Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Justinr]

To be honest this has confirmed my thoughts. No way even at 85 he's climbing and TT'ing like he is.

Froome 2009/2010 is about right for 85. Could potentially win a stage of the Tour in a break or a 1.2 one day race in Italy. But no way does he go full *** on Ventoux like he did at 85.

No chance. Kid is doping. Period.

Hang on - I thought blood doping and EPO use increased VO2 max? And now you're saying that its too low therefore he's doping.

Explain your conclusion there ...

 

[Ripper]

Ah. Insults from the Inner Circle.

That should help the cause.

Whether or not it is mc, she's trollin'

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Hang on - I thought blood doping and EPO use increased VO2 max? And now you're saying that its too low therefore he's doping.

Explain your conclusion there ...

In 2008, his VO2max was X, where X is insufficient to smash a GT to bits. Wait, no, is sufficient to finish 2:22:33 behind the winner.

In 2013, his VO2max was X+n%, where X+n% is sufficient to smash a GT to bits.

Where did the n% come from?

 

[Merckx index]

Some here are not clearly distinguishing between absolute and relative V02max. Sprinters and TTers are likely to have a higher absolute V02max than climbers. For the latter, relative is more important, because it reflects power/weight.

I think a value of 80-85 for relative V02max, assuming that’s what it is, is very good, though certainly not off the charts. Keep in mind, though, that there is more to success than that. It seems McGee had a V02max of 89, but he not only never won a GT, he never even contended for them. I remember back in 2002 or so he had the great fortune to get in a break on a bad weather day, and ended up the stage about 20-30 minutes ahead of all the contenders, including Armstrong. He couldn’t hold that lead past the first few mountain stages. I also don’t recall the guy claiming to have a 94 relative V02max winning any Tours.

The main significance of V02max is that it allows us to estimate a ceiling on performances. If you refer to Alex’s power charts in the Critical Power study thread, you see that in the best case scenario, with very high efficiency (23%) and lactate threshold (90%), a rider with this V02 max could put out 6.1 watts/kg. Froome apparently exceeded this on Ax-3, at about 6.4, though that was about a 20 min. climb, whereas the FTP calculated from these curves would be for a longer period of time (maybe an hour, but from what Alex has said here, maybe less). In any case, based on Alex’s estimate of 90-95% difference between FTP and power at 20 minutes, that 6.4 watts/kg value would indicate an FTP of between 5.75-6.1 watts/kg. Froome had values in the low end of this range for his 40-50 min climbs up Ventoux and ADH, so these climbs are consistent with the FTP estimated from Ax-3.

However, there are reports that GME is inversely correlated with V02max, or at least, riders with high efficiency tend to have lower V02max. And if we consider a lower yet still reasonable efficiency (21%; according to Coyle, this is what Armstrong had pre-cancer) and lactate threshold (85%), this would result in much less power, about 5.3 watts/kg. Froome has clearly exceeded this value on multiple longer climbs, e.g., Ventoux and ADH. If we assume a 90% lactate threshold and an 85 V02max, Froome's times on these longer climbs indicate an efficiency of about 22%.

In light of this, it would be very interesting if the Froome camp would publish what is known about his GME and lactate threshold, though I’m not holding my breath. Keep in mind, however, that even if his testing results are compatible with his recent performances, the issue of why his performances prior to 2011 were so much poorer remains to be resolved. As discussed here earlier, his TT times suggest about a 15% increase in FTP from pre- to post-2011.

Also like to see some data for Contador and Horner.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think a value of 80-85 for relative V02max, assuming that’s what it is, is very good, though certainly not off the charts. Keep in mind, though, that there is more to success than that. It seems McGee had a V02max of 89, but he not only never won a GT, he never even contended for them.

McGee started training and focusing on them - I think he spent a year training, etc, an an attempt to contend, but had injuries and problems with his knee or back or what have you and in the end had to admit defeat.

80-85 ml/kg/min is very good, yes. In terms of pro tour riders, it's about average to just above average.

I did quick and nasty calculations and arrived at 23% for his efficiency.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Do we know it's definitely her not just someone pretending to be and with plans to make people think less of Froomey by insulting us

Have you seen the abuse heaped on people by Digger? Repeatedly calling individuals liars in public from behind a pseudonym, then complaining when they won't engage with you, is crude bullying. Decent Clinic posters should be ashamed that he is seen as our Ambassador to Twitter. I am.

 

[Digger]

Have you seen the abuse heaped on people by Digger? Repeatedly calling individuals liars in public from behind a pseudonym, then complaining when they won't engage with you, is crude bullying. Decent Clinic posters should be ashamed that he is seen as our Ambassador to Twitter. I am.

Go for it...specify examples of where I called someone a'liar.' Where I actually said that persons name and then said they are a liar.
Where I 'bullied or harassed.'

I'm not having that. So do it, specify.
You tell me what I said wrong to Fran Millar. When I was actually praised by others for how polite I was.

You must see the irony of your post by the way.

This post above...sounds extraordinarily similar to an old friend on twitter.

Let's be clear here. Your only issue is with people who question Sky.

Say Kimmage or even Stokes...or Vayer.

The funny thing is that this week before I realised something, I used to see your posts and feel sorry for how clueless you are.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Go for it...specify examples of where I called someone a'liar.' Where I actually said that persons name and then said they are a liar.
Where I 'bullied or harassed.'

I'm not having that. So do it, specify.
You tell me what I said wrong to Fran Millar. When I was actually praised by others for how polite I was.

You must see the irony of your post by the way.

This post above...sounds extraordinarily similar to an old friend on twitter.

Let's be clear here. Your only issue is with people who question Sky.

Say Kimmage or even Stokes...or Vayer.

The funny thing is that this week before I realised something, I used to see your posts and feel sorry for how clueless you are.

Thanks for your concern. You have a busy few hours of Tweet deletion in front of you:

"@Digger_forum
Roche is some liar. That piece in cyclingnews is lie after lie."

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/304923457332846592

http://topsy.com/s?q=%40digger_forum%20Liar&window=a&type=tweet

 

[Digger]

Thanks for your concern. You have a busy few hours of Tweet deletion in front of you:

"@Digger_forum
Roche is some liar. That piece in cyclingnews is lie after lie."

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/304923457332846592

http://topsy.com/s?q=%40digger_forum%20Liar&window=a&type=tweet

So it took you one hour to find it!!

You said the follow

Repeatedly calling individuals liars in public from behind a pseudonym

So repeatedly is a lie...(frequent or over and over again)

Oh and yes I called jens a liar as well...but then again Johnny come latelys like yourself no doubt think he's honest.

Secondly you say bully and harass...specify examples...it seems ironic coming from you I might add.

So you have an issue with me, Stokes, Kimmage and Vayer...that be accurate?

Or maybe it's time to wheel out dopey dan.

So you followed cycling long before SKY I take it!!!

Just answer that question...aside from me, do you also have an issue with Stokes, Kimmage and Vayer and vetoo? Simple question

I see you brought a post by red flanders to the attention of the mods...the self anointed libel police...not like you!

 

[David_William]

You guys just go on and on back and forth and say nothing.

 

[ebandit]

clinic

You guys just go on and on back and forth and say nothing.

it's the clinic.............sorry! post is so short i'm donning my 'dope crusader cape' i don't trust cyclists in my neighbourhood

Mark L

 

[deeno1975]

You guys just go on and on back and forth and say nothing.

And you just post here and "say nothing".

Admittedly there is a lot of filler here but there also is a hell of a lot of very good information.

 

[David_William]

Just wanted to say you guys have problems. All that hate i don't know where it comes from probably you guys failed at cycling, didn't make pro or wasnt it? Ever tought about getting professional help? Just saying

 

[Red Rick]

Just wanted to say you guys have problems. All that hate i don't know where it comes from probably you guys failed at cycling, didn't make pro or wasnt it? Ever tought about getting professional help? Just saying

Why exactly do people posting here need help?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Hang on - I thought blood doping and EPO use increased VO2 max? And now you're saying that its too low therefore he's doping.

Explain your conclusion there ...

An increase in hemoglobin will increase your vo2 max, but in proportion to the increase in hgb. One study shows the increase on vo2 max at .5-.7% of the avg increase in hgb. (lets say horner's mid vuelta: his rise in hgb from 13.5 to 14.6ish would take an 85 vo2 max to ~88-90)

But there are too many other important factors between increasing vo2 max and imcreasing performance. There are problems in its measuremt, for one. As Merckx Index explained, the relevence of vo2 max to performance relies on many other parameters. Increasing vo2 max doesnt necessarily mean a change in threhold, or muscle recruitment, or economy on the bike, or factors that govern day to day recovery, or...

Olympic gold medal marathoner Frank shorter recorded a vo2 max of 71...

 

[Benotti69]

Sky said they were going to be fully transparent and do things differently, here they have a guy no one in a million years expected to be still in the peloton nevermind winning and on the podium of multiple GTs and when asked for a simple number that everyone in athletic competition tests for as part of the sports science we get lies.

The debate over what Froome's Vo2max is irrelevant,imo. The lying is what shows that Sky team cannot be trusted and therefore points to the only thing this sport knows best, doping.

If Froome had a big, LeMondesque Vo2max, we would have heard about it. That he doesn't means Sky dont want anyone able to do the numbers and come to the conclusion that most know, doping.

 

[SundayRider]

Sky said they were going to be fully transparent and do things differently, here they have a guy no one in a million years expected to be still in the peloton nevermind winning and on the podium of multiple GTs and when asked for a simple number that everyone in athletic competition tests for as part of the sports science we get lies.

The debate over what Froome's Vo2max is irrelevant,imo. The lying is what shows that Sky team cannot be trusted and therefore points to the only thing this sport knows best, doping.

If Froome had a big, LeMondesque Vo2max, we would have heard about it. That he doesn't means Sky dont want anyone able to do the numbers and come to the conclusion that most know, doping.

This, basically. Vo2 max is far from the be all and end all. However if he did have a high score then Sky would have published it, no reason for them not too. In the same way that they would have published his pre Vuelta '11 power numbers if they were not suspicious. In the light of the Armstrong affair a genuinely clean team/rider would be getting as much information out there as possible.

 

[bewildered]

Hang on - I thought blood doping and EPO use increased VO2 max? And now you're saying that its too low therefore he's doping.

Explain your conclusion there ...

can you not join the dots here?!

 

[Benotti69]

This, basically. Vo2 max is far from the be all and end all. However if he did have a high score then Sky would have published it, no reason for them not too. In the same way that they would have published his pre Vuelta '11 power numbers if they were not suspicious. In the light of the Armstrong affair a genuinely clean team/rider would be getting as much information out there as possible.

Especially a guy on a team that said they were going to be transparent.

How people cannot see the obvious is taking us back to '99 and a certain texan that came from nowhere with the 'mytholigical' cancer story. If only Froome got something more hardcore than Bilharzia he would have a 'shield' to fend everyone off for his lifetime should he be nice to everyone!

 

[Mish_C]

Okay, I'll do my best to spell it out for you.

All the controversy about Chris' VO2 max came about because Fred Grappe estimated that Chris' VO2 max had to be between 85 - 90.
http://www.fredericgrappe.com/?p=1322

Michel Theze has estimated that Chris' VO2max is above 85 based on his testing with Chris in 2007 at a heavier weight, while he was staying at the UCI centre in Aigle. Michel Theze has been talking about it for the last two years. Clearly those who wanted to find out what Chris' VO2 max is, haven't looked hard enough. Here is yet another article that includes those current estimations.
http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/rue89-sport/2013/07/21/remporte-tour-france-chris-froome-lanomalie-244390

So I'm failing to see what exactly people are struggling with?!?!

You're so determined to believe that Chris is doping that you will constantly disregard the facts.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

So it took you one hour to find it!!

[Snipped to remove nudges towards my identity - naughty Digger]

Your IT prowess needs no further comment. Hint: it only takes a few seconds to use a search engine. Which is, admittedly, less than it would have taken fearless investigators to find that Froome VO2 max information. Had they been looking for it.

Why weren't you looking for it? And why didn't you ask your pro journalism chinas to search their privileged databases?

 

[Digger]

Your IT prowess needs no further comment. Hint: it only takes a few seconds to use a search engine. Which is, admittedly, less than it would have taken fearless investigators to find that Froome VO2 max information. Had they been looking for it.

Why weren't you looking for it? And why didn't you ask your pro journalism chinas to search their privileged databases?

So it's ok for you to reference my twitter, but I can't reference your one...eventhough your name isn't on it...well if those are the rules

 

[Digger]

Your IT prowess needs no further comment. Hint: it only takes a few seconds to use a search engine. Which is, admittedly, less than it would have taken fearless investigators to find that Froome VO2 max information. Had they been looking for it.

Why weren't you looking for it? And why didn't you ask your pro journalism chinas to search their privileged databases?

Like Sky's failed attempts to use google to ascertain that Leinders was a doping doctor at Rabobank

 

[Mish_C]

And for those saying that based on Chris' performances must be from someone with a VO2 max over 90. Fred Grappe disagrees based on Chris' actual power data. Here it is in English for you :

"To date, the nature of performance, there is no evidence that they can be made ​​with a VO2max greater than 90 ml / min / kg."

Chris' estimated VO2 max based on his performances over the last two years is consistent with Theze's measurement back in 2007.

 

[sniper]

Okay, I'll do my best to spell it out for you.

All the controversy about Chris' VO2 max came about because Fred Grappe estimated that Chris' VO2 max had to be between 85 - 90.
http://www.fredericgrappe.com/?p=1322

Michel Theze has estimated that Chris' VO2max is above 85 based on his testing with Chris in 2007 at a heavier weight, while he was staying at the UCI centre in Aigle. Michel Theze has been talking about it for the last two years. Clearly those who wanted to find out what Chris' VO2 max is, haven't looked hard enough..

Thats not exactly a compliment to sir dave or to grappe or to fran millar.