Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Dear Wiggo]

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?

Yep I read / remembered his post wrongly, and amended the post of mine that you quoted to indicate as such.

Then I got very cross that you refused to do your own homework and instead asked John to do it for you

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

Fair enough - I'm just honestly describing the impression I get when someone claiming science is cool cherry picks one conclusion from a number of possible explanations and then starts presenting that one conclusion as fact. But yes, would love to hear more explanation.

 

[red_flanders]

Fair enough - I'm just honestly describing the impression I get when someone claiming science is cool cherry picks one conclusion from a number of possible explanations and then starts presenting that one conclusion as fact. But yes, would love to hear more explanation.

To be fair, you don't know that he cherry-picked anything. Asking is one thing, and a good thing. Accusing him of cherry-picking and an agenda...well...not so good.

 

[BYOP88]

To be fair, you don't know that he cherry-picked anything. Asking is one thing, and a good thing. Accusing him of cherry-picking and an agenda...well...not so good.

You're far too sensible for this place!

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

It's not disingenuous at all to question the methodology or conclusions of a scientist. In fact if no one's questioning your science then you're not actually involved in any kind of scientific discourse. Science is cool like that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Fair enough - I'm just honestly describing the impression I get when someone claiming science is cool cherry picks one conclusion from a number of possible explanations and then starts presenting that one conclusion as fact. But yes, would love to hear more explanation.

Which is why I am encouraging you to do your own research. You clearly feel he could be cherry picking to support an agenda. If he comes back and proves via his own data that Froome improved against himself, your doubts are going to linger, innit?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's not disingenuous at all to question the methodology or conclusions of a scientist. In fact if no one's questioning your science then you're not actually involved in any kind of scientific discourse. Science is cool like that.

When it's so simple to go check some TT speeds, I think it is disingenuous. You're making something up, based on no data whatsoever.

The thing you made up certainly does support your agenda.

eg: Anti-vaccination advocates question the scientific principles of vaccination.

 

[RownhamHill]

To be fair, you don't know that he cherry-picked anything. Asking is one thing, and a good thing. Accusing him of cherry-picking and an agenda...well...not so good.

Sorry I disagree. He has consistently presented his interpretation of a 20% increase in ftp (sorry, a permanent 20% increase I should add) as an established fact based on his data. As far as I can tell that is the best (worst? depends on POV I suppose) case scenario that could be drawn from that data, with no acknowledgement that the same data could equally be showing a 0% increase in ftp - or any value between those two values.

So how do you like those cherries ;-)

 

[thirteen]

digger,
what happened to your twitter account?

yes?!???

you are sorely missed!

 

[ScienceIsCool]

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.

Thanks for the question. The answer is that it is important to look at his relative placings, which will tell you whether everyone slowed down (he retains his relative position), or he sped up (he shoots up in the relative placings), or maybe even some combination of the two.

That's the beautiful thing about having so many racers to compare against because they all raced on the same course under mostly the same conditions.

And what did I find? Chris went from being in the roughly top 25% to being in the top 6% with only one exception out of ~20 races. So I can only conclude that the entire peloton got slower (he was racing against different riders each race) or he got faster. There's no ambiguity. He got faster by a very large amount.

John Swanson

 

[Parker]

Sorry I disagree. He has consistently presented his interpretation of a 20% increase in ftp (sorry, a permanent 20% increase I should add) as an established fact based on his data. As far as I can tell that is the best (worst? depends on POV I suppose) case scenario that could be drawn from that data, with no acknowledgement that the same data could equally be showing a 0% increase in ftp - or any value between those two values.

So how do you like those cherries ;-)

JS's whole argument relies on the assumption that all riders always ride time trials at 100%. Anyone who knows anything about cycling knows this is not the case. Unless they are a GC contender or a TT specialist they tend to take it fairly easy.

Riders only ride hard when they need to.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sorry I disagree. He has consistently presented his interpretation of a 20% increase in ftp (sorry, a permanent 20% increase I should add) as an established fact based on his data. As far as I can tell that is the best (worst? depends on POV I suppose) case scenario that could be drawn from that data, with no acknowledgement that the same data could equally be showing a 0% increase in ftp - or any value between those two values.

So how do you like those cherries ;-)

If there was a 10% speed decrease, it would be very, very evident, wouldn't it?

But Wiggo's 2012 Olympic TT was done at 50km / hr, as was his final TdF TT, both of which Froome raced in, so I am guessing your "everyone slowed down" theory is going to sink beneath the waves of broken dreams.

 

[Justinr]

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!

Well indeed that would be true - he could have saved himself a lot of grief.

BUT lets also remember these are competitive teams who are not about to give away their secrets (and we shouldn't expect them to). If, say, Watts or whatever is something they put much more focus on than VO2 max then why should we be surprised if they don't say focus on. However this part of the argument could be taken both ways : (a) why not just do one anyway and publish it or (b) if they are as dastardly as people say why not just put out fake data?

Why don't Saxo / Movistar / BMC publish the same, and why don't they get asked to do the same?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

It's not disingenuous at all to question the methodology or conclusions of a scientist. In fact if no one's questioning your science then you're not actually involved in any kind of scientific discourse. Science is cool like that.

Right. Which is why I didn't cherry pick (I included all TT data except prologues and hill climbs which would contaminate the analysis). And I have presented both my methodology and conclusions. I've explored other possible explanations and ruled them out <see above>.

So at the end, based on my conclusions above, I have extraploated that such an increase in performance is *highly* indicative of doping.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

JS's whole argument relies on the assumption that all riders always ride time trials at 100%. Anyone who knows anything about cycling knows this is not the case. Unless they are a GC contender or a TT specialist they tend to take it fairly easy.

Riders only ride hard when they need to.

So... mid-2011 everyone except 5% of the peloton decided to ride slower? I'm sorry, but the data doesn't fit the hypothesis.

John Swanson

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Why don't Saxo / Movistar / BMC publish the same, and why don't they get asked to do the same?

Refer answer #1 to this question, as has already been posted for you and countless other posters asking the exact same question.

1. They don't claim to be clean
2. They don't claim to be transparent
3. They don't smash multi-stage races for 6 months straight
4. Noone is defending any accusation of these teams being dirty or having dirty riders
5. Their riders have not made the miraculous inexplicable transformations that Sky riders Wiggins and Froome have made

 

[RownhamHill]

When it's so simple to go check some TT speeds, I think it is disingenuous. You're making something up, based on no data whatsoever.

The thing you made up certainly does support your agenda.

eg: Anti-vaccination advocates question the scientific principles of vaccination.

Leaving aside the fact you've misunderstood the very basis of the original analysis (that comparing tt speeds tells you nothing about performance because speed is subject to several other variables) you misunderstand my agenda. I don't care whether Froome increased his ftp by 20% or not, I make no claim either way; he might have done, he might not. I just like people to make sense when they present arguments - especially when they're wrapping their arguments in the language of scientific authority.

 

[BYOP88]

JS's whole argument relies on the assumption that all riders always ride time trials at 100%. Anyone who knows anything about cycling knows this is not the case. Unless they are a GC contender or a TT specialist they tend to take it fairly easy.

Riders only ride hard when they need to.

And yet Froome fans point to his 16th place in the final TdF TT in 2008 as a sign that he could TT.

 

[Parker]

So... mid-2011 everyone except 5% of the peloton decided to ride slower? I'm sorry, but the data doesn't fit the hypothesis.

John Swanson

No. Froome rides 5% faster because he has reason to go at 100%. There's no point busting a gut if you're 75th on GC and have to do domestique duties the next day. Why would they?

What justification do you have for your key assumption riders always ride time trials at 100%?

 

[Parker]

And yet Froome fans point to his 16th place in the final TdF TT in 2008 as a sign that he could TT.

Yeah. That was the penultimate stage of the Tour with just Paris to follow. He didn't have anything to save himself for, so he gave it a go to so see what he could do.

Riders are doing a job, it's not a hobby. They don't waste energy needlessly.

 

[BYOP88]

Why don't Saxo / Movistar / BMC publish the same, and why don't they get asked to do the same?

Not defending those teams they're just as dodgy. But I can't ever recall a Press Release from them saying they're clean, using science, totally transparent etc etc. If Sky didn't set themselves up with those statements then they might get some 'free passes' from time to time.

 

[The Hitch]

Best post it in the AG2R thread then. I'm sure the debate between the believers and non-believers will fill up maybe 1 or 2 pages.

Depending on whether Ryo is online

 

[BYOP88]

Yeah. That was the penultimate stage of the Tour with just Paris to follow. He didn't have anything to save himself for, so he gave it a go to so see what he could do.

Riders are doing a job. They don't waste energy needlessly.

If you check Froome's placings in the 2008 TdF, he "saved" himself for a lot of days. The days before Alpe d'Huez and after he was in the autobus same with the ITT and he finished dead last on the final stage.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Leaving aside the fact you've misunderstood the very basis of the original analysis (that comparing tt speeds tells you nothing about performance because speed is subject to several other variables) you misunderstand my agenda. I don't care whether Froome increased his ftp by 20% or not, I make no claim either way; he might have done, he might not. I just like people to make sense when they present arguments - especially when they're wrapping their arguments in the language of scientific authority.

Your agenda seems to be Sky are clean. Perhaps I have read you wrong. Suggesting everyone slowed down, when it's patently clear that has not happened, seems disingenuous, or perhaps just lazy.

 

[RownhamHill]

Thanks for the question. The answer is that it is important to look at his relative placings, which will tell you whether everyone slowed down (he retains his relative position), or he sped up (he shoots up in the relative placings), or maybe even some combination of the two.

That's the beautiful thing about having so many racers to compare against because they all raced on the same course under mostly the same conditions.

And what did I find? Chris went from being in the roughly top 25% to being in the top 6% with only one exception out of ~20 races. So I can only conclude that the entire peloton got slower (he was racing against different riders each race) or he got faster. There's no ambiguity. He got faster by a very large amount.

John Swanson

Thanks for the response. But you've completely lost me in your last paragraph. Surely the possibility that either the peloton got slower or he got faster (or of course a third option, the peloton got a bit slower and he got a bit faster to some degree it is impossible to quantify from the data) is the very definition of ambiguity? (And that's before you factor in froome's comparative team roles between 2010 and 2011 and try to investigate whether he was more likely to TT at 100% effort as a domestique or a team leader.)

In any case would you not agree it would be better if you acknowledged your data is open to interpretation, and that your conclusion is just one that could be drawn?