Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[the sceptic]

damn and people in the clinic teach me that theres no improvement over the years.



or maybe he is the supreme troll

So now that he said something that fits into your fairytale world he is no longer a drunk troll?

 

[EnacheV]

So now that he said something that fits into your fairytale world he is no longer a drunk troll?

do you know how to read ? do you know what is a yes-no logic split ?

i don't know if he is being serious or trolling (i know that yesterday's 6.7 w/kg is trolling though, other more trusty sources put it at 6.5 w/kg). if he is serious that the clinic is laughable with the no improvements meme, if he is trolling than he is a very good troll.

why do i have to explain such things?!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

do you know how to read ? do you know what is a yes-no logic split ?

i don't know if he is being serious or trolling (i know that yesterday's 6.7 w/kg is trolling though, other more trusty sources put it at 6.5 w/kg). if he is serious that the clinic is laughable with the no improvements meme, if he is trolling than he is a very good troll.

why do i have to explain such things?!

Ok, even taking the 6.5w/kg - how do you explain such a result?

 

[EnacheV]

Ok, even taking the 6.5w/kg - how do you explain such a result?

You forget that i'm from the side that think this numbers are irrelevant to determine causes of performances.

When you see a car running with 200 km/h you can't determine if he has 4 or 8 cylinders engine.

For me even 6.7 W/kg is irrelevant. But i called him a troll because he is ballistic and deliberately seeking attention by inflating numbers out of proportions. It easy to type a 7 in twitter.

He announced this number like what, 1 hour after race end? I'm sure first things TJ did was to mail him his meter data

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You forget that i'm from the side that think this numbers are irrelevant to determine causes of performances.

So, why are you discussing them?

When you see a car running with 200 km/h you can't determine if he has 4 or 8 cylinders engine.

For me even 6.7 W/kg is irrelevant. But i called him a troll because he is ballistic and deliberately seeking attention by inflating numbers out of proportions. It easy to type a 7 in twitter.

He announced this number like what, 1 hour after race end? I'm sure first things TJ did was to mail him his meter data

Again you are dismissing Vayer - not his numbers.
And I even gave you a .2 off, to just to get some discussion.

 

[lllludo]

damn and people in the clinic teach me that theres no improvement over the years.

You take top teams like Garmin, Giant Shimano, FDJeux they use science, nutrition, mental coach, camps etc... and without naming it they also add-up marginal gains. Can their riders approach Froomey's level of performance ? No way ... but you see guys like Dumoulin, Ludvigsson, Geniez, Pinot, Martin, Dennis improving step by step other the years.

With Froome it's all different. One day, mid-2011, he goes to the lab for SKY internal tests and all of a sudden his performance test results improve dramatically. They are so good the team director of performance can't believe it the sensors are telling the truth; Marginal gains or not...
If Navardauskas was to finish 2nd of this year's Vuelta I would be as suspicious.

 

[EnacheV]

So, why are you discussing them?

Because he is making noise and ridiculous claims?

 

[the sceptic]

Because he is making noise and ridiculous claims?

but you dont believe in numbers and think they are irrelevant so how can they be ridiculous claims?

 

[EnacheV]

but you dont believe in numbers and think they are irrelevant so how can they be ridiculous claims?

Last time

"Froome did 6.7 W/kg , he is doping"

the 6.7 part is trolling, "he is doping" is the ridiculous claim, exactly because even if 6.7 is true, it doesn't result doping.

head over to sport scientists and read their disclaimers. also check legal rules, cas rules , etc.

science say >x.xx quantity of something in blood = doping, not x.xx w/kg = doping.

it's like saying that if average speed in a TT > 60km/h ==> ban the rider.

 

[Saint Unix]

If Navardauskas was to finish 2nd of this year's Vuelta I would be as suspicious.

I wouldn't be *as* suspicious. Navardauskas has shown much more as a rider than Froome had pre-2011 Vuelta.

Which tells everyone what a fantastic rider Froome used to be. To be fair, he did win the Astronomical Co*k Race once.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Last time

"Froome did 6.7 W/kg , he is doping"

the 6.7 part is trolling, "he is doping" is the ridiculous claim, exactly because even if 6.7 is true, it doesn't result doping.

head over to sport scientists and read their disclaimers. also check legal rules, cas rules , etc.

science say >x.xx quantity of something in blood = doping, not x.xx w/kg = doping.

it's like saying that if average speed in a TT > 60km/h ==> ban the rider.

Here is an article about the fall of Armstrong from July 2012:

The late Aldo Sassi, who was respected as one of the best cycling coaches and whose reputation was spotless, concluded that a sustained 6.2 watts per kilo was probably the limit of human achievement under normal physiological conditions. Unpredictable variables, such as length of effort, would skew the numbers a little, but figures above 6 are freakish – the absolute limit of human achievement. 6.0 would win a Grand Tour these days (Sassi was quoted in the New York Times as saying that in the 2009 Giro, only one rider – Denis Menchov – got above six). 6.7 is impossible. It’s over 11 per cent more than 6.0, in an elite area of performance where the margins between riders are impossibly thin. It would be the equivalent of a long jumper jumping 9.93 metres (Mike Powell’s world record is 8.95 metres, and that was a pretty freakish jump).

 

[Race Radio]

That interview with Vayer has engough to drive eveyone crazy

Cycling is clean (er).....but Froome is dirty

 

[red_flanders]

Unless they are in the team as a TT specialist, domestiques don't usually give it 100% in time trials. They take it easy and try to save energy.

Sure. What accounts for him going from domestique taking it easy to the best GT rider on the planet?

 

[red_flanders]

damn and people in the clinic teach me that theres no improvement over the years.

Who said that? Strawman.

Of course there has been improvement. Enough to account for "clean" riders beating "full program" riders from 3 years ago? Nope.

 

[thehook]

I don't buy for 1 minute that SKY/Froome are clean. If they were and Froome is a once in a generation talent. Why not just release all the data. That would shut up a lot of people. This information is not some top secret info? If you can crush the field and you are clean SHOW it FLAUNT it! But they won't.

I don't lose sleep over who is and is not doping. But don't BULL**** me! You want to say we/SKY are clean. Show us! FLAUNT IT! LEAD BY EXAMPLE. But SKY won't. They just recycle the same tired old excuses.

And not to support the guy. We all know the story. But I would bet if Armstrong & Dr. Ferrari were drinking a few beers in a bar. And being as crazy detail orientated and obsessed about doping as they were. They could probably tell you exactly, or pretty dam close to what SKY are doing.

So just to Re-cap.
SKY Transformations
Wiggo, Great Track rider, TT specialist
Froome, pre 2011 average at best pro
Porte, Saxo average pro, Tri guy, Good TT

Add in the SKY magic=== Dominate Rider....Cmon?

So NO other team or DS could get these guys to this level? Only the SKY system could.

Just My
.02$

 

[peloton]

Hell, even Sir Dave didn't know what a rough 'diamond' he had, until Rabo's (many new fans wont even understand that...) Dr. Leinders was brought in...

Look who is the lowest on the chart.
BOOOM.
I don't believe in miracles, anymore.

 

[TheGame]

Raw data:
2007 - 2011 (Romandie)

Loss per km (s) Placing (%)

3.4 11.0%
3.8 18.8%
4.0 18.9%
5.4 18.3%
7.1 60.7%
3.3 11.0%
17.5 25.3%
9.8 60.2%
4.1 16.8%
5.2 35.5%
6.4 27.6%

2011 TdS to Present

1.9 6.5%
1.5 1.1%
1.0 1.6%
1.5 1.3%
0.9 1.1%
1.7 3.5%
6.2 29.3%
0.0 0.6%
0.4 1.1%
1.6 1.7%
1.8 2.6%
1.7 5.6%
1.7 4.7%


Anyone else see a difference!? Holy transformation.

John Swanson

Well I see a list of figures with:
No races listed
No dates listed
No course distance listed
No average speed
No record of which other riders were racing
No record of the stage winner that day
Just a bunch of numbers

Thats not even data let alone evidence.

But sure, draw conclusions if you wish
1. Froome is quicker because he is doping
2. Everyone else is slower because they aren't doping
3. Froome is quicker because he has better equipment
4. Froome is quicker because he has done specific tt training, position etc
5. Froome is quicker because he gives a damn now
6. Froome is quicker because he wears black

Not saying you are right or wrong, but go away and come back with some actual data with full details, explanation of how you calculated that data. Don't just post a list of numbers and claim it to be a valid study.

 

[TheGame]

Hell, even Sir Dave didn't know what a rough 'diamond' he had, until Rabo's (many Sky fans wont even understand that...) Dr. Leinders was brought in...

Look who is the lowest on the chart.
BOOOM.
I don't believe in miracles, anymore.

But Sir Dave did not make that chart.

 

[Saint Unix]

Makes you wonder why Eddy BH isn't riding the Tour as if he was sitting on Valentino Rossi's motorbike. If they gave him Christopher "Dawg" Froome's "Autobus is not for Us" Magic Miracle Mixture he'd surely produce w/kgs in the double digits on the climbs.

Instead he's sitting in the peloton anonymously until given licence to sprint it out on his own against the Cav, Sagan, Kittel and Greipel trains.

I think EBH came pretty close to what is possible for a clean rider to do back in his High Road days. He's now a shadow of his former self, not at all helped by Sky's policy of only giving two crepes about British riders and climbers. Preferrably a combination of the two.

 

[peloton]

But Sir Dave did not make that chart.

Who did it then?

 

[The Hitch]

But Sir Dave did not make that chart.

Thats not so very different from letting someone off because they didn't get their Miranda rights read out.

Yeah, you can't convict him on it (and I would not) but you absolutely can use it in a discussion. The chances that Brailsford actually had Froome high but the journalist who remade the graph just happened to get that one so wrong aren't great.

Its not like Froome ranking so low would be out of sync with anything. Sky never made 1 comment before 2011 suggesting they had any faith in him. They left him out of both their first 2 TDF squads and he was never in consideration even. They weren't paying him very much, his race programme was that of a B rider.

 

[the sceptic]

But Sir Dave did not make that chart.

youre right, here is Brailsfords version.

 

[nomapnocompass]

I was tidying out a lot of old cycling mags recently and happened across those from around the introduction of team Sky and pre-2011 Vuelta days. It is interesting just how little mention is made of Froome and even if it is, it is in the context of a domestique.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

No mention of his ""V02 max close to the limits of known physiological science""?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No mention of his ""V02 max close to the limits of known physiological science""?

Not even by the time the 2013 Tour rolled around did they have a clue about Froome's VO2max: https://www.youtube.com/watch?featu...16iy0&list=PLnG1FjIUmTN2KEDvniGehWBcon56ZtNr2