Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[kaffenback]

yup, me too. after listening, watching and reading a lot of coverage after sunday's stage you could really perceive a big change in tone across the board. to me a lot of it seemed underpinned with relief that they weren't in this tough spot anymore of obviously discussing this stuff amongst themselves for so long, but, for a variety of reasons, largely keeping it 'off-screen'.

Yep, although I'm not sure if Chris Boardman as a former elite cyclist at a time of serious doping is as comfortable chewing the fat on this topic as some. Not to mention that he probably wouldn't be keen for a huge new scandal that could damage the sport and reduce bike sales.

 

[DirtyWorks]

WHEN this explosion happens im not too sure cycling will survive a second time around , at best it will just become a circus act to be laughed at , all the sponsors will run for there lives this time and they wont be coming back !!

Fixed that for you.

Since the UCI is it's own source of authority, the Sky doping scandal shall pass too. Just like Festina, Puerto, Landis, Hamilton, Armstrong, and so on.

The important point being the federations (UCI and national federation) are playing a role in enabling the doping.

 

[DirtyWorks]

he probably wouldn't be keen for a huge new scandal that could damage the sport and reduce bike sales.

The "damage to the sport" idea needs to die. The sport at the elite level has earned its reputation.

Also, sales won't broadly decline. Most bike consumers simply don't care and don't know or care what faces are on the poster in the shop. They seem to want what they want.

I would imagine any worries are personal, legal, ones.

 

[hfer07]

Vayer's logic seems flawed to me. Clearly Froome's VO2max is high enough to out-perform his competition (which, importantly, is not the same as saying that his VO2max is higher than that of his competition), but knowing precisely what it is tells you no more about whether he is doping or not than knowing his actual power output.

...Because...?????

 

[the sceptic]

...Because...?????

i think we gotta buy his online power training plan to understand

 

[Deagol]

another point to add is that it seems that an informed fanbase is part of what helped uncover the LA scandal in that fans had a part in holding the media's fee to the fire so the story would stay on the front pages for years on end. Fans who knew what LA was really up to were literally years ahead of the "mainstream" media and mainstream "fans" and kept the pressure on (Race Radio comes to mind). Could the same thing be needed here with Sky ?

I don't claim to know the answer, but the answer SEEMS to be yes.

 

[hfer07]

i think we gotta buy his online power training plan to understand

I know- I was just teasing him to come with more "clever BS" this time around

 

[babastooey]

Perhaps they should look more closely at some of the pro US sports, e.g., NHL. NFL, MLB and NBA.

If you look back at my past posts, you will see a thread about Manny Ramirez that I commented on. I am waiting for MLB to revoke the two world series wins by the Red Sox. The curse continues!

At least MLB is stepping up to hand out 150 game (nearly full year) bans for stars like Alex Rodriguez -- not over a positive test, but due to actual investigating.

 

[spetsa]

Vayer's logic seems flawed to me. Clearly Froome's VO2max is high enough to out-perform his competition (which, importantly, is not the same as saying that his VO2max is higher than that of his competition), but knowing precisely what it is tells you no more about whether he is doping or not than knowing his actual power output.

So which physiological parameter can be used to establish doping? According to you, neither VO2max, nor W/kg fits the bill.

...Because...?????

Don't even respond to this tool. Andy, get back to work securing those grants for Wash U.

 

[babastooey]

Froome getting questioned on his performances today. He looks to had enough of it.

If no one is willing to investigate him once the Tour is over, then it is up to us between now and the end of the Tour to heap enough pressure on him that his conscience will get the better of him and he will crack and quit the race, or his team will wise up like Rabo in 2007.

Don't let off the pedal!

 

[acoggan]

...Because...?????

Suppose you knew for a fact that Froome's VO2max is, say, 94 mL/min/kg - does that mean he is guilty of doping, or not?

 

[red_flanders]

Suppose you knew for a fact that Froome's VO2max is, say, 94 mL/min/kg - does that mean he is guilty of doping, or not?

If his V02 max had historically, legitimately been proven to be alien (94), I think a lot of people would have little reason to doubt his performances.

Since that is not the case, and is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely to be the case, there are a lot of doubts.

Your point is taken, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far in the context of discussing the believability of Froome's performances. It would be relevant if this were a court, but it's not.

 

[acoggan]

If his V02 max had historically, legitimately been proven to be alien (94), I think a lot of people would have little reason to doubt his performances.

Since that is not the case, and is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely to be the case, there are a lot of doubts.

Your point is taken, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far in the context of discussing the believability of Froome's performances. It would be relevant if this were a court, but it's not.

First, I would submit that calling 94 mL/min/kg "alien" implies that you don't believe such "context" is really necessary, i.e., you have established a clearly demarcated "doping line" for VO2max (just as others have for power output), at least in your head.

Second, even if you had historical data on Froome, what would a sudden increase in his VO2max tell you that a sudden increase in his actual performance would not?

 

[hfer07]

Suppose you knew for a fact that Froome's VO2max is, say, 94 mL/min/kg - does that mean he is guilty of doping, or not?

Of course NOT- was it before he joined SKY?

 

[acoggan]

Of course NOT- was it before he joined SKY?

See my reply to red_flanders.

 

[tellywatcher]

Any and every opinion is valid regardless of any legal, moral or other implication.
It is your opinion that speculative opinion is worthless.
I totally disagree.
Speculation is a fuel for discussion and debate and that is what makes us interesting and very different human beings.

Anyway, back on topic.
Froome's opinion is that he would rather not have to deal with doubts over him doping.

Your opinion is that nobody should speculate about 'innocent' Froome doping without any evidence. Giving him a very easy ride there then! No, nothing to see here!

My opinion is that if good, decent people didn't question what they saw and ultimately if brave people didn't reveal the truth, then the bad, dishonest people will always win and lies
and corruption will rule.

Much of the world is already fu~ked in this regard, but shouldn't we try and keep it out of sport or at least keep them on their toes if we possibly can.

Think you are living in fantasy land, when has any form of professional sport been about anything other than money and egos. And that will never change

 

[hfer07]

See my reply to red_flanders.

Fair enough- Let me ask you a simple question: What does a 94 mL/min/kg VO2max allow a Professional cyclist to perform & achieve?

 

[Grand Tourist]

Suppose you knew for a fact that Froome's VO2max is, say, 94 mL/min/kg - does that mean he is guilty of doping, or not?

But if his VO2max was that high don't you think Brailsford etc would be singing this fact from the roof tops? It'd be a legitimate explanation for his outlandish performances. They aren't & it isn't.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

If Froome had a 94, he'd release that in a heartbeat to show the world why he's clean.

Then the world would ask, if you were really a 94, why were you pack fodder before the Vuelta 2011? Why were you zig-zagging up hills? Why did you not have a contract until that "revelation" at the Vuelta?

If Froome had a 94, Sky wouldn't have needed Leinders. They wouldn't need to hide their power files. They wouldn't need Brailsford's BS.

Might as well ask, if you knew that Froome had little wings on his a$$ that enable him to go really fast up hill, would you still think he's doping?

 

[Ferminal]

Maybe he can get Coyle to look at his WCC tests.

 

[simo1733]

If his V02 max had historically, legitimately been proven to be alien (94), I think a lot of people would have little reason to doubt his performances.

Since that is not the case, and is EXCEEDINGLY unlikely to be the case, there are a lot of doubts.

Your point is taken, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far in the context of discussing the believability of Froome's performances. It would be relevant if this were a court, but it's not.

So if Kurt Atle Arvesen suddenly becomes a GC contender, you won't bat an eye lid because he has a VO2 max of 93.

 

[Merckx index]

First, I would submit that calling 94 mL/min/kg "alien" implies that you don't believe such "context" is really necessary, i.e., you have established a clearly demarcated "doping line" for VO2max (just as others have for power output), at least in your head.

Words like "alien", and especially "exceedingly unlikely" point not to an absolute line, but to very high probabilities, the essence of science. It is very well established that a V02 max this high is indeed exceedingly rare. And a line is frequently drawn at p values like 0.01, with the understanding that the line is not absolute, but nevertheless a very good indicator.

Second, even if you had historical data on Froome, what would a sudden increase in his VO2max tell you that a sudden increase in his actual performance would not?

Given that every time Froome decimates the peloton on a climb, in a time ranking him right up there with known recent dopers, people come crawling out of the woodwork to argue it wasn’t really that impressive—because of a tailwind, because the competition is weak, etc.—I would say a sudden increase in VO2 max would tell us a lot more than a sudden increase in performance. Everyone agrees Froome is performing much better now than he did two years ago, but there appears to be very strong debate over whether his performance puts him in the ranks previously populated only by known dopers. IOW, performance is relative, V02 max is much less so.

I believe you among others have been arguing that wattage values calculated on road performance are of very limited use, because of all the variables that go into them. Having a VO2 max eliminates those variables.

 

[LesDiablesRouges]

So if Kurt Atle Arvesen suddenly becomes a GC contender, you won't bat an eye lid because he has a VO2 max of 93.

VO2 max tells us what is possible not what will happen. VO2 max doesn't make you a good cyclist in only allows you greater possibilities in terms of oxygen uptake/consumption which in theory should allow an advantage.

It's not the whole story because VO2 max doesn't exist in a vaccum it's affected by other processes in the body.

If Froome did have a VO2 max of 94 (he doesn't) then a lot of what is taking place could at least seem somewhat plausible. There's no downside to letting people know what your VO2 max is... the fact that it's no made public would seem to suggest that his isn't 94 and he's not really close to that number.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Sofar the impartial scientist Andy Coggins.

So, VO2 max says nothing, w/k says nothing. Only Ed and Andy know the score of an 18% increase in efficiency. Froome's efficiency must have improved with 40%.

Good thing Kerrison contacted Cecchini's notebook for the prep.

PS: wasnt Hamilton always climbing in the saddle?

 

[red_flanders]

First, I would submit that calling 94 mL/min/kg "alien" implies that you don't believe such "context" is really necessary, i.e., you have established a clearly demarcated "doping line" for VO2max (just as others have for power output), at least in your head.

Alien maybe not the best word. "Once in a generation talent". I'm thinking Lemond was an "alien" in this context with his reported 92.

Second, even if you had historical data on Froome, what would a sudden increase in his VO2max tell you that a sudden increase in his actual performance would not?

I don't know, and don't follow your point. I would find a sudden increase in his V02 max strange as I have always read that it's relatively untrainable. It moves, but not dramatically.

You didn't address the central points of my post. One, that we have no such record of Froome and that if we did, his performances would be much more palatable. Any thoughts on that? You seem to be dodging.