Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Benotti69]

The same as the proof that other people have that he's doping - ie none.

No-one knows for sure, however the disbelievers do have a slight advantage : if he tests positive you can have your moment and say "I told you so". The believers don't get the chance for that - they can't prove a negative and I can bet that if in 10 years he hasn't been found positive the disbelievers will still be "yeh yeh, cant use the never tested positive line..."

Teamsky fans have just matched USPS fans, the ol 'never tested positive' gets rolled out.


The claim to have watched cycling since the 80s and you cant see that Sky riders are on the juice. National bias has a lot to answer for.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Interesting. I don't take much from it apart from Froome's woeful tactics. But maybe that's the point. Without Xenon power he lead but couldn't follow.

3 weeks ago he would have ridden clear of everyone.

Tomorrow is longer. Let's see.

Maybe he's afraid of being caught in Spanish tests? Looks like this is the first time he's raced in Spain since losing that Vuelta to Berto/Valv/Purito.

 

[Justinr]

Yes, I will. I and many others have seen all we need to see to understand what's been going on. Not getting caught or testing positive (proof, not "evidence") is not part of how I evaluate who I think is doping. For the millionth time, there is a ton of real evidence that he's a doper, but there is no proof. It's a really important distinction and a big difference.

The point of my comments, and they were addressed to particular comments which I quoted, is that it's unproductive to argue with people who have already determined what they think of Froome. They have already seen enough to determine whether they think he's doping or not, so creating "what if" scenarios regarding his performance (if he'd hammer everyone you'd think he was doping, if he doesn't you'd think he was doping...) really adds nothing.

Yes. No matter what Froome does from here on out or since the beginning of last year's ridiculous march of victories, people have already decided he's doping. So of course no matter what he does, it will be examined from that point of view. Of course. The point is that very few people are on the fence about it, and the bulk of the conversation for those people is going to be around "will he get caught", "has the testing caught up", "will the new UCI regime protect or prosecute him", etc.

So correct, it doesn't matter what his performances are from here on out. He's logged a litany of obviously enhance performances, and the only interesting thing is how long will he get away with it. In my opinion.

Ok I can understand that, and as I'm sure you've seen RF I'm all for people being free to express their views / opinions / beliefs on all matters / riders /etc.

I do have one question though, if this thread ("Froome Talk Only") isn't about debating any potential doping by Froome either loosely from good / bad performances, interviews, books, speculation on when/if he might get caught, etc. what is it for?

 

[Justinr]

Froome's per km time went down. How does his time per km go down (ie speed increase) with 0% increase in performance?

I think Rownham's question does warrant an answer. I was quite impressed with Science's analysis, although I did point out that it would have been ideal to have compared Froome with the same riders in all races. However life isnt that kind to us.

 

[red_flanders]

Ok I can understand that, and as I'm sure you've seen RF I'm all for people being free to express their views / opinions / beliefs on all matters / riders /etc.

I do have one question though, if this thread ("Froome Talk Only") isn't about debating any potential doping by Froome either loosely from good / bad performances, interviews, books, speculation on when/if he might get caught, etc. what is it for?

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to quell discussion and you're right, that's exactly what it's for. I'm responding to particular questions. I'm just trying to add the idea that yes, there are people who have made up their mind about Froome and no, nothing he does is likely to change that idea.

So of course whatever he does is going to be looked at through the lens of "he's doping". That's very different than looking at what he does and using it to decide if he's doping.

Maybe I'm just wishing people would start asking different questions.

 

[red_flanders]

Hi John. When you posted your analysis I posted a query about your conclusions which you never answered. As I understood your data you'd observed the relative times between froome and 'the winner' of each time trial contracting, and then concluded that this was due exclusively to Froome speeding up/increasing absolute power. I've subsequently seen you report this as established fact.

What I was questioning was the basis on which you ruled out any alternative explanations - as the very simplest example, if 'the winner's' time had on average reduced by 4.7 seconds in that period then you would expect to observe the same contraction in relative times with a 0% increase in Froome's performance. There could also be a multitude of other confounding factors in the data (for example Froome's form, motivation (not every domestique races every tt at 100%) and so on). This is not a complicated point in all honesty.

In the spirit of your user name could you respond to this peer review and explain the basis on which you have ruled out any other possible interpretation of the data set than the one that, frankly, seems to suit your agenda? Thanks.

Great questions, but you lost me at the last.

From what I've seen from John, he has no agenda, he's simply looking at facts. Asking "Did Froome's power change over time" isn't an agenda-based question. The answers support a particular conclusion.

It seems to me that people get "Coming to a conclusion based on data and observation" confused with "having an agenda". Too often folks seem to think that if someone disagrees with us, they must have an agenda.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think Rownham's question does warrant an answer..

Which is what I just provided. There were 2 parts to the analysis:

1. his performance (% placing) compared to others improved.
2. his performance (seconds / km) compared to himself improved.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think Rownham's question does warrant an answer..

Which is what I just provided. There were 2 parts to the analysis:

1. his performance (% placing) compared to others improved.
2. his performance (seconds / km) compared to himself improved.

RH asks: maybe Froome didn't improve, and everyone else just got slower.

But #2 shows Froome did improve.

Unless you meant something else? Happy for you to explain further?

ETA: I clearly misread John's analysis. Following his lead and leaving this post here intact for inglorious posterity.

 

[Justinr]

Teamsky fans have just matched USPS fans, the ol 'never tested positive' gets rolled out.


The claim to have watched cycling since the 80s and you cant see that Sky riders are on the juice. National bias has a lot to answer for.

Actually I never used the 'never tested positive' bit to justify Froome. Read what I said - I said that the believers cant prove a negative and that disbelievers have an advantage in that respect.

I hope there will come a time where (lets say in 10 years) samples will have been retrospectively tested for known & currently unknown PEDs. If they then come back negative I think it would be more justified to say to the disbelievers that they cant just turn around and say "you cant use the never tested positive statement" as their position.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I hope there will come a time where (lets say in 10 years) samples will have been retrospectively tested for known & currently unknown PEDs. If they then come back negative I think it would be more justified to say to the disbelievers that they cant just turn around and say "you cant use the never tested positive statement" as their position.

"The Clear".

 

[BYOP88]

The same as the proof that other people have that he's doping - ie none.

Exactly! So those who doubt Froome being clean are called idiots by (some) Froome defenders because there's 'no proof' yet they're basing their defense on the same information available as those who doubt Froome.

(I might be wrong on this, but it would seem you respect my opinion on the subject, just as I respect yours on the subject)

No-one knows for sure, however the disbelievers do have a slight advantage : if he tests positive you can have your moment and say "I told you so". The believers don't get the chance for that - they can't prove a negative and I can bet that if in 10 years he hasn't been found positive the disbelievers will still be "yeh yeh, cant use the never tested positive line..."

But there have been dopers in the sport who have 'never tested positive'. David Millar, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso and Alejandro Valverde have all served bans but have never tested positive and there are riders who've ended their careers and never 'tested positive', Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreu are two examples that spring to mind. Would you put your hand in the fire for any of these?

 

[Granville57]

Click here for my thoughts on Tales from Bilharzia

No - what I'm saying (and granted probably not very well in the last post) is that people's stories of the same thing vary and its easy for anyone to take their own slant on it.

For example if you take, say, 3-4 people and ask them to recount a story of an event which they have all been involved in then those accounts would differ from each other. It doesn't mean that anyone is necessarily wrong or lying, just that people remember more or less than each other or focus on different things. Some people cry foul and say - "there you go, must be dodgy since they don't know what each other is talking about".

Now, if those 3-4 accounts are exactly (or almost exactly) then some people smell a rat and cry "those accounts are far too similar - they're hiding something" or "who has got to them and made them say the same thing - its dodgy".

You can spin it either way

Nope. If you expect anyone to accept this line of reasoning, you're going to have to try harder. And here is why...

Case in point:
Lance Armstrong's cancer.

I'm sure most readers are vaguely aware of Lance's cancer. If fact, the stories surrounding Lance's cancer are probably about the only thing the he and his squadron of sycophants have kept straight over the years. It has never changed. Ever. The details have been laid out, time and again, without any inconsistencies or contradictions. Why? The truth tends to do that to a story.

The timeline of events from when he first noticed symptoms; what those symptoms were; who he confided in when things became undeniably alarming; which doctor he sought for initial diagnoses; what that diagnoses was; where and when that all occurred; all the specifics of surgery, treatment, etc in the aftermath of those revelations; all the specifics of his chemo treatment, etc; dates and locations of his post-recovery evaluations...

All these things, all of them, have been consistent and without deviation. This, from the man who's narrative changes with the weather to suit his own agenda and who has no problem, whatsoever, altering that narrative 180º if it suits him. A man whose entire life story is wrought with lies and intimidation. And yet when it comes to his cancer story—nothing but consistency, and no one standing up and saying, "That's not what he told me!"

But when it comes to Chris Froome and bilharzia, we are left with a mishmash of varying timelines, and glaringly inconsistent explanations.

When Lance Armstrong can be cited as someone more trustworthy regarding personal details as they relate to one's career in pro cycling, I'd say that's a serious problem for anyone trying to sell us their "credibility."

 

[The Hitch]

Love it how you feel so confident in that, if no real evidence comes out in ten years time will you still be so confident.

No. Difference between me and you is I look at the question - is froome doping, and follow the answer. You have set up camp on the - my guys are clean unless they fail a certain test which the majority of dopers never fail, line. Indurains fans are still camped on that line. As are the unidentified athletes from the Sydney Olympics who's samples used in a later study showed that a significant % of athletes there are doping. As are, according to several anti doping experts, 99% of athletes who ever doped.

So no, multi million dollar businesses being able to beat the law is not some big deal to me and won't convince me a guy who stinks on some levels higher than lance (let's see if this sentence will be read properly, or incorrectly reacted to) was doing it clean, which makes no sense.

 

[Justinr]

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to quell discussion and you're right, that's exactly what it's for. I'm responding to particular questions. I'm just trying to add the idea that yes, there are people who have made up their mind about Froome and no, nothing he does is likely to change that idea.

So of course whatever he does is going to be looked at through the lens of "he's doping". That's very different than looking at what he does and using it to decide if he's doping.

Maybe I'm just wishing people would start asking different questions.

Good answer, and fair enough on trying to get other questions / discussions going.

Personally I like the banter back and forth and from what I've seen it doesn't tend to get out of hand, although there have been a few occasions when I've had to take a walk away from the keyboard before replying! As this thread is in The Clinic I guess we're all doomed anyway ...

 

[sniper]

Actually I never used the 'never tested positive' bit to justify Froome. Read what I said - I said that the believers cant prove a negative and that disbelievers have an advantage in that respect.

facepalm stuff.
publishing froome's pre2011 blood profile is just one of many things sky could've undertaken if only they were seriously interested in showing froome's clean. any explanation why they didn't do that in spite of requests?
and why they didn't test froome's vo2 max in spite of serial requests?
use those braincells, justinr.

 

[BYOP88]

Nope. If you expect anyone to accept this line of reasoning, you're going to have to try harder. And here is why...

Case in point:
Lance Armstrong's cancer.

I'm sure most readers are vaguely aware of Lance's cancer. If fact, the stories surrounding Lance's cancer are probably about the only thing the he and his squadron of sycophants have kept straight over the years. It has never changed. Ever. The details have been laid out, time and again, without any inconsistencies or contradictions. Why? The truth tends to do that to a story.

The timeline of events from when he first noticed symptoms; what those symptoms were; who he confided in when things became undeniably alarming; which doctor he sought for initial diagnoses; what that diagnoses was; where and when that all occurred; all the specifics of surgery, treatment, etc in the aftermath of those revelations; all the specifics of his chemo treatment, etc; dates and locations of his post-recovery evaluations...

All these things, all of them, have been consistent and without deviation. This, from the man who's narrative changes with the weather to suit his own agenda and who has no problem, whatsoever, altering that narrative 180º if it suits him. A man whose entire life story is wrought with lies and intimidation. And yet when it comes to his cancer story—nothing but consistency, and no one standing up and saying, "That's not what he told me!"

But when it comes to Chris Froome and bilharzia, we are left with a mishmash of varying timelines, and glaringly inconsistent explanations.

When Lance Armstrong can be cited as someone more trustworthy regarding personal details as they relate to one's career in pro cycling, I'd say that's a serious problem for anyone trying to sell us their "credibility."

Excellent post Sir.

 

[RownhamHill]

Great questions, but you lost me at the last.

From what I've seen from John, he has no agenda, he's simply looking at facts. Asking "Did Froome's power change over time" isn't an agenda-based question. The answers support a particular conclusion.

It seems to me that people get "Coming to a conclusion based on data and observation" confused with "having an agenda". Too often folks seem to think that if someone disagrees with us, they must have an agenda.

Sorry I don't understand John's analysis in the same way as you. My understanding is that he compared froome's times in TT relative to the winning time in each TT. That was it.

That comparison says nothing about Froome's absolute speed or absolute power - indeed that is why the analysis was done in that fashion (because every TT course and conditions are different, so while you might one TT faster than another you might be putting out lower power).

But the analysis shows that froome is getting closer to the faster time on any given day. This might be due to an increase in his performance alone - but that is not strictly an observation based on data, it's an extrapolation from the data. Clearly that is just one of several alternative extrapolations one could make.

So I don't agree he is merely presenting facts - he is interpreting one set of data on relative times to a conclusion about power (on which he has no data) and presenting that interpretation as fact. Which appears to me to be the very definition of bad science.

But I may have missed something germane in the analysis which is why I am asking for him to explain. To return to the alternative hypothesis - what in John's model suggests that the contraction in relative time is not due - in any part - to a reduction in the performance of the fastest time trialled on any given day?

 

[thehog]

facepalm stuff.
publishing froome's pre2011 blood profile is just one of many things sky could've undertaken if only they were seriously interested in showing froome's clean. any explanation why they didn't do that in spite of requests?
and why they didn't test froome's vo2 max in spite of serial requests?
use those braincells, justinr.

Forget 2011.

Publish his blood values from Oman to today.

The new Dawg could be the old Dawg

 

[Justinr]

facepalm stuff.
publishing froome's pre2011 blood profile is just one of many things sky could've undertaken if only they were seriously interested in showing froome's clean. any explanation why they didn't do that in spite of requests?
and why they didn't test froome's vo2 max in spite of serial requests?
use those braincells, justinr.

Well I cant answer for Sky but yes I do think they could be more open. In the 'manifesto' bit I said some things about Sky's PR. I believe their PR is bad despite them actually trying to do the right thing. From what I can see they have tended to try and do the right thing by saying a lot but have arsed it up by being very incoherent in their message. I also think people pounce on things very quickly because they say a lot more (in my experience) than other teams.

On the VO2 max side - I have speculated in other posts that maybe SKY don't use it / put much stock on it. I'm not a sports scientist so cant comment knowledgeably, i can only speculate. The analogy I give is with F1, and I guess specifically engines. When I was younger BHP (PS) seemed to be THE measure of performance/power, whereas actually lbFt (Nm) is favoured by a lot of people. Other people look at the power curve (and ironically try and flatten it). Maybe, just maybe, thats why they don't measure VO2 much (if at all) and prefer Watts, etc. I think that is perfectly plausible.

 

[roundabout]

Publish the mythical straight out of Africa Aigle test.

 

[BYOP88]

Publish the mythical straight out of Africa Aigle test.

I asked Miss Cound that yesterday during her unannounced Q&A session, sadly she didn't answer it

 

[BYOP88]

On the VO2 max side .

Well Brailsford shouldn't have told porkies last July when he was asked(there's a video with it floating around) about it and he said next time Froome was in the lab they would run the test. If it's a test they don't do, why not say that when the question was asked? Would've saved himself a lot of grief!

 

[red_flanders]

Sorry I don't understand John's analysis in the same way as you. My understanding is that he compared froome's times in TT relative to the winning time in each TT. That was it.

That comparison says nothing about Froome's absolute speed or absolute power - indeed that is why the analysis was done in that fashion (because every TT course and conditions are different, so while you might one TT faster than another you might be putting out lower power).

But the analysis shows that froome is getting closer to the faster time on any given day. This might be due to an increase in his performance alone - but that is not strictly an observation based on data, it's an extrapolation from the data. Clearly that is just one of several alternative extrapolations one could make.

So I don't agree he is merely presenting facts - he is interpreting one set of data on relative times to a conclusion about power (on which he has no data) and presenting that interpretation as fact. Which appears to me to be the very definition of bad science.

But I may have missed something germane in the analysis which is why I am asking for him to explain. To return to the alternative hypothesis - what in John's model suggests that the contraction in relative time is not due - in any part - to a reduction in the performance of the fastest time trialled on any given day?

I think your questions are good and fair. I think that concluding that he has an agenda based on what he wrote is not supported by the facts. That's all I'm saying. Great post other that that bit. He'll have good answers and will welcome your questions I'm sure.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But I may have missed something germane in the analysis which is why I am asking for him to explain. To return to the alternative hypothesis - what in John's model suggests that the contraction in relative time is not due - in any part - to a reduction in the performance of the fastest time trialled on any given day?

Wouldn't this be really easy to check? Just go look at some average speeds of TTs from before / after?

Given the first few were in the same year, I am really doubtful that (everyone else got slower) is the explanation.

Also feel it's disingenuous to suggest as such with no research of your own to support it.

 

[RownhamHill]

Which is what I just provided. There were 2 parts to the analysis:

1. his performance (% placing) compared to others improved.
2. his performance (seconds / km) compared to himself improved.

RH asks: maybe Froome didn't improve, and everyone else just got slower.

But #2 shows Froome did improve.

Unless you meant something else? Happy for you to explain further?

I have a different understanding of point 2 in john's analysis. He presented the relative difference between the winner and froome in each time trial, and observed that the difference (winner's time - froome's time) was reducing - the relative performance was getting closer.

Simply for the sake of the example, let's imagine we're talking about a 100m sprint. And I run it in 12 seconds on ten consecutive races. In the first five races the winner clocks 9.5 seconds (so I'm 2.5 seconds behind). In the next five races the winner clocks 11.5 seconds, and I'm now .5 seconds behind.

Based on the data set I've presented, did I run 100 metres 2 seconds faster? Can you confidently extrapolate an increase in my power? Can you later present that extrapolation as established fact?

I'm hoping you'd agree not. What I'm asking is how John's analysis has ruled out the possibility that if you normalised his data to absolute power outputs, say, it wouldn't display a similar pattern to the one I've just described?