Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[vrusimov]

Then indulge me. I have not seen anyone do a rigorous analysis of the meta-data in any thread. They either compare times or w/kg with little to no thought about extraneous factors.

Since when does extraneous factors take preference over comparable data? We certainly can't compare riders by how much wind they face going up a mountain. How does that work exactly? It is not rocket science these calculations. Weight, grade, ascent and stopwatch ... that is it. The extraneous factors you mention can be off in BOTH directions, not just revisions downward from suspect performance levels. When Contador went up Verbier all we heard about was tailwinds and drafts, as if they were the main cause of the greatest performance ever on a mountain in any Tour de France. Tailwind or not, draft or not, it was either ~1850 VAM or over 1900, but in either case the performance indicated doping. No positive and no evidence other than the data calculated from the performance. What did we hear after Ventoux? Tailwinds again and how they could reduce the levels of a suspect performance. Put plainly, when the data is added up, some don't particularly like what said data adds up to.

 

[rhubroma]

Moncoutie has a faster time than Froome on Ventoux- isn't he one of the guys thats kind of a benchmark for clean cycling?

Post the time.

 

[Snafu352]

Who said it was a bad thing?

However all teams need to work under the same governance and structure. One team can't bully its way in and say "here is our data to prove we're clean, we can never test positive now or have a passport case because WADA said so".

Do you understand the implications of this?

What happens if a passport case is opened up against Porte. It eventually goes to CAS and Sky in their defense use the fact that they sent data to WADA and they said they were clean. No one sees the data but WADA said they were clean.

No, it shouldn't happen. Unless every team works under the same framework then its fundamentally wrong.

WADA already receive independent data from the UCI and other bodies. It shouldn't come directly from a team. That’s bordering on a donation.

In any case Sky are not serious about it. It’s just PR talk. No chance they said data to WADA.

I'm not sure that Brailsford was suggesting just Sky's data be delivered.
Totally agree that all teams should go through the same process, which would remove your concerns expressed in the first five sentences above.

 

[rhubroma]

Since when does extraneous factors take preference over comparable data? We certainly can't compare riders by how much wind they face going up a mountain. How does that work exactly? It is not rocket science these calculations. Weight, grade, ascent and stopwatch ... that is it. The extraneous factors you mention can be off in BOTH directions, not just revisions downward from suspect performance levels. When Contador went up Verbier all we heard about was tailwinds and drafts, as if they were the main cause of the greatest performance ever on a mountain in any Tour de France. Tailwind or not, draft or not, it was either ~1850 VAM or over 1900, but in either case the performance indicated doping. No positive and no evidence other than the data calculated from the performance. What did we hear after Ventoux? Tailwinds again and how they could reduce the levels of a suspect performance. Put plainly, when the data is added up, some don't particularly like what said data adds up to.

And, just think, he did all that under 50%! What monster.

 

[shakeshakeshake]

Post the time.

14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h

23. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h

 

[rhubroma]

14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h

23. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h

What balls!

 

[shakeshakeshake]

What do you mean?

 

[Deagol]

I too feel that most of the cynicism around here about Froome is underscored by this.

OK, I probably will regret responding to this, but here goes. If you really only have been in the clinic since June 2013, you simply don't have the long term perspective to make such an assesment. To have seen this place evolve over it's term of existence and through the Armstrong scandal, this place has been years ahead of mainstream knowledge and was laughed at by people who insisted on believing in the PR fed "miracle".

With Froome, the same pattern (in the Clinic with the "old guard" and the new posters) is happening all over again. It mirrors what is happening in profession bike racing with Lance and his defenders.

 

[whittashau]

14. 1999: 58:31 David Moncoutie 22.05 km/h

23. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h

that's from a ITT. As are all the times from 1999 and 2004

 

[BYOP88]

Froome climbing out of the seat????? Has he forgotten the 'more power whilst sitting' fact?

 

[darwin553]

OK, I probably will regret responding to this, but here goes. If you really only have been in the clinic sice June 2013, you simply don't have the long term perspective to make such an assesment. To have seen this place evolve over it's term of existance and through the Armstrong scandal, this place has been years ahead of mainstream knowledge and was laughed at by people who insisted on believing in the PR fed "miracle".

With Froome, the same pattern (in the Clinic with the "old guard" and the new posters) is happening all over again. It mirrors what is happening in profession bike racing with Lance and his defenders.

So we can immediately eliminate the innocent explanations of hard work and better training programs?

 

[Snafu352]

Nope, not a troll dear. What I meant was that your insecurity comes full fore.

As for the rest, I live in Italy. Nuff said.

Rightttt....

Following the mob is a sign of strength? Clearly i missed that memo when i was studying history.

As for your attempt at enigmatic superiority, i live in Europe as well and so what?

If you do know something why the heck are you posting hints on here and not doing something with that knowledge?
How do hints on here catch Froome?

 

[shakeshakeshake]

that's from a ITT. As are all the times from 1999 and 2004

Ah my bad!

Question: why are ITTs faster?

 

[BYOP88]

Ah my bad!

Question: why are ITTs faster?

Because you haven't already ridden 100+km already.

 

[bewildered]

Ah my bad!

Question: why are ITTs faster?

we've been told not to get into ITTs already as it's already been discussed so i don't want to risk a ban. Google ventoux 1999 and check the length of the ITT

 

[rhubroma]

Rightttt....

Following the mob is a sign of strength? Clearly i missed that memo when i was studying history.

As for your attempt at enigmatic superiority, i live in Europe as well and so what?

If you do know something why the heck are you posting hints on here and not doing something with that knowledge?
How do hints on here catch Froome?

They don't silly, that's for the testers to demonstrate...if they can. As far as Europa is concerned, perhaps there exist more disingenuous and thus more civil places than Italy. Though if you want to cut to the chase, then the Boot is where to go.

It's your choice, civility over reality. Though don't kid yourself with false illusions.

 

[whittashau]

Ah my bad!

Question: why are ITTs faster?

....er because riding for 5 hours before the climb isn't exactly beneficial to one's time up a climb

 

[rhubroma]

What do you mean?

I mean if he actually did that on bread and water then he's got balls. I find that, though, hard to believe.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

....er because riding for 5 hours before the climb isn't exactly beneficial to one's time up a climb

Hihi you answered well.

 

[whittashau]

we've been told not to get into ITTs already as it's already been discussed so i don't want to risk a ban. Google ventoux 1999 and check the length of the ITT

what are you on about?

 

[bewildered]

comparing ventoux times has been discussed earlier in the thread at length and I recall one of the mods last night saying that enough was enough, may be wrong tho

 

[Deagol]

So we can immediately eliminate the innocent explanations of hard work and better training programs?

Everyone including Lance and Froome works hard. Every cyclist, including cat 2 amatuers work their asses off.

Doping 101: Doping allows you to work HARDER.

Better training programs, maybe maybe possibly, but let's get real. Look at the HUGE GAP in performance in Ventoux against none other than Contador. Do you really think that a "better training program" would account for the alien acceleration we saw, not to mention domination in the ITT and hillclimbs and peaking for six months? (even doper Lance did not peak fore more than the Tour)

I'm sure Sky has a "better training program"™ but the concern is that parts of it responsible for these alien feats are not legal.

"Marginal Gains"™ are not what we have seen here. It's just a catch-phrase to fool the unfamiliar, just as "most tested athlete", "Never Tested Positive", "jealous haters", etc, etc, etc.

 

[spetsa]

Talking point # 128764830

Froome is clean, Contador beat him. You only imagined that he slowed down when it started raining.

 

[the sceptic]

Dawg takes it slow on the descents and still wins

 

[thrawn]

Talking point # 128764830

Froome is clean, Contador beat him. You only imagined that he slowed down when it started raining.

Rain means nothing to aliens. Still won.