Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Don't be late Pedro]

Uh, ok. How stupid of me to speculate.

From this point forward I'll just use the god Dr. Ferrari's descriptor, "ghastly."

does that term work for you?

Speculate away... Just when you do best not to make it sound like fact. I have made my point but feel free to argue on.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Speculate away... Just when you do best not to make it sound like fact. I have made my point but feel free to argue on.

Thanks for setting me straight although I'm not at all sure what your point is/was.

Little known fact that a riders weight can vary from the beginning of a stage to the end, from beginning of the race to the end. That I made a guess at his weight is pretty effing obvious.

But if all you deal in is cold, hard facts, then you better get yer scale out and weigh him early and often.

Other than that,

 

[Merckx index]

And as you move along the curve sustainability rather than maximum force becomes more relevant. Muscle mass is important for force, not sustainability.

I’m not sure, but I think you’re trying to say that muscle mass is essentially irrelevant for long distance. It isn’t. You still have to lift your body with every pedal stroke on a climb, and you still have to fight wind resistance with every pedal stroke in a TT. And again, greater mass is an advantage for TTers. Yes, there are other factors, but if you are starting with a disadvantage in one critical area, your chances of becoming a dominant rider in that discipline become far more difficult.

There aren't, because once again maximum force is the important factor for them and that comes from muscle mass. However, it should be noted that Kittel and Cavendish are very skinny when compared to Hoy and Bauge.

That's because you have to be fairly light to stay with the pack through a long stage and sprint at the end. Track cyclists don’t have to do any climbing.

But you were talking about long distance runners, and I repeat, runners, unlike TTng cyclists, have to lift their bodies against gravity. This effect increases with distance, because the pace is slower and strides shorter. So being light is a greater advantage for long distance runners than for sprinters, who need muscle mass to overcome inertia at the start, to take advantage of the mass vs. area relationship to overcome the greater wind resistance at greater speeds, and whose long strides mean less lifting vs. gravity.

Comparing sprinters with long distance runners is a textbook example of how body type makes a major contribution to proficiency in a certain type of competition. I don't know anyone who would deny this. And the same kind of relationship holds for cycling.

But all things aren't equal. Size is one of many factors. You need to stop looking for easy generalisations to explain complex problems.

It’s not an easy generalization. It’s a critical relationship. You can’t ignore it. While there are certainly other factors, they tend to be equalized at the elite level. For example, everyone at this level has a high V02max/kg—while there are important size differences (see below) the values cluster tightly around a mean. Any elite rider is going to have a higher V02max/kg than that of almost any non-elite rider. Everyone at the elite level does not have a certain body size. There is a great variability, and great overlap with the population at large.

Now it may be that Froome’s V02max is so much higher than anyone else’s that it overcomes any size factors. But I haven’t seen the evidence for this yet. And it may be that Froome has advantages in other factors that overcome size factors. If you think these other factors are so important, why don't you name some and provide some evidence that Froome is vastly superior in them? Then we can discuss this.

Again you revert to a trite generalisation based on a few observations. Is Samuel Dumoulin are great climber? Short riders tend to be climbers as there's not much call for a 5'6" domestique unless he has special skills. Teams prefer a six foot guy who can do the same job. Of course there have been plenty of tall climbers. Aside from Froome - Schleck (6'1), Bahamontes (6'0), Merckx (6'0), Fignon (6'0) for example.
It's stereotyping. And anything that veers from the basic 'rules' confuses people.

No, you are the one who are trying to argue against a well-known relationship with a few observations. That fact that a handful of great climbers have been tall does not change the fact that the vast majority of climbers have been short. Why?

Short riders have a greater ratio of critical interior areas--where oxygen is absorbed into the blood and tissues--per mass than heavier riders. Thus as weight goes down, oxygen transport per mass, IOW, watts/kg, go up. And many studies have documented this. Shorter, smaller riders do tend to have a greater V02max/kg.

And I will emphasize again, yes, there are other factors, but I will ask you again to suggest what these other factors are for Froome that help overcome this disadvantage.

Sports science is complex and hard to fully comprehend. Doping is easy to understand - the idea of 'magic potions' is in literature for eight year olds. Humans tend to go for the quick easy explanation regardless of its actual merits.

Scientific arguments are complex and hard to fully understand. Assuming that someone is using them to build an argument for doping is easy to understand. Because I point out that there are some very curious aspects to Froome’s dominance, you seem to assume that I’m trying to prove he’s doping. If there is a child-like magic potion element, it's the notion that we just have to accept Froome's dominance, we can never explain exactly how it exists, beyond certain vague "other factors", and we shouldn't even try to.

Maybe this is unfair to you, but I sense that you want to close off all discussion of how Froome has become so dominant as both a climber and a TTer. So, as far can I see, does Sky. I would think that scientists, far from doing this, would want to understand how someone with certain well known disadvantages, has been able to overcome them. Such a discussion could lead to the conclusion that doping is likely, or it might lead to the conclusion that something other than doping is possible. But when people refuse to follow the discussion to wherever it leads, it seems to me they are trying to avoid something.

I've never said I'm certain Froome is doping. I don't know. What I do object to is:

a) Sky's refusal to release pre-2011 power data, all while claiming to want to be transparent;
b) none of Froome's/Sky's defendants, as far as I know, expressing willingness to delve into physiology in an attempt to explain how he can be so dominant.

 

[thehog]

Gah, no. He changed mid-season, 2011. I've shown conclusively that from the Tour de Suisse (2011) forward to now, he suddenly and permanently received a ~20% increase in FTP. It was not gradual. It was a sudden and permanent shift.

John Swanson

I read your numbers. 131313 had also come to the same figure some time ago based on Froome '11 TT & forward.

I also read Vayer's interview and I bring myself back to Di Luca's comments. Doping has shifted from competition to training.

Now in saying all that. Froome was strong, super strong at Oman. If it was July you'd say, sure he's doping. But in Feb/March? That's the part that intrigues me and what I draw a correlation with what Di Luca said.

Kerrison was in SA with Froome. Porte alone in Oz. Who was the strongest?

Still not a lot of data to work with yet. Should be an interesting season.

 

[panache]

I would think that scientists, far from doing this, would want to understand how someone with certain well known disadvantages, has been able to overcome them. Such a discussion could lead to the conclusion that doping is likely, or it might lead to the conclusion that something other than doping is possible. But when people refuse to follow the discussion to wherever it leads, it seems to me they are trying to avoid something.

Well said, MI.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

I read your numbers. 131313 had also come to the same figure some time ago based on Froome '11 TT & forward.

I also read Vayer's interview and I bring myself back to Di Luca's comments. Doping has shifted from competition to training.

This would make sense with last year's TdF. Come in super hot, smash the first mt top finish, defend defend defend. Basically a gamble that nobody is going to get a full refill in the final week.

I bet Movistar is causing them some worry this year.

 

[SundayRider]

I’m not sure, but I think you’re trying to say that muscle mass is essentially irrelevant for long distance. It isn’t. You still have to lift your body with every pedal stroke on a climb, and you still have to fight wind resistance with every pedal stroke in a TT. And again, greater mass is an advantage for TTers. Yes, there are other factors, but if you are starting with a disadvantage in one critical area, your chances of becoming a dominant rider in that discipline become far more difficult.



That's because you have to be fairly light to stay with the pack through a long stage and sprint at the end. Track cyclists don’t have to do any climbing.

But you were talking about long distance runners, and I repeat, runners, unlike TTng cyclists, have to lift their bodies against gravity. This effect increases with distance, because the pace is slower and strides shorter. So being light is a greater advantage for long distance runners than for sprinters, who need muscle mass to overcome inertia at the start, to take advantage of the mass vs. area relationship to overcome the greater wind resistance at greater speeds, and whose long strides mean less lifting vs. gravity.

Comparing sprinters with long distance runners is a textbook example of how body type makes a major contribution to proficiency in a certain type of competition. I don't know anyone who would deny this. And the same kind of relationship holds for cycling.



It’s not an easy generalization. It’s a critical relationship. You can’t ignore it. While there are certainly other factors, they tend to be equalized at the elite level. For example, everyone at this level has a high V02max/kg—while there are important size differences (see below) the values cluster tightly around a mean. Any elite rider is going to have a higher V02max/kg than that of almost any non-elite rider. Everyone at the elite level does not have a certain body size. There is a great variability, and great overlap with the population at large.

Now it may be that Froome’s V02max is so much higher than anyone else’s that it overcomes any size factors. But I haven’t seen the evidence for this yet. And it may be that Froome has advantages in other factors that overcome size factors. If you think these other factors are so important, why don't you name some and provide some evidence that Froome is vastly superior in them? Then we can discuss this.



No, you are the one who are trying to argue against a well-known relationship with a few observations. That fact that a handful of great climbers have been tall does not change the fact that the vast majority of climbers have been short. Why?

Short riders have a greater ratio of critical interior areas--where oxygen is absorbed into the blood and tissues--per mass than heavier riders. Thus as weight goes down, oxygen transport per mass, IOW, watts/kg, go up. And many studies have documented this. Shorter, smaller riders do tend to have a greater V02max/kg.

And I will emphasize again, yes, there are other factors, but I will ask you again to suggest what these other factors are for Froome that help overcome this disadvantage.



Scientific arguments are complex and hard to fully understand. Assuming that someone is using them to build an argument for doping is easy to understand. Because I point out that there are some very curious aspects to Froome’s dominance, you seem to assume that I’m trying to prove he’s doping. If there is a child-like magic potion element, it's the notion that we just have to accept Froome's dominance, we can never explain exactly how it exists, beyond certain vague "other factors", and we shouldn't even try to.

Maybe this is unfair to you, but I sense that you want to close off all discussion of how Froome has become so dominant as both a climber and a TTer. So, as far can I see, does Sky. I would think that scientists, far from doing this, would want to understand how someone with certain well known disadvantages, has been able to overcome them. Such a discussion could lead to the conclusion that doping is likely, or it might lead to the conclusion that something other than doping is possible. But when people refuse to follow the discussion to wherever it leads, it seems to me they are trying to avoid something.

I've never said I'm certain Froome is doping. I don't know. What I do object to is:

a) Sky's refusal to release pre-2011 power data, all while claiming to want to be transparent;
b) none of Froome's/Sky's defendants, as far as I know, expressing willingness to delve into physiology in an attempt to explain how he can be so dominant.

Road sprinters are more 'fast finishers' than true sprinters.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

Sore Back Syndrome???

No vroom-vroom Froome-Dawg at Tirreno.....

Is it the new Bilharzia, or just shagger's back? A few days in bed without the SO...

 

[thehog]

No vroom-vroom Froome-Dawg at Tirreno.....

Is it the new Bilharzia, or just shagger's back? A few days in bed without the SO...

Avoiding a showdown with Horner?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Avoiding a showdown with Horner?

Sore lower back from riding like a praying mantis

 

[thehog]

Sore lower back from riding like a praying mantis

He read the Chris Squared thread and decided that he didn't want to **** down the Clinic again!

 

[Jack (6 ch)]

No vroom-vroom Froome-Dawg at Tirreno.....

Is it the new Bilharzia, or just shagger's back? A few days in bed without the SO...

Wrong pillows, surely.

 

[the sceptic]

Avoiding a showdown with Horner?

My sources tell me that when Horner finished 8th in Algarve he was actually going faster than Froome in Oman.

Nevertheless, Little Ritchie vs Contador will also be fun.

 

[thehog]

My sources tell me that when Horner finished 8th in Algarve he was actually going faster than Froome in Oman.

Nevertheless, Little Ritchie vs Contador will also be fun.

True.

If one has already drawn there conclusion prior to the event actually occurring I'm sure data can be found to support it.

The real interest will be in the data and the method.

Ross Tucker recently wrote an excellent article on his site in relation to the scientific process of determining an outcome.

His method was to disprove or apply the inverse of what you believe or have determined.

ie Think Froome is doping? Prove to yourself the he is not and you may find it's proves that he is.

or

Is Froome faster than Horner? Well attempt to use the data to show Horner is faster. There you will find your answer or at least strengthen your argument because you've considered both positions.


Well worth reading:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2014/02/the-scientific-process-disprove-it/

We are constantly learning new rules, and we must recognize that our initial thought, however obvious, is not necessarily true, because the same observation can be explained by more than one rule (as per the video). When even the simplest explanation, a rule for ascending numbers, is potentially complex, how much more for the truly complex things in physiology, and sport?

Whilst prior to reading this article; this is what I explained in terms of Walsh's observations of Sky. He is using the USPS rule set of doping to determine if they are doping or if they are clean.

Perhaps some better or more critical analysis from himself he may have come to a different conclusion. Or at least a more meaningful and detailed one.

But perhaps that's the point? The "View from nowhere" principle - he didn't want to know.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This sore back something that happened in the most recent training block? No mention of it being backdated to Oman.

Weights should be out of the question this far into the racing portion of the season.

Too much muscle loss leading to poor spinal support?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

This sore back something that happened in the most recent training block? No mention of it being backdated to Oman.

Weights should be out of the question this far into the racing portion of the season.

Too much muscle loss leading to poor spinal support?

It made him miss Lombardia last year. http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...rdia-in-italy-with-persistent-lower-back-pain

 

[martinvickers]

True.

If one has already drawn there conclusion prior to the event actually occurring I'm sure data can be found to support.

The real interest will be in the data and the method.

Ross Tucker recently wrote an excellent article on his site in relation to the scientific process of determining an outcome.

His method was to disprove or apply the inverse or what you believe or have determined.

ie Think Froome is doping? Prove to yourself the he is not and you may find it's proves that he is.

or

Is Froome faster than Horner? Well attempt to use the data to show Horner is faster. There you will find your answer or at least strengthen your argument because you've considered both positions.


Well worth reading:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2014/02/the-scientific-process-disprove-it/

It's just basic 'scientific method' well explained, Hog. You set out the Hypothesis and then set out to disprove it. Why good scientists without agenda often say disproving their hunch is just as valuable as proving it.

What such good working common sense is doing' in a place like this I'll never know!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Now in saying all that. Froome was strong, super strong at Oman. If it was July you'd say, sure he's doping. But in Feb/March? That's the part that intrigues me and what I draw a correlation with what Di Luca said.

A reminder of Sky's GT squad dominance in 2012 and 2013 where the leaders dominated racing about one week a month for at least 5 months for two years in a row. It seems like we'll see that again.

It's not peaking, that's for sure.

 

[thehog]

It's just basic 'scientific method' well explained, Hog. You set out the Hypothesis and then set out to disprove it. Why good scientists without agenda often say disproving their hunch is just as valuable as proving it.

What such good working common sense is doing' in a place like this I'll never know!

Basic? Perhaps.

But often basic is left to the side because it gets in the way of what you want to believe.

A photograph of Froome pushing Henderson as crude as it is has validity when drawing such conclusions.

 

[SundayRider]

Basic? Perhaps.

But often basic is left to the side because it gets in the way of what you want to believe.

A photograph of Froome pushing Henderson as crude as it is has validity when drawing such conclusions.

Not too many pictures around the internet of Armstrong, Contador, Basso et al pushing their teams sprinter after a flat is there?

 

[Digger]

Hog is right - look the fact is that Walsh went into his time with Sky believing them clean...he felt Vaughters runs a clean team, that Wiggins was clean in 09 as a result, then that Wiggins was clean in 2012...so Sky are clean...mental stuff...also SKY are poor in classics so clearly they are not doping...point is that everything he found for the next six months was used to prove his initial thought...

Fact is that Walsh defended Kelly when he went positive and after the PDM affair of 1991.

 

[thehog]

Not too many pictures around the internet of Armstrong, Contador, Basso et al pushing their teams sprinter after a flat is there?

I can't say I've conducted a comprehensive study but my initial conclusions would be, no there's not.

If I did a study of GT winners who've pushed sprinters in previous GTs I'm sure my dissertation would end up about a paragraph long. Not sure I'd graduate on that basis.

 

[thehog]

Hog is right - look the fact is that Walsh went into his time with Sky believing them clean...he felt Vaughters runs a clean team, that Wiggins was clean in 09 as a result, then that Wiggins was clean in 2012...so Sky are clean...mental stuff...also SKY are poor in classics so clearly they are not doping...point is that everything he found for the next six months was used to prove his initial thought...

Fact is that Walsh defended Kelly when he went positive and after the PDM affair of 1991.

Digger it's well worth reading Nagel's book. Convoluted in places but applies well to journalism.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_nowhere

The noble goal of objective and unbiased reporting ("just the facts"), leaves decisions about the meaning and value of a news report up to the audience. But sometimes the facts of a particular story can have only one particular set of meanings. In such a case, a journalist must clearly define what facts are members of this set, and what beliefs are not a member of this set.

A journalist who excludes relevant pieces of information from the set of true facts is telling a lie of omission. If the audience had all the missing data, it would reach a different conclusion. A journalist who strives for objectivity may fail to exclude popular and/or widespread untrue claims and beliefs from the set of true facts. A journalist who has done this has taken The View From Nowhere. This harms the audience by allowing them to draw conclusions from a set of data that includes untrue possibilities. It can create confusion where none would otherwise exist. Taking The View From Nowhere is a passive act. It is a consequence of what the journalist does not do. It can occur with lazy or sloppy reporting just as easily as the active self-censorship of legitimate criticism. By broadcasting a View From Nowhere to many people, the truth possibility set (with erroneous inclusions) is actively (re-)confirmed over and over again to the audience. This leads large groups of people to make bad decisions.

A journalist who knows his bosses, station, or network are biased may self-censor, thus producing the "View from Nowhere" in an otherwise honest journalist who wants to protect his employment.

Politicians who benefit from bad "The View From Nowhere" journalism may grant more access to the bad journalist responsible, thus crowding out good journalists, leading to a disinformed public, and bad public policy that harms everyone.

 

[MartinGT]

So the Dawg is injured again, will he be injured or ill for a large chunk of the early season and trounce everyone again come June / July?

 

[MartinGT]

The Dawg must be on the mend!

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/444102864231989248