Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[thehog]

Warming down, washing hands, adding pineapple flavour to bidons etc.

Those ones! Well, yes, no wonder Froome is faster than Armstrong.

If anything cycling is much more hygienic these days.

 

[tweak37]

Which advancements are those?

Training programs by professional trainers, output analysis, altitude training and so on. This seems to me to be pretty obvious? Most professional cyclists in 1990 would just go out for a ride each day, without a personal or team trainer (let alone a training center) telling them what to do, intuitive training as it were. Some still do by the way.

 

[BroDeal]

Training programs by professional trainers, output analysis, altitude training and so on. This seems to me to be pretty obvious? Most professional cyclists in 1990 would just go out for a ride each day, without a personal or team trainer (let alone a training center) telling them what to do, intuitive training as it were. Some still do by the way.

 

[Escarabajo]

Training programs by professional trainers, output analysis, altitude training and so on. This seems to me to be pretty obvious? Most professional cyclists in 1990 would just go out for a ride each day, without a personal or team trainer (let alone a training center) telling them what to do, intuitive training as it were. Some still do by the way.

OMG. LOL.

Altitude training is innovative????

Please stop it.

In the 90's they didn't need as much of those things because they had EPO. Still does not mean that they didn't have a structured training program.

 

[tweak37]

Altitude training is innovative????

The idea of altitude training not as such, but surely you can't deny that these practices are totally changed since the 80s? That the scientific background has progressed tremendously. That now more riders than ever are doing altitude training. Do you think that the average let's say Dutch rider in the 80s did altitude training? Not to speak of U23 riders? I fail to see what is ridiculous about that, despite your exaggerated reaction.

 

[zastomito]

The idea of altitude training not as such, but surely you can't deny that these practices are totally changed since the 80s? That the scientific background has progressed tremendously. That now more riders than ever are doing altitude training. Do you think that the average let's say Dutch rider in the 80s did altitude training? Not to speak of U23 riders? I fail to see what is ridiculous about that, despite your exaggerated reaction.

And that accounts for Froome riding as fast as Armstrong who himself trained hard and only for TdF and with Ferrari and with EPO and with blood bags and with the protection of UCI?

 

[thehog]

Training programs by professional trainers, output analysis, altitude training and so on. This seems to me to be pretty obvious? Most professional cyclists in 1990 would just go out for a ride each day, without a personal or team trainer (let alone a training center) telling them what to do, intuitive training as it were. Some still do by the way.

Tell me about it. Those cyclists in the 90s. All they did was ride their bikes.

Now we have training program's by professional trainers. And the cyclists do other things. Like ride their bikes. But differently than before. You know what I mean don't you? It's obvious that its different.

And now they have output analysis. Cyclists in the 90s never knew how fast they were going until the bike computer was invented in 2012.

This is fairly funny. It's like everything that Sassi and co. did came to nothing. It took a swimming coach to teach those stupid cyclists how to train properly.

You keep believing my friend.

 

[the sceptic]

His biggest goal is beating Lance Armstrong in the Tour - so Jan Ullrich tries everything. He even sleeps in a tent.

No joke, the T-mobile star carries his biggest secret in a little suitcase. In training camps or before a race, he unpacks the tent and sleeps in it. There he has a very special, peaceful sleep - altitude training while sleeping. A specially developed generator takes in air and removes some of the oxygen and sends this low oxygen air into the tent. Inside the tent because like the air at altitude. He can adjust the generator so that he is at the equivalent of 2000 to 3500 meters, explained the team doctor, Lothar Heinrich. The effect is the same consequences as being at altitude. While sleeping, Ulrich's body adjusts to the low oxygen air. Heinrich: " In this environment, his body builds more red blood cells which are responsible for transporting oxygen through the body. When he then gets on his bike and trains in the normal environment, his body is stronger."

Additionally, his lungs become more trained, his heart rate increases and his body produces more blood." Studies have shown that performance improvements of 3%. That doesn't sound like much, but in the mountains it could mean the difference required to beat Armstrong. In the 2003 tour, after 3402.5 Kilometers, Ullrich was only 61 seconds behind Armstrong. Armstrong took 83:41:12 hours to go the distance. Ullrich was only 0.02% slower. With the tent effect, he could beat him.

In his house in Scherzingen, Ullrich has a whole room built as an altitudetraining room. (it cost him 20,000 Euro) There he also rides his bike for 2 hours at altitude to further improve the effects. When traveling, he takes the tent from CAT-Deutschland (this model cost 6500 euro). Also, colleague Alexander Vinokourov uses altitude training. Only during the tour will the suitcase with the tent stay at home. Heinrich: " it would be too strenuous on his body. Plus, Ullrich will be at real altitude when he's in the Alps and Pyrenees." Plus, he is already perfectly prepared.

Too bad he didnt know about warming down and washing his hands. Then maybe he could climb as fast as Froomestrong

 

[thehog]

Too bad he didnt know about warming down and washing his hands. Then maybe he could climb as fast as Froomestrong

They just went out an rode their bikes, apparently...

 

[tweak37]

And that accounts for Froome riding as fast as Armstrong who himself trained hard and only for TdF and with Ferrari and with EPO and with blood bags and with the protection of UCI?

Somehow I knew somebody would make a remark like this. My point is that there have been important and significant developments in training in cyling in the recent past. Accepting that (though this already seems very difficult to swallow for some people), why wouldn't it be possible that further significant advancements can be made?
And if that is possible (and if it is possible in other areas too), "exceptionalism" about the Sky doping program and only the doping program is ungrounded.

Anyway, sorry for making a rather complex argument.

 

[thehog]

Somehow I knew somebody would make a remark like this. My point is that there have been important and significant developments in training in cyling in the recent past. Accepting that (though this already seems very difficult to swallow for some people), why wouldn't it be possible that further significant advancements can be made?
And if that is possible (and if it is possible in other areas too), "exceptionalism" about the Sky doping program and only the doping program is ungrounded.

Anyway, sorry for making a rather complex argument.

The roads are smoother.

Which significant developments in training? Would you care to mention them? I'm actually interested.

 

[tweak37]

Tell me about it. Those cyclists in the 90s. All they did was ride their bikes.

Now we have training program's by professional trainers. And the cyclists do other things. Like ride their bikes. But differently than before. You know what I mean don't you? It's obvious that its different.

And now they have output analysis. Cyclists in the 90s never knew how fast they were going until the bike computer was invented in 2012.

This is fairly funny. It's like everything that Sassi and co. did came to nothing. It took a swimming coach to teach those stupid cyclists how to train properly.

You keep believing my friend.

Sassi is a perfect example of what I'm talking about? Are you saying Sassi (and others) didn't make an impact?

 

[zastomito]

Because Armstrong had all that + doping. He left no stone unturned and beat doped up fields for 7 years straight. When he said that he is 'on his bike, busting his *** 6 hours a day' he wasn't kidding. There is no warm down, high altitude or anything else that will make 28 year old weakling ride like a doper. LeMond couldn't keep up with average cyclists on EPO and you are saying that Froome is riding as fast as Armstrong due to better pillows and swimming coach?

 

[veganrob]

Because Armstrong had all that + doping. He left no stone unturned and beat doped up fields for 7 years straight. When he said that he is 'on his bike, busting his *** 6 hours a day' he wasn't kidding. There is no warm down, high altitude or anything else that will make 28 year old weakling ride like a doper. LeMond couldn't keep up with average cyclists on EPO and you are saying that Froome is riding as fast as Armstrong due to better pillows and swimming coach?

You forgot about washing your hands after peeing on the pineapples in the toilet

 

[pmcg76]

The idea of altitude training not as such, but surely you can't deny that these practices are totally changed since the 80s? That the scientific background has progressed tremendously. That now more riders than ever are doing altitude training. Do you think that the average let's say Dutch rider in the 80s did altitude training? Not to speak of U23 riders? I fail to see what is ridiculous about that, despite your exaggerated reaction.

Why are you talking about riders from the 80s when Froome is beating up on guys and their times who were doped to the eyeballs as recently as 5-10 years.

There is no doubt training has improved considerably which is why I disagree with the notion of holding up LeMond as some sort of limit of what is possible clean. I personally believe there are probably quite a few current guys who were less talented than LeMond but with modern training techniques/equipment etc are better than LeMond.

It was in the 90s that specialised coaches and doctors started working in cycling, unfortunately they also were the purveyors of the drugs of choice at the time. I still believe that guys like Ferrari, Cecchini, Sassi also brought a high level of training knowledge to cycling which also helped athletes improve along with the EPO. What I don't get is these guys now being classed as clueless in favour of people like Tim Kerrison.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

...1500 is not farahs distance. I think it's a pretty big point and one people of any athletics knowledge can understand.

Well it's not a distance that he's raced much, but it's clearly one he is suited to. There have been enough top exponents of both 1500m and 5k for us to know that the physiological requirements are not that different. Not the same, obviously.

Haile Gebreselassie has run sub 3:32 for 1500m indoors, and indoors vs outdoors is usually worth half a second per 400m given the tighter track. He's also run 2:04 for the marathon. Bekele is also no slouch at the shorter distances. (3:32 for 1500m outdoors and WR over 2k indoors.)

Basically, if you're a top quality distance runner, you'll be there or thereabouts at a wide range of distances, with preferences at either end of the scale depending on whether you're more a "sprinter" or a "stayer". In the Coe/Ovett era, a number of otherwise world class middle distance runners ended up running the 5k, to avoid racing the dynamic duo. (Wessinghage, Moorcroft and Coghlan spring to mind - one WR holder and one world champ at the longer distance.) If Coe and Ovett hadn't existed they'd probably never have bothered with the longer distance, despite clearly being naturally suited to it.

Despite being the Olympic 5k/10k champ like Haile and Bekele, Mo is much slower over both these distances, so his preference is towards the short end of the scale.

 

[thehog]

Sassi is a perfect example of what I'm talking about?

Are you saying Sassi (and others) didn't make an impact?

Many trainers made an impact. Some for different reasons than others.

Are you telling me Sassi just told guys to "ride around" back in the 90's?

Because you're starting actually you have already started to not make any sense. But maybe that's your objective

 

[spetsa]

So you believe that in 2011, Sky chose a random -possibly very mediocre- rider to turn into a world class GT rider, namely Froome. Put him on a magical doping program. Et voila.

This somehow strikes you as more likely than that Froome really is a very talented rider, who profits from the professional environment at Sky, just as many other riders there do. This of course doesn't mean that they all have the same level, as there are many different types of riders, and some are more talented than others, and some work harder than others, and some had more to gain than others, etc. So maybe there is a doping program too. Maybe their doping program is better than Saxo's or Katusha's. Who knows. But if that is possible, why wouldn't it be possible that their training programs are better too?

It took the Armstrong believers 10 years or more to get to the "level playing field" argument. Poor Froome hasn't even made it a month and his loyal are already there. Pretty telling about your arguing.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

How about Conconi and the rest? Moser's hour record was not the product of just going out and riding his bike.

The hour record might be a better place to look at what advances have been made, since it's far easier to compare than power outputs in ITTs (different courses yield different results, and while different boards will also have an effect, it's less obvious than in a road TT) or times or outputs on climbs (length and steepness of climb and especially race conditions will always effect these in such a way as that all results other than MTTs are hard to judge consistently against one another).

 

[Benotti69]

Somehow I knew somebody would make a remark like this. My point is that there have been important and significant developments in training in cyling in the recent past.

So what are they?

Accepting that (though this already seems very difficult to swallow for some people), why wouldn't it be possible that further significant advancements can be made?
And if that is possible (and if it is possible in other areas too), "exceptionalism" about the Sky doping program and only the doping program is ungrounded.

We have not seen any details of sky's 'advanced' training that gives them 4+ minutes over 3 weeks at the TdF. Have you?

Anyway, sorry for making a rather complex argument.

if only.

Sky's known methods of warm downs, warm ups, pineapple juice added to bidons etc etc have all been used in the sport well before Sky came along.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Shame there hasn't been any change in the hour record since 2005. (and that from a doper).
2000 and Boardman is the last one from a non-convicted of doping cyclist.

It doesn't have the interest it did in the 1990's. Partly the technology changes, and partly the Boardman/Obree battle of styles. The UCI killed it when they changed the rules.

The 4K IP on the track would also be a good analogue, but the UCI dropped THAT from the Olympics and so it has lost some of the best riders from that discipline.

 

[armchairclimber]

Well it's not a distance that he's raced much, but it's clearly one he is suited to. There have been enough top exponents of both 1500m and 5k for us to know that the physiological requirements are not that different. Not the same, obviously.

Haile Gebreselassie has run sub 3:32 for 1500m indoors, and indoors vs outdoors is usually worth half a second per 400m given the tighter track. He's also run 2:04 for the marathon. Bekele is also no slouch at the shorter distances. (3:32 for 1500m outdoors and WR over 2k indoors.)

Basically, if you're a top quality distance runner, you'll be there or thereabouts at a wide range of distances, with preferences at either end of the scale depending on whether you're more a "sprinter" or a "stayer". In the Coe/Ovett era, a number of otherwise world class middle distance runners ended up running the 5k, to avoid racing the dynamic duo. (Wessinghage, Moorcroft and Coghlan spring to mind - one WR holder and one world champ at the longer distance.) If Coe and Ovett hadn't existed they'd probably never have bothered with the longer distance, despite clearly being naturally suited to it.

Despite being the Olympic 5k/10k champ like Haile and Bekele, Mo is much slower over both these distances, so his preference is towards the short end of the scale.

It's notable that the emphasis upon speed endurance work and strength (more weights than he did in the UK) in Oregon are precisely the kind of training that would prepare an athlete for the 1500m.

He was also a quick 3000m runner earlier in his career too.

 

[Catwhoorg]

He still is fast over 3000m, winning the anniversary games race at that distance, by a wide margin.

Shame he didn't threaten Moorcroft's record.

 

[spetsa]

He still is fast over 3000m, winning the anniversary games race at that distance, by a wide margin.

Shame he didn't threaten Moorcroft's record.

Froome races on the track? Was this a post TDF event or something, and who's Moorcroft?

 

[del1962]

Well it's not a distance that he's raced much, but it's clearly one he is suited to. There have been enough top exponents of both 1500m and 5k for us to know that the physiological requirements are not that different. Not the same, obviously.

Haile Gebreselassie has run sub 3:32 for 1500m indoors, and indoors vs outdoors is usually worth half a second per 400m given the tighter track. He's also run 2:04 for the marathon. Bekele is also no slouch at the shorter distances. (3:32 for 1500m outdoors and WR over 2k indoors.)

Basically, if you're a top quality distance runner, you'll be there or thereabouts at a wide range of distances, with preferences at either end of the scale depending on whether you're more a "sprinter" or a "stayer". In the Coe/Ovett era, a number of otherwise world class middle distance runners ended up running the 5k, to avoid racing the dynamic duo. (Wessinghage, Moorcroft and Coghlan spring to mind - one WR holder and one world champ at the longer distance.) If Coe and Ovett hadn't existed they'd probably never have bothered with the longer distance, despite clearly being naturally suited to it.

Despite being the Olympic 5k/10k champ like Haile and Bekele, Mo is much slower over both these distances, so his preference is towards the short end of the scale.

Said Aouita springs to mind, defeated by Cram in the WC 1500m, despite temporily holding the 1500m WR, turned to 5k and beat Moorcrofts best.

The interesting thing about the 90s 5k and 10k times saw a comparitively much faster set of times than than 80s times in comparison with 1500m and 800m times, I am not sure if this is due to the initial times being weaker or the effects of vector doping.