Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Bratam]

As someone who was leaning towards a clean Froome, I'm now leaning the other way.

Sky only releasing data since Froome's miraculous turnabout is extremely suspicious to say the least.

Ditto. I am really trying to keep an open mind, but Sky have conveniently provided power numbers from the exact time that many people suspected his doping, the 2011 Vuelta. And they provide the numbers to a guy that thought Armstrong was clean and that Froome was clean as well ? Sky are the masters of spin.

This info literally means nothing other than to confirm and reinforce suspicions of doping. If Sky were serious then they would provide numbers before his miraculous turnaround in 2011. Then I suspect there will be many uncomfortable questions for Sky to answer.

Sky have so many resources and yet they have never tested his VO2 max? A VO2 max that is very close to known physiological limits ? Absurd.

 

[martinvickers]

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?

Please don't try and put words in my mouth. hitch. That was not, and never was my opinion, and there's nothing in my short entry to suggest that.

And i'm not pretending anything - you can ask Franklin or others about my views. I just don't happen to put the value on my prsonal hunches and views that others seem to put on theirs.

That entry was nothing to do with my views on Sky or Froome, and everything to do with my views on the Clinic.

 

[nevada]

Because he's obviously not clean.
Do some research and open your eyes.

So if you know he's doping where is your proof, what's he on ?

The fact is you have nothing and probably no knowledge of the subject.

 

[maxmartin]

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.

Lol I think everybody would agree his performance after vuelta 2011 to today is consistent.
The question is what happened to the data before vuelta 2011 ?

 

[the sceptic]

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?

lolol

Arent you happy now? Froome is clean and it has been proven by scientific research. Everyone that said he was climbing as fast as Armstrong was just a pseudo scientist.

Time to close the thread and move on to other buisness

 

[acoggan]

What have we learned from this article

IMO, nothing of any real significance.

 

[bianchigirl]

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.

He's quoted in liberation as saying that froome's perf is plausible but that does NOT mean its clean, and that it could be boosted by EPO eg

 

[hiero2]

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

First, please note, if this causes any further disruption, I'll start moving stuff to the mod thread.

But
Why? Why would I step down as mod? Your opinions have nothing to do with my modding. How you post them does. How you behave while you are here does. But not your opinions.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

You mean the data, studied by the guy who said Armstrong's data wasn't suspicious, says that Froome is clean. Seems legit.

And LeMond said no such thing, but you knew that.

 

[The Hitch]

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?

what the article means is one thing. What people think it means is more important. Well see which way that swings but Cound and others on the sky side seem determined to sell it as final proof that Froome is 100% clean.

 

[veganrob]

Sky release post miraculous transformation of Froome power data and expect intelligent people to be satified? No, they only do it for the blind fanboys. Ridiculous.

 

[IndianCyclist]

Lol I think everybody would agree his performance after vuelta 2011 to today is consistent.
The question is what happened to the data before vuelta 2011 ?

The data after 2011 is also important in the sense that he cannot be doping all the time. Therefore there would be some inconsistent data where he would not be doped which would be spotted. The important thing is that it has not been found. While it does not prove that he is not doped, but that the data should be relatively cleanish. Unlike Contador whose data from Dauphine to TDF stage 17 might be showing more variation.

 

[acoggan]

The extremely high maximal aerobic power (effort of 5 minutes) confirms that it has an unusual aerobic potential, which requires it to have a close limits VO2max (which has never been measured in the laboratory by his team)

Isn't it highly improbable that they have never measured his VO2 MAX?!

Attention to detail, marginal gains etc?

Perhaps they have bought into the argument that "the best predictor of performance is performance itself", "training is testing and testing is training", etc.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

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.

Lemond did not say Froome is clean. He said he wants to believe, just like he wanted to believe in Lance.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

You mean the data, studied by the guy who said Armstrong's data wasn't suspicious, says that Froome is clean. Seems legit.

And LeMond said no such thing, but you knew that.

No he doesnt say that. Only the Froomsters pattern in power is plausible, not how it is accomplished.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

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.

Not Gregory James Lemond
or Alberto Contador Velasco?

 

[TANK91]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-releases-froomes-power-data


ENJOY

 

[the sceptic]

By the way does this include what he has done in the tour so far?

 

[acoggan]

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

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/355441651566649344

+/-0.2 presumably means the S.E.E..although we don't know what, if any, steps were taken to prevent confirmation bias.

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

What, that Grappe's ethics are questionable at best? Interesting...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-releases-froomes-power-data


ENJOY

Fred Grappe ‏@fredgrappe 2h
Ai-je une seule fois évoqué le fait qu'il n'est pas dopé ? Les données analysées ne permet pas de le dire. Je dois rester très honnête...

Translation: "I once mentioned that he is not doped? The data analyzed does not say. I have to be very honest"

Turns out, neither of you is very good at reading things in context (Grappe seems capable)...guess that must be a common trait among Froome believers...

 

[Tyrant]

It's impossible to clarify someone as clean purely based on SRM data. You can only prove he is not THAT good that he is probably doping.

If I take EPO I (hopefully) would achieve a max of 4W/kg. If you would say that I'm not doping because I don't achieve 6,8W/kg you'd be lying.

 

[58teeth]

Guys...I got it! He has a larger heart than others! It must explain #2 on Grappe's list.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No he doesnt say that. Only the Froomsters pattern in power is plausible, not how it is accomplished.

Read the sentence again, the commas will help you understand what I wrote.

 

[AICA ribonucleotide]

The data after 2011 is also important in the sense that he cannot be doping all the time. Therefore there would be some inconsistent data where he would not be doped which would be spotted. The important thing is that it has not been found. While it does not prove that he is not doped, but that the data should be relatively cleanish. Unlike Contador whose data from Dauphine to TDF stage 17 might be showing more variation.

The data is from 18 climbs over two years. Why cant he be doped for each of those 18 climbs?
Why would he be climbing undoped if he knows he can get away with it.

 

[No_Balls]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-releases-froomes-power-data


ENJOY

In that guy Sky knew there was no risk providing some data. This clown analysed Armstrong and said everything looked normal. And because they knew he was going to provide what they (Sky) wanted to here, as well as the british, they lended some candies.

My 5 cent is that this move makes it even more suspicious.