Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[42x16ss]

This is my understanding.


The thing with VO2max and FTP (or lactate etc) testing is you use them together - not in isolation.

If you have an FTP test, you're unlikely to hit VO2. It can happen, but it's unlikely.

So yes, a step test or lactate test is useful because it's real world. Correct. Very true. No denying. Ferrari's lactate test + 4 hour ride + lactate test is even more real world.

But is that the best the rider can do? And how would you know?

Simples: do a VO2max test. Now you know how much oxygen they can process per kg of weight per minute.

Now compare watts at VO2max to their FTP test watts and you can determine what % of VO2max they are riding at, as well as efficiency, etc, at different points on their lactate graph.

If someone is doing 400W at FTP, that's awesome. But if they are only riding at 60% of their VO2max, you'd say - hang on this kid (probably) has room to improve. What training have they been doing, and what impact has that had, etc, etc.

Keeping in mind you can also improve your VO2max through training, EPO, etc, and it will differ, obviously, depending on fitness. The test also tends to take a very short amount of time vs step test (to exhaustion or not) or lactate test or Ferrari's 4+ hour test.

Without the VO2 max test it's closer to impossible to be able to determine if the athlete has room to improve.

So when Froome or Kerrison or Brailsford say, "Froome has room to improve" they must be basing it on something. Personally I think they are basing it on preemtpive unlikely performance explanation theatre, but regardless - in a real world situation where you have a rider and you want to know if they are hitting their genetic potential at the FTP level, a VO2 max test can help determine if that is in fact the case.

This is at the purely physiology testing level. Says nothing about recovery, tenacity, force of will, experience, team environment, diet, etc, which all play significant parts in how an athlete performs.

At the very least, you would expect they would VO2max and FTP test their riders when they join the team. Even more so if you are claiming to be more scientifically advanced and attention to detail than everyone else.

Well explained, you're pretty close to the mark. Most teams and Sports Institutes use a variation of the principles you explained (or at least they did when I was racing).

VO2 max isn't used quite as commonly as it used to be but it is still unusual for someone at Froome's level to not know it, or at least know what it was from the last time him and his coach structured/restructured his training program, as VO2% at threshold is a hugely important factor for a GT contender and is something that is easily trained if you have the physiological room for improvement.

Guys like acoggan, AlexSimmons and coachfergie are some of the leaders in this field and could inform us on the most current testing protocols. If JV is still around I'm sure he could elaborate as well.

 

[thehog]

The last part; a lactate test can be done in a field. A Vo2 max is lab based and thus not as accessible.

Lacate tests can occur in the lab also but since the invention of mobile "***" kits it can be done anywhere.

 

[Granville57]

Again, teams have been doing all kinds of tests on their athletes forever to evaluate their potential. Since the 70's at least. It's standard practice and common sense.

And there's one other aspect in all of this that's being overlooked.

If I had emerged out of relative obscurity in the ranks of pro cycling, and had, in a very short amount of time, come to dominate the sport at its very highest level, and through that magnificent and incredibly gratifying journey I had focused intently on all the minutiae so as to maximize my athlete potential...

I AM PRETTY DAMN SURE THAT I WOUDL'VE SUBJECTED MYSELF TO A VO2MAX TEST, IF FOR NOTHING ELSE THAN TO SATISFY MY DAMN CURIOSITY!

Oh, but not Chris Froome, slayer of dragons. No. The subject never entered his mind. VO2? Wind Tunnels? What's all the fuss? I just shut my power meter off and ride by feel. I'm not interested in the numbers behind all this. I'm Ol' Skool, all the way.

Give me a break. I couldn't care less at this point if Sky performs the test or not, or if they ever did in the past. But for Froome to suggest that such a thing was somehow never of serious interest to him strikes as just a tad disingenuous. And for him to further suggest that in the wake of his magical transformation he is even less interested to see if his previous numbers have changed or improved at all? Yeah, OK.


Let's a take a look back...
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html

Paul Kimmage: What about a VO2 test? There’s a tirade of noise on the social media asking: ‘Why won’t he do a VO2 test?’ And experts like Antoine Veyer saying he has asked but the team has refused. I don’t understand why you’re not banging on his door saying: ‘Antoine, what’s the problem here? How can I help? Show me the bike and I’ll do the test. What other questions do you have?’

Chris Froome: What’s going to be gained from a VO2 test other than being submissive to people who are basically just going to use that in one way or another to try and prove their point.

MICHELLE COUND: Antoine Veyer has his own agendas and Tim did sit down with him last year and . . .

CF: I’ve done one VO2 test I think in 2007 with the UCI school (in Aigle). The results were online - I think my VO2 was between 80 and 85, and that would have been at about 70 kilos. VO2 is weight specific, so take away 4 kilos and that could possibly raise it I guess, I don’t know.

PK: You say, ‘Why should I be submissive?’ What do you have to lose?

CF: Yeah, maybe it is something we would look at doing one day.

MICHELLE COUND: It’s not something that the team does.

CF: And I mean, people with really low VO2s have been amazing bike riders. And people with high VOs have been useless bike riders, so its not a measure the team uses. I’ve definitely never done a VO2 max test with the team.

PK: And you don’t see the point in doing one just to shut these people up?

CF: At some point I probably will.

PK: Do one next week before the Tour.

(He laughs.)

PK: It might reduce some of the heat when you turn up in Yorkshire?

CF: And if it comes back as 70 or 90? What’s that going to change?

PK: I’m not an expert. What they’re saying - given the result of your previous test, and the power you’re producing now – is that you are on the limit of what is viewed as being physiologically impossible.

CF: Okay.

PK: The absolute limit.

CF: Okay, but I mean I’ve got to have some level of talent having being able to win the Tour. (laughs) So I would like to think I’m in that higher bracket but . . . yeah, I don’t know.

The last part is what kills me the most. If it were ever suggested to me that what I was capable of was at the limit of what is viewed as being physiologically impossible, I'm pretty damn sure I want to look into that.

But not Mr. Power Meter. Oh, no. Such things are of little concern to Chris Froome.

 

[Parker]

The last part is what kills me the most. If it were ever suggested to me that what I was capable of was at the limit of what is viewed as being physiologically impossible, I'm pretty damn sure I want to look into that.

But not Mr. Power Meter. Oh, no. Such things are of little concern to Chris Froome.

Do you really think he sits at home thinking 'oh my god, there's a handful people on social media who doubt me. I must take time out of my busy schedule to do a test so I can get a figure to give them that they will either ignore, misrepresent or dispute before moving on to the next ill informed basis for their dogmatic entrenched views'? I don't. There is no VO2 number, or any data that will convince you or others that he is clean. Even if it's perfect you'll layer the excuses to cling to your opinion. So why bother. (It won't even convince me, and I tend to think he's clean)

What's the point of communicating with someone who isn't prepared to listen?

 

[42x16ss]

Do you really think he sits at home thinking 'oh my god, there's a handful people on social media who doubt me. I must take time out of my busy schedule to do a test so I can get a figure to give them that they will either ignore, misrepresent or dispute before moving on to the next ill informed basis for their dogmatic entrenched views'? I don't. There is no VO2 number, or any data that will convince you or others that he is clean. Even if it's perfect you'll layer the excuses to cling to your opinion. So why bother. (It won't even convince me, and I tend to think he's clean)

What's the point of communicating with someone who isn't prepared to listen?

Huh? Actually, if Froome went and did a VO2 max test and it came back low 90's it would dispel quite a bit of the negativity towards him here. His reluctance is what's damning IMO and many others. LA's VO2 max of mid 80's was about right for a classics rider who could climb for one day or do a decent one-off TT (pre cancer) so I wouldn't be too surprised if Froome's is naturally around this judging by his whole career.

If someone asked the other GT big dogs what their VO2 max is, I doubt that there would be the same obfuscation shown by Froome and Sky.

 

[Parker]

Huh? Actually, if Froome went and did a VO2 max test and it came back low 90's it would dispel quite a bit of the negativity towards him here. His reluctance is what's damning IMO and many others. LA's VO2 max of mid 80's was about right for a classics rider who could climb for one day or do a decent one-off TT (pre cancer) so I wouldn't be too surprised if Froome's is naturally around this judging by his whole career.

If someone asked the other GT big dogs what their VO2 max is, I doubt that there would be the same obfuscation shown by Froome and Sky.

Ok. For example, if a Grand Tour contender (not Froome) did a test and it said his Vo2 max was mid 80s (as Froome claims it was as an overweight novice in 2007). What would your assessment be?

And if Froome did do a test and it came out as 90+, do you really think that people who have been raging about his doping and calling anyone who disagrees idiots or bots every day for the last three years are going to change their mind? Even a little bit? Or will they add another layer of conspiracy?

 

[42x16ss]

Ok. For example, if a Grand Tour contender (not Froome) did a test and it said his Vo2 max was mid 80s (as Froome claims it was as an overweight novice in 2007). What would your assessment be?

Damning. A GT contender would need utterly phenomenal numbers everywhere else, or a consistent amount of luck.

And if Froome did do a test and it came out as 90+, do you really think that people who have been raging about his doping and calling anyone who disagrees idiots or bots every day for the last three years are going to change their mind? Even a little bit? Or will they add another layer of conspiracy?

Maybe not everyone would be quiet, but it would alleviate some of my own concern, that's for sure. It wouldn't just be the number that would reassure - it would also be the team finally putting their $$$ where their mouth is and showing some transparency for a change.

For the record, Rabobank used to put ALL their riders (development AND women included) through a VO2 max test at the start of each year. They weren't shy about the results getting out either:

So what's Sky's excuse for all the cloak-and-dagger, hide the power figure in photos, "no you can't have that info" BS, when a team with a track record like Rabo is happy for this info to be public domain?

 

[42x16ss]

Basso used to let the press come along to the Mapei Centre for his testing:

So did Cunego:

Even Pro Conti squads test VO2 max:

Wait, what's this??? Sky even do VO2 max testing?!?!

 

[thehog]

Wait, what's this??? Sky even do VO2 max testing?!?!

That's a photoshop job! Sky don't do vo2 testing?!!

 

[hrotha]

Another issue is that Brailsford said they'd test Froome, but they never did.

 

[Parker]

Damning. A GT contender would need utterly phenomenal numbers everywhere else, or a consistent amount of luck.

Then where is the furore about Peraud then (V02 max of 83-86)? 2nd in the Tour at 37.

 

[Parker]

Another issue is that Brailsford said they'd test Froome, but they never did.

Did he? Or did he say 'he'd think about it', like parents do when their daughter wants a pony?

 

[42x16ss]

Then where is the furore about Peraud then (V02 max of 83-86)? 2nd in the Tour at 37.

2nd, by the biggest margin since 1997 to a guy with his own skeletons in the closet, who was almost cruising in to his win... If Nibali had someone to actually contend with, it's almost certain the margin over Peraud would have been bigger.

If he was actually in a battle with Nibali instead of Pinot, Valverde and Van Garderen, I'd look at it a little differently. It's quite likely Peraud could improve this year and not even make the top 5. Watch the races, it's about more than just the results.

 

[Parker]

For the record, Rabobank used to put ALL their riders (development AND women included) through a VO2 max test at the start of each year. They weren't shy about the results getting out either:

So what's Sky's excuse for all the cloak-and-dagger, hide the power figure in photos, "no you can't have that info" BS, when a team with a track record like Rabo is happy for this info to be public domain?

And do any of those results translate to actual ability on the bike? Was Theo Eltink leading Rabobank in Grand Tours? No he retired at 28. Tom Stamsnijder is hardly pulling up trees.

Of course they don't actually show VO2 max results. VO2 isn't measured in watts. You just read the headline, not the actual figures, didn't you? You really haven't got a clue have you?

2nd, by the biggest margin since 1997 to a guy with his own skeletons in the closet, who was almost cruising in to his win... If Nibali had someone to actually contend with, it's almost certain the margin over Peraud would have been bigger.

So someone who comes second isn't a contender? (and according to you only beaten my someone with skeletons in his closet).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sigh .

 

[red_flanders]

Ok. For example, if a Grand Tour contender (not Froome) did a test and it said his Vo2 max was mid 80s (as Froome claims it was as an overweight novice in 2007). What would your assessment be?

He doesn't claim this. He claims not to know, and that it was 80 or 85. That he doesn't know is not believable. Those are two very different numbers which would indicate very different ceilings for a rider. No possible chance he puts in the performances he has at 80. At 84 it is said to be on the limit IF his other numbers were at the limit of human potential.

Then he laughs it off when this is pointed out and acts as if the fact that he has put in those performances means he is at the limit of human potential.

It's horse manure.

There is no possible way that he has all those physiological traits and was a pack rider for the first part of his career. Those numbers would be better than Merckx, Hinault, Indurain and Armstrong.

Horse. ****.

And if Froome did do a test and it came out as 90+, do you really think that people who have been raging about his doping and calling anyone who disagrees idiots or bots every day for the last three years are going to change their mind? Even a little bit? Or will they add another layer of conspiracy?

If he had some time ago put up a 90+ I would doubt him much, much less. But he didn't. And the odds of him being at the limit of human potential for LT and ME are one in a million. So there is no way.

Which, of COURSE is why they act like they don't know what the number is.

 

[42x16ss]

And do any of those results translate to actual ability on the bike? Was Theo Eltink leading Rabobank in Grand Tours? No he retired at 28. Tom Stamsnijder is hardly pulling up trees.

Of course they don't actually show VO2 max results. VO2 isn't measured in watts. You just read the headline, not the actual figures, didn't you? You really haven't got a clue have you?


So someone who comes second isn't a contender? (and according to you only beaten my someone with skeletons in his closet).

Those power figures were taken during a VO2Max test. These are also the 2011 pre season tests. Robert Gesink, for example, had only been back on his bike for a week or so, while guys like Eltink and Stamsnijder were lined up for early season races.

Also look at who is at the top of the amended list.

Finally - I'd tread lightly, this is more information and transparency than your squad has shown during it's entire existence.

 

[42x16ss]

So someone who comes second isn't a contender? (and according to you only beaten my someone with skeletons in his closet).

For the WIN? Not necessarily. In this case, definitely not. Look past the placings and take note of the time difference. Better yet, go back and watch the mountain stages (I'm guessing you stopped watching after stage 5 )

Froome and Contador would have obliterated Peraud and if Talansky and Gerrans knew how to sprint in a straight line, Talansky would have had a realistic chance of beating Peraud IMO as well.

But don't let me destroy your alternate reality....

 

[Parker]

Those power figures were taken during a VO2Max test. These are also the 2011 pre season tests. Robert Gesink, for example, had only been back on his bike for a week or so, while guys like Eltink and Stamsnijder were lined up for early season races.

Also look at who is at the top of the amended list.

Finally - I'd tread lightly, this is more information and transparency than your squad has shown during it's entire existence.

My squad? I don't have a squad.

You said: For the record, Rabobank used to put ALL their riders (development AND women included) through a VO2 max test at the start of each year. They weren't shy about the results getting out either:

They are not the results of the Vo2 test as you claimed. In fact there's no indication what they are the results are. But to a clueless person, it's sharing data, even if they can't say what the data actually is.

Why would a team put out data to be interpreted by someone like you who can't even grasp the basics? Why be judged by someone whose knowledge of sports science could be fitted into a single tweet.

Teams don't release data because they think that those asking for it are fanatical morons. And they're right.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

* sigh *

 

[Parker]

If he had some time ago put up a 90+ I would doubt him much, much less. But he didn't. And the odds of him being at the limit of human potential for LT and ME are one in a million. So there is no way.

Which, of COURSE is why they act like they don't know what the number is.

They act like they don't know what the number is because they don't know what the number is.

They haven't done a test because there is no point other than to make you doubt less. And I don't think they'll lose much sleep over that.

In life you have to realise that there are some people who are too entrenched in their views to communicate sensibly with. Trying to get them to change their mind is like trying to teach a dog economics. It's just not worth it. And that's why teams don't engage with them. (Obama made that mistake by trying to placate the 'birthers')

 

[red_flanders]

They act like they don't know what the number is because they don't know what the number is.

They haven't done a test because there is no point other than to make you doubt less. And I don't think they'll lose much sleep over that.

In life you have to realise that there are some people who are too entrenched in their views to communicate sensibly with. Trying to get them to change their mind is like trying to teach a dog economics. It's just not worth it. And that's why teams don't engage with them. (Obama made that mistake by trying to placate the 'birthers')

You're just repeating what Froome and the team are saying. Of course no one who is unsatisfied with their answers is going to be convinced by you repeating it as if it's fact.

It may be true, but you don't know.

You cannot seriously be telling me that Froome got a V02 max test and doesn't know what the number is. That's absurd. Riders talk about their numbers all the time. People remember things like that.

I was IQ tested when I was 15. That was 32 years ago and I remember exactly what that number was, and I was stoned when I took the test.

But yeah, he doesn't recall if it was 80 or 85. I simply don't believe him.

 

[42x16ss]

My squad. I don't have a squad.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that...

You said: For the record, Rabobank used to put ALL their riders (development AND women included) through a VO2 max test at the start of each year. They weren't shy about the results getting out either:

They are not the results of the Vo2 test as you claimed. In fact there's no indication what they are the results are. But to a clueless person, it's sharing data, even if they can't say what the data actually is.

Ok, it's not the VO2 max, data but it IS power to weight data, extracted FROM a VO2 max test. This is STILL more data than Sky has ever released, EVER. Most teams are not shy about releasing power data (ok, it's not VO2 but I'm moving on for a moment) a 5 second google search gets me power data from WT races, including GT's from riders such as Horner, Gerrans, Gesink, Hansen, Durbridge, Tuft and Voigt. That's without even specifying names. They even put it on their own blogs FFS.

Why would a team put out data to be interpreted by someone like you who can't even grasp the basics? Why be judged by someone whose knowledge of sports science could be fitted into a single tweet.

Teams don't release data because they think that those asking for it are fanatical morons. And they're right.

Teams and riders DO release data! A lot of it is right there in the public domain! Riders share their power files with the public ALL OF THE TIME! Unless they are with one team in particular... who claims to be cleaner and more transparent than everyone else...

 

[red_flanders]

Teams don't release data because they think that those asking for it are fanatical morons. And they're right.

Are you working for Sky? Seriously, you're just repeating their talking points. And you're lying, as serious sports scientists have asked for these numbers.

In all seriousness, do you actually believe what you're saying at this point?

 

[42x16ss]

Are you working for Sky? Seriously, you're just repeating their talking points.

Either that or they're a darn good troll...