Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Bala Verde]

Let's get over what Grappe said:

1) His weight is stable within 900g.

Ok, fine. Neutral statement wrt. doping I guess. Main point seems to be to use W and W/kg interchangeably.

2) Must possess extraordinary aerobic potential.

Qualified by the statement that he does not have the corresponding VO2max numbers. In fact, we can treat this as a scientific prediction. Power numbers can only be explained by high VO2max numbers (which are hard to improve throughout a career). So let's test this prediction... below

3) Must possess excellent recovery.

Hard to use the statement in either way. For doing well in 3 week GTs this is a given. However, I have no idea whether recovery can be trained or not. Certainly it can be helped along by 'products'. I interpret it neutral/slightly leaning toward doping.

4) Power drops off normally

Again, it is hard to use the statement either way, as everybody (athlete or not, doped or not) would presumably show this behavior. If you dope, presumably you'd increase your 60 min. performance as well as your 20 min. performance, but still you would do worse for 60 min. than for 20 min. I just don't see what the drop-off proves in terms of doping.

ok, so far so good

Now, let's go back to point 2, which is the big point IMHO. Does Froome have a VO2max value at the physiological limit? Well, clearly, he has now, otherwise he wouldn't produce the power data, so the real question is: is it a natural or 'enhanced' number? For that to establish, we assume that the 'natural' VO2max doesn't change much throughout a career, because it cannot be improved much through training. So it should be evident throughout Froome's career (in a similar way as it was throughout, say, Greg Lemond's career). Now, you don't need a PhD in statistics or exercise physiology or any particularly sophisticated models to convert ITT times or VAM times into power data and VO2max data to see that there's absolutely no manifestation whatsoever of any extraordinary 'at the physiologocal limit' VO2max value for Froome from anything before the 2011 Vuelta. Now, why would that be the case, I wonder? The official explanation for that given so far is bilharzia. Or did I miss something?

Amazing that the most scientific and revolutionary team in the history of cycling:

Team Sky have never measured Froome's VO2Max – his maximal level of oxygen intake during exercise – but Grappe concludes that this must be "close to currently known physiological limits …

[...]

As any close follower of cycling knows, drug test figures are meaningless in proving a rider's probity, but what they do show is that Froome and his team are being closely monitored, even if they are keeping essential figures to themselves.

[Source]

 

[Bicycle]

Froomes performance is some else, I give you that, but this is ridiculous and even borderline pathetic.

What could Froome have done today that would have been acceptable?

 

[jamesmasters]

Sky do what is requested, the opinion is that he looks legit, you guys ignore it. Comedy gold. Still, the guy from l'Equipe must be in the pay of Sky! Oh and mustn't forget David Walsh ;-)

Sky haven't done what was requested. They have given data from Vuelta 2011 onwards - i.e. exactly the point at which his suspicious performances began. The data might prove that he is doping at a consistent level. Big deal. Let's see the figures from 2009 when he was peloton fodder and about to be dropped by Sky.

 

[The Hitch]

You are right it won't change the quality of his earlier performances, but it shows that he can't keep up his superhuman performances for 3 weeks, so therefore he in some sense becomes less superhuman than he could have been.

Hes kept up his superhuman performances for 5 months. This is the first time since February he has not been first of the gc guys on an mtf. Losing 1 minute is in no way proof that he cant keep up his performances for 3 weeks. Especially since all but 1 of his comeptitiors have fallen even further back than him as the race progressed.

 

[BroDeal]

Froomes performance is some else, I give you that, but this is ridiculous and even borderline pathetic.

Hey, remember the last couple of years when all the muppets were telling us the sport must be clean because climbing speeds are down to what the legends of the sport were able to do in the 80s? Now Froome can climb at that speed while supposedly bonking. Looks legit.

 

[Benotti69]

It's like an Alien Abductees convention in here. Cue the Froome is an alien response. Ridiculous.

Can you name a member of the human race who could race, climb and TT like Froome without juice?

 

[cineteq]

The mind of a cheater.

Froome: "if you look at the technicality it was actually Richie Porte who fed from the car not myself. I fed from Richie Porte so maybe that’s something that needs to be taken in consideration"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-penalised-20-seconds-for-illegal-feeding

 

[DirtyWorks]

Let's get over what Grappe said:

The same guy that explained Armstrong's performance as reasonable has more claims that might be valid? There's a roadblock for me right there.

Does someone have more background on Grappe? His legitimizing Armstrong, then reappearing to legitimize Sky seems to me like someone at the UCI has him on speed dial.

 

[Benotti69]

Hey, remember the last couple of years when all the muppets were telling us the sport must be clean because climbing speeds are down to what the legends of the sport were able to do in the 80s? Now Froome can climb at that speed while supposedly bonking. Looks legit.

I thought when a rider bonks he doesn't feel it till its too late and then you just go backwards no matter what you do, one doesn't recover immediately.

Froome and Sky are, as you and others are saying, stage (in the acting sense) managing this race. Froome to win a razzie or 2.

 

[bewildered]

The mind of a cheater.

Froome: "if you look at the technicality it was actually Richie Porte who fed from the car not myself. I fed from Richie Porte so maybe that’s something that needs to be taken in consideration"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-penalised-20-seconds-for-illegal-feeding

Pretty stupid statement from Froome, the rule is there for a reason, if domestiques could feed their leaders and get around the rule it would be a free for all in the final ks of a MTF. He lost 20s and still has a massive lead. Just comes across as childish and moaning, can only serve to make him unpopular. Even if he is technically correct under the rules (?) that statement does him no favours and won't get his 20s back.

 

[Bala Verde]

I think you're splitting hairs here. Brailsford's argument against sharing Froome's data was that it wouldn't put an end to the accusations, but in fact would just give people something more to point to as evidence of doping. His prediction is, in fact, proving true.

Agreed. We should leave it to scientists who are trained to evaluate, assess, and interpret the data and who are thus the only ones who can come to inevitable, right, conclusions. Once one scientist has concluded something, all other scientists are out of jobs.

Because scientists never make mistakes?

Because scientists never disagree?

Because anyone who doesn't have a PhD in a particular (sub) specialty a peer reviewed article/conclusion/analysis deals with, is automatically disqualified from commenting on said article (or data, or methodology, or conclusions)

You must be the first scientist who defends restricting transparency to advance knowledge.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Can you name a member of the human race who could race, climb and TT like Froome without juice?

Let's make it easier still.

Find a rider that has won grand tours prior to 1980 and did it with little to no lower-level success. After 1980, there's Riis, Chicken/Rassmussen, and ?

 

[bewildered]

Yeah i don't think he was bonking, I'm not saying he was faking but today was a very good PR day for Sky in terms of putting a stop to doping questions

 

[mrhender]

The mind of a cheater.

Froome: "if you look at the technicality it was actually Richie Porte who fed from the car not myself. I fed from Richie Porte so maybe that’s something that needs to be taken in consideration"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-penalised-20-seconds-for-illegal-feeding

If he wants to be a true champion in the eyes of cykling fans. He might
should consider a more "take it as a man" attitude....

Also his criticism of attacking on descends strikes me as a guy not really understanding his position in global cykling right now..

Doped or not, he has a lot to learn in my point of view...

 

[The Hitch]

Pretty stupid statement from Froome, the rule is there for a reason, if domestiques could feed their leaders and get around the rule it would be a free for all in the final ks of a MTF. He lost 20s and still has a massive lead. Just comes across as childish and moaning, can only serve to make him unpopular. Even if he is technically correct under the rules (?) that statement does him no favours and won't get his 20s back.

It should make him less popular but no one will dwell on it.

 

[Red Lobster]

froome has broken a bike racing rule by feeding illegally.

in and of itself, i do not see it as a big deal.

but this bs coming of his mouth irks me hugely, '... if you look at the technicality it was actually Richie Porte who fed from the car not myself. I fed from Richie Porte...'

so a gregario has brokonen a rule with the sole goal of illegally feeding his captain after the captain signaled he was in trouble and it is...the gragario's fault

this type of arrogance whilst talking into the mike when the whole world was watching the illegal move is, yes suggestive of someone capable of cheating and bs-ing in your face.

to me, this was certainly not a connection to doping but an indication of an attitude most arrogant dopers have been guilty of.

froome=-1.

i don't view it as all that telling with respect to doping ... but no question it is way out there on the ****** bag continuum. You needed the illegal feed dude, own up to it FFS.

 

[Bala Verde]

The same guy that explained Armstrong's performance as reasonable has more claims that might be valid? There's a roadblock for me right there.

Does someone have more background on Grappe? His legitimizing Armstrong, then reappearing to legitimize Sky seems to me like someone at the UCI has him on speed dial.

You are referring to this 2005 article?

La supériorité d'Armstrong vue par la science

"Un extra-terrestre? Certainement pas. Un obsessionnel du travail et du détail, oui certainement. Il représente un extra-terrestre pour ceux qui ne jurent que par le dopage. Les autres n'ont pas à le glorifier mais doivent lui reconnaître un grand professionnalisme", estime Frédéric Grappe dans un ouvrage de 450 pages intitulé "Cyclisme et optimisation de la performance".

Froome 2009, a mountain goat in the making. This always makes my day (@7:15)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEGpv0xn0E8

 

[hfer07]

Froome: "if you look at the technicality it was actually Richie Porte who fed from the car not myself. I fed from Richie Porte so maybe that’s something that needs to be taken in consideration"

http://troll.me/images/full-***/you-went-full-***-never-go-full-***.jpg

 

[The Hitch]

Agreed. We should leave it to scientists who are trained to evaluate, assess, and interpret the data and who are thus the only ones who can come to inevitable, right, conclusions. Once one scientist has concluded something, all other scientists are out of jobs.

Because scientists never make mistakes?

Because scientists never disagree?

Because anyone who doesn't have a PhD in a particular (sub) specialty a peer reviewed article/conclusion/analysis deals with, is automatically disqualified from commenting on said article (or data, or methodology, or conclusions)

You must be the first scientist who defends restricting transparency to advance knowledge.

Also - They didn't give data from before his transformation, is not a scientific question. It is a stone cold fact.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

froome has broken a bike racing rule by feeding illegally.

in and of itself, i do not see it as a big deal.

but this bs coming of his mouth irks me hugely, '... if you look at the technicality it was actually Richie Porte who fed from the car not myself. I fed from Richie Porte...'

so a gregario has brokonen a rule with the sole goal of illegally feeding his captain after the captain signaled he was in trouble and it is...the gragario's fault

this type of arrogance whilst talking into the mike when the whole world was watching the illegal move is, yes suggestive of someone capable of cheating and bs-ing in your face.

to me, this was certainly not a connection to doping but an indication of an attitude most arrogant dopers have been guilty of.

froome=-1.

Truly, the effect is the irrelevant part of this. What I find galling is the show Sky puts on about how they are doing everything within the rules, can't question them because they're busting their *** 18 hours a day on their bikes motorpacing up climbs and eating skinless baked fish and dry pasta.

People who will cheat on small things cannot be trusted on anything, and those who proclaim their righteousness to the world and then show the world that they'll cheat when they need to are even worse.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think you're splitting hairs here. Brailsford's argument against sharing Froome's data was that it wouldn't put an end to the accusations, but in fact would just give people something more to point to as evidence of doping. His prediction is, in fact, proving true.

He gives data to a scientist that famously claimed everything was okay with Armstrong. Of all the people in the entire athletic research world, it ends up there. I'm supposed to not make any connection at all? It's all okay?

The first date of the power data is interesting too. Johan Brailsford knew Froome would be great when he saw him finish 10-20 at some TT. And yet, no power data from early-days at Sky. The most scientific team in the world doesn't have it?

That's just the start. No need to reply either. This discussion ends with personal attacks and "you mere mortals can't understand the data anyway" reply.

 

[The Hitch]

You are referring to this 2005 article?

La supériorité d'Armstrong vue par la science

This one is from 2001 http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/feb01/feb09news.shtml

In an in depth interview with L'Equipe, Grappe said that Armstrong's results have come through hard work and not hard drugs, despite the climate of suspicion that still surrounds cycling (especially in France) at the moment.

He then commented on the accusations that have been made against Lance Armstrong regarding 'impossible' power outputs. "Certain people say silly things. When we are told that a rider is not able to put out 420 - 430 Watts in a time trial, that is false. Not so long ago, one of the riders with whom I was involved climbed Mont Faron at a power of 400 Watts for 20 minutes, and he is far from being Armstrong. Consequently, I am not astonished that Armstrong or others can produce 460 or 470 Watts on a mountain. It is not impossible."


In addition, a cadence of 80-90 rpm to produce this power on climbs is also not impossible, according to Grappe. "It is the result of many days of hard work. With what has happened in the past 10 years, many riders are using bigger gear ratios. Some have lost the suppleness, i.e. they are not able to utilise higher pedalling frequencies...a high pedalling frequency makes it possible to relieve the muscles," said Grappe who expressed his annoyance of people's poor analysis of the data.

But as 15 posters who joined this month will soon point out to me, I am just hating on Grappe because he disagrees with me.

Edit: though in fairness to Mr Grappe he does admit this time that he is not saying Froome is clean.

 

[TheBean]

Personally, I do not care if Froome (or anyone else on a bike) is doping or not. I choose to not care, that way I am never upset when I find out.

Instead, I like to find enjoyment in the circus aspect of it all. Some of the hardest laughs I have ever had in my life are in response to excuses that riders come up with when they are caught. (#1 goes to Tyler Hamilton)

Other laughter comes from explanations for performances that are discovered to be doped. (too many to list)

But, this attempt by Sky to clear suspision around Froome is just plain pathetic. IMO, al they did was raise an even greater suspicion from anyone who knows how to read physiology language.

Yes, they did get a headline saying they are sharing data.

Yes, they did get a sub head-line stating that an expert says Froome has been "consistent" for the past 2.5 seasons.

And that's it.

What a complete load of crap!

To translate it to simple English, this is what the expert said:

"Froom is really powerful for his weight and his weight doesn't fluctuate much at all. He doesn't get tired as fast as most people when he works hard, but when he DOES get tired, he gets weaker just like most other people do. Also,when he gets tired, he bounces back the next day really well. I haven't measured his performance in my lab, but I am guessing he has a better capacity for endurance sports than most."

That's the analysis from the expert.

Comedy Gold! Almost as good as Tyler's excuse, but not quite IMO.

I read that the expert said the same thing about Armstrong's data, but I haven't been able to verify that. If it's true, just add:

"Our guy said the same thing about Lance, and that was even before he went on Oprah." to the top of my translation.

That makes it a gut-buster of a comedy routine. Ready for an SNL parody, like when Tina Fey didn't have to rewrite Palin's woeds, just deliver that comedy gold again.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

When Froome was relatively unknown and keeping quite in the media for the most part, he seemed like he was probably a nice guy...then he started talking to the media, and it turns out he's a real dooshbag.

 

[TheBean]

Sorry, Sky.

I try to avoid being cynical and to avoid internet jargon.

But, your attempt was an Epic Fail.