RownhamHill said:
As I say the fact is the transformation in Froome's performance is suspicious. Regardless of whether he is clean or dirty (or even, more to the point, whether Sky themselves know whether he is clean or dirty) I can't see quite how Sky drawing even more public attention to the suspicion benefits them at all.
Which is kind of the point. People who want to be transparent don’t make information public to benefit themselves. Of course they hope that it will, but that isn’t why they do it. They do it in the service of the truth.
A lot of posters think Sky would be nuts to make all this information public. Why? Are they afraid of other teams learning the secrets of their success? If that's the case, why did Sky tell the world about marginal gains, training longer, attention to details, and on and on and on? Aren't they afraid other teams will follow suit and they'll lose their edge?
Another problem with the idea that they can't make power data public is that the data in question are several years old. How is it going to affect Froome's prospects in some race for his competitors to know what his power numbers were back in 2010 or earlier?
The bottom line: no, you don't have to be transparent. But if you refuse to be, stop this "the peloton is clean" line. The only way we have of evaluating that claim, imperfect as it is, is from power data. If you refuse to give us that, you lose all right to make any claims about the level of doping going on.
bigcog said:
So how did you work all this out ? On one hand you criticise Grappe:
"She also didn’t seem aware that Grappe never measured Froome’s V02max; he estimated it, based on assumptions that may or may not be correct. "
I bet you don't make loads of dodgy assumptions though ? Yeah right.
Cound is the one who claimed that his V02max had been measured. She was flat out wrong, at least according to DB.
I never claimed I had absolute values for Froome for anything. I pointed out that there was an increase in power, and if you had read the post where I estimated it, you would have seen I was clear about my assumptions (as was JS, who provided the original data), and I also gave error estimates.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
It seems my post is misunderstood by some. I blame my grammar for it...
Anyway. I wasn´t talking about if he is clean or not, I was asking if anything would change if he releases his complete data, and there would be nothing suspicious to see...
The answer is no. Nobody would change his view of Froome. Thus it makes no sense for him to release his files.
So why are people still asking for it??? It makes no sense...
It seems my post was misunderstood by you. You haven’t explained what kind of data they could release that wouldn’t be suspicious.
What we have with Froome is pure hate, while some old one legged rider gets respect. I don´t get it...
What we have are some people suspicious of one rider who came out of nowhere while not being equally suspicious of another who did the same thing. I don’t get it.
SeriousSam said:
it would be an interesting exercise for the informed posters to state what kind of data would change their mind, one way or another.
That’s a very good question. I would be most inclined to believe pre-2011 data that showed considerably less power (or V02max, if actually available) than post-2011. With that clearly established, we could move on to the question of how the big increase occurred. Do Froome/Sky want to use the schisto excuse? Do they have passport data to back that up? Because schisto can affect HT/Hb ratios, and that would be the most likely way the disease impacted performance. Walsh or someone already claimed there was no change in that data pre- and post-2011, but we haven’t seen any actual data.
How far back did Froome get tested by the passport? He has strongly implied that he thinks he did not have the disease prior to 2009. If he was tested before then, it would be very helpful to see the data and compare it to later, but before the Vuelta.
Beyond that, what about his weight? Was he heavier pre- than post-2011? If so, by how much? Is there any indication of exactly when, over what time period, the weight was lost?
How could the transformation most plausibly be explained as clean? IMO:
1) Some increase in power from pre-2011, say 5-7% over his best pre-2011 levels, with substantial variation in the latter. And evidence that it didn’t occur overnight, in a few weeks prior to the 2011 Vuelta.
2) Some loss in weight, 5% or more, and again, evidence that it didn’t all occur overnight.
3) Enough variation in the passport--and in power levels prior to 2011--to suggest that schisto could have affected his Hb levels.
Would that satisfy everyone? No, and it shouldn’t. But at least it would be evidence that Sky made an honest attempt at explanation. Probably a lot of the evidence that is needed is not available, but I won’t fault Sky for that. Just put out everything that you have.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
if you compare Pinotti (& Horner of all, of course) and Froome by percentage risen at age happened, your conclusion must be that Pinottis and Horners numbers look more extreme than those of Froome...
Really? I have put out the number of 15% for Froome, apparently within a period of a few months. What is your calculation of Horner's increase in power, and over how long a period of time? You're free to make reasonable assumptions about age decline as well.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram