Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Peer review is flawed for sure, my favorite example is the Wakefield/Lancet fraudulent paper.

It is still, however, the best method out there.

The best method surely is the Monty Python witch method.

Peasants: We have found a doper! (A doper! a doper!)
Burn him burn him!

Peasant 1: We have found a doper, may we burn him?
(cheers)
Vladimir: How do you know he is a doper?
P2: He looks like one!

There we go, problem solved! No need to wait for any that peer reviewed stuff because the jury's already spoken. Burn them all! The whole sport!

Peasant 1: Now that cycling's gone what can we watch?
Vladimir: Athletics? I hear the Russians are rather good.
P2: Athletics!

Your attempt to derail this discussion has not gone unnoticed.

Please take your trolling to another forum and let these members have their conversation without being interrupted by this silliness.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Yes, that is a good point. Definitely a real possibility.

Most universities worth a grain of salt have their own peer review procedures for research and studies. Because they rely so heavily on funding they do like to “appear” that the research and subsequent peer review process is water tight.

Studies which are done outside of the academic arena are more open to poor standards. They run to their own rules.

Every time I read the phrase “Recent studies have shown....” or “A new study on xyz has shown...” my eyes roll over.

Froome's study is within the world of private enterprise thus the standards may come into question.

obviously not a buyer of ladies mosturising creams hog

I don't think that the interesting bit (2007) could be peer reviewed as it is in effect a review of old lab figures, a review in itself..???

....and for the recent tests then the biggest variable in that study is Froome himself...not the methodology or testing procedures (which is presumably what the 'peers' will focus on)...so...would the subject of the study, Froome himself, be in any way biased as to what the outcome might be??

Well I do shave my legs for cycling, moisturiser does come in handy

Anyway the Dawg has Tweeted his update:

 

[The Hitch]

Scientists are real people now. Dawg didn't seem to think so in July when they were being attacked and demonized

 

[thehog]

Re:

Scientists are real people now. Dawg didn't seem to think so in July when they were being attacked and demonized

They are pseudo. But when they are selected by Dawg, they are real.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Peer reviewed study. What a goof.

How about they just release the .fit files from a LT/Vo2 test from then and now?
Its really quite simple. When I want to check my progress over time, I review my .fit files from a test session in wko+ or TP, or Garmin Connect, etc, and its done. Want to know 1 hr FTP? 5 min FTP? 10 sec max power? Max 20 min? Its all there, and no matter how much I want to, I cant change the reality of the numbers.

All of this stalling and so on is BS, and any competent coach knows it.

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If they do, I also look forward to the explanation as to why every team he ever rode for and every race he did in SA showed him to be so ordinary.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If they do, I also look forward to the explanation as to why every team he ever rode for and every race he did in SA showed him to be so ordinary.

You will never be happy.
Even when Froome shows transparency and releases the numbers you want, still you ask questions. Where does it end?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If they do, I also look forward to the explanation as to why every team he ever rode for and every race he did in SA showed him to be so ordinary.

You will never be happy.
Even when Froome shows transparency and releases the numbers you want, still you ask questions. Where does it end?

Oprah?
Jeremy Kyle?
David Walsh's, "7 deadly Wiggins novels and a confession from Froome"?

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Re: Re:

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If they do, I also look forward to the explanation as to why every team he ever rode for and every race he did in SA showed him to be so ordinary.

Right- but that is on the teams and DS's...and not Froome.
For me, the question is quite simple: is the power output of pre-2011 Froome realistic compared with the 2015 Froome.

How he was seen by teams and so forth doesnt really matter in this context.

To repeat- a study isnt needed here. A look at the .fit files for standard test protocol would be more than enough, imo.
My fear is that we will only get an interpretation of data, with no "actual" data.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If they do, I also look forward to the explanation as to why every team he ever rode for and every race he did in SA showed him to be so ordinary.

Right- but that is on the teams and DS's...and not Froome.

Uhhhhh wha!?

So Froome can put out 6.1W/kg but his team and DS's say, "No no Froomey, just keep it in your shorts mate. Wait for another 4 years before you use all of your Hinault-like power".

Not buying it. Not one bit.

For me, the question is quite simple: is the power output of pre-2011 Froome realistic compared with the 2015 Froome.

And then, why did he ride so poorly pre-2011? Surely you see the need to have some valid explanation for his lack of performance?

Or are you going to say, oh. He could do 6.1W/kg since he turned pro. Fine then. Perfectly understandable. Must be clean.

How he was seen by teams and so forth doesnt really matter in this context.

Agreed. Which is why it has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[MTBrider]

Anybody willing to bet what the numbers are?

I think:
Absolute Vo2: 6.0
Relative Vo2: 85-93 (depending on how fat he as when he took the test).
Threshold power: 400-420 watts

I suspect no surprises. You will see the numbers will be what you expect from the tour de France champion.

What I would love to see is his absolute Vo2 pre-2011. He was pretty chunky back then, his increase sudden increase in speed could have come from losing his baby fat. But even in 2009 he would have been training long enough to be pretty near his peak absolute Vo2. If that number has changed then there is something else going on.

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If they do, I also look forward to the explanation as to why every team he ever rode for and every race he did in SA showed him to be so ordinary.

Right- but that is on the teams and DS's...and not Froome.

Uhhhhh wha!?

So Froome can put out 6.1W/kg but his team and DS's say, "No no Froomey, just keep it in your shorts mate. Wait for another 4 years before you use all of your Hinault-like power".

Not buying it. Not one bit.

I can see DB's explanation now, and linked to holding him back against Wigans at the TdF...
"We had to teach him how to contain and control his super powers, and not just unleash them upon an unsuspecting world. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility."

 

[Merckx index]

Some good posts here, esp. Electress’ comments. However, while I generally agree that one wouldn’t think analysis of a single rider’s data would be published as a journal article, the fact that he’s a two time TDF winner and considered currently the dominant GT rider in the world (sorry, Flor) might be used to justify that, just as Coyle published an entire paper just on LA. And obviously this works to Froome’s advantage, as having his data published in a peer-reviewed journal could be used as “proof” that the data are both valid and consistent with being clean. So when the Esquire article comes out, whatever negative reactions to it there may be, Froome can reply, “these data were thought good enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, when that comes out, you will see that all your criticisms are addressed.”

OTOH, according to the tweet thehog posted, the data have simply been submitted to the journal, or will be soon, it doesn’t say the journal has accepted the report. If that’s the case, Froome could be in trouble if the article is rejected, or as frequently happens, publication is delayed pending revisions. It really doesn’t matter if the rejection or delay is not for anything related to the validity of the data.

But what I’m unclear about is just what data will be released and analyzed. I assume that at a minimum, we will get maximum power at various times, something like what Pinot has published. Will we also get V02max/LT, so that the power can be physiologically rationalized? He threw out some V02 max numbers in that "not fully" interview a couple of years ago, and Grappe speculated pretty boldly on it, so I think it will be hard for him to ignore that. I think we will get a value of 85-90, with an analysis showing how this can support his observed power.

Of course we all want to know how pre- and post-2011 will be rationalized. I agree with others that weight loss will be a big part of it, Froome as much as said so in that interview. He will argue that before the weight loss his V02max was much lower, and consistent with less power. They will still have to explain why his TTng is so much better. My guess is he will just say that as a domestique he never really tried that hard, and hope that most people actually buy that.

Also, what about his boasts about his climb up the Madone, which worked out to what, almost 6.9 W/kg? I assume the data he releases will show a much lower maximum power. Somewhat lost in all the claims and counterclaims about Froome’s power in this year’s TDF is that he and Sky implicitly accepted the notion that a power output much above 6.0 suggests doping, as they seemed to want to emphasize that Froome’s power was really not that high. So is he going to admit that the Madone time was a lie? I’m really curious what he’ll say about that.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Some good posts here, esp. Electress’ comments. However, while I generally agree that one wouldn’t think analysis of a single rider’s data would be published as a journal article, the fact that he’s a two time TDF winner and considered currently the dominant GT rider in the world (sorry, Flor) might be used to justify that, just as Coyle published an entire paper just on LA. And obviously this works to Froome’s advantage, as having his data published in a peer-reviewed journal could be used as “proof” that the data are both valid and consistent with being clean. So when the Esquire article comes out, whatever negative reactions to it there may be, Froome can reply, “these data were thought good enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, when that comes out, you will see that all your criticisms are addressed.”

OTOH, according to the tweet thehog posted, the data have simply been submitted to the journal, or will be soon, it doesn’t say the journal has accepted the report. If that’s the case, Froome could be in trouble if the article is rejected, or as frequently happens, publication is delayed pending revisions. It really doesn’t matter if the rejection or delay is not for anything related to the validity of the data.

But what I’m unclear about is just what data will be released and analyzed. I assume that at a minimum, we will get maximum power at various times, something like what Pinot has published. Will we also get V02max/LT, so that the power can be physiologically rationalized? He threw out some V02 max numbers in that "not fully" interview a couple of years ago, and Grappe speculated pretty boldly on it, so I think it will be hard for him to ignore that. I think we will get a value of 85-90, with an analysis showing how this can support his observed power.

Of course we all want to know how pre- and post-2011 will be rationalized. I agree with others that weight loss will be a big part of it, Froome as much as said so in that interview. He will argue that before the weight loss his V02max was much lower, and consistent with less power. They will still have to explain why his TTng is so much better. My guess is he will just say that as a domestique he never really tried that hard, and hope that most people actually buy that.

Also, what about his boasts about his climb up the Madone, which worked out to what, almost 6.9 W/kg? I assume the data he releases will show a much lower maximum power. Somewhat lost in all the claims and counterclaims about Froome’s power in this year’s TDF is that he and Sky implicitly accepted the notion that a power output much above 6.0 suggests doping, as they seemed to want to emphasize that Froome’s power was really not that high. So is he going to admit that the Madone time was a lie? I’m really curious what he’ll say about that.

Good post, the other part was his transformation wasn't over the course of a year in 2011. It happened in 3 weeks, between Poland and the Vuelta. I have no idea how they'll explain that. Then again they most likely won't. I wonder if they'll show any passport data and/or proof of blood infected badzhilla?

Also like you say, they may just show the tests. Which is just a one off snapshot in time. I'm not sure what that might tell anyone, not a lot. You can dope before ergo test and record some fairly good results. I assume he wasn't drug tested prior or after. I've done FTP tests, looked at the results and thought, 'so what'. It only means something when there's a frequent set recorded over a period of time.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

Some good posts here, esp. Electress’ comments. However, while I generally agree that one wouldn’t think analysis of a single rider’s data would be published as a journal article, the fact that he’s a two time TDF winner and considered currently the dominant GT rider in the world (sorry, Flor) might be used to justify that, just as Coyle published an entire paper just on LA. And obviously this works to Froome’s advantage, as having his data published in a peer-reviewed journal could be used as “proof” that the data are both valid and consistent with being clean. So when the Esquire article comes out, whatever negative reactions to it there may be, Froome can reply, “these data were thought good enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, when that comes out, you will see that all your criticisms are addressed.”

Exactly what I wrote

Here's the main problem I have with the publishing of this data set in particular:

When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Good post, Dear Wiggo.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Re: Re:

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If they do, I also look forward to the explanation as to why every team he ever rode for and every race he did in SA showed him to be so ordinary.

Right- but that is on the teams and DS's...and not Froome.

Uhhhhh wha!?

So Froome can put out 6.1W/kg but his team and DS's say, "No no Froomey, just keep it in your shorts mate. Wait for another 4 years before you use all of your Hinault-like power".

Not buying it. Not one bit.

For me, the question is quite simple: is the power output of pre-2011 Froome realistic compared with the 2015 Froome.

And then, why did he ride so poorly pre-2011? Surely you see the need to have some valid explanation for his lack of performance?

Or are you going to say, oh. He could do 6.1W/kg since he turned pro. Fine then. Perfectly understandable. Must be clean.

How he was seen by teams and so forth doesnt really matter in this context.

Agreed. Which is why it has nothing to do with what I said.

False- what you said was...
"If they do, I also look forward to the explanation as to why every team he ever rode for and every race he did in SA showed him to be so ordinary."
If every team and race showed him to be ordinary, isnt it then those teams who have some explaining to do, as to why they hired him? Of course they do.
I think the transformation is a joke, and am well aware of what such a thing means. Im just pointing out that we already KNOW what Froome is going to say...but in this case the guys who kept hiring this clownshow must have some rationale as to WHY they kept him on. If his Vo2/HCT/LT numbers were awesome in 2005/6/7, it would certainly help the case.
If he was making 80 less w/FTP then that is a different story. Just sayin

 

[Dear Wiggo]

We've already had this - the doctor saying his blood paramters had remained unchanged.

This "analysis" was also done by Grappe yeah? Saying his in-race weight hardly changed at all for all 18 race days he had the fortune to analyse.

If this is anything special this time around I will be very surprised.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

False- what you said was...
"If they do, I also look forward to the explanation as to why every team he ever rode for and every race he did in SA showed him to be so ordinary."
If every team and race showed him to be ordinary, isnt it then those teams who have some explaining to do, as to why they hired him? Of course they do.
I think the transformation is a joke, and am well aware of what such a thing means. Im just pointing out that we already KNOW what Froome is going to say...but in this case the guys who kept hiring this clownshow must have some rationale as to WHY they kept him on.

Uh. I know what I said, I wrote it, and it was in the post you're quoting.

If someone is shown to be crap on a team, it's not the team's fault.

Because when that person goes great guns, it's not the team's fault then either.

In both cases (Barloworld, any race in SA pre-21 years of age and every Sky race pre-2011 Vuelta) he was shown to be crap. Utter crap in pro cyclist terms.

Suddenly Vuelta 2011 he's the best in the world.

And you reckon the exact same team and the exact same environment transformed him?

I call shenanigans.

It was Froome all along.

Next you'll be telling me Wiggo did well in 2009 due to Garmin. Wake up.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Re: Re:

False- what you said was...
"If they do, I also look forward to the explanation as to why every team he ever rode for and every race he did in SA showed him to be so ordinary."
If every team and race showed him to be ordinary, isnt it then those teams who have some explaining to do, as to why they hired him? Of course they do.
I think the transformation is a joke, and am well aware of what such a thing means. Im just pointing out that we already KNOW what Froome is going to say...but in this case the guys who kept hiring this clownshow must have some rationale as to WHY they kept him on.

Uh. I know what I said, I wrote it, and it was in the post you're quoting.

If someone is shown to be crap on a team, it's not the team's fault.

Because when that person goes great guns, it's not the team's fault then either.

In both cases (Barloworld, any race in SA pre-21 years of age and every Sky race pre-2011 Vuelta) he was shown to be crap. Utter crap in pro cyclist terms.

Suddenly Vuelta 2011 he's the best in the world.

And you reckon the exact same team and the exact same environment transformed him?

I call shenanigans.

It was Froome all along.

Next you'll be telling me Wiggo did well in 2009 due to Garmin. Wake up.

Im not sure if youre missing the point intentionally, or if youre just having some sort of comprehension issue.

 

[the sceptic]

Dawgs overnight transformation surely can't be explained with the badzilla since he was diagnosed months before the vuelta and it's trivial to treat.

 

[thehog]

Re:

We've already had this - the doctor saying his blood paramters had remained unchanged.

This "analysis" was also done by Grappe yeah? Saying his in-race weight hardly changed at all for all 18 race days he had the fortune to analyse.

If this is anything special this time around I will be very surprised.

Yes, Inside Sky Walsh spoke to Farell. Said his blood was stable and showed no spikes or signs of irregularities.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Im not sure if youre missing the point intentionally, or if youre just having some sort of comprehension issue.

Right back at you. I'll type this really slowly to help.

2011 Vuelta - now: 6.1W/kg easy
2007 WCC - pre-2011 Vuelta: ???

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If it's 5.8 - 6.1W/kg as you suggest, then how the hell are they going to explain that every team he was on and every race he entered he was utter crap?

If every team and race showed him to be ordinary, isnt it then those teams who have some explaining to do, as to why they hired him? Of course they do.

I am not nor have I ever said "why did they hire him". I am saying "why was he so sht?"

You seem to think having a big engine pre-2011 will explain him being clean. Except his performances were not indicative of a big engine, so what's the explanation there?

I never saw anyone say he had a big engine other than one UCI lackey from WCC.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Barlowolrd had the greatest cyclist for 2011-2015 on their team and squandered their opportunity to win the Tour.

Please explain.

Argus Pick n Pay had the greatest cyclist for 2011-2015 in their race as a 16-21 year old and his best place was something like 20th.

Please explain.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Re: Re:

Im not sure if youre missing the point intentionally, or if youre just having some sort of comprehension issue.

Right back at you. I'll type this really slowly to help.

2011 Vuelta - now: 6.1W/kg easy
2007 WCC - pre-2011 Vuelta: ???

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If it's 5.8 - 6.1W/kg as you suggest, then how the hell are they going to explain that every team he was on and every race he entered he was utter crap?

If every team and race showed him to be ordinary, isnt it then those teams who have some explaining to do, as to why they hired him? Of course they do.

I am not nor have I ever said "why did they hire him". I am saying "why was he so sht?"

1. I suggest no such thing. Ever. Anywhere. Further, Ive already said- repeatedly- that his transformation is absurd. Not credible. Further, Ive even given my opinion on what compounds he used to make this transformation...so stop making *** up.
2. Look at the bold. Who is "they"? Unless "they" is Froome, WTF are you talking about?

To be honest, I dont really care what your glitch is. Ive got anything better to do this evening, than to argue semantics on a forum. lulz

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Im not sure if youre missing the point intentionally, or if youre just having some sort of comprehension issue.

Right back at you. I'll type this really slowly to help.

2011 Vuelta - now: 6.1W/kg easy
2007 WCC - pre-2011 Vuelta: ???

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If it's 5.8 - 6.1W/kg as you suggest, then how the hell are they going to explain that every team he was on and every race he entered he was utter crap?

If every team and race showed him to be ordinary, isnt it then those teams who have some explaining to do, as to why they hired him? Of course they do.

I am not nor have I ever said "why did they hire him". I am saying "why was he so sht?"

1. I suggest no such thing. Ever. Anywhere. Further, Ive already said- repeatedly- that his transformation is absurd. Not credible. Further, Ive even given my opinion on what compounds he used to make this transformation...so stop making **** up.
2. Look at the bold. Who is "they"? Unless "they" is Froome, WTF are you talking about?

To be honest, I dont really care what your glitch is. Ive got anything better to do this evening, than to argue semantics on a forum. lulz

1. I quoted your post right there, [ETA hoping] that very thing. You did write "I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine". So no, it was not a suggestion, it was a hope. This seems a minor quibble given the resulting numbers required are the same.

What's a major engine for you? 5W/kg? 5.5W/kg? The NRS guys are a dime a dozen in a tiny little country of 23M people and they put out 5.0 - 5.5 W/kg @ FTP no worries. If he was 5W/kg, that's not only not a "major engine", but how did he improve 20% to 6W/kg?

So what is a "major engine" for you?

2. "They" are the entire group of people - scientists, UCI/WCC, Froome and yes, even Team Sky, who are either employing this freak of nature, or testing and analysing him and his physiology.

I thought this was obvious.