Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[bewildered]

Why can we not be satisfied with the fact that Chris Froome is a clean rider who is a level above the competion in this years Tour de France.

Close the thread everybody

 

[Chaddy]

What research is available to show he's a cheat?

 

[maltiv]

he benefits from being part of probably the most sophisticated training regime in the history of cycling. maybe he is the best GT rider ever. sport advances. sportsmen now are generally better than they have ever been due to advances made and new techniques and technology

This is the exact same argument the Armstrong-fanboys used...

 

[Ferminal]

He's not a cheat.

 

[Ruby United]

Why can we not be satisfied with the fact that Chris Froome is a clean rider who is a level above the competion in this years Tour de France.

Lol! You are obviously new to this site; you will learn quite quickly that any rider who wins dopes #ChrisFroomeIsClean.

 

[Rollthedice]

CN has more info on Grappe's conclusions here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-releases-froomes-power-data

It's official. He's the Alien:

"The extremely high maximal aerobic power (efforts of five minutes) confirms that he has an extraordinary high aerobic potential, which means he has a V02 max (this has never been measured in the laboratory by his team) close to the limits of known physiological science."

 

[IndianCyclist]

I for one am surprised and pleased that Sky & Froome have decided to release the data that was demanded by a lot of people.
But what i am not surprised is at the reaction from a lot of those people. The data didn't do anything. People continue to be skeptical. Now it is about pre 2011 data. It is achieving the proportions of a witch hunt with people determined to prove that he is doping. If he is doping it will come out eventually. But what is now happening is what had happened to Bassons etc. but in the reverse way.
No other rider/team has released their data so far. No other rider has been questioned this way. If a witch hunt is to be done, in the interest of justice it should be applied equally to all riders and not just Froome. Lets ask for the data from all riders before we ask more from Froome/Sky. For eg. I for one would be very interested in Contador's 2009 Verbier data.

 

[The Hitch]

Lol! You are obviously new to this site; you will learn quite quickly that any rider who wins dopes #ChrisFroomeIsClean.

You clearly have no familiarity with the discussion you just inserted yourself into.

 

[willbick]

This is the exact same argument the Armstrong-fanboys used...

do u disagree with it? do u think cycling training regimes were as sophisticated in the past as team Sky's?

p.s. i am not a fcking 'fanboy'.

 

[SundayRider]

do u disagree with it? do u think cycling training regimes were as sophisticated in the past as team Sky's?

p.s. i am not a fcking 'fanboy'.

What specifically is more sophisticated in your opinion?
The wheel cannot be re-invented.

 

[willbick]

As its impossible to prove a negative this tedious thread will inevitably continue until we've all died of old age

 

[meat puppet]

I for one am surprised and pleased that Sky & Froome have decided to release the data that was demanded by a lot of people.

Ditto, I guess.

Now it is about pre 2011 data.

It was always about the transformation and Badzilla. Today's power levels we know, to a good degree of approximation.

No other rider/team has released their data so far.

Could we try to keep this factual, please? Valverde stage 9, on the SRM site. Too bad old data entries seem to have been deleted.

Lets ask for the data from all riders before we ask more from Froome/Sky. For eg. I for one would be very interested in Contador's 2009 Verbier data.

Indeed.

It's about the sport, not Froome per se. The other teams should follow suit.

 

[willbick]

What specifically is more sophisticated in your opinion?
The wheel cannot be re-invented.

the whole system is more sophisticated. every aspect of the whole training regime is micro managed on computers by sports science nerds. to say sky is just doing the same things as they did 10, 20 years ago is ludicrous

 

[Winterfold]

What do we think of this?

"It shows, for example, a significant and normal power reduction of 60 watts (0.88 w/kg) between twenty and sixty minutes efforts. On average an athlete loses fifty watts in this time interval. "

My understanding of the relationship between CP20 and FTP (60 minutes) was that FTP was typically 92-95% of FTP with some variance around that.

Unless Grappe is talking about athletes with an FTP of 600-650W, he seems to be coming at this from a different place from the data geek TT community where the 92-95% relationship is widely used?

 

[Dalakhani]

The data didn't do anything. People continue to be skeptical.

The data was shared with an organisation cherry-picked by Sky.

AND... it's just the data for one rider. I want to know if Porte and Wiggins are also "close to the limits of known physiological science."

Now it is about pre 2011 data.

Surely this is to be expected? It's one thing to say, "Yes, based on the laws of science, it's possible for a human being to do this clean", it's another thing to say that Chris Froome is able to do this clean.

No other rider/team has released their data so far. No other rider has been questioned this way.

Probably no other rider has gone from being a nobody to being the best GC rider in the world in less than 12 months (and 3rd best time triallist) - at such a late age.

If a witch hunt is to be done, in the interest of justice it should be applied equally to all riders and not just Froome

Fortunately, it's not a witch hunt. It's a calls for an investigation into a team where multiple members have shown massive improvements... in a sport (a) such things have usually been a result of drugs and, (b) which failed to catch someone cheating to win the Tour 7 years in a row.

Lets ask for the data from all riders before we ask more from Froome/Sky.

And what would you get from the data? Say, for example, you had the data for Mikel Nieve, what would that tell you?

Surely data is only useful if someone (a) shows massive sudden improvement, or (b) appears to be pushing the limits of what's humanly possible?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What do we think of this?

"It shows, for example, a significant and normal power reduction of 60 watts (0.88 w/kg) between twenty and sixty minutes efforts. On average an athlete loses fifty watts in this time interval. "

My understanding of the relationship between CP20 and FTP (60 minutes) was that FTP was typically 92-95% of FTP with some variance around that.

Unless Grappe is talking about athletes with an FTP of 600-650W, he seems to be coming at this from a different place from the data geek TT community where the 92-95% relationship is widely used?

Now that you mention it, yes. We think it stinks, and proves
* the whole thing is a PR exercise
* Brailsford is right in that few really understand power, and very few will pick this up, where few is the % of people who know and use power vs the population of the planet

 

[Ferminal]

What do we think of this?

"It shows, for example, a significant and normal power reduction of 60 watts (0.88 w/kg) between twenty and sixty minutes efforts. On average an athlete loses fifty watts in this time interval. "

My understanding of the relationship between CP20 and FTP (60 minutes) was that FTP was typically 92-95% of FTP with some variance around that.

Unless Grappe is talking about athletes with an FTP of 600-650W, he seems to be coming at this from a different place from the data geek TT community where the 92-95% relationship is widely used?

I thought it was a bit weird. It's say, the difference between PdBF and Ventoux. If Ventoux was 5.8 W/kg then PdBF was 6.6-6.7...

 

[meat puppet]

I thought it was a bit weird. It's say, the difference between PdBF and Ventoux. If Ventoux was 5.8 W/kg then PdBF was 6.6-6.7...

Assuming that he was going full gas both times of course. But yes, I found that kind of drop weird too.

 

[Logic Al]

What specifically is more sophisticated in your opinion?
The wheel cannot be re-invented.

do you not think the Sky doping programme is more sophisticated than other teams?

 

[murali]

I don't understand power values, but i have a few doubts. i only read the article in CN. hopefully someone can help me clear my doubts.

a) why is two years of data sufficient to prove that the performances are clean?

b) Why is VO2max data not released? It seems illogical to me that a team interested in monitoring its training wont maintain VO2Max data along with other parameters of all its riders. AFAIK, VO2Max value can be improved by 20-30% with appropriate training.

c) Has Sky released all relevant data?

d) From what i understood, Frederick Grappe has compared the data supplied with his own estimates and sees only variation by 2.5%. Doesn't a 2.5% precision value look astounding? I mean, i have done real experiments, and 2.5% is a value that will make me jump with joy.

e) what is the significance of ability to maintain the same weight for 2 years? my weight was stable for 4 years i was away from home. it just means that he is not getting good food to eat. (the photo of his torso proved that)

f) Grappe claims that Froome has an incredible capacity to recover after every race for the past 2 years. The last time i heard about such capability, i got burned for adulating that person.

g) what does "very well integrated" actually mean? again, there is claim of following the general profile. So, how much variation was allowed by the researcher? When odd values propped up, were they considered as statistical anomalies, or were they separately evaluated?

I am asking here, because i haven't yet made up my mind whether he is actually clean. as far as i am concerned, it is guilty under proven innocent, esp since froome has put too many unbelievable performances.

 

[SundayRider]

the whole system is more sophisticated. every aspect of the whole training regime is micro managed on computers by sports science nerds. to say sky is just doing the same things as they did 10, 20 years ago is ludicrous

Armstrong's was, or at least it was claimed to be.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Fred Grappe ‏@fredgrappe 41m
La question qu'il faut davantage se poser c'est plutôt de savoir quel était son profil avant 2011 ? Et là, je n'en sait rien...

The only interesting thing from the article is Grappe's [also pseudo scientist?] calculations are at most 2.5% off. Vayers/Portelau are at most 2% of of the SRM files of other riders. So, its fair to say the pseudo science Brailsford rant was out of order.

 

[Bumeington]

What do we think of this?

"It shows, for example, a significant and normal power reduction of 60 watts (0.88 w/kg) between twenty and sixty minutes efforts. On average an athlete loses fifty watts in this time interval. "

My understanding of the relationship between CP20 and FTP (60 minutes) was that FTP was typically 92-95% of FTP with some variance around that.

Unless Grappe is talking about athletes with an FTP of 600-650W, he seems to be coming at this from a different place from the data geek TT community where the 92-95% relationship is widely used?

I reckon he's commenting on race data. Personally, I can only reach 95% CP20 for 60 minutes if I'm tapered and fresh, whereas 20 minute efforts it doesn't make quite as much difference - worth noting I've seen Grappe mention the 50W figure before for FDJ riders

 

[hiero2]

Lol! You are obviously new to this site; you will learn quite quickly that any rider who wins dopes #ChrisFroomeIsClean.

You clearly have no familiarity with the discussion you just inserted yourself into.

Fyi (as a poster) - the hitch is massively wrong with this comment. After having read these boards for, what, some 3 years now? I forget. My conclusion is that I have to 100% agree with

you will learn quite quickly that any rider who wins dopes

. There is far less rational insight and far more irrational conclusion hunting in here than many would like you to believe.

That said, it is what it is. If we had a UCI that was effective, THEN I would get a bit more upset and call it a witch hunt in here. But we don't. And many people, myself included, don't like Froome. So, if we don't like or admire Froome, it is easier to think he is

Loaded 100% . . .

 

[acoggan]

What do we think of this?

"It shows, for example, a significant and normal power reduction of 60 watts (0.88 w/kg) between twenty and sixty minutes efforts. On average an athlete loses fifty watts in this time interval. "

My understanding of the relationship between CP20 and FTP (60 minutes) was that FTP was typically 92-95% of FTP with some variance around that.

Unless Grappe is talking about athletes with an FTP of 600-650W, he seems to be coming at this from a different place from the data geek TT community where the 92-95% relationship is widely used?

Grappe uses a rather simplistic mathematical model of the power-duration relationship, which is biased (in the statistical sense). Thus, I wouldn't read too much into any of the absolute values, as they won't necessarily agree with other approaches/experience/reality. About all that really can be said is that (assuming he had access to all of Froome's numbers) is that the data are:

1) internally self-consistent, and
2) similar (in a relative sense) to that of other cyclists Grappe considers clean

when viewed through the "lens" provided by this (flawed) model.

Or to put it another way: let the speculation about how Froome reached his 2011-2013 level, and/or how seem recovers so well between stages, begin.