Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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.



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

Hahaha, no, referring to his calculations. But, questionable? Interesting...

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

My bad

 

[acoggan]

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.

Since:

1) you don't know who Brailsford meant with that pejorative; and

2) people are "spinning" the data in all sorts of ways, not all of which would make Brailsford/Froome happy

I don't think you can draw the bolded conclusion. (In fact, I'd argue the opposite is true, i.e., just as Brailsford feared, releasing Froome's data has only provided more fodder for those who think he is doping.)

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

Using SRM data to prove someone is doping isn't a legitimate proposition either. What it does do, when added to things like climbing times commensurate with known dopers, maintaining a level of fitness for an extended period of time (something even major dopers were unable to do), and not tiring at any point during a 3 week GT, is add a significant log to the fire.

 

[acoggan]

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

Well, actually, it would. That is, if his VO2max is extremely high, his heart must also be extremely big. That's just how the physiology works.

 

[Retro Trev]

Grappe uses a rather simplistic mathematical model of the power-duration relationship, which is biased (in the statistical sense). Thus, I wouldn't read too much into any of the absolute values, as they won't necessarily agree with other approaches/experience/reality. About all that really can be said is that (assuming he had access to all of Froome's numbers) is that the data are:

1) internally self-consistent, and
2) similar (in a relative sense) to that of other cyclists Grappe considers clean

when viewed through the "lens" provided by this (flawed) model.

Or to put it another way: let the speculation about how Froome reached his 2011-2013 level, and/or how seem recovers so well between stages, begin.

It is the 2010 data we want to see, the power data before the improvement. As it is all we have is some 'evidence' he has not improved in 2 years.

 

[hiero2]

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.

Yeah, it's got me laughing! Still, to be fair, it has been called by several - there remains a question as to how we got to today from 3 years back - and the change point 2 years ago, just outside the data release.

And, to be honest, Sky may be justified in saying that the power data is misleading or misdirecting or however you want to term what it is they are saying.

And who knows, maybe the Clinic skeptics have got it right - and Sky is one of Ashenden's small % of teams with very sophisticated dopage.

 

[The Hitch]

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...

Tank91 threw a small stone thinking it was a grenade, into the clinic, and immediately run away for cover.

Tank doesn't have the intelligence to engage in discussions with people on this issue. He just hoped to flame a few people with a hit and run. Maybe wont even bother checking back to see it was a dud.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Tank91 threw a small stone thinking it was a grenade, into the clinic, and immediately run away for cover.

Tank doesn't have the intelligence to engage in discussions with people on this issue. He just hoped to flame a few people with a hit and run. Maybe wont even bother checking back to see it was a dud.

Are you me?

 

[jilbiker]

Reading the summary of analysis of Froome's data reminded me of exactly what we heard about Lance. Near perfect VO2, excellent recovery blah blah...And as they say in the legal field, computer data is hearsay evidence because it can be doctored. Unless the evidence was gathered immediately after the occurrence of the event and gathered in a specific manner, it holds zero value in court.

 

[TANK91]

It is because of idiots like you they are doing things like this. On the other hand you would have believed it anyway.

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.

Wow im the idiot, are you sure? Your the 1 who is supporting a convicted doper ha ha.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Why was the hitch post deleted?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Wow im the idiot, are you sure? Your the 1 who is supporting a convicted doper ha ha.

Good point, that is why i want all convicted dopers to go away.

 

[Ripper]

" 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...

There's this as well: http://www.rds.ca/plus/cyclisme/la-supériorité-d-armstrong-vue-par-la-science-1.297864

 

[taiwan]

Glad Sky released his data and cleared all this up.

-nothing released publicly
-no 2010 numbers to Grappe
-no VO2max to Grappe
-only numbers released in Grappe statement seemingly meaningless
-Grappe apparently a believer in LA miracle

 

[bewildered]

Since:

1) you don't know who Brailsford meant with that pejorative; and

2) people are "spinning" the data in all sorts of ways, not all of which would make Brailsford/Froome happy

I don't think you can draw the bolded conclusion. (In fact, I'd argue the opposite is true, i.e., just as Brailsford feared, releasing Froome's data has only provided more fodder for those who think he is doping.)

You are correct on 1 and that I can't draw the bolded conclusion. But since Brailsford was referring to releasing the data publicly I would imagine he was referring to general public cycling fans, including most clinic regulars and those making estimates.

You are incorrect on 2. He hasn't released the data publicly, none of us have seen it, so we can't spin it. People are 'spinning' the article and it's people in the Froome defender camp only IMO because they are the ones saying (eg Michelle Cound) that Grappe's findings prove he is clean when the truth is that there is no possible way that this data (or possibly any data) can prove that he is clean.

People in the 'Froome is dirty camp' are not spinning Grappe's findings as proof or even evidence that he is dirty. Some of them are using performances etc as evidence, some go on like they are conclusive proof, but there is no possible way you could spin this article as proof or evidence that he is dirty. All they are saying is that the article offers very little information that we didn't already know and IMO it only leads to more determination to have what were already reasonable questions answered. so I can't see how Sky would be unhappy with how the article is being spun. It can only really be spun positively for them, which may well have been the desired effect.

 

[Mr.38%]

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

If you do (say) what you do best, you do it best.

So basically in terms of performance, Froome used to be 5-10% behind the best riders and is now 4% (20W) ahead of them. All that within a timespan of one season. Possible? I'm not sure. Do you know of any (elite/professional) athlete who achieved anything similar? Are you able to create a model that shows us the required adaptations in physis and training?

 

[Cobblestones]

Let's get over what Grappe said:

1) His weight is stable within 900g.

Ok, fine. Neutral statement wrt. doping I guess. Main point seems to be to use W and W/kg interchangeably.

2) Must possess extraordinary aerobic potential.

Qualified by the statement that he does not have the corresponding VO2max numbers. In fact, we can treat this as a scientific prediction. Power numbers can only be explained by high VO2max numbers (which are hard to improve throughout a career). So let's test this prediction... below

3) Must possess excellent recovery.

Hard to use the statement in either way. For doing well in 3 week GTs this is a given. However, I have no idea whether recovery can be trained or not. Certainly it can be helped along by 'products'. I interpret it neutral/slightly leaning toward doping.

4) Power drops off normally

Again, it is hard to use the statement either way, as everybody (athlete or not, doped or not) would presumably show this behavior. If you dope, presumably you'd increase your 60 min. performance as well as your 20 min. performance, but still you would do worse for 60 min. than for 20 min. I just don't see what the drop-off proves in terms of doping.

ok, so far so good

Now, let's go back to point 2, which is the big point IMHO. Does Froome have a VO2max value at the physiological limit? Well, clearly, he has now, otherwise he wouldn't produce the power data, so the real question is: is it a natural or 'enhanced' number? For that to establish, we assume that the 'natural' VO2max doesn't change much throughout a career, because it cannot be improved much through training. So it should be evident throughout Froome's career (in a similar way as it was throughout, say, Greg Lemond's career). Now, you don't need a PhD in statistics or exercise physiology or any particularly sophisticated models to convert ITT times or VAM times into power data and VO2max data to see that there's absolutely no manifestation whatsoever of any extraordinary 'at the physiologocal limit' VO2max value for Froome from anything before the 2011 Vuelta. Now, why would that be the case, I wonder? The official explanation for that given so far is bilharzia. Or did I miss something?

 

[thehog]

Let's get over what Grappe said:

1) His weight is stable within 900g.

Ok, fine. Neutral statement wrt. doping I guess. Main point seems to be to use
ok, so far so good

Now, let's go back to point 2, which is the big point IMHO. Does Froome have a VO2max value at the physiological limit? Well, clearly, he has now, otherwise he wouldn't produce the power data, so the real question is: is it a natural or 'enhanced' number? For that to establish, we assume that the 'natural' VO2max doesn't change much throughout a career, because it cannot be improved much through training. So it should be evident throughout Froome's career (in a similar way as it was throughout, say, Greg Lemond's career). Now, you don't need a PhD in statistics or exercise physiology or any particularly sophisticated models to convert ITT times or VAM times into power data and VO2max data to see that there's absolutely no manifestation whatsoever of any extraordinary 'at the physiologocal limit' VO2max value for Froome from anything before the 2011 Vuelta. Now, why would that be the case, I wonder? The official explanation for that given so far is bilharzia. Or did I miss something?

Interesting.

Could you explain what you mean in this paragraph again? Just want to know if I'm reading you correctly.

 

[Deagol]

There's this as well: http://www.rds.ca/plus/cyclisme/la-supériorité-d-armstrong-vue-par-la-science-1.297864

Can anyone read French and translate?

 

[acoggan]

You are correct on 1 and that I can't draw the bolded conclusion. But since Brailsford was referring to releasing the data publicly I would imagine he was referring to general public cycling fans, including most clinic regulars and those making estimates.

You are incorrect on 2. He hasn't released the data publicly, none of us have seen it, so we can't spin it. People are 'spinning' the article and it's people in the Froome defender camp only IMO because they are the ones saying (eg Michelle Cound) that Grappe's findings prove he is clean when the truth is that there is no possible way that this data (or possibly any data) can prove that he is clean.

People in the 'Froome is dirty camp' are not spinning Grappe's findings as proof or even evidence that he is dirty. Some of them are using performances etc as evidence, some go on like they are conclusive proof, but there is no possible way you could spin this article as proof or evidence that he is dirty. All they are saying is that the article offers very little information that we didn't already know and IMO it only leads to more determination to have what were already reasonable questions answered. so I can't see how Sky would be unhappy with how the article is being spun. It can only really be spun positively for them, which may well have been the desired effect.

I think you're splitting hairs here. Brailsford's argument against sharing Froome's data was that it wouldn't put an end to the accusations, but in fact would just give people something more to point to as evidence of doping. His prediction is, in fact, proving true.

 

[D-Queued]

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.

Froome says Froome is clean.

Its unanimous.

Dave.

 

[thrawn]

So the team of science and marginal gains has never tested Froome's VO2 max? Bull****.

 

[Alphabet]

There he goes again. Vroome Vroome.

 

[go crazy]

Fake tired. OH I CAN BARELY MAKE IT BACK UP TO QUINTANA!

 

[Alphabet]

And now it's Little Richie .