, "if true, it's the greatest comeback, if not, it's the biggest fraud"...or something like that. pretty much spot on. If someone asks him about Froome, I'm guessing he'll answer in a similar manner.

Speaking of LeMond, it's pretty startling to look at his career prior to the age of 21 and that of Chris Froome. LeMond won La Sarthe @ 19yo, riding w/the national team, 3rd in the Daphine @ age 20... 6 pro races his first year. His palmares look like every other pre-epo guy who dominated the Tour, which is to say incredible. Meanwhile, Froome won a stage @ the Tour of Mauritius and the Tour of Japan...

No saying Froome isn't talented, he certainly is. So is Steven Cozza, just to pick a name out of thin air who finished close to Froome in some early races. Big difference between being talented and being clearly the best stage racer in the world.

 

[acoggan]

http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

Not sure why no one has commented on the TSS in the top right corner: 86.

Surely 86 TSS for 94.5% of one hour means 91% of FTP so his FTP as programmed into the training peaks program is 445W (if TSS is related to average power) or 452W (if TSS is related to normalized power). His weight is clearly plugged in at 70kg as they say 5.8W/kg for the tt, so that means his FTP must be plugged in at 6.45W/kg?

Obviously what he's entered into training peaks doesn't have to be correct.

Also he's on Osymmetric rings so possibly times everything by 0.96

Normalized power = 411 W, IF (shown in parantheses after the TSS) = 0.96 means that he must have had his FTP set to ~428 (probably 430) W. 430 W/70 kg = 6.1 W/kg.

As you say, though, there's no way of knowing whether either the entered FTP or entered weight are in fact correct.

 

[sprenten]

Just so I understand, let's imagine a scenario where Froome doesn't go off the chain, again, pedaling in with GC 2nd/3rd on the mountain stages, then busts off another 2nd on a TT. Froome's within human limits? It's an honest question.

I agree there are probably a few other suspicious performances this edition. It's just that Froome/Porte has stolen their thunder!

Right now from the data I have seen it is entirely possible for Froome to win this Tour if he is indeed clean. Clean riders can produce peak performance efforts in the 6.3 W/kg range for 25 minute efforts with outliers in the 6.4 to 6.5 range. To get to the 7.0 W/kg range it has be at sea level conditions over 5-10 minutes. They can't do it for the 50+ minute effort Ventoux is going to take especially when 2/3 of the climb is above 1000m. Porte's 6.1 up to Bonascre certainly lies right at the acceptable range for me if he was at 6.1 W/kg for 25 minutes. I expect Froome to be 5.8-5.9 W/kg up Ventoux which is still a huge effort, but nowhere near record paces.

The question becomes how much can one improve fitness during a Grand Tour. I say those who come in rested can hold a two week period with minimal loss (The doper will not exhibit any loss), while others who come in after hard training will only have a 2-4 day window they can exploit in the middle of the tour with a one day peak then drop (the doper will gain the fitness and hold it throughout the rest of the tour).

 

[ExRower]

Andy Coggan. Clown of the Clinic, Class of 2013.

 

[the sceptic]

Andy Coggan. Clown of the Clinic, Class of 2013.

but have you bought his power training plan ONLINE yet?

 

[red_flanders]

Andy Coggan. Clown of the Clinic, Class of 2013.

Regarding this and all the other personal insults on this thread–it seems clear that the points can be argued without them.

Continuation of the insults may result in bans for those who can't control themselves. I'd rather not during the Tour, but that's up to you all.

 

[131313]

Right now from the data I have seen it is entirely possible for Froome to win this Tour if he is indeed clean. Clean riders can produce peak performance efforts in the 6.3 W/kg range for 25 minute efforts with outliers in the 6.4 to 6.5 range.

In my opinion, I don't think any of Froome's performances are impossible for "a clean rider". I do think they're highly improbable for a rider who didn't distinguish himself immediately as a future dominant champion.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Riiggghhhht...so because doping was/is rampant, it is illogical to suggest riders are doping when their times and other data are similar to known dopers. Got it...

Not illogical to suggest, but illogical to claim they definitely are, based upon that evidence alone. Most people on here are in the later camp.

 

[thehog]

Allow me to try, once more, to educate you (and others): I am not a coach (or even an applied sports scientist).

A comedy writer?

 

[thehog]

Is the correct answer - write a book about power-based training plans?

I'll pay that vortex.

Your best work yet!

 

[131313]

While I disagree with Hunter's basic premise (i.e., that you can determine whether or not someone is doping by knowing their power output), I admire him for having the conviction to put his name to his name to his opinion (unlike so many here...including you, I might add) - that's why I shared them.

I don't. First, he has a pretty clear conflict of interest. His clear implication is that clean riders using his/your metrics to chart performance can perform at a level previously done only by doped riders...followed with a signature link to his power programs... Of course he's assigning his name to it, he's selling a product. I'm not selling the idea that I'm a clean professional (because I know that's a waste of time), so I'll stay anonymous and I'll just stand on the content of what I say. People can take it for what it's worth.

I find the content of Hunter Allen's content to be incredibly weak and self-serving, so that fact that he assigns his name to it doesn't draw much admiration from me.

 

[Rollthedice]

After today's stage it's obvious that Froome is riding by himself. That's why he has only 3 minutes over the next contenders in GC. I'm pretty sure that even without Kennaugh and Porte he would have gotten the same difference on Ax-3. Question is, will the magic juice be enough for him to counter all the attacks in the Alps?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

As someone who's interacted with you, maybe I could make a suggestion. Take the time to teach and educate.

Making assertions and putting up a few references (often inaccessible) doesn't accomplish that. It comes across as arrogant and dismissive. Something along the lines of walking into a room, knowing that you'll be the smartest person there - it's not the best way to convince people that you know what you're talking about. I can hear you say "not my problem". Well yeah, it kind of is. The onus is always on the speaker to ensure that he communicates effectively. Unless you really are a pompous blowhard...

Again, take the time to really lay out the scientific underpinnings of your arguments. Answer questions. Trust that we are intelligent enough to follow along - largely we are. If you're inclined, you have an audience that is eager to soak up knowledge regarding a subject that you have something to contribute.

John Swanson

To which he replied

There is nothing to teach here, no studies to cite, etc.: either people can understand simple logic, or they can't.

Mr. Swanson, as to the bolded:

 

[acoggan]

Mr. Swanson, as to the bolded:

Weren't you told to lay off on the ad hominem attacks?

 

[red_flanders]

Of course it doesn't.

The anonymity discussion is bogus - verifiable facts or even a well researched opinion will always trump a name or qualification.
I read what people write - if its correct its correct, false its false - it doesn't matter who writes it.

Agreed, and let's all move off this point now. You want to post your name, great. You've every right to do so. You want to be anonymous? Great, you've every right to be so.

Identity can indeed have a very strong effect on online discussion. See how Facebook enabled logins affect the behavior of commenting sections of various websites. They do have a suppressive effect on poor behavior. We get it.

This forum however, does not require, encourage or in any way advocate for identity or for real names. Post as you please but we'll not argue about it.

 

[MacRoadie]

Actual scientists don't try and predict. That's for Madam Rita in the tent with the Tarot.

Actually, that would be the third step in the Scientific Method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

 

[MacRoadie]

No saying Froome isn't talented, he certainly is. So is Steven Cozza, just to pick a name out of thin air who finished close to Froome in some early races. Big difference between being talented and being clearly the best stage racer in the world.

Steve's porn mustache is much better...

 

[red_flanders]

I said move off this topic. Last warning.

 

[MacRoadie]

I don't. First, he has a pretty clear conflict of interest. His clear implication is that clean riders using his/your metrics to chart performance can perform at a level previously done only by doped riders...followed with a signature link to his power programs... Of course he's assigning his name to it, he's selling a product. I'm not selling the idea that I'm a clean professional (because I know that's a waste of time), so I'll stay anonymous and I'll just stand on the content of what I say. People can take it for what it's worth.

I find the content of Hunter Allen's content to be incredibly weak and self-serving, so that fact that he assigns his name to it doesn't draw much admiration from me.

Dude, everyone knows that if you're willing to put your name on something, credibility goes through the roof...

 

[acoggan]

I don't see assigning one's name to one's posts as a guarantor of a good contribution; to wit: Hunter's post.

No one said that it did. It does, however, demonstrate that the individual in question believes in their stance strongly enough to face whatever consequences that might arise out of expressing it.

 

[jamesmasters]

Froome getting dropped today was bullsh*t in my opinion. Someone who can go up mountains like he's on a motorbike suddenly gets dropped by Cavendish on a flat stage. Yeah, right. He's just trying to make his win look less ridiculous, avoiding beating the field by over 10 minutes.