Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Must stop, check out Sky replica kit. Take off Kask helmet, put on Oakley sunglasses, Rapha cap. Order coffee. Talk about how many miles you do on your own outside the group. Adjust heart rate strap. Check Strava stats. Check David Millar's twitter account. Adjust Rapha gilet. Put on neck tie. Talking about leg shaving. Chamois cream application. Carefully groom Wiggo-esque sideburns. Drink coffee. Order another coffee. Drink coffee. Talk about weather, Pinarello bike, Paul Weller, the latest David Walsh book, the genius of Sir Dave Brailsford, new equipment, marginal gains, whether you ought to purchase a motor home to bring to the group ride next week, whether your kid has a shot at getting into Gordonstoun. Ride home.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Michelle is such a mess on twitter

Michelle Froome ‏@michellefroome 3 uur3 uur geleden
@mattslaterbbc @PaulKimmage haven't had a single enquiry from either of you & you know it. Enough with the lies!

Matt Slater ‏@mattslaterbbc 2 u2 uur geleden
@michellefroome @PaulKimmage what? We came to Monaco to ask you? And I'd asked you before we came. I asked DB at ToB.

Michelle Froome ‏@michellefroome 3 u3 uur geleden Vertaling weergeven
@mattslaterbbc @PaulKimmage you both have my personal email & phone number, so what's stopping you?!?! Do your damn job!

Matt Slater ‏@mattslaterbbc 2 u2 uur geleden
@michellefroome @PaulKimmage will you unblock me?

Michelle Froome ‏@michellefroome 2 u2 uur geleden
@mattslaterbbc @PaulKimmage we are following each other?! I haven't blocked you.

Matt Slater ‏@mattslaterbbc 2 u2 uur geleden
@michellefroome @PaulKimmage you know what I'm talking about

Handbags

 

[TailWindHome]

Sports scientists recently completed their analysis of my tests done at the @UCI_cycling @WCC_cycling in 2007 & the @GSK_HPL this year.

Chris Froome ‏@chrisfroome · 37m37 minutes ago
All the details will be published by @EsquireUK (print & online) on the 3rd of December @UCI_cycling @WCC_cycling @GSK_HPL

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Analysis is meaningless wtihout raw data.

 

[The Hitch]

Some people have accounts just to come in here and post Froome's tweets?

 

[TailWindHome]

Re:

Some people have accounts just to come in here and post Froome's tweets?

Who?
Me?

Thought the 'official' confirmation of how and where Froome's test data was to be released would be of interest

Is it not?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Some people have accounts just to come in here and post Froome's tweets?

He's blocked so many ppl it's actually not a bad public service.

 

[Electress]

Re:

Analysis is meaningless wtihout raw data.

What, you doubt that Esquire's staffers are qualified, objective and rigorous enough to do the job?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Analysis is meaningless wtihout raw data.

What, you doubt that Esquire's staffers are qualified, objective and rigorous enough to do the job?

hehehh they are paying Froome to publish the results.

Someone else is doing the analysis. I don't trust them, or the data they receive, or both.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

Some people have accounts just to come in here and post Froome's tweets?

Who?
Me?

Thought the 'official' confirmation of how and where Froome's test data was to be released would be of interest

Is it not?

eheh, you know how it goes

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Some people have accounts just to come in here and post Froome's tweets?

Who?
Me?

Thought the 'official' confirmation of how and where Froome's test data was to be released would be of interest

Is it not?

Froome is not releasing anything. Esquire are publishing an article.

Esquire that tome of sports science journalism that is truly independent.

Richard Moore is the guy writing the article for Esquire. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[SeriousSam]

To provide actual evidence, they'd need to either release raw data or give it to a trustworthy analyst who would not have an incentive to whitewash Sky.

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

Some people have accounts just to come in here and post Froome's tweets?

Who?
Me?

Thought the 'official' confirmation of how and where Froome's test data was to be released would be of interest

Is it not?

Froome is not releasing anything. Esquire are publishing an article.

Esquire that tome of sports science journalism that is truly independent.

Richard Moore is the guy writing the article for Esquire. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

We'll all find out on 3rd Dec exactly what is released. For my part I'm happy to wait until then to decide what it means and what it adds to the Froome 'debate'

If you're minded to you could have a look at the Sky thread on BR and see what Richard Moore says about Esquire publication. My understanding is that there will be the publication of the article and a separate publication of the paper.

 

[TailWindHome]

Re:

To provide actual evidence, they'd need to either release raw data or give it to a trustworthy analyst who would not have an incentive to whitewash Sky.

Who would you trust to do this?

 

[harryh]

The magazine is Esquire. I was the journalist in the lab and I offered the story to Esquire because they publish long-form journalism, and I have done stories with them before and liked what they did. The choice of publication was mine. It's not a puff piece.

The work done in the lab will appear as a peer-reviewed, scientific paper, but this will take time.

The article will be published on 3 December. The delay is because it took the scientists (two from the GSK lab in London and Jeroen Swart from South Africa) several weeks to finalise their report. It then took me a couple of weeks to write the story and Esquire work about 6 weeks ahead of publication.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13032670&start=1340#p19735160

 

[thehog]

Re:

The magazine is Esquire. I was the journalist in the lab and I offered the story to Esquire because they publish long-form journalism, and I have done stories with them before and liked what they did. The choice of publication was mine. It's not a puff piece.

The work done in the lab will appear as a peer-reviewed, scientific paper, but this will take time.

The article will be published on 3 December. The delay is because it took the scientists (two from the GSK lab in London and Jeroen Swart from South Africa) several weeks to finalise their report. It then took me a couple of weeks to write the story and Esquire work about 6 weeks ahead of publication.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13032670&start=1340#p19735160

Seems reasonable to me. I'm actually looking forward to reading it with an open mind.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

To provide actual evidence, they'd need to either release raw data or give it to a trustworthy analyst who would not have an incentive to whitewash Sky.

Who would you trust to do this?

Problably Ross Tucker.

Glad in my field the raw data along with code generating the analysis is routinely released. That's the only way to ensure the conclusions from some data analysis really are backed by the data.

 

[harryh]

Cant' see Tucker more reliable than Swart. Actually they seem to know each other very well.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

The magazine is Esquire. I was the journalist in the lab and I offered the story to Esquire because they publish long-form journalism, and I have done stories with them before and liked what they did. The choice of publication was mine. It's not a puff piece.

The work done in the lab will appear as a peer-reviewed, scientific paper, but this will take time.

The article will be published on 3 December. The delay is because it took the scientists (two from the GSK lab in London and Jeroen Swart from South Africa) several weeks to finalise their report. It then took me a couple of weeks to write the story and Esquire work about 6 weeks ahead of publication.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13032670&start=1340#p19735160

Seems reasonable to me. I'm actually looking forward to reading it with an open mind.

nice to hear that
I look forward to it too

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The magazine is Esquire. I was the journalist in the lab and I offered the story to Esquire because they publish long-form journalism, and I have done stories with them before and liked what they did. The choice of publication was mine. It's not a puff piece.

The work done in the lab will appear as a peer-reviewed, scientific paper, but this will take time.

The article will be published on 3 December. The delay is because it took the scientists (two from the GSK lab in London and Jeroen Swart from South Africa) several weeks to finalise their report. It then took me a couple of weeks to write the story and Esquire work about 6 weeks ahead of publication.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13032670&start=1340#p19735160

Seems reasonable to me. I'm actually looking forward to reading it with an open mind.

nice to hear that
I look forward to it too

All types of data requires verbiage, context and peer review if scientific. That takes time. Nothing unusual with this type of process.

Being that it is boring data and that it is to the published I fully expect that it had to be wrapped around an article about Froome. Releasing it to CyclingNews in raw format wouldn't have helped anyone.

Nevertheless, I will hold a critical eye on what is presented. Additionally, it appears fairly obvious that the data that will be presented will be from the GSK test and nothing prior to Froome sudden transformational change in September 2011. With that in mind I'm not sure the data will tell an awful lot. It's one snapshot in time and not a set of data points over a long period of time.

I expect Walsh and co. to jump foolhardy on that it exonerates Froome and many will state it's not enough.

But let's wait and see what gets presented. I think the more types of data that is released the better, even if it's watered down.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

Analysis is meaningless wtihout raw data.

What, you doubt that Esquire's staffers are qualified, objective and rigorous enough to do the job?

hehehh they are paying Froome to publish the results.

Someone else is doing the analysis. I don't trust them, or the data they receive, or both.

And we have a winner...You're never going to be happy

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

Analysis is meaningless wtihout raw data.

What, you doubt that Esquire's staffers are qualified, objective and rigorous enough to do the job?

hehehh they are paying Froome to publish the results.

Someone else is doing the analysis. I don't trust them, or the data they receive, or both.

And we have a winner...You're never going to be happy

why would you trust anything coming from team sky? they have lied too much in the past for me to trust anything they say.

think about it. why would they give "haters" more ammuntion against Dawg? They are only letting him do this because the data will show exactly nothing, and they will get a pat on the back for transparency. Everyone wins.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

I expect Walsh and co. to jump foolhardy on that it exonerates Froome and many will state it's not enough.

But let's wait and see what gets presented. I think the more types of data that is released the better, even if it's watered down.

ehehe that´s for sure

 

[The Hitch]

A bit rich for sky's remaining defenders to think people should take this publicity stunt seriously. Let's get it straight. Froome and db have been caught lying dozens of times, including on issues like his weight loss (invented by Michelle) and bilharzia (discovered by jullich) and ztp (they had no idea jullich or rogers or Sutton or Yates doped ) where it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt that they are lying.

Yet 4 years into sky's reign we are supposed to forget about all this and treat this paper as an honest attempt at transparency?

No thanks. Sky have made their bed. It's like a team that is losing 13-0 declaring "next goal wins".

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Nevertheless, I will hold a critical eye on what is presented. Additionally, it appears fairly obvious that the data that will be presented will be from the GSK test and nothing prior to Froome sudden transformational change in September 2011. With that in mind I'm not sure the data will tell an awful lot. It's one snapshot in time and not a set of data points over a long period of time.

Possibly there will be something about it. Quote from BR (in response to our TWH's question) :

"TailWindHome wrote:
Hi Richard, welcome to the forum.
Is there anything in the testing which sheds any light on the improvement in Froome's performance from pre Vuelta 2011 to today?



Thank you and yes. This is the most interesting bit for me."