-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Seeing is believing. This could be another PR stunt to put off the questions with an answer, all will be revealed at the independent testing after the tour, please wait till then.........Brailsford invited everyone to come to manchester after Wiggins destroyed everyone at TdF and see how they do it. Never happened.
Re:
Just a dirty doping drug cheat jealous of clean hard and honest work beating dopers like himself.markene2 said:I think Rasmussens tweet says it all.
Does anyone actually think froome is clean? Poursuivant? Are you just bickering and splitting hairs, or do you believe froome is clean? I'd like to see someone say that they saw the stage today, and yes U think he is clean.
When an ex pro like Rasmussen is calling it, he as far as i know is not selling anything currently, you have to take notice.........
Re:
Armstrong completely crushed everybody on Hautacam in 2000, but:
Escartín (6th, +1:20) - good, but when has he beaten Armstrong who only beat him by 1 minute on an ideal stage for Armstrong (after Armstrong's transformation I mean)
Heras (7th, +1:20) - good, but when has he beaten Armstrong who only beat him by 1 minute on an ideal stage for Armstrong (after Armstrong's transformation I mean)
Zülle (10th, +3:05) - already cooked
Ullrich (13th, +3:19) - didn't train properly in winter
Pantani (21st, +5:10) - already cooked
Armstrong - delivered a good performance, made to look stellar by the above
Plus he only put 31 seconds on Jiménez, and friggin' Beltrán was 5th, right after a Virenque who's clearly past it. Right?
This kind of faulty reasoning needs to be put down. Allow me to illustrate:bigcog said:
Armstrong completely crushed everybody on Hautacam in 2000, but:
Escartín (6th, +1:20) - good, but when has he beaten Armstrong who only beat him by 1 minute on an ideal stage for Armstrong (after Armstrong's transformation I mean)
Heras (7th, +1:20) - good, but when has he beaten Armstrong who only beat him by 1 minute on an ideal stage for Armstrong (after Armstrong's transformation I mean)
Zülle (10th, +3:05) - already cooked
Ullrich (13th, +3:19) - didn't train properly in winter
Pantani (21st, +5:10) - already cooked
Armstrong - delivered a good performance, made to look stellar by the above
Plus he only put 31 seconds on Jiménez, and friggin' Beltrán was 5th, right after a Virenque who's clearly past it. Right?
gooner said:
I'm unclear what this is supposed to prove. Does he now have a high V02 max? Certainly we know that EPO increases V02 max significantly. As before, what WOULD have been interesting were his pre-Vuelta 2011 numbers, which will never be known. As for all the others, any pro cyclist would have a low heart rate, a "huge" lung capacity, blah, blah. The question is, "compared to what"? That we will not see, making it irrelevant. If it ever happens.
Re:
I take notice. I don't know what all the fuss is about
I have no problem with Froome or Quintana or Nibali or Aru doping
Benotti69 said:
I take notice. I don't know what all the fuss is about
I have no problem with Froome or Quintana or Nibali or Aru doping
Re: Re:
To be fair, all those guys were doping. So I don't see how that is an argument against Froome (I wouldn't be surprised if he was doping), however your argument just shows that on a level playing field the best guy can beat the second best guy by a minute.
hrotha said:
To be fair, all those guys were doping. So I don't see how that is an argument against Froome (I wouldn't be surprised if he was doping), however your argument just shows that on a level playing field the best guy can beat the second best guy by a minute.
Re:
Of course he is clean and just some people in these kinds of forums thinks other way, and in cycling most of the people inside cycling world think that way.
if after all these time people think is froome the doper and not other in the past that now are not so strong is that you will never will see the reality.. but I think that the mayority of the people, people that know how are things now in cycling, are not going to het into here to write.
hamilton did a similar time in 2003. do you need I explain you the differen circunctances and differences betwwen that Tour and stage and this stage? do you really need? I hope you know more about cycling than that. just one difference, that was last mountains stage, today firt.
Find the other 8 differences. Luck!
Your message is agresive and I dont know how this kind of post are allowed, i cant understad, seriously,. riders deserve a minimum respect. froome is not guilty that other riders as lance did in the past, it was anothe era, another kind of antidoping.
I am very angry, but I think that as I do usually, I am goint to left this thread and all the clinic, sucks!!
zapata said:
Of course he is clean and just some people in these kinds of forums thinks other way, and in cycling most of the people inside cycling world think that way.
if after all these time people think is froome the doper and not other in the past that now are not so strong is that you will never will see the reality.. but I think that the mayority of the people, people that know how are things now in cycling, are not going to het into here to write.
hamilton did a similar time in 2003. do you need I explain you the differen circunctances and differences betwwen that Tour and stage and this stage? do you really need? I hope you know more about cycling than that. just one difference, that was last mountains stage, today firt.
Find the other 8 differences. Luck!
Your message is agresive and I dont know how this kind of post are allowed, i cant understad, seriously,. riders deserve a minimum respect. froome is not guilty that other riders as lance did in the past, it was anothe era, another kind of antidoping.
I am very angry, but I think that as I do usually, I am goint to left this thread and all the clinic, sucks!!
Re: Re:
The PR-disaster never ends! This new trick by "revealing"' Froomes data is an admittance that the leaked data was correct and now they would like to take control of the narrative again. No wonder it was such a panic despite Brailsfraud lashing out against "arm-chair" experts.
But they clearly feels as if they must do something given that old foxes hinting, leaked data, Sky 1-2-3 and what it looks like total destruction in this Tour. Either they buy themselves little transparency-points by promising a "open test" somewhere in a looming horizon that sounds good for the moment and calms the doubters. Or they actually do a test somewhere in September that either comes up on a hidden PDF-file or gets massive attention when Murdochs gathering pawns writes up Froomes extraordinary physique to mutant levels in their own press
The PR-disaster never ends! This new trick by "revealing"' Froomes data is an admittance that the leaked data was correct and now they would like to take control of the narrative again. No wonder it was such a panic despite Brailsfraud lashing out against "arm-chair" experts.
But they clearly feels as if they must do something given that old foxes hinting, leaked data, Sky 1-2-3 and what it looks like total destruction in this Tour. Either they buy themselves little transparency-points by promising a "open test" somewhere in a looming horizon that sounds good for the moment and calms the doubters. Or they actually do a test somewhere in September that either comes up on a hidden PDF-file or gets massive attention when Murdochs gathering pawns writes up Froomes extraordinary physique to mutant levels in their own press
Yeah, that's exactly what they're doing. Attempting to regain control of the narrative.
Like last time they asked an independent entity to prove Froome's performance has remained roughly constant, no alien leaps at all...if you start in 2011, Vuelta. *** hilarious.
But it will once again work for the median fan. They'll swallow it hook line and sinker
Like last time they asked an independent entity to prove Froome's performance has remained roughly constant, no alien leaps at all...if you start in 2011, Vuelta. *** hilarious.
But it will once again work for the median fan. They'll swallow it hook line and sinker
I always try to keep an open mind, give the benefit of the doubt, wait for evidence... but after today's escape up the mountain, I have to wonder if Froome's nickname shouldn't be "El Chappy"...
Here are a couple of links that have been posted here before, but are relevant to the discussion and should be presented again:
First, Grappe’s 2013 study of Froome, based on SRM data: http://www.fredericgrappe.com/?p=1322
Some key points:
1) Based on power data, he concluded Froome’s V02max was at least 85, and possibly as high as 90. Without knowing LT or efficiency, this is guessing, but one assumes that he was using relatively high values of these parameters, or else the V02max would have to be even higher. Recall that in his interview with Kimmage last year, Froome alluded to a value of around 85. There would also have to be corrections for the effect of altitude on V02max.
2) Grappe claimed that Froome’s power-time curve was normal, in that he lost 60 watts, or about 0.88 watts/kg, going from 20 min. to 60 min. This is relevant to extrapolating from today’s climb to Tucker’s line in the sand, as I will discuss in a moment.
3) He claimed Froome’s weight was constant within a narrow range, 68 kg. +/- less than 1 kg.
Second, a study of several GC riders, including Froome and Contador. Most of the power estimates were based on climbing times: http://www.fietsica.be/Grand_Tour_Champions.pdf
1) The author estimates Froome’s Ventoux climb as 5.70 watts/kg, which is consistent with the 388 watts in the hacked data, assuming a weight of 68 kg., which is what Grappe provides. I now see why Tucker thought this was an important confirmation of the VAM estimate. Based on the usual power-time curves—and now recall Grappe said Froome was normal in this regard—the Ventoux climb corresponds to a 30 min climb with a power of 6.0-6.1 watts/kg. This is right on the cusp of Tucker’s current line in the sand, though below the 6.2 watts/kg he argued two years ago.
2) The author claims that Froome’s times for six finishing climbs of TDF 2012 and 2013 fall on a straight line in a log plot, with Toussuire and ADH both at about 5.75 watts/kg, and Semnoz about 6.0 watts/kg. These data support Grappe’s conclusion that Froome has a normal power-time curve, and again, just about fall within Tucker’s line in the sand. E.g., Semnoz was about 30 min, and was done at an estimated 6.0 watts/kg.
3) However, today’s climb was about the same length as Alpe and Toussuire, yet by VAM he was at about 6.1 watts/kg, and from Gesink’s SRM data, it seems he might have been even higher, 6.3 watts/kg. So he appears to be at a higher level than 2012/2013, and certainly beyond not only Tucker’s current line, but his earlier line of 6.2 watts/kg. That is, if we assume the 6.1 watts/kg is correct for the 40+ minute climb, this would correspond to 6.3-6.4 watts/kg for a 30 minute climb. And if we assume that 6.3 watts is really the correct power, this corresponds to 6.5-6.6 watts per 30 minutes.
This latter value (which I incline towards, because Gesink's SRM data should be more accurate than VAM estimates) is clearly well beyond Tucker’s view of the line, and I think very difficult for anyone to defend. If Froome is really clean, either he has an extraordinarily high V02max, in the 90s as Greg's was reported to be, and/or an exceptionally high efficiency, in the mid or even upper 20s as has been reported in a few studies with unidentified riders. If he's really intending to explain everything after the Tour, he need to provide values for all three of these parameters. But that will still leave unexplained the big jump in performance in 2011.
First, Grappe’s 2013 study of Froome, based on SRM data: http://www.fredericgrappe.com/?p=1322
Some key points:
1) Based on power data, he concluded Froome’s V02max was at least 85, and possibly as high as 90. Without knowing LT or efficiency, this is guessing, but one assumes that he was using relatively high values of these parameters, or else the V02max would have to be even higher. Recall that in his interview with Kimmage last year, Froome alluded to a value of around 85. There would also have to be corrections for the effect of altitude on V02max.
2) Grappe claimed that Froome’s power-time curve was normal, in that he lost 60 watts, or about 0.88 watts/kg, going from 20 min. to 60 min. This is relevant to extrapolating from today’s climb to Tucker’s line in the sand, as I will discuss in a moment.
3) He claimed Froome’s weight was constant within a narrow range, 68 kg. +/- less than 1 kg.
Second, a study of several GC riders, including Froome and Contador. Most of the power estimates were based on climbing times: http://www.fietsica.be/Grand_Tour_Champions.pdf
1) The author estimates Froome’s Ventoux climb as 5.70 watts/kg, which is consistent with the 388 watts in the hacked data, assuming a weight of 68 kg., which is what Grappe provides. I now see why Tucker thought this was an important confirmation of the VAM estimate. Based on the usual power-time curves—and now recall Grappe said Froome was normal in this regard—the Ventoux climb corresponds to a 30 min climb with a power of 6.0-6.1 watts/kg. This is right on the cusp of Tucker’s current line in the sand, though below the 6.2 watts/kg he argued two years ago.
2) The author claims that Froome’s times for six finishing climbs of TDF 2012 and 2013 fall on a straight line in a log plot, with Toussuire and ADH both at about 5.75 watts/kg, and Semnoz about 6.0 watts/kg. These data support Grappe’s conclusion that Froome has a normal power-time curve, and again, just about fall within Tucker’s line in the sand. E.g., Semnoz was about 30 min, and was done at an estimated 6.0 watts/kg.
3) However, today’s climb was about the same length as Alpe and Toussuire, yet by VAM he was at about 6.1 watts/kg, and from Gesink’s SRM data, it seems he might have been even higher, 6.3 watts/kg. So he appears to be at a higher level than 2012/2013, and certainly beyond not only Tucker’s current line, but his earlier line of 6.2 watts/kg. That is, if we assume the 6.1 watts/kg is correct for the 40+ minute climb, this would correspond to 6.3-6.4 watts/kg for a 30 minute climb. And if we assume that 6.3 watts is really the correct power, this corresponds to 6.5-6.6 watts per 30 minutes.
This latter value (which I incline towards, because Gesink's SRM data should be more accurate than VAM estimates) is clearly well beyond Tucker’s view of the line, and I think very difficult for anyone to defend. If Froome is really clean, either he has an extraordinarily high V02max, in the 90s as Greg's was reported to be, and/or an exceptionally high efficiency, in the mid or even upper 20s as has been reported in a few studies with unidentified riders. If he's really intending to explain everything after the Tour, he need to provide values for all three of these parameters. But that will still leave unexplained the big jump in performance in 2011.
Basically confirms every single one of those were cheap media pr stunts he could use to pretend to be anti doping later.
Re: Re:
I'd have a problem if some of them were clean, in that case I'd shout
what I don't like is this pot/kettle behaviour of many twitter/forum users
the difference is just the more efficient doping / level of doping
today the Contador fan boys/girls were outraged
maybe Froome dopes better than Alberto or better than Quintana
but none of them does it clean
even the Clinic has not a problem with people cheating.
it's always about liking a rider/team and not liking another one
Eagle said:You have no problem with people cheatingpastronef said:
I'd have a problem if some of them were clean, in that case I'd shout
what I don't like is this pot/kettle behaviour of many twitter/forum users
the difference is just the more efficient doping / level of doping
today the Contador fan boys/girls were outraged
maybe Froome dopes better than Alberto or better than Quintana
but none of them does it clean
even the Clinic has not a problem with people cheating.
it's always about liking a rider/team and not liking another one
Froome's Ventoux was 5.88 W/kg (as calculated by vetooo, which was confirmed by the power file).
Re:
The Sky PR Spin Machine just went into a 1000W seated attack.
Didn't he harp away about the lack of testing on Tenerife just as he was leaving, but conveniently enough, while Nibbles was set to spend few more days there?The Hitch said:
The Sky PR Spin Machine just went into a 1000W seated attack.
Re: Re:
You reckon guys like Pinot (possibly) aren't being cheated out of podium places by all these cheats (Froome, Contador, Nibali, Quintana, Valverde etc)?
pastronef said:Eagle said:You have no problem with people cheatingpastronef said:
I'd have a problem if some of them were clean, in that case I'd shout
what I don't like is this pot/kettle behaviour of many twitter/forum users
the difference is just the more efficient doping / level of doping
today the Contador fan boys/girls were outraged
maybe Froome dopes better than Alberto or better than Quintana
but none of them does it clean
even the Clinic has not a problem with people cheating.
it's always about liking a rider/team and not liking another one
You reckon guys like Pinot (possibly) aren't being cheated out of podium places by all these cheats (Froome, Contador, Nibali, Quintana, Valverde etc)?
Re:
But to 1-2 the stage and take 1 minute.03 out of the 1st best non Sky rider and 2 minutes out of the 2nd best none Sky rider. Have G beat Contador and Nibali and cruise in with a group that contained the riders that will make the podium. After pulling for Froome and taking it easy.
On a 1 climb stage which is also the first mountain of the Tour.
Nope.
Ummm, no one expected this. Many thought it would be a stalemate. I was one of the few that had Froome to win the stage.TheSpud said:
But to 1-2 the stage and take 1 minute.03 out of the 1st best non Sky rider and 2 minutes out of the 2nd best none Sky rider. Have G beat Contador and Nibali and cruise in with a group that contained the riders that will make the podium. After pulling for Froome and taking it easy.
On a 1 climb stage which is also the first mountain of the Tour.
Nope.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram