Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[will10]

Haha! The best part about that was that I read all the Jens' quotes in a German accent. Hilarious.

I did the same as you when re-reading Tyler's book this week. There's one Jens quote in it - something like "just following the wheel in front of me" - but I heard it in my head in Jens' voice

 

[airstream]

I support masterracer. It is quite sandy point to explain the things by 'pedigree' and talent. It is sad that discussion doesnt succeed. The thread turned into competition 'Who bash Sky and Froome more cynically'

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Is that guy in red pulling over for a mechanical?

No, he had a highsider on the ascent.

As in highsider.

I support masterracer. It is quite sandy point to explain the things by 'pedigree' and talent. It is sad that discussion doesnt succeed. The thread turned into competition 'Who bash Sky and Froome more cynically'

Go troll someone else, please. Qui CERA CERA. [forgot the rest of the song ]

 

[airstream]

No, he had a highsider on the ascent.

As in highsider.

Go troll someone else, please. Qui CERA CERA. [forgot the rest of the song ]

you are wild uncultured man who looks up to only ur own opinion.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I support masterracer. It is quite sandy point to explain the things by 'pedigree' and talent. It is sad that discussion doesnt succeed. The thread turned into competition 'Who bash Sky and Froome more cynically'

I think the cynical nature can be easily explained. Everything the cycling teams have been telling people for over 20 years has been proven to be a lie.

Sky rolls up, says exactly the same bullsh*t we've all heard for decades, and proceeds to perform EXACTLY the same as the tarnished teams from the past.

I may personally pick on Sky, but I'm not naive enough to think the others are clean. Sky's just being ridiculous, and that needs to be pointed out.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

it's trainable.

With the right "preparation".

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

you are wild uncultured man who looks up to only ur own opinion.

You're just mad because everyone looks down to yours.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

bla bla bla trolling bla insult bla

Could you please go back to the professional road racing section where people really love u? You are just annoying and you know it, very well indeed. Trolling is another word for it. But, I will give you the benefite of doubt. Just annoying.

Ganging up with someone who is so bizar he even compares Greg LeMond's training with that of Chris the bilharzia man Froome is just insane.

We indeed take the p iss out of Froome and Sky, if you have any historic feeling with cycling you would too. But, it is pretty damn sure knowledge is not everyones power.

 

[maxmartin]

Today's Tirreno stage shows one thing that's very clear:

You might become a fantastic climber and TTer if you dope to the gills. But all the drugs in the world won't save you if you can't DESCEND!

totally agree

 

[xcleigh]

Ganging up with someone who is so bizar he even compares Greg LeMond's training with that of Chris the bilharzia man Froome is just insane.

I do believe the point master racer was attempting to make clear is that different aspects of a cyclists performance can be trained depending on what training they undertake. Not that Froome was training the same as or was comparable to Mr Lemond. As a cyclist I'm sure you would know that anyway but I thought it was nice of master racer to try and clarify that for you. Having said all that feel free to continue the speculation on Froome. Myself, I'll await any snippets and comments bubbling to the surface from disgruntled former employees before damning him as a fraud right now.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I do believe the point master racer was attempting to make clear is that different aspects of a cyclists performance can be trained depending on what training they undertake. Not that Froome was training the same as or was comparable to Mr Lemond. As a cyclist I'm sure you would know that anyway but I thought it was nice of master racer to try and clarify that for you. Having said all that feel free to continue the speculation on Froome. Myself, I'll await any snippets and comments bubbling to the surface from disgruntled former employees before damning him as a fraud right now.

Thanks for the good reply first.

Yes, certain aspects in sports are trainable. I agree. Totally. But, everything comes with a price. Train for TT as a climber and ur climbing will hurt and vice verca. Those are 'laws'. U do not make ato boldon into a 1500 metres man, muscle fibres do not allow that.

You are no stupid man as I see it, you just want a positive. Not gonna happen in the near future.

PS: I was not nice to airstream, my apologies, that guy gets under fingernails, mheh.

 

[The Hitch]

I support masterracer. It is quite sandy point to explain the things by 'pedigree' and talent. It is sad that discussion doesnt succeed. The thread turned into competition 'Who bash Sky and Froome more cynically'

You believe sky is doping.

Mastersracer believes everyone who suspects sky dope ought to be in a mental assylum.

Not an irreconcilable difference?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What you said is this......

"he must have been cruising, at 96-98% of what is considered humanly possible, to have that much anaerobic work capacity left to be able to smash out the 2 minute power he did."

For starters you don't know what power Froome was holding in that stage for 36min. You don't know what power he averaged for the last 2min.

But if he averaged 5.93 for the entire 38 minutes, it's a pretty easy calculation to do. A little algebra is all it takes to work it out. Algebra I not only showed, but also solved, with the working and the table of possible values above, but maybe you missed it in your hurry to put someone down and mouth off about your 12 years of not being at the AIS/NSWIS any more?

http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

Froome's FTP is around 5.8W/kg, as evidenced at the Vuelta in 2011. I am sure it's even higher now, given he warms down and has his own pillow.

 

[sittingbison]

Especially for nobody riders (Ricco, LA, Rasmussen, Froome) who never showed any such talent to compete in 3 week races. They trained so hard they learned how to ITT, climb, accelerate, sprint, and motorcruise uphill...

riders also could perform supra-threshold before doping. Lemond was pretty good at it and even managed to outsprint Kelly at Worlds. It's not a sign of doping in itself and it's trainable. One reason why Lemond did sprint workouts every Tuesday year round.

the inherent suggestion that Froome (and Cobra/Chicken et al) is similar/equivalent to Lemond and Kelly is hilarious...or should that be bilhariaz

 

[Krebs cycle]

Mastersracer believes everyone who suspects sky dope ought to be in a mental assylum.

Well I certainly don't and this is where I think some of you guys misunderstand me. I believe everyone has a right to be suspicious of Sky and any other pro cyclist of doping. I also hope that if Sky are doping then they get busted, shamed, ruined and run out of cycling forever just as Armstrong has.

The difference is that I don't pretend to know for certain that Sky are doping using pie in sky BS to support my opinions.

Dear wiggo simply rewrote textbook physiology in this thread because he was trying to "prove" that Froome was sustaining a power output that is considered beyond humanly possible. In a single post he dismissed a hundred years of scientific inquiry into the nature of human bioenergetics and stated "his opinion" that humans cannot increase their power output following a sustained effort at threshold intensity. After I pointed out that this was incorrect and alluded to the obvious fact that ALL endurance athletes sprint to the line at the end of a race, he then promptly started trolling me and pulled some made up number (33-66% above FTP) from nowhere.

If you think Sky are doping, then great, I have no problem with that. I like to discuss the problem in scientific terms and use verifiable evidence, but if people on here want to start reinventing known facts regarding human bioenergetics and making a mockery out of exercise physiology then I have a right to contribute to the discussion and point out the error. I've got a doctorate in exercise physiology and I lecture the subject at university level, so I know what I am talking about. There is no need to turn around and start trolling me every time I do that because I don't agree with you (YET) that Sky definitely are doping.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Dear wiggo simply rewrote textbook physiology in this thread because he was trying to "prove" that Froome was sustaining a power output that is considered beyond humanly possible. In a single post he dismissed a hundred years of scientific inquiry into the nature of human bioenergetics and stated "his opinion" that humans cannot increase their power output following a sustained effort at threshold intensity. After I pointed out that this was incorrect and alluded to the obvious fact that ALL endurance athletes sprint to the line at the end of a race, he then promptly started trolling me and pulled some made up number (33-66% above FTP) from nowhere.

Do you have reading difficulties? I showed the math for the 33-66% above FTP figures. It's right there in the thread.

YOU are the one who said you can do 100% of FTP for an hour, then do a 2 minute supra-maximal effort.

AFTER READING MY POST.

Maybe you just didn't read the post? Maybe you didn't look at the image I included in said post, that showed % > X (where X was the power sustained for the first 36 minute)?

Who knows.

After disagreeing with you that 1 hour at 100% FTP you CANNOT do a 2 minute supra-maximal effort, your response was

HOW COME I CAN DO MY 3 minute PB AFTER 150km.

I argue apples and then you ask me to explain oranges.

It's really weird. I project intelligence by default onto PhD holders, but you don't seem to be able to follow a couple of posts in a thread.

That's all.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Still waiting for the 30% Wiggins likelihood of doping thesis, btw.

 

[Krebs cycle]

But if he averaged 5.93 for the entire 38 minutes, it's a pretty easy calculation to do. A little algebra is all it takes to work it out. Algebra I not only showed, but also solved, with the working and the table of possible values above, but maybe you missed it in your hurry to put someone down and mouth off about your 12 years of not being at the AIS/NSWIS any more?

http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

Froome's FTP is around 5.8W/kg, as evidenced at the Vuelta in 2011. I am sure it's even higher now, given he warms down and has his own pillow.

Ah yes it's a pretty easy calculation if you KNOW FOR CERTAIN what power Froome was holding for the first 36min and what power Froome was holding for the entire 38min. But you don't know that. You took the word of some random finnish dude on twitter (@vetoo retweeted by JV) who obviously likes to estimate power based on VAM. How many times do you need to be told that estimating power on climbs contains a significant margin of error? You just ignore basic science and carry on as if these were the numbers from the SRM datafile itself.

You just ASSUME that 5.8 w/kg is Froome's current FTP and that is the power he was holding for the first 36mins. You also ASSUME that 5.93 W/kg for 38min is the correct value for the present effort, and then off you go with your basic algebra and hey presto... like magic you come up with some numbers.

I took those exact same numbers and using 69kg as a bodyweight I got the following....

400w for 36min (5.8w/kg) followed by 570w (8.27 w/kg) for 2min. Together that equals 5.93 w/kg for 38min. That would be a 43% increase. So I don't even know where you came up with 33-66% considering you're apparently a mathematical genius and all. You couldn't even get your basic algebra right LOL

I would be inclined to agree that holding 570w for 2min at that point in the race would be extremely difficult if not impossible, however, I wouldn't base any opinions whatsoever on assumed numbers with so much room for error. A tryhard pseudo-scientist probably would, but not me.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

400w for 36min (5.8w/kg) followed by 570w (8.27 w/kg) for 2min. Together that equals 5.93 w/kg for 38min. That would be a 43% increase. So I don't even know where you came up with 33-66% considering you're apparently a mathematical genius and all. You couldn't even get your basic algebra right LOL

I will spoonfeed you. Here. 33-66% is a range. I mentioned that in my post. The one you apparently did not read. Any value between 33 and 66 falls within that range. Ooh look!! A value. What is it? It is 43. Does 43 fall between 33 and 66? Who knows? Does anybody have a calculator? Let's just assume for the time being it does.

My my, look at that, an image posted pages ago - 8.27W/kg would be a 43% increase. Goodness. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Or something.

 

[mastersracer]

You believe sky is doping.

Mastersracer believes everyone who suspects sky dope ought to be in a mental assylum.

Not an irreconcilable difference?

just to be clear [yet again, despite the inevitably of what I will say being rendered a straw man]:

1. I do not know if Sky is doping or not.
2. I never claimed that they aren't.
3. my position is against those who believe their speculation about relative performances, performance over time, comments a rider makes, and. more generally, illogical, sloppy thinking, and informal fallacies of reasoning constitute proof of doping.

 

[thehog]

Check out the Dawg descending like concrete then hitching a ride on Evans.

Great ride by Nibs to derail the Skyborgs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUm9nH9HYho&sns=em

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Echoes of "I'm not a fan, but".

 

[Krebs cycle]

The race report from December last year says you were racing C grade too. So uh. A grade? Found the links to the other race reports. Team sandbagger eh?

Spending your time stalking me on the internet. How sad is this?

I try to be nice to you and you just keep trolling away. I don't really care mate. I'm not the sad loser with no life in this discussion going around googling other forum users and then making personal attacks.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I will spoonfeed you. Here. 33-66% is a range. I mentioned that in my post. The one you apparently did not read. Any value between 33 and 66 falls within that range. Ooh look!! A value. What is it? It is 43. Does 43 fall between 33 and 66? Who knows? Does anybody have a calculator? Let's just assume for the time being it does.

My my, look at that, an image posted pages ago - 8.27W/kg would be a 43% increase. Goodness. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Or something.

Nah I will spoonfeed you....

If you feed sh!t into a calculation, then you get sh!t out.

 

[Ripper]

just to be clear [yet again, despite the inevitably of what I will say being rendered a straw man]:

1. I know Sky is doping.

Well OK then