Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[ChewbaccaD]

" I always said that Armstrong was at the limit of human potential."-- Frederic Grappe

http://www.cyclismactu.net/news-int...nce-armstrong-est-un-oxymore-raquo-28861.html

His take on Froome, seems legit...

 

[zastomito]

The only interesting thing from the article is Grappe's [also pseudo scientist?] calculations are at most 2.5% off. Vayers/Portelau are at most 2% of of the SRM files of other riders.

Best conclusion that can be drawn from all this. Calculations all over the web are actually pretty precise.

 

[acoggan]

Fred Grappe ‏@fredgrappe 41m
La question qu'il faut davantage se poser c'est plutôt de savoir quel était son profil avant 2011 ? Et là, je n'en sait rien...

The only interesting thing from the article is Grappe's [also pseudo scientist?] calculations are at most 2.5% off. Vayers/Portelau are at most 2% of of the SRM files of other riders. So, its fair to say the pseudo science Brailsford rant was out of order.

Ross Tucker tweeted that the average error is 2-3%.

 

[zastomito]

Interesting thing is that RR said or tweeted that Froome's weight is 65 kg. I think it was in this thread.

 

[frenchfry]

Arent L'Equipe a SPONSOR of the Tour ?? isn't this a conflict of interest ??

Damien Ressiot is one of the best doping investigative reporters, he revealed Armstrong's 1999 positives in l'Equipe in 2005.

Your comment is legitimate, but I think l'Equipe has done its job in the past so they have a lot of credibility to work with.

 

[acoggan]

Grappe uses a rather simplistic mathematical model of the power-duration relationship, which is biased (in the statistical sense).

Here's the paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22052032

(Note that Pinot and Grappe plagiarized the concept of "power profiling" from me, with Pinot himself citing me as the source of the idea in his thesis, but then pretending it as if it were their novel idea in the actual paper.)

Back to Froome: it would be interesting to run his numbers through my new model to see how the results compare to Grappe's.

 

[martinvickers]

lol where's the fun in that?!

And there's the head of the nail.

 

[timmers]

Fyi (as a poster) - the hitch is massively wrong with this comment. After having read these boards for, what, some 3 years now? I forget. My conclusion is that I have to 100% agree with
. There is far less rational insight and far more irrational conclusion hunting in here than many would like you to believe.

That said, it is what it is. If we had a UCI that was effective, THEN I would get a bit more upset and call it a witch hunt in here. But we don't. And many people, myself included, don't like Froome. So, if we don't like or admire Froome, it is easier to think he is

If this is your opinion do you not think that as a person with ethics that you should step down as a moderator!

 

[biker jk]

" I always said that Armstrong was at the limit of human potential."-- Frederic Grappe

http://www.cyclismactu.net/news-int...nce-armstrong-est-un-oxymore-raquo-28861.html

His take on Froome, seems legit...

Can Sky be so stupid as to use Grappe to legitimise Froome's performance given his total stuff up in identifying Armstrong as a doper?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If this is your opinion do you not think that as a person with ethics that you should step down as a moderator!

He should step down as a moderator because he doesn't like Froome? Why?

 

[oldcrank]

Let's see now, Greg LeMond says Froome is clean,
Alberto Contador says Froome is clean, the data
says Froome is clean, but the clinic still has their
collective panties in a knot.

 

[bewildered]

So Grappe said that LA's numbers were OK. Has he ever been outspoken on a rider who he thought was doped or does he have an unsuspecting/omerta like history?

I know it's nigh-on impossible to prove a rider clean, or certainly to prove Froome clean on these performances seeing as the power estimates are accurate, very high and will always be treated as suspect by many, but this data on it's own doesn't answer any of the most important questions about Froome.

And Brailsford is not stupid, he knows this very well. he asked reporters 'how can we prove he is clean?', it maybe impossible on these numbers but he can do a LOT more than this. It's as you were for me, it doesn't really change anything.

Perhaps the UCI can release details of his VO2 max as apparently they tested him for this this some time ago (before his leap in performance?).

 

[maxmartin]

Can Sky be so stupid as to use Grappe to legitimise Froome's performance given his total stuff up in identifying Armstrong as a doper?

Sky never seemed bright when dealing with doping issues, or as a matter of fact they are actually doping.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ross Tucker tweeted that the average error is 2-3%.

I am certain you can quote that one for me? Missed that one.

Interesting, your thoughts on Grappe, Vayer has said something simular.

Let's see now, Greg LeMond says Froome is clean,
Alberto Contador says Froome is clean, the data
says Froome is clean, but the clinic still has their
collective panties in a knot.

Wow, one out of four correct!

 

[The Hitch]

Why can we not be satisfied with the fact that Chris Froome is a clean rider who is a level above the competion in this years Tour de France.

lol where's the fun in that?!

And there's the head of the nail.

If your opinion all along was that everyone should be satisfied with Sky's explanation of Froome as a clean rider, why did you pretend to be open minded about the issue a lot of the time?

 

[thehog]

Let's see now, Greg LeMond says Froome is clean,
Alberto Contador says Froome is clean, the data
says Froome is clean, but the clinic still has their
collective panties in a knot.

Yes but did they say the Dawg is clean?

For the Clinic. Froome died August 2011 and released the Dawg!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

If your opinion all along was that everyone should be satisfied with Sky's explanation of Froome as a clean rider, why did you pretend to be open minded about the issue a lot of the time?

Pseudo-fence sitters, alot of them are around.

 

[JRTinMA]

Let's see now, Greg LeMond says Froome is clean,
Alberto Contador says Froome is clean, the data
says Froome is clean, but the clinic still has their
collective panties in a knot.

Actually LeMond did not say he was clean, on top of that he doesn't know **** about whose doping and who isn't. Contador would never call out Froome to the media, so his declaration is meaningless. By all means though carry on believing Froome is clean.

 

[timmers]

Yes but did they say the Dawg is clean?

For the Clinic. Froome died August 2011 and released the Dawg!

Have the moderators not killed this lying troll!!

This poster claimed as a fact Froome was training with Ferrari which has not been verified plus that Porte had admitted doping to Ashenden !

Get rid of him, Clean the forum up!

 

[poupou]

Interesting to read Grappe's twitter.

https://twitter.com/fredgrappe

He wrote: Did I say that Froome was clean?

He has tried to explain that he has seen no inconsistency within the 2011-2013 datas.

He seems to understand how can be use or manipulate his words.

 

[darwin553]

I might be talking semantics but wouldn't the power/wattage figures for Froome be generally higher than that of his main rivals due to his riding style of staying in his seat mostly which has the effect, if true, of possibly shooting down one of the indicators of his doping?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Interesting to read Grappe's twitter.

https://twitter.com/fredgrappe

He wrote: Did I say that Froome was clean?

He has tried to explain that he has seen no inconsistency within the 2011-2013 datas.

He seems to understand how can be use or manipulate his words.

Yep, it is strange to see he is being attacked while all he has done is analyze the data available, he himself points to the pre 2011 Vuelta data missing. The Badzilla messed up the SRM transponders, must be.

 

[nevada]

In Australia Dawg is on the program called "Tour de France Live"....on SBS

Not sure about other countries

You are very funny.

 

[bewildered]

Have the moderators not killed this lying troll!!

This poster claimed as a fact Froome was training with Ferrari which has not been verified plus that Porte had admitted doping to Ashenden !

Get rid of him, Clean the forum up!

In fairness he is making a very valid point that others have already made, albeit in a roundabout way.

Everyone knows that Froome has been pushing large numbers since Vuelta '11. It is implicit in him holding super form all this year that he has shown remarkable powers of recovery.

All the article does is confirm this. It also confirms that the data estimates from this year's tour have been accurate and that Brailsford was largely wrong about the 'pseudo-scientists' not being able to interpret the data. It also means that the questions re performances from journalists are more than likely to stop, without any of them being answered.

What have we learned from this article that we didn't already know or have accurate estimates for? That Sky have never tested his V02 max?

 

[JRTinMA]

Michelle Cound ‏@michellecound 4h
Today in @lequipe, expert analysis of @chrisfroome's power data indicates he's clean (news to some I guess...)

I guess that settles it.