Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 796 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
LaFlorecita said:
mrhender said:
Michelle Cound told me on twitter (before she nuked her account again) that she is running all media inquiries to Froome and even answers on his behalf. She also told me that Sky pass on media requests to her when "appropriate".
So that's explains why Froome was spotted out on his bike while he was also answering questions on twitter in a Q&A :)
Really?

You have a link for this?
Sorry, no, it was on twitter.
 
Oct 10, 2015
479
0
0
Re:

mrhender said:
A thing I take notice from is a continuous distance between Froome and his team.

Around and in doing the Tour there's a lot of comments from Brailsford regarding Froome but away from that he (froome) seems to be running his own show.

Michelle Cound told me on twitter (before she nuked her account again) that she is running all media inquiries to Froome and even answers on his behalf. She also told me that Sky pass on media requests to her when "appropriate".
Maybe someone has a screen shot or some other evidence, but before this last nuking of her account, she clearly stated that Froome's testing and test results were being done completely out of the reach of Brailsford. This was brought up as a defensive tactic against those inquiring minds that were questioning the lack of a definitive answers from Brailsford regarding the release of Froome's test results.

"Dave wouldn't know," was her argument. Which struck me as most odd.

This was all part of a testy Twitter exchange between Michelle, Kimmage, and one other party (who I can't seem to remember at the moment). With her recent account being deleted, I can't seem to find any record of this anymore, but I'm sure others can corroborate (especially Kimmage himself, if anyone wants to ask him).

*Edit*
The BBC's Matt Slater was the other person involved in the conversation. It was on Nov 6th & 7th, but Michelle's side is no longer visible.
https://twitter.com/mattslaterbbc/with_replies

https://twitter.com/mattslaterbbc/status/662945263980584960

*2nd Edit*
Some things never leave the internet. ;)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bA6r46BUA2QJ:https://twitter.com/michellefroome/status/662917009919877120+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Matt Slater ‏@mattslaterbbc
@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
@mattslaterbbc @PaulKimmage Team Sky weren't involved in the testing at all...Dave wouldn't know.
*3rd Edit*
I just keep digging stuff up.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RymLbF-M7w8J:https://twitter.com/michellefroome/status/662900478120955904+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Follow

Michelle Froome@michellefroome
@mattslaterbbc @PaulKimmage you should both be ashamed of yourselves calling yourselves "journalists" putting on this pathetic spectacle.
11:52 PM - 6 Nov 2015
Matt Slater ‏@mattslaterbbc
@michellefroome @PaulKimmage what have I done this time? Seriously, this is getting very tiresome. Why do you think Paul is criticising me?
 
Re: Re:

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
I dont see where I am smearing a messenger while I am the one being factuous.
You made the false claim that Dr. Swart had never heard of Grappe with the clear insinuation that he might not be qualified to be carrying out the study. The whole twitter exchange demonstrates that Dr. Swart did not read the publication by Dr. Grappe until very recently. That is something entirely different from what you originally stated and is a false reporting of the facts.
 
LaFlorecita said:
The Great One's opinion on Froome releasing test results;

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/16/chris-froome-test-results-alberto-contador-team-sky?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Team Sky’s ‘hermetic’ approach does not help, Spaniard adds ‘Maybe people dislike this way of working’
Yes Flo, but in a way Alberto also implies that CF is clean:
“With the system of anti-doping control we now have and the quantity of those tests for the top riders it is impossible to cheat,” he said. “If you do it’s like a suicide. I’ve no doubt this is why it’s clean at the very highest level.”
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
So Bertie thinks it is clean at the highest level, but the lowest is a cesspit? hmm that does not compute! Roche said something similar in 1990.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
I dont see where I am smearing a messenger while I am the one being factuous.
You made the false claim that Dr. Swart had never heard of Grappe with the clear insinuation that he might not be qualified to be carrying out the study. The whole twitter exchange demonstrates that Dr. Swart did not read the publication by Dr. Grappe until very recently. That is something entirely different from what you originally stated and is a false reporting of the facts.
Wow, you really got me there.

Incredible line of stawman conclusions there, chapeau.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
test

Benotti69 said:
So Bertie thinks it is clean at the highest level, but the lowest is a cesspit? hmm that does not compute! Roche said something similar in 1990.

.......when you're the most tested athlete in the universe.......how could one ever get

away with it.............meanwhile those 'also rans' don't get tested........

Mark L
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
the sceptic said:
TheSpud said:
How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?
my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"
No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?
Not sure you have a handle on what the numbers actually mean. 5.7w/kg on its own is meaningless. It also doesn't show if one is doping or not as they may have microdosed the night before the test.

You need to know the length of time the value was held, the riders weight at the time and the gradient (if any) of the climb.

A proper FTP test is for one hour, generally most do 20 minutes, normalise to an hour then drop 5% for fatigue.

If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.

You also don't appear to have a grip on the value in relation to weight;

2007 @ 70kg – 5.7w/kg = 399w avg

No way Froome was producing 400w average power in 2007 for one hour. He'd be winning TT's not falling off his bike or pushing Greg Henderson.

In 2012 at Salamanca Froome for a one hour TT produced 406w avg. You're suggesting that he was doing that in 2007!
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.

This is the ideal test of one’s true capabilities at what is termed Functional Threshold Power (FTP). A cyclist’s FTP is the average watts they can maintain for a 60-minute effort. Given the fact that Froome’s 47km time trial took him 57 minutes we can easily conclude that his FTP equals a tad more than 400w.
The facts show that on PSM at this year's Tour he did 6.1w/kg for one hour (or just below) on a 10% gradient. Which is utterly insane even for a one off FTP test. Froome performed it 120km into a stage in week 2 of the Tour.



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

red_flanders said:
Wow, Hoggie! One of your best posts in a while. Nicely done.
Thank you.

Froome effectively did an FTP test at the Commonwealth Games in 2006. If he was the big engine that Spud and Froome/Walsh et al claim that he might have been, he would have ridden a lot faster for 40km back in 2006. He rode just about an hour for 40km. He simply doesn't haven't a big engine. It doesn't take a secret lab test to prove that he did, he just doesn't have one.

Kenyan Christopher Froome stopped the clock in 53.58.01 for 40km.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=results/men_road_tt
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
red_flanders said:
Wow, Hoggie! One of your best posts in a while. Nicely done.
Thank you.

Froome effectively did an FTP test at the Commonwealth Games in 2006. If he was the big engine that Spud and Froome/Walsh et al claim that he might have been, he would have ridden a lot faster for 40km back in 2006. He rode just about an hour for 40km. He simply doesn't haven't a big engine. It doesn't take a secret lab test to prove that he did, he just doesn't have one.

Kenyan Christopher Froome stopped the clock in 53.58.01 for 40km.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=results/men_road_tt
So basically what a decent Continental rider should do. Good enough for a Pro Continental domestique IF they can climb.
 
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.
Jussi Veikkanen's FTP was 5.65 w/kg. Not won too much.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TheSpud said:
the sceptic said:
TheSpud said:
How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?
my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"
No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?
Not sure you have a handle on what the numbers actually mean. 5.7w/kg on its own is meaningless. It also doesn't show if one is doping or not as they may have microdosed the night before the test.

You need to know the length of time the value was held, the riders weight at the time and the gradient (if any) of the climb.

A proper FTP test is for one hour, generally most do 20 minutes, normalise to an hour then drop 5% for fatigue.

If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.

You also don't appear to have a grip on the value in relation to weight;

2007 @ 70kg – 5.7w/kg = 399w avg

No way Froome was producing 400w average power in 2007 for one hour. He'd be winning TT's not falling off his bike or pushing Greg Henderson.

In 2012 at Salamanca Froome for a one hour TT produced 406w avg. You're suggesting that he was doing that in 2007!
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.

This is the ideal test of one’s true capabilities at what is termed Functional Threshold Power (FTP). A cyclist’s FTP is the average watts they can maintain for a 60-minute effort. Given the fact that Froome’s 47km time trial took him 57 minutes we can easily conclude that his FTP equals a tad more than 400w.
The facts show that on PSM at this year's Tour he did 6.1w/kg for one hour (or just below) on a 10% gradient. Which is utterly insane even for a one off FTP test. Froome performed it 120km into a stage in week 2 of the Tour.



http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/20192/7452102/froome-trainingpeaks-analysis
Am I missing something? He finished the climb in 2/3 of an hour (yeah, that's like you running another marathon after just finishing two of them. Big difference, right?). And the climb was 7.4% not 10. Right? That's why Froomey is winning Tours and you sit in front of a monitor eating sour grapes, because he is better with numbers. :)
And this is the best post in a while? Or, again, am I missing something? Maybe it's to early in the morning for me.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
del1962 said:
Funny that "the best post in a while" has such glaringly faulty data
Care to 'correct' the data or you just gonna whinge?
He corrected the gradient on PSM, nothing else. The post still stands as it was about Froome's 2007 data. Spud is trying to tell us Froome might have an average watts of 400w in 2007 for an hour, not possible.

Froome might have done 5.7w for 10 minutes but not for an hour.
 
Re: Re:

harryh said:
thehog said:
If Froome was holding 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test in 2007 at 70kg's then he would have been winning just about every race he was in.
Jussi Veikkanen's FTP was 5.65 w/kg. Not won too much.
I don't know much of Jussi but he is a 8 time national road champion. Won stages of medium tours. Froome was 70kg in 2007. Jussi is 66kg from Wikipedia. Again like Spud messed up, weight is important when using the watts per kilogram value.

Do you have a link to the 5.65w?
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
thehog said:
red_flanders said:
Wow, Hoggie! One of your best posts in a while. Nicely done.
Thank you.

Froome effectively did an FTP test at the Commonwealth Games in 2006. If he was the big engine that Spud and Froome/Walsh et al claim that he might have been, he would have ridden a lot faster for 40km back in 2006. He rode just about an hour for 40km. He simply doesn't haven't a big engine. It doesn't take a secret lab test to prove that he did, he just doesn't have one.

Kenyan Christopher Froome stopped the clock in 53.58.01 for 40km.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=results/men_road_tt
So basically what a decent Continental rider should do. Good enough for a Pro Continental domestique IF they can climb.
I think "decent" would be pushing it! :rolleyes:

In saying that, Brailsford believes he saw something that day back in 2006!

Go figure ;)

“He didn’t have the best equipment. I watched his time trial; this was a guy from nowhere, he did this phenomenal performance,” Brailsford told VeloNews. “I was like, ‘bloody hell, who is this guy?’ That was the first time I ever saw him.”

“The performance he did, on the equipment he was on, that takes some doing. We thought, ‘that guy’s got something, for sure,”‘ Brailsford said. “We always thought he was a bit of a diamond in the rough, who had a huge potential.”
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/the-story-of-brailsfords-froome-discovery-dates-back-to-2006_294574#hd6QPYEFtuHSsOGg.99
 
May 8, 2009
837
0
0
http://www.teamsky.com/teamsky/home/article/59618#8bZd0CJLCT2RIwGs.97

http://sportsscientists.com/2010/07/power-from-the-tourmalet-6wkg-anyone/

6.0 W/kg is roughly the power you need to put out on a tour final climb to win, but a tapered effort not at the end of a stage will be much higher.

This is why 6.7W/kg is the magic number for Armstrong but many of his tour rides are nearer the 6W/kg level.
This is why Froome produced 30 minutes at 419W on PSM but can produce 459W on Col de la Madone in training in 2013.

Anyway, 2007 Froome probably was producing 5.7W/kg as a journeyman pro, but nowhere near that at the end of a 200km stage
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY