Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

Basically Sky admitted Froome is putting out performances only achievable through doping. It is the only possible explanation for the shameless lies told today. Froome must be now under 66kg, the weight declared by him in June. Sky says he has 67.5. His power /kg declared by Sky is lower than for guys who showed actual data and finished minutes down. Why didn't they say, yes Froome put out 6.2 W/kg for 45 minutes. He is an exceptional athlete, the best mankind
has produced, deal with it. Because they know this is not the case. Dawg is a lab rat, a succesful experiment achieved with help from sky's undetectable pharmaceuticals.

This is why:

http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/20192/7452102/froome-trainingpeaks-analysis

Froome averaged 5.8w/kg at 406W for nearly an hour! He paced the event to perfection as the first half had a total altitude gain of 219m and he averaged 414w, versus the second half where the course had a total elevation gain of only 86m and he averaged 398w. There were certainly riders who started the time trial too hard and suffered in the final 20km where Froome ended up gaining ground.

They are consistent those data benders.

No oval chainrings there to f*uck up the numbers?

All is in the weight, wouldnt surprise me if he is 64/63 Kg.

Of course. Brailsford says he doesn't know Froome's. Straight lie like good ol Lance, looking in your eyes. Today they adjusted the weight to appear Dawg's performance is human. Why? Can't take responsibility? To me releasing a bunch of fake data is more incriminating than not releasing any. They try to cover up. And suddenly we find out that Froome is capable of a HR of 178. On Ventoux he did a motorbike acceleration with 158.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

6%: 5.78W/kg
5%: 5.85W/kg
4%: 5.9W/kg
3%: 5.96W/kg
0%: 6.15W/kg

If Kerrison's figure is accurate, Froome's ride could have been clean. However, the temperature was ridiculous on Tuesday, so to still put down those Watts is pretty impressive. Then again anything below 6W/kg on a day like that is probably fine. Anything above is verging on the ridiculous

So all of those figures would be ok ..

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

Please forgive the spud, he has just been mashed by sky's numbers for Froome.

Antoine VAYER ‏@festinaboy 5m5 minutes

We got plenty real riders SRM files from riders in La planche des belles filles. 5.78 w/kg for Froome: Big Laugh !

These Osymettric rings are so good, yet so few riders use them........Wiggins stopped using them they were too good.Didn't need the extra Osymetricness for his hour record

Really?? By whom? You or Vayer?

Vayer is just saying those numbers are a joke (ie manipulated), as are you.

Do you have proof? Of course not - but it suits your rhetoric to keep accusing Sky of lying. Its easy to throw *** isn't it?

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Of course. Brailsford says he doesn't know Froome's. Straight lie like good ol Lance, looking in your eyes. Today they adjusted the weight to appear Dawg's performance is human. Why? Can't take responsibility? To me releasing a bunch of fake data is more incriminating than not releasing any. They try to cover up. And suddenly we find out that Froome is capable of a HR of 178. On Ventoux he did a motorbike acceleration with 158.

I wouldn't expect DB to know Froomes weight at all. He's the CEO - he's in charge of strategy and overall direction, why the *** would he know Froomes weight on a daily basis? He might want to know that riders were on target, etc. but certainly not the minutiae (now I know he has been like that in the past, but it don't think he is now).

 

[the sceptic]

Agree. Hopefully Sky won't get away with this blatant lying.

 

[The Hitch]

Is there a recording of the kimmage interview?

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

lol jesus christ. Gesink being dirtier than Froome still doesn't explain why he was dropped like a **** stone yet somehow ended up with a better power to weight ratio.

Maybe Gesink is the cleanest of the GC guys. My point was that his published numbers could be just as off as Froom's.

I don't know if it was this thread or not, but someone floated the idea of having (top GC) riders weigh in at sign in. If teams want us to believe them, they need to give the fans the variables (weight, power data, etc...) so that we can easily 'do the math'. The first team to offer real numbers to the fans will be the sh*t! If they provide real numbers, and do well or win, they will really be king!

I'm such a hypocrite though because I love NFL but don't care what they load up on to play well, but I want my cyclist to be clean(er).

 

[Bronstein]

Re:

Is there a recording of the kimmage interview?

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/paul-kimmage-on-chris-froome-team-sky-and-the-2015-tour-de-france

 

[No_Balls]

Re: Re:

Basically Sky admitted Froome is putting out performances only achievable through doping. It is the only possible explanation for the shameless lies told today. Froome must be now under 66kg, the weight declared by him in June. Sky says he has 67.5. His power /kg declared by Sky is lower than for guys who showed actual data and finished minutes down. Why didn't they say, yes Froome put out 6.2 W/kg for 45 minutes. He is an exceptional athlete, the best mankind
has produced, deal with it. Because they know this is not the case. Dawg is a lab rat, a succesful experiment achieved with help from sky's undetectable pharmaceuticals.

This is why:

http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/20192/7452102/froome-trainingpeaks-analysis

Froome averaged 5.8w/kg at 406W for nearly an hour! He paced the event to perfection as the first half had a total altitude gain of 219m and he averaged 414w, versus the second half where the course had a total elevation gain of only 86m and he averaged 398w. There were certainly riders who started the time trial too hard and suffered in the final 20km where Froome ended up gaining ground.

They are consistent those data benders.

No oval chainrings there to f*uck up the numbers?

All is in the weight, wouldnt surprise me if he is 64/63 Kg.

Of course. Brailsford says he doesn't know Froome's. Straight lie like good ol Lance, looking in your eyes. Today they adjusted the weight to appear Dawg's performance is human. Why? Can't take responsibility? To me releasing a bunch of fake data is more incriminating than not releasing any. They try to cover up. And suddenly we find out that Froome is capable of a HR of 178. On Ventoux he did a motorbike acceleration with 158.

Nah. They just bullshitting while looking good doing it. All they do is release a couple of carefully selected numbers general people doesnt know how to interpret (leaving aside people in the know who is silent) and everything is supposed to be fine. Better do that then not releasing anything. Who is gonna call them out for it? Newspapers and journalists owned by Rupert or the puppet president?

Now that Lemond has once again found himself on the wrong side of the doping debate the rest quickly follows. All this Sky's calculated with.

 

[gazr99]

I didn't realise there were so many talented physiologists on the forum who know how to interpret data like the pros? Also out of curiosity how many riders have actually told the press in the middle of the race their precise weight? I know of riders saying they have lost a few kgs normally before a race or at the start of the season thats it

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

6%: 5.78W/kg
5%: 5.85W/kg
4%: 5.9W/kg
3%: 5.96W/kg
0%: 6.15W/kg

If Kerrison's figure is accurate, Froome's ride could have been clean. However, the temperature was ridiculous on Tuesday, so to still put down those Watts is pretty impressive. Then again anything below 6W/kg on a day like that is probably fine. Anything above is verging on the ridiculous

So all of those figures would be ok ..

OK meaning "humanly possible". Strage bar we set for OK if that's the case since that's incredibly unlikely, whereas doping is incredibly likely. OK meaning they didn't lie about the weight, despite Froome himself claiming several kilos less in the Kimmage interview and a Cyclingnews interview leading up to the Tour?

No. Not OK. Obvious lying, and obvious fudging of the numbers.

 

[TheSpud]

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

I didn't realise there were so many talented physiologists on the forum who know how to interpret data like the pros? Also out of curiosity how many riders have actually told the press in the middle of the race their precise weight? I know of riders saying they have lost a few kgs normally before a race or at the start of the season thats it

Your boys should re-hire Lienders, he was absolutely fab on weighing riders in the morning. Welcome to the forum btw.

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

So, your point is?

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

I didn't realise there were so many talented physiologists on the forum who know how to interpret data like the pros? Also out of curiosity how many riders have actually told the press in the middle of the race their precise weight? I know of riders saying they have lost a few kgs normally before a race or at the start of the season thats it

None. Nobody cares unless you are winning the Tour.

That's why there was a proposal of weight in at the beginning of the stage.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re:

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

1. Sky release data
2. Data shows power wildly out of line with other riders, ergo fudged by squeezing every bit of possible calculation error out of it
3. Data shows Froome's max HR has magically increased by at least 7 bpm since 2013
4. Data shows Sky are lying yet again

 

[Eagle]

Re:

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

No, it hasn't

 

[Bronstein]

Re:

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

Except for the time gaps at the finish. 1:33 to Gesink and 2:04 to Yates. You're doing a good job of embarrassing yourself at every turn. Keep it up.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I didn't realise there were so many talented physiologists on the forum who know how to interpret data like the pros? Also out of curiosity how many riders have actually told the press in the middle of the race their precise weight? I know of riders saying they have lost a few kgs normally before a race or at the start of the season thats it

Your boys should re-hire Lienders, he was absolutely fab on weighing riders in the morning. Welcome to the forum btw.

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

So, your point is?

My point is that they have provided data that shows Froome's power in line with other riders and a lot of people on here have immediately just said they are lying.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

I didn't realise there were so many talented physiologists on the forum who know how to interpret data like the pros? Also out of curiosity how many riders have actually told the press in the middle of the race their precise weight? I know of riders saying they have lost a few kgs normally before a race or at the start of the season thats it

No one is arguing that others have released exact weights. The point is that without an accurate weight, the numbers Sky released are completely meaningless. They provided the data, so they need to provide proof it's accurate, including rider weight. So either provide the correct weight with proof or admit the data is useless.

The numbers Sky released show less W/kg than the competitors who he beat. Why?
Sky claim a 6% adjustment for the oval chainrings. I have heard the manufacturer says 4-5%. Why 6%?
The weight they released for Froome, 67.5 kg, is higher than Froome himself claims in the Kimmage interview as 66 and in Cyclingnews earlier this year at 66, with presumably more weight to drop. Why the discrepancy?

Strangely, if you put in the correct weight, which I'd put at 65 kg due to weight loss during the Tour and the right adjustment for the chainring, you end up with numbers that probably aren't humanly possible and certainly aren't for Froome in the race conditions of the day.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

Except for the time gaps at the finish. 1:33 to Gesink and 2:04 to Yates. You're doing a good job of embarrassing yourself at every turn. Keep it up.

And you are an expert in physiology are you??? And how many on here are? You all love to take the numbers and quote them but I bet you know F'all about it.

The main poster on here worthy of being taken seriously is Merck Index.

You see the numbers, it doesnt support what you want and you call fowl. So CF beat another rider with the same (ish) power. Are you qualified to comment about it? I think not.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

I have just loved today.

1. Sky release data.
2. Data shows power & other data in line with other riders.
3. Data doesn't show / support Clinic 12 view that Sky are doping.
4. Clinic 12 view = they are lying to cover up and therefore must be doping.

Can you expand on your 2nd point? How do you explain riders losing lots of time to Froome doing more W/kg?

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Is there a recording of the kimmage interview?

Worth reposting

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/paul-kimmage-on-chris-froome-team-sky-and-the-2015-tour-de-france

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

ignoring that posters have shown the figure are different from other figures, but hey dont let that get in the way of obfuscation and shoot the clinic....MV part deux

Have they????

Show the post ....

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

My point is that they have provided data that shows Froome's power in line with other riders and a lot of people on here have immediately just said they are lying.

His power was the same, uh, lower than Gesink, yet he was able to sprint away on a pretty tough mountain. Somehow the math got mixed up there, perhaps not for you but for others it doesnt look to be right. Make your next try better.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

I didn't realise there were so many talented physiologists on the forum who know how to interpret data like the pros? Also out of curiosity how many riders have actually told the press in the middle of the race their precise weight? I know of riders saying they have lost a few kgs normally before a race or at the start of the season thats it

No one is arguing that others have released exact weights. The point is that without an accurate weight, the numbers Sky released are completely meaningless. They provided the data, so they need to provide proof it's accurate, including rider weight. So either provide the correct weight with proof or admit the data is useless.

The numbers Sky released show less W/kg than the competitors who he beat. Why?
Sky claim a 6% adjustment for the oval chainrings. I have heard the manufacturer says 4-5%. Why 6%?
The weight they released for Froome, 67.5 kg, is higher than Froome himself claims in the Kimmage interview as 66 and in Cyclingnews earlier this year at 66, with presumably more weight to drop. Why the discrepancy?

Strangely, if you put in the correct weight, which I'd put at 65 kg due to weight loss during the Tour and the right adjustment for the chainring, you end up with numbers that probably aren't humanly possible and certainly aren't for Froome in the race conditions of the day.

Pretty sure Froome said a few days ago he weighs between 67 & 68kgs, which he has also said in other interviews. In fact he called 67kg his magic weight in grand tours a while back