Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[H2OUUP2]

Re: Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Finally, the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics: I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

So fascinating to me.

It is really interesting. Seriously.

It's facepalm material.

 

[jalep]

Re: Re:

The "no one is in form for the races Sky dominate" narrative was dumb in 2012 and it still is.

The fix is in. Probably part of the deal for Astana to keep its licence.

This!!!

Not saying Nibs wasn't doped last year. I'm a hypocrite for wanting Contador and Nibali equally doped and responding well to be competitive, okay.

Just can't post about this TdF anywhere but in the clinic. It all eats into being able to enjoy cycling - suspecting that a team and their media darling cyclist can buy the race. Feels like when I finally stopped believing forever in Santa Claus

 

[Flamin]

@Merckx index (didn't want to quote your whole post and it's not easy to select the right part on my phone)

Probably the same I guess. But it's much more than 11", because I timed from the official 15.3km to the summit sign, while those numbers say 14.89km. And as far as I know, the summit was the same as the finish line. In that case, my calculation should be somewhere around 40' for those 14.89km.

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Re: Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Yeah great to see all those clean guys doing well, always good to see Valverde up there

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Haven't measured it in a lab. Haven't seen it before outside of doping... Midichlorians, then? Holy spirit? Help me out here.

John Swanson

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

He faded in 2013, he wasn't the best climber in the last week, it could easily happen again this year.

Did he fade naturally or did he put on a show to make it look better..........

 

[harryh]

Re: Re:

Is the 6,09 w/kg calculation the only one going around? Because I have Froome in 40'43" over 15.3km (22.54kPh) which is quite a big difference with 40'54" over 14.89km...

What is the vertical climb in your calculation? I would be very interested to hear. If it's the same as in the calculation going around, then 11" doesn't mean much, nudges the power up to about 6.12.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the gradient got considerably shallower at points near the end, which means more wind resistance and the VAM calculation becomes less reliable--but less reliable in that it underestimates the actual power output.

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport 1 hour ago
6W/kg for 30 would be grey. 6.1 W/kg for 42 is not. It's off the charts high. Quintana is your benchmark - 5.9W for 40m

So he’s changed his mind? A year or two ago, he drew the line at 6.2-6.3 for 30 minutes. Also, even using his new standard, the 388 watts he made a big deal of in the leaked/hacked data works out to just 5.6 watts/kg., well below his gray area.

I think it’s unfortunate we’re having this discussion with Froome, because the real evidence against him—the transformation in 2011—is a different issue from what is possible by some rider. One can be highly suspicious of Froome’s performance because he came out of nowhere, and still not be suspicious of the particular power he showed today, claiming it’s impossible for any clean rider. Gesink reportedly was also over 6 watts/kg, and of course Nibs did it twice last year on climbs about equally long. IIRC, Tucker, while somewhat critical of Nibs, never accused his performance of being "off the charts".

A V02max/kg of 88, coupled with an 85% LT and 23% efficiency, gets you to about 6.0 watts/kg. But efficiency is the real unknown, there have been several papers in recent years claiming much higher values for some riders. So much of this could be cleared up with transparency. All we can say with fairly high certainty is that no one, including Froome, is matching the highest power values of the LA era, but that doesn't mean anyone is squeaky clean.

Gesink climbed with 409 Watts, average HR 179bpm.... Froome pulled 1.30 on him... wonder what Froome's HR was, about 155 (i.e Sunday casual ride) on this.

https://www.strava.com/activities/345923267/segments/8223093781

Assuming Gesink weighs 68 kg (?), that is 6.02 watts/kg., vs. 5.87 calculated from VAM if he lost 1:30 to Froome. If both those assumptions are correct (?), this suggests VAM underestimates the power a little, perhaps because of wind, or because of shallow stretches in the gradient. But in any case, if it does, Froome's real power might rise to around 6.25, which is definitely suspicious for a climb this length.

Good post. Wonder what has caused Tucker to change his mind (or to lose quite a bit of objectivity).

 

[46&twoWheels]

Re: Re:

Pretty amazing stuff out there today.

I don't even know why people need to go over power numbers, or testing, or times.

It's pretty friggin obvious what's going on to the stupidest of people.

No one team, or one rider - in a "clean era" - can dominant like that.

There's no such thing as super hero's.

I agree. Because power analysis can potentially show that a performance exceeds what ought to be possible for human beings with human parameters, some are inferring that if power analysis doesn't show that, then the performance is clean. Or at least that there is no evidence it isn't.

That's a fallacy, though. Relative dominance is strong evidence of doping. If you look at today and go like "6.1w for 40 minutes? High, but believable. suspicious but we shouldn't jump to conclusions" when Froome has demolished the entire field with absolutely insane gaps, you can't be helped.

what If froome just reached his limit? His performance seem suspicious but has nothing to do with the ones made in the ninenties. Interesting would be knowing if he could keep going for half an hour more after passing the finish line..that would be suspicious !! We'll never know

Shouldn't be normal, natural, in a competitive sport the existence of an individual stronger than the the other athletes? Should be Bolt or Phelps accused of doping?
Human Parameters are based on the average rider. Define Human! "Human" does not equal "Average"

these doping accusations sounds like "Communism is the only way"

I'm more suspicious about Porte and Thomas rather than Froome

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Haven't measured it in a lab. Haven't seen it before outside of doping... Midichlorians, then? Holy spirit? Help me out here.

John Swanson

I think it's arrogant to assume that all factors relating to athletic peformance is set. It means they know all there is to know in the field of physiology and any further study is pointless since nothing new can be discovered. That to me is the pinnacle of stupidity.

IIRC not long ago there was discovered a system relating to filtration of cerebrospinal fluid that could mean new and increased knowledge. The body is full of yet to figure out even unknown unknowns.

Is Froome doping? I don't know. I don't really care that much. But please, enough with the stupidity.

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Re: Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Haven't measured it in a lab. Haven't seen it before outside of doping... Midichlorians, then? Holy spirit? Help me out here.

John Swanson

I think it's arrogant to assume that all factors relating to athletic peformance is set. It means they know all there is to know in the field of physiology and any further study is pointless since nothing new can be discovered. That to me is the pinnacle of stupidity.

IIRC not long ago there was discovered a system relating to filtration of cerebrospinal fluid that could mean new and increased knowledge. The body is full of yet to figure out even unknown unknowns.

Is Froome doping? I don't know. I don't really care that much. But please, enough with the stupidity.

if you feel so inclined

can i suggest a book by david epstein
called the sports gene

it will give you a very good understanding about the limits of human athletic performance

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Ross Tucker, 7/3/13:

the premise here is that in order to produce 6.2 W/kg or higher for longer than about 30 minutes requires physiology that is, frankly, not seen in normal situations…Thus, if the Tour is clean…then we expect to see power outputs in the range of 5.9 W/kg to 6.1 W/kg for the HC climbs.

http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/the-power-of-the-tour-de-france-performance-analysis-groundwork/

Quite a bit different from "6.1 watts/kg is off the charts". It's dodgy, yes, but not off the charts.

I have a lot of respect for Tucker, but I think that like many in the Clinic, he's using the weaker argument against Froome. Instead of 1) Froome's transformation in 2011, he's arguing that 2) Froome's times are impossible clean for anyone. This is a more difficult argument to make, we don't really have the data to know exactly where the line is.

That said, Froome is near that line, and maybe on closer examination, his power was even higher than initially claimed:

@Merckx index (didn't want to quote your whole post and it's not easy to select the right part on my phone)

Probably the same I guess. But it's much more than 11", because I timed from the official 15.3km to the summit sign, while those numbers say 14.89km. And as far as I know, the summit was the same as the finish line. In that case, my calculation should be somewhere around 40' for those 14.89km.

The stage intro thread in the Pro Racing forum does give 15.3 km as the length of the stage, and from the profile, it's clear that the gradient over the first 400 m--which would appear to be the extra that you timed Froome on--is about the same as the overall average, maybe a little more. Given that, if we take your time of 11” faster, Froome’s VAM now indicates a power of 6.29 watts/kg, which I would say is highly suspicious for a climb this long (though still below what he and Porte claimed they did up the Madone, which was really alien). It’s also consistent with Gensink’s SRM data of 6.02 watts/kg., if I’m correct in assuming he weighs 68 kg. That is, if Gesink did the climb 1:30 slower than Froome, and his power was 6.02 watts/kg., then Froome's actual power should have been around 6.25-6.30 watts/kg. SRM data should be more accurate than VAM here, given that we don't know about wind conditions, changes in the gradient, and other confounding factors.

 

[46&twoWheels]

Re: Re:

if you feel so inclined

can i suggest a book by david epstein
called the sports gene

it will give you a very good understanding about the limits of human athletic performance

"let's ban all the kenyan individuals from athletics because they are faster long-distance runners than most people in the world"

in this case: that fact that is still not understandable, it doesn't make it impossible for froome to be genetically gifted the same way as other people who excel in something are

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Haven't measured it in a lab. Haven't seen it before outside of doping... Midichlorians, then? Holy spirit? Help me out here.

John Swanson

I think it's arrogant to assume that all factors relating to athletic peformance is set. It means they know all there is to know in the field of physiology and any further study is pointless since nothing new can be discovered. That to me is the pinnacle of stupidity.

IIRC not long ago there was discovered a system relating to filtration of cerebrospinal fluid that could mean new and increased knowledge. The body is full of yet to figure out even unknown unknowns.

Is Froome doping? I don't know. I don't really care that much. But please, enough with the stupidity.

I think it is incredibly arrogant to assume that doping, a part of the fabric of the sport has gone away and that 'clean' riders would be able to win GT, Monuments, classics or semi classics against dopers.

You care enough to try and cast doubt on those who are calling him a doper.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

if you feel so inclined

can i suggest a book by david epstein
called the sports gene

it will give you a very good understanding about the limits of human athletic performance

"let's ban all the kenyan individuals from athletics because they are faster long-distance runners than most people in the world"

in this case: that fact that is still not understandable, it doesn't make it impossible for froome to be genetically gifted the same way as other people who excel in something are

If Froome was genetically gifted, why did the gift take so long to show or is that another one of the bodies mysteries......

 

[Benotti69]

Froome asks "What haven't I done?" said Froome. "I've tried to be as much as a spokesman as I can for clean cycling."

Go and do a Vo2max live streamed..........would be a start.

 

[Walkman]

Re: Re:

The reality is:

Contador - cooked from giro
Quintana - good, but when has he beaten Froome who only beat him by 1 minute on an ideal stage for Froome
Nibali - already cooked
Froome - delivered a good performance, made to look stellar by the above

Froome delivered a performance that was doped. end of.

6.01w/kg for 40+ mins = doping.

6.09 w/kg is not mutant, as Merckx Index explained in his informative post a page or so back. But, as much as 'Sky bots can't accept things', the irony is, the 'Sky haters' are doing that very thing.

Ross Tucker calls 6.09 w/kg for 40+ minutes as mutant.

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport 2 hours ago
6W/kg for 30 would be grey. 6.1 W/kg for 42 is not. It's off the charts high. Quintana is your benchmark - 5.9W for 40m

Doping.

I am usually on your side but reading Merckx index post makes you come across as rather arrogant. Not facts to back up your claims, just opinions.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Haven't measured it in a lab. Haven't seen it before outside of doping... Midichlorians, then? Holy spirit? Help me out here.

John Swanson

I think it's arrogant to assume that all factors relating to athletic peformance is set. It means they know all there is to know in the field of physiology and any further study is pointless since nothing new can be discovered. That to me is the pinnacle of stupidity.

IIRC not long ago there was discovered a system relating to filtration of cerebrospinal fluid that could mean new and increased knowledge. The body is full of yet to figure out even unknown unknowns.

Is Froome doping? I don't know. I don't really care that much. But please, enough with the stupidity.

I think you've got it backwards a bit. Your premise is that Froome has stumbled upon some unknown aspect of sports physiology and is exploiting it. Whether that exploitation be via training regime, nutrition, pillows or whatever. He doesn't know why, but it just works.

The problem is that out of the history of modern sports - Froome is the only one to have exploited this unknown phenomenon. The only one to stumble across this method (methods?) by happenstance. And when he did, no doctor associated with the team studied that phenomenon. They didn't test it. They didn't publish it. They didn't set up a sports clinic and make millions.

A more consistent explanation is that Froome is exploiting some well known science and it's being administered by a doctor. It's also on the banned substance list.

John Swanson

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Thanks for your post John. I know you and other science people like yourself don't like to be direct like that, but there comes a point...

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Re:

Froome asks "What haven't I done?" said Froome. "I've tried to be as much as a spokesman as I can for clean cycling."

Go and do a Vo2max live streamed..........would be a start.

But Vo2max can be also enhanced by blood doping, can't it? So it's no evidence.

 

[46&twoWheels]

Re: Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Haven't measured it in a lab. Haven't seen it before outside of doping... Midichlorians, then? Holy spirit? Help me out here.

John Swanson

I think it's arrogant to assume that all factors relating to athletic peformance is set. It means they know all there is to know in the field of physiology and any further study is pointless since nothing new can be discovered. That to me is the pinnacle of stupidity.

IIRC not long ago there was discovered a system relating to filtration of cerebrospinal fluid that could mean new and increased knowledge. The body is full of yet to figure out even unknown unknowns.

Is Froome doping? I don't know. I don't really care that much. But please, enough with the stupidity.

I think you've got it backwards a bit. Your premise is that Froome has stumbled upon some unknown aspect of sports physiology and is exploiting it. Whether that exploitation be via training regime, nutrition, pillows or whatever. He doesn't know why, but it just works.

The problem is that out of the history of modern sports - Froome is the only one to have exploited this unknown phenomenon. The only one to stumble across this method (methods?) by happenstance. And when he did, no doctor associated with the team studied that phenomenon. They didn't test it. They didn't publish it. They didn't set up a sports clinic and make millions.

A more consistent explanation is that Froome is exploiting some well known science and it's being administered by a doctor. It's also on the banned substance list.

John Swanson

you're taking for granted that every rider starts with the same set of abilities and physiological limits. It's not true. We are not all equal.The task would be to uncover what makes Froome un-equal. It could be doping it could be natural as well

 

[Flamin]

Re: Re:

@Merckx index (didn't want to quote your whole post and it's not easy to select the right part on my phone)

Probably the same I guess. But it's much more than 11", because I timed from the official 15.3km to the summit sign, while those numbers say 14.89km. And as far as I know, the summit was the same as the finish line. In that case, my calculation should be somewhere around 40' for those 14.89km.

The stage intro thread in the Pro Racing forum does give 15.3 km as the length of the stage, and from the profile, it's clear that the gradient over the first 400 m--which would appear to be the extra that you timed Froome on--is about the same as the overall average, maybe a little more. Given that, if we take your time of 11” faster, Froome’s VAM now indicates a power of 6.29 watts/kg, which I would say is highly suspicious for a climb this long (though still below what he and Porte claimed they did up the Madone, which was really alien). It’s also consistent with Gensink’s SRM data of 6.02 watts/kg., if I’m correct in assuming he weighs 68 kg. That is, if Gesink did the climb 1:30 slower than Froome, and his power was 6.02 watts/kg., then Froome's actual power should have been around 6.25-6.30 watts/kg. SRM data should be more accurate than VAM here, given that we don't know about wind conditions, changes in the gradient, and other confounding factors.

Good post, thanks according to Dekker Tifosi, Gesink is 68kg indeed at peak weight.

Here's proof btw of the 40'43" of Froome:

http://www.steephill.tv/players/720...limb&dashboard=tour-de-france&id=Tcab&yr=2015

Climb starts at 03:27. Froome finishes at 44:10.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Thanks for your post John. I know you and other science people like yourself don't like to be direct like that, but there comes a point...

I'm feeling grouchy today...

John Swanson

 

[MartinGT]

Froome in the post interview

"We looked after ourselves on rest day"

LOL No sh!t

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Haven't measured it in a lab. Haven't seen it before outside of doping... Midichlorians, then? Holy spirit? Help me out here.

John Swanson

I think it's arrogant to assume that all factors relating to athletic peformance is set. It means they know all there is to know in the field of physiology and any further study is pointless since nothing new can be discovered. That to me is the pinnacle of stupidity.

IIRC not long ago there was discovered a system relating to filtration of cerebrospinal fluid that could mean new and increased knowledge. The body is full of yet to figure out even unknown unknowns.

Is Froome doping? I don't know. I don't really care that much. But please, enough with the stupidity.

I think you've got it backwards a bit. Your premise is that Froome has stumbled upon some unknown aspect of sports physiology and is exploiting it. Whether that exploitation be via training regime, nutrition, pillows or whatever. He doesn't know why, but it just works.

The problem is that out of the history of modern sports - Froome is the only one to have exploited this unknown phenomenon. The only one to stumble across this method (methods?) by happenstance. And when he did, no doctor associated with the team studied that phenomenon. They didn't test it. They didn't publish it. They didn't set up a sports clinic and make millions.

A more consistent explanation is that Froome is exploiting some well known science and it's being administered by a doctor. It's also on the banned substance list.

John Swanson

I'm not saying he stumbled upon it, or anything. I'm saying that ignoring the possibility of an unknown is arrogance. As for Froome being the only one. How do you know he is the only one? What if some domestique also exhibited it but didn't enjoy training so much that he reached a greater level? We don't know something might have occurred without us knowing about it because we might have been looking at something else at the time.

As for stumbling upon new methods and no one making millions of it? So because someone didn't do it before(is world famous, and making millions) it's impossible? What if someone, shock, learned something new? Integrated new information that some arrogant know it all had previously discarded because of all known theory said it was irrelevant?

But your right, lets not try to see if there is something we don't know that we thought we knew. Lets just say it's doping, and that doping to win a three week race without getting caught is as easy as it has ever been.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Re: Re:

[quote="46&twoWheels
You're taking for granted that every rider starts with the same set of abilities and physiological limits. It's not true. We are not all equal.The task would be to uncover what makes Froome un-equal. It could be doping it could be natural as well[/quote]
Here's why I don't buy that. Froome was a UCI-Continental racer with only a modicum of results until the age of about 25. Within two years he was on the cusp of winning the Tour, and now is destroying everyone. All of this happened once he came to Sky.

Riders with natural talent don't do this. They are guys like Merckx, LeMond or Fignon, where from early on you knew they'd be great, and some days they'd crush the competition. I can't think of a single natural (ie. clean) rider in history who has done what Froome has. Can anyone else? I'd like to know.