Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[thehog]

http://www.bicycling.co.za/training-nutrition/dr-jeroen-swart-answers-your-questions/

From training advice, to recovering from illness to the low carb, high fat diet; here are just some of the questions that were asked in the Q&A with Dr Jeroen Swart.

Q: I struggle to fit training rides in during the week. Commuting is not an option and I don’t have time to ride 2 hours before / after work. Can I spin during the week? Will it be as effective as riding on the road?

A: Spinning is a good way to supplement your training if you are missing out on numerous sessions. If you plan to do a hard interval session in the days following the spinning class, make sure you avoid exercising at too high an intensity. Don’t turn up the resistance dial. Just spin along and fake it. Most women are good at this.

Well, he certainly is South African!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

I'm actually interested in what will be published, if it does include the 2007 tests, I actually want to see it. According to JV is showed Froome's 'crazy adaptive physiology'.

I share your interest, is Froome the next Laurent Fignon who just needed some advice from Bobby J. or not?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I'm actually interested in what will be published, if it does include the 2007 tests, I actually want to see it. According to JV is showed Froome's 'crazy adaptive physiology'.

I share your interest, is Froome the next Laurent Fignon who just needed some advice from Bobby J. or not?

The two interesting aspects will be the type of data presented and the verbiage around it. I'm more interested in the 2007 data as it wouldn't have been tainted or selected. This was at a time when Froome wasn't Dawg. Let's see.

I have my doubts but will wait to December what is presented.

 

[the sceptic]

should be interesting to see how they will fix the 2007 test scores to make Dawg look like a talented rider.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

should be interesting to see how they will fix the 2007 test scores to make Dawg look like a talented rider.

They'll fix them and compare them to a young Hinault, LeMond, Fignon etc etc

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

lol, peer review. are you serious? maybe they should do the same on marginal gains then.

So, according to Richard Moore, the data will be in a peer-reviewed journal after the Esquire article. Everybody jumped on me in late October when I noted that this could be a reason for the delay in releasing the data.

 

[zalacain]

Esquire? Really respected in the world of anti-doping then?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

lol, peer review. are you serious? maybe they should do the same on marginal gains then.

So, according to Richard Moore, the data will be in a peer-reviewed journal after the Esquire article. Everybody jumped on me in late October when I noted that this could be a reason for the delay in releasing the data.

Why publish it in Esquire in the first place? Why does Moore have to be involved? Moore is as much omerta as any cycling journalist! Getting Moore involved means the whole thing is lacking any credibility, which is par for the course for Sky. It all about PR.

His whitewashing of Froome will supercede the peer reviewed journal, if there is one. Sky only care about the court of public opinion.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

The interesting part will be the comparison suggested by Froome's tweet of Froome 2015 v Froome 2007

That's what people on here and on twitter have been crying out for, no?

Care to elaborate? Like many of this Asylum FroomeCound blocked me so I cant read all those interesting stuff he twitters about.

I am a Froome fan who's not a believer, and I am blocked. there is an easy way: log out and you can read

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Why publish it in Esquire in the first place? Why does Moore have to be involved? Moore is as much omerta as any cycling journalist! Getting Moore involved means the whole thing is lacking any credibility, which is par for the course for Sky. It all about PR.

His whitewashing of Froome will supercede the peer reviewed journal, if there is one. Sky only care about the court of public opinion.

Because the two articles are for vastly different audiences and will tell different facets of the same story. They complement each other in many respects. I mentioned earlier why I thought peer review might be something SKY would do to attempt to lend the data more credibility than if they released the data themselves.

 

[Benotti69]

Nope it all about PR. Trying to control the message. The Brailsford interview with Kimmage when Kimmage nailed him with the "it is important to be transparent, not appearing to be transparent". Sky took that and did the opposite.

They should release everything and let the world at the data! That would be transparency, not a guy like Moore who will never spit in the soup!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

I am a Froome fan who's not a believer, and I am blocked. there is an easy way: log out and you can read

You of all people should know I dont really care about that Pastro!

But thanks for the tip mate.



fleurs twitter, and yours, are much more interesting than any pro - cyclist around to be frank

 

[djpbaltimore]

I don't deny that the whole circus is mostly (if not entirely) designed for PR. But there is also a reason why the mass media publishes articles about abstruse scientific journal findings, removing the jargon and technical language to make it more accessible to the lay-public. Just take the 'bacon causes cancer' controversy of last week. The original finding was published in a journal called Lancet, where it had the reach of maybe a million (just a rough estimate). Mass media publishing stories about it gave the story a world wide audience.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Esquire? Really respected in the world of anti-doping then?

Well Esquire does have a history of publishing cycling-related articles.

 

[doperhopper]

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.

better money-making cow than their books (nothing new, every lowlevel celebrity sells self-rumors) - 1. give journos some meaningless numbers 2. get cash 3. repeat next month pref. with another journal (they will be happy to generate interest, a bit of controversy only helps)

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

The interesting part will be the comparison suggested by Froome's tweet of Froome 2015 v Froome 2007

That's what people on here and on twitter have been crying out for, no?

Care to elaborate? Like many of this Asylum FroomeCound blocked me so I cant read all those interesting stuff he twitters about.

I am a Froome fan who's not a believer, and I am blocked. there is an easy way: log out and you can read

Kudos for not taking it personally. Got to laugh at fans like Slater who get their ego bruised when it happens.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

I don't deny that the whole circus is mostly (if not entirely) designed for PR. But there is also a reason why the mass media publishes articles about abstruse scientific journal findings, removing the jargon and technical language to make it more accessible to the lay-public. Just take the 'bacon causes cancer' controversy of last week. The original finding was published in a journal called Lancet, where it had the reach of maybe a million (just a rough estimate). Mass media publishing stories about it gave the story a world wide audience.

No way is this going to be presented in an honest laypersons worded article. It will be presented as Froome is the greatest natural talent of the century who due to living in Africa had some catching up to do but was held back to due technical ability, bilharzia etc

Moore was not invited because he abhors cheating and doping. He was brought onside because he is a 'safe' hack who knows what to write.

Go find a Moore article damning Armstrong and his doping between 1999-2005.

Then ask yourself why Moore? He is omerta.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

I am a Froome fan who's not a believer, and I am blocked. there is an easy way: log out and you can read

You of all people should know I dont really care about that Pastro!

But thanks for the tip mate.



fleurs twitter, and yours, are much more interesting than any pro - cyclist around to be frank

ps. what's your twitter name?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

fleurs twitter, and yours, are much more interesting than any pro - cyclist around to be frank

Thanks

 

[Jacques (7 ch)]

Re: Re:

I don't deny that the whole circus is mostly (if not entirely) designed for PR. But there is also a reason why the mass media publishes articles about abstruse scientific journal findings, removing the jargon and technical language to make it more accessible to the lay-public. Just take the 'bacon causes cancer' controversy of last week. The original finding was published in a journal called Lancet, where it had the reach of maybe a million (just a rough estimate). Mass media publishing stories about it gave the story a world wide audience.

No way is this going to be presented in an honest laypersons worded article. It will be presented as Froome is the greatest natural talent of the century who due to living in Africa had some catching up to do but was held back to due technical ability, bilharzia etc

Moore was not invited because he abhors cheating and doping. He was brought onside because he is a 'safe' hack who knows what to write.

Go find a Moore article damning Armstrong and his doping between 1999-2005.

Then ask yourself why Moore? He is omerta.

Moore was embedded with Sky (or, perhaps more correctly, had privileged access) for a year in, I think, 2010 and wrote a book about it. He would certainly be seen as a safe pair of hands.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Moore was embedded with Sky (or, perhaps more correctly, had privileged access) for a year in, I think, 2010 and wrote a book about it. He would certainly be seen as a safe pair of hands.

Richard Moore was employed by / contracted to Sky Sports.

 

[observer]

regardless of the esquire article, the peer reviewed one would be a good source of info, no?
I agree that the esquire article will be about PR, but if the data is peer reviewed as well, we can take a closer look at that.

I'm very interested in the 2007 data. It could come down to a couple of outcomes, either Froome is a great natural talent, meaning that Braislford is a fool to not rate him before the Vuelta breakout performance, or that Froome isn't a natural talent.

 

[Lyon]

Re:

I don't deny that the whole circus is mostly (if not entirely) designed for PR. But there is also a reason why the mass media publishes articles about abstruse scientific journal findings, removing the jargon and technical language to make it more accessible to the lay-public. Just take the 'bacon causes cancer' controversy of last week. The original finding was published in a journal called Lancet, where it had the reach of maybe a million (just a rough estimate). Mass media publishing stories about it gave the story a world wide audience.

Froome causes cancer of the believer.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

regardless of the esquire article, the peer reviewed one would be a good source of info, no?

Pedantically, no.

It will most likely be behind a paywall, requiring $20-50 to view it, and it will not contain the raw data per se, but tables of summarised data or graphs with no indication of actual data point values.

The fact that Coyle could publish what he published about Armstrong proves the peer review process is complete bullsht and to continue to use this publishing process as an excuse for the lateness is smoke and mirrors.

I am, believe it or not, very interested to see what they release and more than happy to keep an open mind.

But DB did promise a Q&A session at Manchester in 2012, and we saw how well that went, didn't we?

 

[observer]

Re: Re:

regardless of the esquire article, the peer reviewed one would be a good source of info, no?

Pedantically, no.

It will most likely be behind a paywall, requiring $20-50 to view it, and it will not contain the raw data per se, but tables of summarised data or graphs with no indication of actual data point values.

The fact that Coyle could publish what he published about Armstrong proves the peer review process is complete bullsht and to continue to use this publishing process as an excuse for the lateness is smoke and mirrors.

I am, believe it or not, very interested to see what they release and more than happy to keep an open mind.

But DB did promise a Q&A session at Manchester in 2012, and we saw how well that went, didn't we?

Thanks, I'm in no way a science person so don't understand the process. I look forward to some info, I kinda like Froome as a personality in the peleton, but don't believe his rise. Happy to read with an open mind about it though.