Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[RownhamHill]

But he didn't get given the chance to be a leader from that chance, did he? He got asked to look after Wiggins for the first half of the Vuelta. They continued to back Wiggins even while Froome was leading the race. That doesn't really reek of giving him the chance to see if he could be a leader, does it?

Isn't that what you'd expect though of someone putting out numbers in training - you ask him to act as the main climbing domestique. Why else did Sky pick him for the Vuelta and ask him to ride the way he did if he wasn't doing something in training?

Also, given Team Sky's scramble to justify Froome's performances, it seemed they were almost as taken by surprise by his 2011 Vuelta level as we were.

Absolutely, but isn't the surprise for Sky not that he started well with some 'good numbers' on the first mountain stages and time trial, but that he backed that up day after day with out any bad days in the entire race. Indeed, if Sky had been expecting the Vuelta performance wouldn't it have made more sense for them to flip leadership after the first time trial? And doesn't he claim his prior problems with bilharzia caused him fatigue - wouldn't the team's (wrong) expectation half way through the race that he wouldn't/couldn't 'keep it up' for the rest of the race be consistent with that past experience?

If he showed the ability to do it in training, and given Sky's commitment to a British Tour winner inside 5 years... why hadn't they locked him down to a contract? In 2010 Cavendish was still tied down by a contract he'd signed in 2007, and was earning far less than his market value. If Sky had persuaded Froome to sign before the 2011 Vuelta (and it wouldn't have taken much given Garmin and Lampre were preparing offers at no more than domestique level) they could still have him on that today, saving a huge amount of money.

I bet they're still kicking themselves about the contract. But again, isn't Sky's action consistent with his performance up until then - someone who might have good numbers in training, and someone who might play a role as as GT dom, but also someone who was too inconsistent to take a risk on? He was described by the team as a 'rough diamond' in 2010, but obviously by summer of 2011 they'd concluded he was more rough than diamond - a conclusion they hastily changed post Vuelta. How he reached that consistency is the question at hand, but it's not necessarily inconceivable that he couldn't have shown any potential in training before then.

Also, where are these training numbers? What are they? We have been told many times "Chris showed the numbers". But we've never been allowed to see what these training numbers were to know whether it's believable or not.

This is silly. What if Sky posted some numbers on their website or twitter. Regardless of what was in those numbers would you believe them at this point? The point is, whatever he'd done in training he never showed it on the road, and the team (in the summer of 2011) had obviously lost faith that he ever would. Posting training numbers now achieves what?

After all, Juanjo Cobo showed the training numbers. Juanjo Cobo was a very talented junior. Juanjo Cobo won the Vuelta al País Vasco, a mountain stage of the Tour and finished top 10 in the Vuelta before. Three weeks before the Vuelta Juanjo Cobo was finishing on the podium of the Vuelta a Burgos, the main Vuelta warmup race, while Froome was losing 8 minutes in a hilly stage in the Tour de Pologne. Yet who's defending Cobo? Cobo showed, prior to the 2011 Vuelta, several times the pedigree that Froome had done. Yet people call BS on Cobo and want us to believe in Froome?

And Cobo is now a GT winner! And exactly who are these people calling BS on Cobo? As I remember from the time you were won of the vocal people calling BS on him! Personally I'm open to the possibility that both Cobo and Froome were clean in that Vuelta, but I can't speak to anyone else.

The "he got his chance and took it" argument could also be used to justify Ezequiel Mosquera given all the Puerto absences and the soft route in 2007. I know. I used it.

So once bitten, right?

 

[42x16ss]

They had a sprint against each other at the end of the race?

Ok, it was a "gentleman's" sprint but the point still stands and you know it

 

[del1962]

No, I would just settle for you answering my questions in post #9255. Although I will not be holding my breathe for it.

I am not interested in Cobo per say but I am interested why you seem to come to such different conclusions when comparing Cob's case to Froome's case. And since this the Froome thread, I would like to see you answer my questions in post #9255 and while you are at to, some of the other questions posed to you.

You can go back through the thread and find plausible answers to those questions if you want, I am not interested in playing your little game.

On JTL though why did his performances drop on joining Sky if they where responsible for his 2012 season?

 

[GJB123]

You can go back through the thread and find plausible answers to those questions if you want, I am not interested in playing your little game.

On JTL though why did his performances drop on joining Sky if they where responsible for his 2012 season?

And I am not interested in playing your little games. It takes two to tango sir and I am not going to entertain you if you don't feel like entertaining me. Look in the JTL-thread if you want to find plausible answers to the JTL-enigma. Something tells me you won't be convinced either way.

 

[gooner]

And I am not interested in playing your little games. It takes two to tango sir and I am not going to entrain you if you don't feel like entertaining me. Look in the JTL-thread if you want to find plausible answers to the JTL-enigma. Something tells me you won't be convinced either way.

I don't think it's games. The question is a plausible one unless you think Sky had full knowledge of his doping and then told him to rein back on joining them while at the same time getting a huge pay increase upon signing the contract.

What I noticed in the JTL thread was that the test a couple of days before the worlds was spun as being with Sky because it was with British Cycling. Would we blame Sky if Cav, Cummings or Fenn got popped at the worlds so?

 

[MartinGT]

And I am not interested in playing your little games. It takes two to tango sir and I am not going to entrain you if you don't feel like entertaining me. Look in the JTL-thread if you want to find plausible answers to the JTL-enigma. Something tells me you won't be convinced either way.

I would ignore del. One of the biggest trolls on here, he made that clear yesterday to me.

 

[MartinGT]

I don't think it's games. The question is a plausible one unless you think Sky had full knowledge of his doping and then told him to rein back on joining them while at the same time getting a huge pay increase upon signing the contract.

What I noticed in the JTL thread was that the test a couple of days before the worlds was spun as being with Sky because it was with British Cycling. Would we blame Sky if Cav, Cummings or Fenn got popped at the worlds so?

JTL had been training with Sky prior to the worlds in Tenerife.........thats where the hypothesis comes from, not the connection with Sky / BC

 

[The Hitch]

the backstory behind Cobo's victory.

Hang on, wasn't it you yesterday who gleefully declared that froomes doubters have no case because the evidence against him would be thrown out of court in a legal system.

And here you are slinging mud at cobo for being on the same team as dopers?

How exactly do you think that evidence would play in the legal system?

It's mindblowing how you just totally change standards whenever it suits you while patronizingly throwing insults, ridiculous generalizations and smileys at everyone else.

The shocking inconsistencies you display on here regularly do your side absolutely no favours.

Ps it's funny how some sky fans have not forgiven cobo for beating froome at the vuelta. Reminds me of Armstrong fans who complained that contador was doping or later contador defenders complaining about froome. The same total inability to remain objective and pathetic tendency to throw insults at anyone who isn't willing to accommodate the massive suspension of logic that accompanies the internet venting processes.

 

[gooner]

JTL had been training with Sky prior to the worlds in Tenerife.........thats where the hypothesis comes from, not the connection with Sky / BC

Look at the JTL thread and you will see that the test a few days before the worlds was spun in that very way.

Why don't you answer the question about that suspicious test and the testing he got up to February where they established the baseline? This was all when he was officially at Sky.

 

[del1962]

Hang on, wasn't it you yesterday who gleefully declared that froomes doubters have no case because the evidence against him would be thrown out of court in a legal system.

And here you are slinging mud at cobo for being on the same team as dopers?

How exactly do you think that evidence would play in the legal system?

It's mindblowing how you just totally change standards whenever it suits you while patronizingly throwing insults, ridiculous generalizations and smileys at everyone else.

The shocking inconsistencies you display on here regularly do your side absolutely no favours.

I have not accused Cobo of anythink, I made a comment on one victory mentioned by LS because she was using him as a stick to beat Froome with, if you consider that as throwing mud then so be it. Now if people want to discuss Cobo then make a thread on it.

As for partonizing, that seems somwhet rich coming from you.

 

[thehog]

I have not accused Cobo of anythink, I made a comment on one victory mentioned by LS because she was using him as a stick to beat Froome with, if you consider that as throwing mud then so be it. Now if people want to discuss Cobo then make a thread on it.

As for partonizing, that seems somwhet rich coming from you.

anything! Not anythink! My god.

 

[Benotti69]

I have not accused Cobo of anythink, I made a comment on one victory mentioned by LS because she was using him as a stick to beat Froome with, if you consider that as throwing mud then so be it. Now if people want to discuss Cobo then make a thread on it.

As for partonizing, that seems somwhet rich coming from you.

Cobo has his own thread

 

[Digger]

anything! Not anythink! My god.

Do I look bovvered!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Does this conversation now make sense to you Dear Wiggo? Can you now understand why accusing me of laziness and disingenuousness because I haven't gone and googled 'facts' that do nothing at all to move the conversation forward isn't very helpful?

Wait what? Your suggestion was that Froome stayed the same, and everyone else subsequently slowed down.

That is what you suggested.

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?

"A reduction in the performance of the fastest time trialled on any given day" is a simple thing to check. Just look at the speeds of the top 5%. If they were slower, on average, after the magical day in August 2011, and Froome was not, then your hypothesis holds, surely?

If, however, the average speed of TTs does not change then your hypothesis looks incredibly weak, wouldn't you agree?

And checking some data really quickly (like the Olympic and final TdF TT that I mentioned previously) as 2 very quick examples show that the speeds being ridden are not lower. They are the same.

SiC hypothesis is based on data. Yours is based on what? Devil's advocate?

 

[Netserk]

Given how fast the first ITT was in last year's Tour, I doubt speeds are down by much...

 

[thehog]

Do I look bovvered!

oi init bruvv, got my 4 by 4 ravers and bass line skankers init sket. we goin to blow this place out wicked blud.

 

[MartinGT]

oi init bruvv, got my 4 by 4 ravers and bass line skankers init sket. We goin to blow this place out wicked blud.

LOL!

10 char

 

[RownhamHill]

Wait what? Your suggestion was that Froome stayed the same, and everyone else subsequently slowed down.

That is what you suggested.



"A reduction in the performance of the fastest time trialled on any given day" is a simple thing to check. Just look at the speeds of the top 5%. If they were slower, on average, after the magical day in August 2011, and Froome was not, then your hypothesis holds, surely?

If, however, the average speed of TTs does not change then your hypothesis looks incredibly weak, wouldn't you agree?

And checking some data really quickly (like the Olympic and final TdF TT that I mentioned previously) as 2 very quick examples show that the speeds being ridden are not lower. They are the same.

SiC hypothesis is based on data. Yours is based on what? Devil's advocate?

Good grief. You really genuinely don't understand do you?

Read the bit of my post you quoted again.

Do you understand what the words 'what in John's model' mean? Do you know what the symbol at the end of the sentence means in written English?

In that quote I am not making a suggestion at all, I am asking a question about the model - does it rule out the possibility that other hypotheses you could infer from the data could be true? If so, how? And if it not, how can one confidently draw conclusions from the model without further research, and then present them later on as fact without any suggestion of uncertainty?

The really funny bit is your last line. 'SiC's hypothesis is based on data. Yours is based on what? Devi's advocate?'

Really, I want you to concentrate on the answer to this question: The alternative hypothesis presented as an example is based on exactly the same data that SiC uses to draw his conclusions. Do you understand? The same data. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's the beginning and the end of the point I'm making, the data as it stands supports both hypotheses equally (as it does any number of alternatives) so without further qualification/research/whatever it's practically useless.

Incidentally that doesn't mean I think that all the possible hypotheses are equally true, or even equally likely - because I'm not a very stupid person, so I don't draw very stupid conclusions. But since the data as it stands can't (from what I can see, maybe it does?) give any insight into which of those explanations is more reliable, relying on it to support SiC's conclusion is silly.

 

[Digger]

oi init bruvv, got my 4 by 4 ravers and bass line skankers init sket. we goin to blow this place out wicked blud.

Init. Froome is cleans though Init. Those tests are wicked Bruv init

 

[Merckx index]

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?

For someone who wants to introduce rigor into the argument, this is an impossibly unrealistic example. In each of the first five races, the winning time is two seconds slower than the winning time in each of the last five races. I realize it was for the purposes of illustration, but you use it to make an equally impossibly unrealistic conjecture: that just by random chance, the average winning time might have been 4.7 seconds slower in twelve ITTs after a certain date than the average time in ten ITTs before that date. That is not plausible, and you know it.

Look at it this way. Which is more likely, that more than one hundred riders all rode more slowly in the first set of races than in the second set, while one rider, Froome, rode at the same speed? Or that Froome rode faster in the second set, while everyone else rode at about the same speed? (I'm going to concentrate here on Froome vs. the winner, but the difference in % finish shows that it isn't just Froome vs. the winner, but Froome vs. the field). If you’re seriously going to argue the first point, either a) average speeds of the peloton’s riders dropped dramatically and suddenly, within a period of a few months, more than they allegedly have dropped in the period of more than a decade since the EPO frenzy of the 90s; or b) just by chance, all the races in the first set were significantly faster than all the races in the second set.

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?

Let’s examine that second possibility. In the first set, the average gap between Froome and the winner was 4.54 +/- 1.29 seconds. I have eliminated two of the data points as outliers, as they were > 2 SDs above the mean. Before any one objects to this, may I remind everyone that eliminating these data points reduces the average gap between Froome and the winner in this early set, and thus weakens any conclusion of a difference between these times and the subsequent times.

In the second set, the average gap between Froome and the winner was 1.27 +/- 0.62 seconds. I eliminated one data point because as with the first set, it was > 2 SDs above the mean.

The first thing to note is that every single one of the data points of the (adjusted) second set is lower than any of the data points of the (adjusted) first set. The second thing to note is that the highest data point of the second set is more than two SDs lower than the mean of the first data set. Moreover, a t-test performed on the two data sets indicates that the probability of this difference occurring by chance is < 0.000001.

IOW, if we assume that this was a random sample of ITTs, it is extremely unlikely that we would see such a marked difference. There is a definite bias that can’t be explained by chance factors (such as weather), and it is far more plausible—literally, by orders of magnitude—that the bias is provided by an improvement in Froome, rather than a decline in everyone else.

We can’t say for sure it’s a 20% improvement in FTP. In fact, using the mean difference with the outliers removed works out to somewhat less than that, about 14% at 50 kph. And given there is some variation in the times, we can't say that all of the difference is due to Froome. But we can certainly say that most of it is. For example, if we adjusted the first data set so that the variation was about the same, but the mean value differed from the mean of the first data set by 1 second, the p-value would still be < 0.01. So with high probability the difference between the two data sets is > 2.3 seconds, which still corresponds to a 10% increase in power. In fact, we can say that the difference almost certainly lies between 10-18%.

The other argument people here have made is that Froome didn’t go all out pre-2011. Come on. We're talking about someone unusually tall for a rider and therefore more naturally suited to TTng than to climbing, who now performs at the discipline nearly as well as Cancellara and Martin. How is a team not going to notice that? And if Froome could ride like that pre-2011, and was fighting for a job, why would he not go all out to show the team what they had?

I can buy that he didn't always go all out. E.g., those two outliers I removed, when did unusually poorly, may reflect that. And there may be others. But I can't buy that this can explain that he never once in this early period rode as fast as he always did--again, except for one outlier--in the later period.

 

[thehog]

Init. Froome is cleans though Init. Those tests are wicked Bruv init

Oi! me bruv Dawg is cleans, blud. Yeh? Got h's cotch down. Bluds blood is cleans coz blud got xenon boom boom, yeh? Inti.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That's the beginning and the end of the point I'm making, the data as it stands supports both hypotheses equally (as it does any number of alternatives) so without further qualification/research/whatever it's practically useless.

The data is the distance and times of the time trials completed. SiC is showing a summary of that data, after processing, but for me, that is not the data per se.

Even if you insist that the only data you have access to is the %s posted by SiC, anecdotally, you know (or at least one other person did) that TT speeds are not down pre and post 2011.

You could access that original data, just like SiC did, and see if your hypothesis is worth the continued posting.

Here's one I prepared earlier: no prologues ( I think that's what SiC said ). Froome's speeds are the red dots. First and last place is shown by the high and low of each vertical line.

Basically: speeds are not down, Froome's performances are definitely up [ETA] relative to the rest of the peloton.

 

[RownhamHill]

For someone who wants to introduce rigor into the argument, this is an impossibly unrealistic example. . . That is not plausible, and you know it.

I'm not arguing my illustration is plausible. I'm not even arguing the 0% increase in Froome's performance is plausible. I'm not making any argument at all! I'm criticising shoddy science presented as fact.

Look at it this way. Which is more likely, that more than one hundred riders all rode more slowly in the first set of races than in the second set, while one rider, Froome, rode at the same speed? Or that Froome rode faster in the second set, while everyone else rode at about the same speed? If you’re seriously going to argue the first point, either a) average speeds of the peloton’s riders dropped dramatically and suddenly, within a period of a few months, more than they allegedly have dropped in the period of more than a decade since the EPO frenzy of the 90s; or b) just by chance, all the races in the first set were significantly faster than all the races in the second set.

I'm not arguing anything about the likelihood of competing hypotheses, just noting their existence, but since you acknowledge there is a chance that there might be variability between performances in two small sets of races, it kind of makes the point about the limitation of the data as it stands, no?

Let’s examine that second possibility. In the first set, the average gap between Froome and the winner was 4.54 +/- 1.29 seconds. I have eliminated two of the data points as outliers, as they were > 2 SDs above the mean. Before any one objects to this, may I remind everyone that eliminating these data points reduces the average gap between Froome and the winner in this early set, and thus weakens any conclusion of a difference between these times and the subsequent times.

In the second set, the average gap between Froome and the winner was 1.27 +/- 0.62 seconds. I eliminated one data point because as with the first set, it was > 2 SDs above the mean.

The first thing to note is that every single one of the data points of the second set is lower than any of the data points of the first set. The second thing to note is that the highest data point of the second set is more than two SDs lower than the mean of the first data set. Moreover, a t-test performed on the two data sets indicates that the probability of this difference occurring by chance is < 0.000001.

IOW, if we assume that this was a random sample of ITTs, it is extremely unlikely that we would see such a marked difference. There is a definite bias that can’t be explained by chance factors (such as weather),

. . nodding along to your analysis. . .

and it is far more plausible—literally, by orders of magnitude—that the bias is provided by an improvement in Froome, rather than a decline in everyone else.

. . until you completely lost me here. Which order of magnitude is that, and what is the test you've performed to quantify it? Or did you just observe a significant difference between the two data sets, and apply your own best guess as to an explanation?

We can’t say for sure it’s a 20% improvement in FTP.

So basically you agree with me completely?

In fact, using the mean difference with the outliers removed works out to somewhat less than that, about 14% at 50 kph. And given there is some variation in the times, we can't say that all of the difference is due to Froome.

Wait you just said it was literally orders of magnitude more likely it was. . . oh well. But again, you seem to be agreeing with me again, so I won't quibble too much.

But we can certainly say that most of it is.

Can we really? Is there anything to quantify that other than our own belief/gut feelings about plausibility?

For example, if we adjusted the first data set so that the variation was about the same, but the mean value differed from the mean of the first data set by 1 second, the p-value would still be < 0.01. So with high probability the difference between the two data sets is > 2.3 seconds, which still corresponds to a 10% increase in power. In fact, we can say that the difference almost certainly lies between 10-18%.

Sorry you've lost me here, but what I understand you doing here is essentially shaving off some of the difference between the times to model some slowing by the rest of the field? Is that right? And then what's left shows Froome's increase (sorry if I've completely missed the point here). I don't want to sound stupid, but what if you 'adjusted' the data differently? Could you show more or less difference depending on the arbitrary adjustment you choose to make? And as the adjustments are by definition arbitrary, doesn't that rather speak to the inadequacy of the model in differentiating between the causes for the actual observed contraction in relative times? As I say I'm not entirely sure I've followed your purpose here, so apologies if I've missed your point entirely.

The other argument people here have made is that Froome didn’t go all out pre-2011. Come on. We're talking about someone unusually tall for a rider and therefore more naturally suited to TTng than to climbing, who now performs at the discipline nearly as well as Cancellara and Martin. How is a team not going to notice that? And if Froome could ride like that pre-2011, and was fighting for a job, why would he not go all out to show the team what they had?

So you're saying because he's tall, he must by definition have been going all out in TTs from the start of his career? I don't know if that's true or not, but regardless, I'm pretty sure that the original data is silent on the question of 'tall rider's propensity to ride TTs at 100%', so in that sense, from the data presented we can't rule out the possibility that his team duties and instructions from the DS might have affected his performance, not withstanding his height.

Look, and apologies for vortexing your post, I don't want to be drawn into a long drawn out argument about this particular dataset, any more than I already have done.

I'm not being funny, and I can obviously see that Froome's performances have improved since 2011. Of course I can. And of course I can also see that this improvement might have been down to drugs.

But describing the relative difference in numbers (as SiC), and finding the difference is significant as you've added (who'd'a'thunk that eh?), and then asserting that we think the only plausible explanation for that is a massive increase in ftp related to drug use doesn't, in a scientific sense, really take us any further than the hog posting video of him weaving up the road in that giro stage. But it does wrap your own assertions and gut feelings in the shiny authority of being 'scientific' (even though the science hasn't done anything other than quantify the improvement), and that, in my opinion, is an abuse of the spirit of science as a concept, and it is that abuse (that, I would argue, actively harms trust levels in science in society) that I am criticising.

 

[TailWindHome]

No one should be disputing that Froome's performances since 2011 have shown vast improvement.

To do so is just silly.

 

[RownhamHill]

The data is the distance and times of the time trials completed. SiC is showing a summary of that data, after processing, but for me, that is not the data per se.

Even if you insist that the only data you have access to is the %s posted by SiC, anecdotally, you know (or at least one other person did) that TT speeds are not down pre and post 2011.

You could access that original data, just like SiC did, and see if your hypothesis is worth the continued posting.

Here's one I prepared earlier: no prologues ( I think that's what SiC said ). Froome's speeds are the red dots. First and last place is shown by the high and low of each vertical line.

Basically: speeds are not down, Froome's performances are definitely up.

Oh my days. I'm sorry but I can't be bothered to engage with you on this anymore, because I honestly don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Sorry.