thehog
BANNED
Parker said:There's no point busting a gut if you're 75th on GC and have to do domestique duties the next day. Why would they?
Tell me about it. You have to save your energy to push sprinters!
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Parker said:There's no point busting a gut if you're 75th on GC and have to do domestique duties the next day. Why would they?
ScienceIsCool said:Right. Which is why I didn't cherry pick (I included all TT data except prologues and hill climbs which would contaminate the analysis). And I have presented both my methodology and conclusions. I've explored other possible explanations and ruled them out <see above>.
So at the end, based on my conclusions above, I have extraploated that such an increase in performance is *highly* indicative of doping.
John Swanson
Dear Wiggo said:Your agenda seems to be Sky are clean. Perhaps I have read you wrong. Suggesting everyone slowed down, when it's patently clear that has not happened, seems disingenuous, or perhaps just lazy.
Parker said:No. Froome rides 5% faster because he has reason to go at 100%. There's no point busting a gut if you're 75th on GC and have to do domestique duties the next day. Why would they?
What justification do you have for your key assumption riders always ride time trials at 100%?
Dear Wiggo said:Your agenda seems to be Sky are clean. Perhaps I have read you wrong. Suggesting everyone slowed down, when it's patently clear that has not happened, seems disingenuous, or perhaps just lazy.
ScienceIsCool said:So what you're saying is some time in May, Froome decided that he would stop dawdling in TT's and from thereon in, *only* give it his all? Because that is what the data says. He went from a personal best of top 11% to never finishing outside the top 6%.
That doesn't seem reasonable to me. The more likely explanation is that his FTP changed.
John Swanson
ScienceIsCool said:So what you're saying is some time in May, Froome decided that he would stop dawdling in TT's and from thereon in, *only* give it his all? Because that is what the data says. He went from a personal best of top 11% to never finishing outside the top 6%.
That doesn't seem reasonable to me. The more likely explanation is that his FTP changed.
John Swanson
Parker said:It's not that he suddenly 'decided'. There became a need and reason for him to go full out. A need and reason that had never really existed before.
Justinr said:So what if his agenda is Sky are clean? Your agenda is clearly that they aren't. We are all entitled to our own opinions ("Agenda" if you will) but that shouldn't stop us posting here. Or are we moving to a "only non-believers can post" rule with some people....
BYOP88 said:Not defending those teams they're just as dodgy. But I can't ever recall a Press Release from them saying they're clean, using science, totally transparent etc etc. If Sky didn't set themselves up with those statements then they might get some 'free passes' from time to time.
thirteen said:yes?!???
you are sorely missed!
Dear Wiggo said:It's all very well and good to have an agenda, but if you continue a narrative based on that agenda, ignoring evidence, it seems disingenuous, or lazy.
And also explains why this thread is so long
ETA: no problem with laziness either, to be clear. Not sure if it's too personal to point it out too. It irks me, I guess. Scenes of the cruise ship from Wall-e spring to mind.
Justinr said:And lets remember - (my understanding is that) it is Sky's interpretation of an agency test that is at issue, not interpretation of a Sky test.
Mellow Velo said:Yes, strong, biting wind.
The bad news is that it will be windy but much colder, tomorrow; not exactly Kenya.
Quite funny watching Movistar's attempt at a Sky train.
Two thirds of the way up the climb, they looked around, saw they hadn't dropped anybody and gave up.
Not that Qunitana looked much better than Froome.
Talking of Colombians, Betancur has abandoned apparently, (whistles and walks away)..................
Parker said:...Your data analysis is only as good as the assumption that all riders go at 100% all the time. And anyone who knows anything about cycling knows that that is a false assumption...
Parker said:It's not that he suddenly 'decided'. There became a need and reason for him to go full out. A need and reason that had never really existed before. Maybe once in a while he had tried it. But every time? No way.
Your data analysis is only as good as the assumption that all riders go at 100% all the time. And anyone who knows anything about cycling knows that that is a false assumption.
I realise you probably put lots of time into this idea, and as it's your own idea you will cling to it beyond all reason. But if you think 'Science is Cool', you will also appreciate that 'peer review is cool'. And I'm showing that the conclusions you derive from you data are erroneous due to you ignoring a crucial and well-known variable.
You can think what you like. But the fact remains that the whole analysis relies on a massive false assumption, which makes it worthless.biokemguy said:Is that really an assumption of SiC's analysis?
It seems to me, looking at Froome's relative placement in ITTs, that he went from the group that doesn't give 100% to the group that does AND excelled among the group that is going at 100%.
If riders could move from the top 25% of the peloton to the top 5% just by trying harder then I think ITTs would be much more competitive and not have the same 5 riders at the top of the list all the time (i.e. different guys try harder on different days).
To me the analysis is clear that Froome improved something more than his motivation in 2011.
Parker said:You can think what you like. But the fact remains that the whole analysis relies on a massive false assumption, which makes it worthless.
Sure he improved. Why wouldn't he? And the peloton generally got slower. But ignoring that the primary factor which determines how hard a rider rides is necessity, is either ignorant or dishonest. You choose.
The same as any other sportsman. He showed the ability to do it in training, got given his chance and took it.red_flanders said:Riders who soft-pedal ITT's are riders who are not in contention. How did he all of a sudden become a rider who was in contention in GT's, who had to go full-force in TT's? What did he do that put him in that position.
Just empirical evidence for participants. It's hard to provide valid data when courses vary so much.BYOP88 said:Got anything to back that up with?
Parker said:Just empirical evidence for participants. It's hard to provide valid data when courses vary so much.
It's not a key point anyway. The ability of some to dismiss the blindingly obvious when it doesn't fit their ideas is.
Parker said:The same as any other sportsman. He showed the ability to do it in training, got given his chance and took it.
Parker said:Just empirical evidence for participants. It's hard to provide valid data when courses vary so much.
It's not a key point anyway. The ability of some to dismiss the blindingly obvious when it doesn't fit their ideas is.
the sceptic said:I agree. When one wants to believe a narrative, and is blinded by nationalism and ignorance, its easy to ignore the obvious.
This is why 99% of the people who believe Froome is clean are british.
And also why we never see you, or other rabid skyfans defending other suspected dopers.