Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[petelow]

Froome was paced by Porte and Kennaugh for quiet a long time. Quintana's ride was spectacular.

You call dropping everyone off your wheel except Froome and Contador pacing? Hahahaha. I'm surprised more people aren't going on about Porte's predicted resurgence on the Ventoux.

 

[vrusimov]

oh, Froome is dodgy as hell, but times on the section above the tree line do need to have the wind taken into account.

And we can't seem to make "heads or tails" of it according to different observers.

 

[roundabout]

And we can't seem to make "heads or tails" of it according to different observers.

Yeah. Now I am kicking myself for not getting the stopwatch out because everyone seems to have a different time for the climb.

 

[zbranko]

Alpe d'Huez loves to tell the story of Dufaux braking for corners in the mountains of Switzerland

Today Froome had to do the same after his first attack. Not normal.

 

[Miburo]

oh, Froome is dodgy as hell, but times on the section above the tree line do need to have the wind taken into account.

There was on some parts a headwind and didn't you see that on some parts Froome seemed to slow down. The man was even talking with quintana.

Although AC was also talking with nieve and he was cooked.

 

[deValtos]

In order of top 30 performances Ventoux:

So it "seems" that Mr. Froome is once again in dpVAM territory next to Armstrong...

That's ok to use provided you mention you're excluding the times of 1999 & 2004, because if you do include them that graph changes quite dramatically.

But 2004 was an ITT and I think 1999 was too so that could be a good argument to leave them out since they are 'fresher' riders in ITT, but to say thats the top30 performances when ... well its not is just plain manipulating data to get it to say what you want.

 

[vrusimov]

Yeah. Now I am kicking myself for not getting the stopwatch out because everyone seems to have a different time for the climb.

Last check, Vetoo has 47:11 from 15k banner and 48:35 for the full monty. 2 seconds short of "he who must not be named".

 

[Libertine Seguros]

What also gets me is that Rogers is still the incredible road captain even if he is not on Sky. Consistency in spite of a change in teams. That leads me to increase the likelihood of Sky being clean as they claim, and Froome by extension. Also, since Rogers jumped ship - if Sky were doing something, I would expect Riis and Contador to be doing it now. Which leaves me with, unfortunately, Froome looking clean.

So wait, 'Freiburg' Mick 'Ferrari' Rogers still being a good road captain when he moves from them to riding alongside Alberto 'Clenbuterol' Contador for Bjarne '60%' Riis, increases the chance of Sky being clean?

 

[the sceptic]

Yeah. Now I am kicking myself for not getting the stopwatch out because everyone seems to have a different time for the climb.

From the bottom Froome was "only" as fast as 2009 times, From 15.65 km he was 2 seconds slower than last at his best.

 

[cocteau_ireland]

http://t.co/fINeE5VufT

 

[deValtos]

That's ok to use provided you mention you're excluding the times of 1999 & 2004, because if you do include them that graph changes quite dramatically.

But 2004 was an ITT and I think 1999 was too so that could be a good argument to leave them out since they are 'fresher' riders in ITT, but to say thats the top30 performances when ... well its not is just plain manipulating data to get it to say what you want.

Actually just to give some more context for the full climb it seems the standings are:

1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h
2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h
3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h
4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h
5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h
6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h
8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h
9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h
10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h
11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h
12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h
13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h
14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h
15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h
16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h
21. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
22. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
22 eq. 2013: 59:00 Vroooooooomey 21.86 km/hr

hmmm I don't think I trust any of the riders above him though not even moncoutie ... but yea work with the full numbers people ! or at least make it clear why you might want to exclude other performances when excluding them and not just ignoring them entirely

 

[No_Balls]

10 char.

 

[vrusimov]

That's ok to use provided you mention you're excluding the times of 1999 & 2004, because if you do include them that graph changes quite dramatically.

But 2004 was an ITT and I think 1999 was too so that could be a good argument to leave them out since they are 'fresher' riders in ITT, but to say thats the top30 performances when ... well its not is just plain manipulating data to get it to say what you want.

obviously, and not to be sarcastic, they are not on the graph...Mayo and Pantani are excluded...

 

[The Hitch]

People are getting so excited about this guy, it is not like he met a proper climber in this race or anything

What about Fuglsang?

 

[Franklin]

The fact that they are skinny is evidence of doping?

The combination of extremely skinny TT specialist who also becomes the worlds best climber is highly unusual. Consider his physique is like that of the Chicken, yet is better in both the TT and the climb by a spectacular margin.

If you loose weight your TT probably suffers as you loose power. Earlier examples of climbers improvig spectacular at the TT have all been shown to be major dopers. Now Sky does it the other way around (TT specialist becoming climber), but it's definitely worth an explenation.

So it's at least some circumstantio evidence.

Again, I'm not saying they are not doping, on the contrary. I think they are.
But I do not have evidence. YOU do not have evidence.

Sorry, you are very, very wrong here.

We do not have definitive evidence (a test, a confession), but there is a decent list of problematic circumstances which could indeed be evidence of wrongdoing. A doping-doctor, crazy wattages, they are all evidence.

Is it ironclad ready to sentnce him evidence? Nope. But it's evidence.

 

[deValtos]

obviously, and not to be sarcastic, they are not on the graph...Mayo and Pantani are excluded...

Well you claimed they were the top 30 times in your post when they are not the top 30 times. I'm not saying it's wrong to exc 2004&1999 tho but those are not the top 30 times up Mont Ventoux that you have given. (To clarify Armstrong in 2002 would take the 22nd best time for the full distance, his 15km split is higher up)

 

[SundayRider]

Actually just to give some more context for the full climb it seems the standings are:

1. 2004: 55:51 Iban Mayo 23.10 km/h
2. 2004: 56:26 Tyler Hamilton 22.86 km/h
3. 1999: 56:50 Jonathan Vaughters 22.70 km/h
4. 2004: 56:54 Oscar Sevilla 22.67 km/h
5. 1999: 57:33 Alexander Vinokourov 22.42 km/h
6. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
7. 1999: 57:34 Wladimir Belli 22.41 km/h
8. 2004: 57:39 Juan Miguel Mercado 22.38 km/h
9. 1999: 57:42 Joseba Beloki 22.36 km/h
10. 2004: 57:49 Lance Armstrong 22.31 km/h
11. 1999: 57:52 Lance Armstrong 22.29 km/h
12. 2004: 58:14 Inigo Landaluze 22.15 km/h
13. 1999: 58:15 Kevin Livingston 22.15 km/h
14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h
15. 2004: 58:35 José Enrique Gutierrez 22.02 km/h
16. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
17. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
18. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
19. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
20. 1999: 58:51 Unai Osa 21.92 km/h
21. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
22. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
22 eq. 2013: 59:00 Vroooooooomey 21.86 km/hr

hmmm I don't think I trust any of the riders above him though not even moncoutie ... but yea work with the full numbers people ! or at least make it clear why you might want to exclude other performances when excluding them and not just ignoring them entirely

Not sure of the accuracy of this as this http://www.strava.com/activities/67057155 has Ten Dam's Ventoux ascent as 58.09?

 

[Franklin]

Again both of these 'facts' you are saying can be used in connection with a multitude of other circumstantial facts against Froome to lead to a conclusion or build a case that he is indeed doping but it certainly doesn't point to any absolute knowledge or proof that he actually dopes.

Should I add that Cadel is having a similar problem of even bigger proportions? Cadel's choice in teams has been... interesting.

So I think it's funny to realize that coincidentially this defense is important for you as it also buttresses Cadel

 

[The Hitch]

Quintana blew himself up trying to follow from in the end, if he would have paced himself better he could have been closer than 29s in the end. Also notice that Quintana rode more kilometers solo than Froome did, Froome was paced by Porte and Kennaugh for quiet a long time. Quintana's ride was spectacular.

froome also could have paced himself better. He spent a lot of energy on attacks.

 

[SafeBet]

**** this stupid tailwind BS. Ten Dam said there was headwind from the moment they came into the moon landscape.

Do you have a link for this? Not that I don't believe you.

 

[deValtos]

Not sure of the accuracy of this as this http://www.strava.com/activities/67057155 has Ten Dam's Ventoux ascent as 58.09?

The times I posted were 21,5 km@7,5% (credit to http://climbing-records.blogspot.ro/ once again)

The closet segment I can find to what they did today was http://app.strava.com/segments/664838
21km at 7.5%

Ten Dam is the winner !!! Though his time is over the hour

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

What about Fuglsang?

Fuglsang is living on his consitency, he is not an extreme climber, nor a tter, but after 3 weeks, he will be up there. Nibali, Aru, Seeldrayers. If they were here, they would make Froome seem more normal for sure.

 

[Bakhjulet]

What about Fuglsang?

Bit suspicious, but at least his time-trialing has gone back, suggesting he is lighter now and less powerful. He was after all 10th at the Worlds ITT in 2011 and about same level as Tuft, Castroviejo and Larsson.

 

[meat puppet]

Vetooo has completed his calculations, it seems.

The whole hog

Stage 15. Mont Ventoux (last 15.65 km, 8.74 %, 1368 m) Chris Froome: 48 min 35 sec (±5s), 19.33 Kph, VAM 1689 m/h, 5.88 W/kg [DrF]

Section 15,65k -> 6,15k

Stage 15. Mont Ventoux (15.65→6.15 = 9.50 km, 9.22%, 876m) Chris Froome: 30 min 54 sec (±5s), 18.45 Kph, VAM 1701 m/h, 5.82 W/kg [DrF]

Section 6,15k -> Finish

Stage 15. Mont Ventoux (last 6.15 km, 8.00 %, 492 m) Chris Froome: 17 min 41 sec, 20.87 Kph, VAM 1669 m/h, 5.96 W/kg [DrF]

So, in the range of 7 secs shy of LA in 2002 to 3secs faster than him.

Busted, IMO.

 

[Carlo Algatrensig]

**** this stupid tailwind BS. Ten Dam said there was headwind from the moment they came into the moon landscape.

Given around that point of the climb they do about a 150 degree turn that would suggest that for about the first three quarters of the climb they may have had a tail wind.