• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 800 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
What I alluded to (actually what I said) was that as an injured rider it would be totally normal for him to give his bike to the uninjured rider (who, as we know was a sprinter, had a chance to win the stage as it was flat).

I never alluded to it meaning he was clean - as I have said, the picture is an irrelevance trooped out by Hog as an argument against my perfectly reasonable question about the old test data.
You didn't have a question about his old test data. You stated that if he was 5.7w/kg back in 2007 it would mean he'd have a 'big engine'.

Which I replied that would mean at 70kg in 2007 he would have average watts of around 400w for a FTP test.

This would be impossible that he produced these type of numbers if the test was conducted properly.

What is most worrying is you still don't have a handle on how the value is generated and how weight plays a part in that figure.
 
thehog said:
What I alluded to (actually what I said) was that as an injured rider it would be totally normal for him to give his bike to the uninjured rider (who, as we know was a sprinter, had a chance to win the stage as it was flat).

I never alluded to it meaning he was clean - as I have said, the picture is an irrelevance trooped out by Hog as an argument against my perfectly reasonable question about the old test data.
You didn't have a question about his old test data. You stated that if he was 5.7w/kg back in 2007 it would mean he'd have a 'big engine'.

Which I replied that would mean at 70kg in 2007 he would have average watts of around 400w for a FTP test.

This would be impossible that he produced these type of numbers if the test was conducted properly.

What is most worrying is you still don't have a handle on how the value is generated and how weight plays a part in that figure.
Actually I did have a question (2 in fact) you can check the post here

viewtopic.php?p=1838397#p1838397

I dont have any evidence he was 5.7 - I said that if the data was to show that kind of level (ie i plucked a number out) then wouldnt it support the claims that he had a big engine? And what would your reaction be?

And please dont worry yourself too much, I know exactly how the figure is generated and how weight plays a part thank you - the clue is in the 'watts per kilogram' name. I also note that your response included the 10% gradient for an hour - another Hog 'fact' that was debunked the other day (7.4% etc.).
 
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
What I alluded to (actually what I said) was that as an injured rider it would be totally normal for him to give his bike to the uninjured rider (who, as we know was a sprinter, had a chance to win the stage as it was flat).

I never alluded to it meaning he was clean - as I have said, the picture is an irrelevance trooped out by Hog as an argument against my perfectly reasonable question about the old test data.
You didn't have a question about his old test data. You stated that if he was 5.7w/kg back in 2007 it would mean he'd have a 'big engine'.

Which I replied that would mean at 70kg in 2007 he would have average watts of around 400w for a FTP test.

This would be impossible that he produced these type of numbers if the test was conducted properly.

What is most worrying is you still don't have a handle on how the value is generated and how weight plays a part in that figure.
Actually I did have a question (2 in fact) you can check the post here

viewtopic.php?p=1838397#p1838397

I dont have any evidence he was 5.7 - I said that if the data was to show that kind of level (ie i plucked a number out) then wouldnt it support the claims that he had a big engine? And what would your reaction be?
So you plucked out a figure 5.7w/kg but didn't think to translate it into average watts for an FTP test? Wouldn't that tell you 5.7 was not possible as its around what he produces today as super Dawg for a one hour TT?

Perhaps Brailsford was right about pseudoscientists? :rolleyes:

The concerning part here is that Froome will release so key data its not one figure that it will come down to. Its how that number was determined and the test undertaken to derive the figure.

What's concerning is that you appear to just want one headline from Froome's data rather than the entire context.

Worrying.
 
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
What I alluded to (actually what I said) was that as an injured rider it would be totally normal for him to give his bike to the uninjured rider (who, as we know was a sprinter, had a chance to win the stage as it was flat).

I never alluded to it meaning he was clean - as I have said, the picture is an irrelevance trooped out by Hog as an argument against my perfectly reasonable question about the old test data.
You didn't have a question about his old test data. You stated that if he was 5.7w/kg back in 2007 it would mean he'd have a 'big engine'.

Which I replied that would mean at 70kg in 2007 he would have average watts of around 400w for a FTP test.

This would be impossible that he produced these type of numbers if the test was conducted properly.

What is most worrying is you still don't have a handle on how the value is generated and how weight plays a part in that figure.
Actually I did have a question (2 in fact) you can check the post here

viewtopic.php?p=1838397#p1838397

I dont have any evidence he was 5.7 - I said that if the data was to show that kind of level (ie i plucked a number out) then wouldnt it support the claims that he had a big engine? And what would your reaction be?

And please dont worry yourself too much, I know exactly how the figure is generated and how weight plays a part thank you - the clue is in the 'watts per kilogram' name. I also note that your response included the 10% gradient for an hour - another Hog 'fact' that was debunked the other day (7.4% etc.).
I think it's been answered. Firstly, as the figures from 2007 exist and have existed since then...a figure could have been released previously when questions surrounding his provenance were raised. The working assumption is that the figure(s) is being 'se*ed up' by Ritchie Moore...in Gilligan speak. Secondly, if a high number is 'produced' then it will be at odds with the overwhelming evidence that we have already got and which we have seen with our own eyes....therefore it could rightly be viewed with both some suspicion and as a possible outlier to the other evidecne we have...i.e. its plausible but when added to everything else we know doesn't explain how he got so fast...

nothing can explain how he went from not being picked to (virtually) winning a GT...nothing...sorry, nothing natural that is ;)
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
TheSpud said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
What I alluded to (actually what I said) was that as an injured rider it would be totally normal for him to give his bike to the uninjured rider (who, as we know was a sprinter, had a chance to win the stage as it was flat).

I never alluded to it meaning he was clean - as I have said, the picture is an irrelevance trooped out by Hog as an argument against my perfectly reasonable question about the old test data.
The picture points out that Froome having ridden for 3 years at Konica/ Barloworld and a year at Sky was still only a domestique and they were trying to get rid of him to Bruyneel, who said no.
The picture shows an injured rider giving his bike to the sprinter who had a chance of a stage victory ...
Injured? Road rash counts as an injury? So injured not only did he give his bike but he could also give a push....

The picture illustrates that Froome having ridden for 3 years at Konica/ Barloworld and a year at Sky was still only a domestique and they were trying to get rid of him to Bruyneel, who said no.
 
gillan1969 said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
What I alluded to (actually what I said) was that as an injured rider it would be totally normal for him to give his bike to the uninjured rider (who, as we know was a sprinter, had a chance to win the stage as it was flat).

I never alluded to it meaning he was clean - as I have said, the picture is an irrelevance trooped out by Hog as an argument against my perfectly reasonable question about the old test data.
You didn't have a question about his old test data. You stated that if he was 5.7w/kg back in 2007 it would mean he'd have a 'big engine'.

Which I replied that would mean at 70kg in 2007 he would have average watts of around 400w for a FTP test.

This would be impossible that he produced these type of numbers if the test was conducted properly.

What is most worrying is you still don't have a handle on how the value is generated and how weight plays a part in that figure.
Actually I did have a question (2 in fact) you can check the post here

viewtopic.php?p=1838397#p1838397

I dont have any evidence he was 5.7 - I said that if the data was to show that kind of level (ie i plucked a number out) then wouldnt it support the claims that he had a big engine? And what would your reaction be?

And please dont worry yourself too much, I know exactly how the figure is generated and how weight plays a part thank you - the clue is in the 'watts per kilogram' name. I also note that your response included the 10% gradient for an hour - another Hog 'fact' that was debunked the other day (7.4% etc.).
I think it's been answered. Firstly, as the figures from 2007 exist and have existed since then...a figure could have been released previously when questions surrounding his provenance were raised. The working assumption is that the figure(s) is being 'se*ed up' by Ritchie Moore...in Gilligan speak. Secondly, if a high number is 'produced' then it will be at odds with the overwhelming evidence that we have already got and which we have seen with our own eyes....therefore it could rightly be viewed with both some suspicion and as a possible outlier to the other evidecne we have...i.e. its plausible but when added to everything else we know doesn't explain how he got so fast...

nothing can explain how he went from not being picked to (virtually) winning a GT...nothing...sorry, nothing natural that is ;)
Good post. The point being he did several "in race" FTP tests in TTs and never went anywhere near 5.7w/kg. Why would he produce that type of number in a secret one off test in 2007.

And right you are, the 2011 Vuelta almost never happened for Froome. When he got his chance he most certainly made sure he got his contract renewal!

Although most cyclists would have been more subtle about it!
 
Savant12 said:
The Hitch said:
Savant12 said:
Bandage on his knee alludes to his doping?
Show me where anyone said that ;)

And if you can't find it, it would be nice to hear an apology. Something like:"I'm sorry I made **** up purely to try and troll the clinic" or words to that effect.
You seem to be smart. I'm sure you can work out the meaning of "alludes to".

Here you go, anyway:
Benotti69 "So bandage equals clean, because as we know the grupetto never dopes, according to Wiggo."

It insinuates that Froome is somehow hiding his doping because he is riding "injured" and would be less apparent.
No he doesn't.

Absolutely nowhere did anyone say that "Bandage on his knee alludes to his doping", as you claimed.

You pure and simple made it up to troll.
 
The definition of 'alludes to' does not require a direct reference. It is more often an indirect hint. It is much more subjective than objective. Calling someone a troll repeatedly for something so subjective is off-base IMO.

I do think it would probably be a good idea to retire the photo. Its use often only serves to derail discussions.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
thehog said:
Dawg at 5.7w/kg :rolleyes:

No nutella, hand washing, own pillows, pineapple juice, warm ups, warms downs, asthma, an alleged chronic disease and a lack of food supposedly transformed Froome from failing (and falling a lot) domestique to GT winner.

This picture is a great illustration (along with others, crashing into a commissaire, zig zagging up a hill in Italy) that Froome was not a GT hopeful and I mean participant. He only got on La Vuelta'11 team due to another rider's illness.
 
Please keep the trolling accusations to reports and PM's to mods/admin.

It does nothing to further the conversation and helps to keep the general mood of the thread a little gloomy.

We're (mods/admin) looking at all the comments in this thread with a critical eye and will deal with any trolling/baiting on a case by case basis.

Any actions that may result can take place at a later time, as it takes effort to comprehend the true intent of said comments.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
Yes he was (as support for Wiggins), but only just - he almost wasn't fit after crashing in Romandie a few weeks earlier. But never mind that fact.
And at Barloworld, he forgot to bring his big engine? What about that fact?

He had 'transformed' by the time he towed Wiggins around France in 2012. Again never mind the 'transformation' fact!
Barloworld had Sobakawa pillow's once you change that it is a different ballgame. :D
 
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
Yes he was (as support for Wiggins), but only just - he almost wasn't fit after crashing in Romandie a few weeks earlier. But never mind that fact.
And at Barloworld, he forgot to bring his big engine? What about that fact?

He had 'transformed' by the time he towed Wiggins around France in 2012. Again never mind the 'transformation' fact!
Barloworld had Sobakawa pillow's once you change that it is a different ballgame. :D
The supposed 'big engine' only turned up once prior to the 2011 Vuelta. It was for the crazy adaptive test in 2007 at the UCI. What are the odds?
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
Yes he was (as support for Wiggins), but only just - he almost wasn't fit after crashing in Romandie a few weeks earlier. But never mind that fact.
And at Barloworld, he forgot to bring his big engine? What about that fact?

He had 'transformed' by the time he towed Wiggins around France in 2012. Again never mind the 'transformation' fact!
Barloworld had Sobakawa pillow's once you change that it is a different ballgame. :D
The supposed 'big engine' only turned up once prior to the 2011 Vuelta. It was for the crazy adaptive test in 2007 at the UCI. What are the odds?
Really? Do you have a list of absolutely every result of his to be able to verify that?
 
The Hitch said:
Savant12 said:
The Hitch said:
Savant12 said:
Bandage on his knee alludes to his doping?
Show me where anyone said that ;)

And if you can't find it, it would be nice to hear an apology. Something like:"I'm sorry I made **** up purely to try and troll the clinic" or words to that effect.
You seem to be smart. I'm sure you can work out the meaning of "alludes to".

Here you go, anyway:
Benotti69 "So bandage equals clean, because as we know the grupetto never dopes, according to Wiggo."

It insinuates that Froome is somehow hiding his doping because he is riding "injured" and would be less apparent.
No he doesn't.

Absolutely nowhere did anyone say that "Bandage on his knee alludes to his doping", as you claimed.

You pure and simple made it up to troll.
Again you missed out on what "alludes to" mean, which I can't help you with unless you want to your own private research into its use.
 
The Hitch said:
Savant12 said:
The Hitch said:
Savant12 said:
Bandage on his knee alludes to his doping?
Show me where anyone said that ;)

And if you can't find it, it would be nice to hear an apology. Something like:"I'm sorry I made **** up purely to try and troll the clinic" or words to that effect.
You seem to be smart. I'm sure you can work out the meaning of "alludes to".

Here you go, anyway:
Benotti69 "So bandage equals clean, because as we know the grupetto never dopes, according to Wiggo."

It insinuates that Froome is somehow hiding his doping because he is riding "injured" and would be less apparent.
No he doesn't.

Absolutely nowhere did anyone say that "Bandage on his knee alludes to his doping", as you claimed.

You pure and simple made it up to troll.
Thats right, no-one said it because if they did it wouldn't be 'alluding to' it would pointing it out.

Alluding to is a little bit like Benotti's response to almost everything "pointing to" doping ...
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
Yes he was (as support for Wiggins), but only just - he almost wasn't fit after crashing in Romandie a few weeks earlier. But never mind that fact.
And at Barloworld, he forgot to bring his big engine? What about that fact?

He had 'transformed' by the time he towed Wiggins around France in 2012. Again never mind the 'transformation' fact!
Barloworld had Sobakawa pillow's once you change that it is a different ballgame. :D
The supposed 'big engine' only turned up once prior to the 2011 Vuelta. It was for the crazy adaptive test in 2007 at the UCI. What are the odds?
Really? Do you have a list of absolutely every result of his to be able to verify that?
Yes, that's what the internet is called, it records results :rolleyes:

Again you're confused on what the 5.7w/kg figure actually represents.

If you conduct a lab based FTP test is goes for one hour. It records Functional Threshold Power (FTP) and is based on the riders weight and average wattage for one hour.

If Froome produced 5.7w/kg on a small climb for 3 minutes in a race it doesn't translate to a "big engine" as he was only able to produce the value for a short time. It does not translate to 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test.

You're confused about the figures that are produced after a climb and that its the same as a lab based FTP test. People do make correlations but they are not the same figure.

Riders use their FTP value as a guide (with some computation) to know what range they can stay in when climbing.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TheSpud said:
Really? Do you have a list of absolutely every result of his to be able to verify that?
Yes, that's what the internet is called, it records results :rolleyes:

Again you're confused on what the 5.7w/kg figure actually represents.

If you conduct a lab based FTP test is goes for one hour. It records Functional Threshold Power (FTP) and is based on the riders weight and average wattage for one hour.

If Froome produced 5.7w/kg on a small climb for 3 minutes in a race it doesn't translate to a "big engine" as he was only able to produce the value for a short time. It does not translate to 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test.

You're confused about the figures that are produced after a climb and that its the same as a lab based FTP test. People do make correlations but they are not the same figure.

Riders use their FTP value as a guide (with some computation) to know what range they can stay in when climbing.

I'm not confused about anything Hog - yet again you are presuming things about my knowledge. Its not about me so don't get personal, its about the so called 'evidence' that the picture shows and what the (as yet) unpublished data might show.

You say Froome only showed a big engine once but you don't seem to be able to substantiate it (either way). Then you say he may have produced that for a few minutes on a climb somewhere. What is the relevance - I haven't mentioned anything like that? I know the difference between lab tests and race conditions.

You can post as many snide remarks and rollingeyes icons as you like but they are not a coherent argument.
 
Can someone explain to me what these tests are supposed to prove? We KNOW he's putting out huge power now. Is anyone disputing this? They have already pointedly NOT released his pre-Vuelta 2011 data. That's the only question and who at this point is going to believe any release of 5-year old data which SKY have been sitting on. The released garbage data during the Tour last year, as shown by the release of rider data who put out more watts per kilo but somehow went slower than Froome.

Seriously, what is it going to prove to show he's putting out a certain wattage now? I don't get it. I mean I do get why they're doing it, but I don't get why anyone with an operating brain cares.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Re:

red_flanders said:
Can someone explain to me what these tests are supposed to prove? We KNOW he's putting out huge power now. Is anyone disputing this? They have already pointedly NOT released his pre-Vuelta 2011 data. That's the only question and who at this point is going to believe any release of 5-year old data which SKY have been sitting on. The released garbage data during the Tour last year, as shown by the release of rider data who put out more watts per kilo but somehow went slower than Froome.

Seriously, what is it going to prove to show he's putting out a certain wattage now? I don't get it. I mean I do get why they're doing it, but I don't get why anyone with an operating brain cares.
its the old we know you don't know game.

But the really funny thing is. What was dudes results before these big numbers?

Did he ride the Tour de Fasso?
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
TheSpud said:
Really? Do you have a list of absolutely every result of his to be able to verify that?
Yes, that's what the internet is called, it records results :rolleyes:

Again you're confused on what the 5.7w/kg figure actually represents.

If you conduct a lab based FTP test is goes for one hour. It records Functional Threshold Power (FTP) and is based on the riders weight and average wattage for one hour.

If Froome produced 5.7w/kg on a small climb for 3 minutes in a race it doesn't translate to a "big engine" as he was only able to produce the value for a short time. It does not translate to 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test.

You're confused about the figures that are produced after a climb and that its the same as a lab based FTP test. People do make correlations but they are not the same figure.

Riders use their FTP value as a guide (with some computation) to know what range they can stay in when climbing.

I'm not confused about anything Hog - yet again you are presuming things about my knowledge. Its not about me so don't get personal, its about the so called 'evidence' that the picture shows and what the (as yet) unpublished data might show.

You say Froome only showed a big engine once but you don't seem to be able to substantiate it (either way). Then you say he may have produced that for a few minutes on a climb somewhere. What is the relevance - I haven't mentioned anything like that? I know the difference between lab tests and race conditions.

You can post as many snide remarks and rollingeyes icons as you like but they are not a coherent argument.
As a FYI, 5.7w/kg for 3 minutes is not a big engine. He doesn't have a big engine. You know that, I sense you were trying to indicate that he does by a mystery test but that wouldn't be possible on everything we saw pre-Vuelta-11.

Or are you suggesting his test data will be vastly different from his race performances for that time period?

That would be a stretch but as a fan you're welcome to believe it.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
TheSpud said:
Really? Do you have a list of absolutely every result of his to be able to verify that?
Yes, that's what the internet is called, it records results :rolleyes:

Again you're confused on what the 5.7w/kg figure actually represents.

If you conduct a lab based FTP test is goes for one hour. It records Functional Threshold Power (FTP) and is based on the riders weight and average wattage for one hour.

If Froome produced 5.7w/kg on a small climb for 3 minutes in a race it doesn't translate to a "big engine" as he was only able to produce the value for a short time. It does not translate to 5.7w/kg for one hour FTP test.

You're confused about the figures that are produced after a climb and that its the same as a lab based FTP test. People do make correlations but they are not the same figure.

Riders use their FTP value as a guide (with some computation) to know what range they can stay in when climbing.

I'm not confused about anything Hog - yet again you are presuming things about my knowledge. Its not about me so don't get personal, its about the so called 'evidence' that the picture shows and what the (as yet) unpublished data might show.

You say Froome only showed a big engine once but you don't seem to be able to substantiate it (either way). Then you say he may have produced that for a few minutes on a climb somewhere. What is the relevance - I haven't mentioned anything like that? I know the difference between lab tests and race conditions.

You can post as many snide remarks and rollingeyes icons as you like but they are not a coherent argument.
As a FYI, 5.7w/kg for 3 minutes is not a big engine. He doesn't have a big engine. You know that, I sense you were trying to indicate that he does by a mystery test but that wouldn't be possible on everything we saw pre-Vuelta-11.

Or are you suggesting his test data will be vastly different from his race performances for that time period?

That would be a stretch but as a fan you're welcome to believe it.
I'm bored with this senseless going round in circles with you - I simply cant be bothered to kick the ball if you are going to keep moving the goal posts, see you when the data is released.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts