Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[thehog]

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!

 

[Justinr]

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

I'm not sure you can say that John.

You have proved(ish) there is an increase in performance compared with his relative position ,etc. and I read your analysis with interest. But I don't think you can extrapolate from that to say the increase is "highly indicative of doping".

What you can say for sure that Froome's speed has increased and that is it.

Your comparison of relative performance falls down on a number of different points:

1. ITTs are raced at intervals across the day - the wind / weather / etc can change dramatically from rider to rider.
2. Test conditions other than weather are not consistent - e.g. bikes, gear ratios, fatigue, illness, human error, etc.
3. As pointed out in earlier posts we may not know if everyone (who is relevant) tries 100% in every ITT.
4. The 'comparison' group of riders (say in the top 20-30) is not the same in each race.

There are simply to many unknowns for you to draw the conclusion that the increase is *highly* indicative of doping.

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

In all honesty it comes as no great surprise that you msy have read me wrong. No. I have no agenda that sky are clean. I don't know; I don't really care. My favourite rider is Contador. . .

I do like to examine a range of possibilities though, and
as I say, I just like people to make sense.

Anyway it's been great but it's now my bedtime.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

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%?

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

 

[Justinr]

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.

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....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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

It may also suggest: despite being capable of winning GTs, Froome's team / DS told him to ride at 80% for every TT he ever did pre-2011.

Which also does not seem reasonable.

 

[Parker]

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

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.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

Like keeping his contract at Sky?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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....

If you read the thread, you will see RH accused SiC of having an agenda. Which is the opposite of science.

If you read my post relating to RH's agenda, you will see that, despite having time and internet access, RH decided to not do a quick check to see if his suggested explanation (everyone got slower) to counter SiC's conclusion could be supported by something as trivial as facts.

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.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I also have no agenda. If I see something that looks and smells like doping (Froome & Wiggins) - I'll call it as such. If it looks normal (Stannard, for eg) I'll happily call that too.

 

[Justinr]

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.

Ok, again I understand why you say that - Sky have set themselves up that way (I don't deny that) and people are holding them to account (and that is good!).

What I will say is they are still a relatively "new" (and inexperienced) team and some choices of (PR) staff leave a lot to be desired. I don't have a personal problem with them I'm just very surprised that they allow so much on Twitter ...

But lets go back to the others: So Saxo haven't put out a press release saying they are clean I know, but if you asked them "Do you dope?", honestly what do you expect their answer to be? And if that makes you laugh why don't you tweet the journalists to ask that question and then ask for more proof?

How much has Saxo said about Rogers other than the "The rider has assured us he has not knowingly ingested banned substances". That could be (and probably has been) written by a Lawyer.

Witness Sky and Henao. They were under NO obligation to say anything about him but were (it seems) forced in to it by Henao's manager. No agency has raised a case - SKY were concerned / confused by a test result that was part of a monthly internal analysis of all data. Now, many people will speculate that they do that monitoring so that their doping program isn't spotted. Well just as likely (if not more so in my view) is that they do that monthly internal monitoring of all parameters to spot potential problems / discrepancies. After all no matter how clean their stated aims are they cannot monitor their riders 24 x 7 x 365. 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.

All in all I think they try a lot more than other teams and say a lot more than other them (albeit not very well) but I do get your point about "free passes".

 

[Digger]

yes?!???

you are sorely missed!

Digger is dead!
Well done to some posters on here. Outstanding posts in this thread.

Lance fans were loyal and naive to a fault...it was embarrassing.
Sky fans are another type altogether though.

It's just incredibly frustrating to be watching what we are watching. Know what it is we are seeing. Yet pretend otherwise.

The vo2 max, the Henao thing, the bilharzia, leinders...and on and on...

It's all a waste of time. Cycling will never improve. Because there will always be a team or nationality to take the place of the previous fallen champion.
And I don't care anymore, because the fans are so clueless, they will get the champions they deserve.
The clinic regulars get dismissed as conspiracy theorists. But there are a few regulars on this thread who would put regular cycling journos to Shame.
For me the real conspiracy theory is believing that better tactics and bike handling skills are what made such a big difference.

 

[Justinr]

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.

First up +10 for the reference to Wall-e ... Jesus that would be bad.

I don't have a problem with people having agendas (I would call them views in this case) - that what this Forum is all about surely? The argument / counter argument (debate maybe?) is what its about and as long as it doesn't get personal or abusive then surely thats ok?

What I don't really like is that newer members do seem to get shot down / abuse for engaging in some (older) issues. Yes maybe a lot of these have been done before but some of us weren't members 3 years ago - if the same issues / questions are relevant now then I don't see why they shouldn't be debated (and BTW that is not a dig at you Dear Wiggo).

 

[Justinr]

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.

Actually I need to edit that - just re-read and its hogwash. What it should say is:

And lets remember - (my understanding is that) it is Sky's interpretation of an agency test that is at issue, not the agency's interpretation of its own test.

Sorry about that - I was writing it offline in Word and wasn't being careful enough with the editing.

 

[thehog]

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)..................

Yes there appeared a strong headwind. Seeing Froome attack I think he hit a brickwall of wind.

Tomorrow is more like Ax3 stage.

Hopefully a tailwind!

 

[biokemguy]

...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...

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.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

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.

The answer is that he started climbing and TT'ing so well that his DS made him a protected rider. How did that occur? What is the cause of the change which put him in GT contention?

We can speculate (no facts whatsoever in evidence) that he was soft-pedaling both the climbs and the TT's prior to 2011. Why? Why then did he start actually doing his best in 2011?

It's a chicken and egg question. The simple, factually supported answer is that he got a hell of a lot stronger all of a sudden. So much so that he became a fundamentally different rider, one who not only competed for GT wins but soon came by them easily.

Not normal.

 

[Parker]

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.

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.

 

[BYOP88]

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.

Got anything to back that up with?

 

[Parker]

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.

The same as any other sportsman. He showed the ability to do it in training, got given his chance and took it.

 

[Parker]

Got anything to back that up with?

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.

 

[BYOP88]

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.

You may have been asked this already, but I'm not trawling through hundreds of pages and however many posts you have, so forgive me if you've already answered it.

If Froome wasn't *British* and riding for the British team, but was *Danish* and riding for a Danish team with a dodgy past, yet Froome's career followed the same path, bilharzia etc etc. Would you be defending him in the clinic or leading the attack?


*For me he just seems to be a Brit for the passport and ease it brings to travelling in Europe.

 

[red_flanders]

The same as any other sportsman. He showed the ability to do it in training, got given his chance and took it.

Any evidence of that? Never mind that it speaks nothing to why the sudden improvement.

 

[the sceptic]

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.

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.

 

[thehog]

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.

Well if 99% of people believed he was British I'd be worried as well!