Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[keeponrollin]

Re: Re:

http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/12040/9919196/tour-de-france-team-sky-to-release-chris-froomes-power-data

Team Sky are planning to release part of Chris Froome's power data as they seek to end doping suspicions surrounding the Tour de France leader.

Froome attracted negative headlines when he destroyed his rivals in the first mountain stage of the Tour last Tuesday and the Briton then said he had urine thrown at him by an abusive spectator on Saturday as the vitriol spread to the crowds.

Froome faced similar accusations on his way to winning the 2013 Tour and Team Sky responded at the time by offering the 30-year-old’s power data to anti-doping authorities.
Now, Team Sky principal Sir Dave Brailsford is willing to once again release Froome’s numbers in a renewed bid to prove he is riding clean.

Speaking after Monday’s 16th stage, Brailsford said: "We faced the same questions last time around. We had agreed to give our power data to UK Anti-Doping and the CADF [Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation].

"The CADF didn't want it, UK Anti-Doping had it but I don't think they did anything with it, but we were willing to give it to an independent body and we could do the same again.

"And I think we will have a look at it tonight and, for the rest day [on Tuesday], we will just release an average cadence, average power."

Froome leads Colombian Nairo Quintana by 3min 10sec, with American Tejay van Garderen a further 22 seconds off the pace in third place.

Asked if he minded Team Sky sharing his data, Froome said: "It's the intellectual property of the team and if they are happy to give it out, of course, I support that. No problem."

However, he questioned why he was under tighter scrutiny than previous grand tour winners.

Froome added: "If you look at the last five grand tours that have been won by different teams, different riders, there has not been the same outcry for power data and numbers.".

The key word there though is part of his data. It would be like buying a 1,000 piece puzzle and the makers of said puzzle have only given you 250 pieces.

Ah now, be fair, Dave said they've give us the average, so at the start he'll be doing 0W, & at max he'll be doing 10W, so the Sky released figure will be 5W, what's your problem ?

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re:

Sky will do what the Norwegian cross-country federation did - release data no one asked about, saying that this explains everything about the data that was asked about but which they refused to release.

And then condescend to us that we don't understand oval chain rings.

I obviously haven't posted in the past but this is just absurd and I must chime in with a WTF. The part I hate the most is being talked down to while they spin gold from straw.

 

[Benotti69]

Funny stuff from Brailsford.

He talked about not being like the others, Sky were gonna be different and now when they are treated different he whinges. He has no problem with Walsh slagging the other teams as amatuers, now he wants to be treated as an amateur. Quintana released his vo2max, those amatuers, but Sky don't test for it. LeMond talks about how important it is, but Sky who leave no stone unturned in their quest for marginal gains don't test for it!

Typical talk of someone with something to hide! oh what ever could that be in pro cycling.............

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

I didn't say that, so no, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's not possible clean. Applies to anyone. Maybe if we thought the person in the discussion was some kind of once-in-a-generation freak, it might be possible. I thought that was pretty clear.

Was Froome on Ventoux possible clean?

I don't think Froome is clean, and I don't think he was clean on Ventoux. No, I don't think Froome could have done what he did on Ventoux clean. I don't equate "humanly possible" with what we see in the Tour for reasons stated above, and am fairly weary of the silliness of that particular line of discussion. Even if something is "humanly possible" it's still incredibly unlikely to happen in a race with all the factors of accumulated fatigue, tactics, etc., never mind that "humanly possible" includes just about every doped performance we've ever seen.

Maybe if you have some thoughts of your own, you could share. Last couple posts feel more like you're trying to parse my posts for some kind of hole, than have a discussion. Certainly open to/interested in the latter.

Apologies for the imprecise questions. I thought Froome's performance on Ventoux was a topic of some interest. Apparently not. Can't have been too mutant after all.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I didn't say that, so no, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's not possible clean. Applies to anyone. Maybe if we thought the person in the discussion was some kind of once-in-a-generation freak, it might be possible. I thought that was pretty clear.

Was Froome on Ventoux possible clean?

I don't think Froome is clean, and I don't think he was clean on Ventoux. No, I don't think Froome could have done what he did on Ventoux clean. I don't equate "humanly possible" with what we see in the Tour for reasons stated above, and am fairly weary of the silliness of that particular line of discussion. Even if something is "humanly possible" it's still incredibly unlikely to happen in a race with all the factors of accumulated fatigue, tactics, etc., never mind that "humanly possible" includes just about every doped performance we've ever seen.

Maybe if you have some thoughts of your own, you could share. Last couple posts feel more like you're trying to parse my posts for some kind of hole, than have a discussion. Certainly open to/interested in the latter.

Apologies for the imprecise questions. I thought Froome's performance on Ventoux was a topic of some interest. Apparently not. Can't have been too mutant after all.

Not sure I follow, it's been discussed more than any other single ride I can recall. Definitely of interest.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

Not sure I follow, it's been discussed more than any other single ride I can recall. Definitely of interest.

Your comment about parsing suggested otherwise. Not to worry. I do find it strange that now we have real power data there hasn't been a reappraisal. Because it appears that Froome's power matched Pinot's capabilities.

In hindsight it does seem a trifle hysterical for the most discussed single ride you can recall to be Froome matching Pinot. Perhaps the reticence to discuss further is understandable.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Not sure I follow, it's been discussed more than any other single ride I can recall. Definitely of interest.

Your comment about parsing suggested otherwise. Not to worry. I do find it strange that now we have real power data there hasn't been a reappraisal. Because it appears that Froome's power matched Pinot's capabilities.

In hindsight it does seem a trifle hysterical for the most discussed single ride you can recall to be Froome matching Pinot. Perhaps the reticence to discuss further is understandable.

I've discussed this at length in several threads and made my view clear here. As such, to suggest reticence makes no sense. I simply don't have much interest in the comparison to Pinot, but you seem to want to paint it as a litmus test. Feel free to make your case instead of trying to goad me into making arguments for or against it.

Whether the level of discussion has been hysterical is in the eye of the beholder. You seem to be big on characterizing what others are saying and small on making your own arguments. Too much discussion? Hysteria. Not enough? Reticence.

Not interested in your game. Carry on.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

How long until we start to see discussion of SRM vs. Stages and other "power estimators"?

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

Grappe is the guy who said Armstrong was clean.

I don't understand what you mean. You think he's exaggerating Pinot's power? There's no way he could match Froomtoux. Is there?

I dont believe Grappe.

Pretty damaging for Pinot if his coach puts him in the mutant category with Froome. I wonder why Vayer hasn't said anything. Probably can't get Pinot's data.

Pinot data was the subject of a study by the University of Besancon. Vayer has it. It was possible to download it for 10 Euros or so, I have a PdF version of it. There's a thread about it too. Pinot's data lists his power output at 7.4W/kg for 5 minutes, 6.5W/kg for 20 minutes, 6.1W/kg for 30 minutes.

Grappe is a wannabe guru, and I may say an incompetent one judging by how FDJ is performing right now. The fu**er ruined my month of July .

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Not sure I follow, it's been discussed more than any other single ride I can recall. Definitely of interest.

Your comment about parsing suggested otherwise. Not to worry. I do find it strange that now we have real power data there hasn't been a reappraisal. Because it appears that Froome's power matched Pinot's capabilities.

In hindsight it does seem a trifle hysterical for the most discussed single ride you can recall to be Froome matching Pinot. Perhaps the reticence to discuss further is understandable.

Wrong. Try again. The two are not equivalent.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

Grappe is the guy who said Armstrong was clean.

I don't understand what you mean. You think he's exaggerating Pinot's power? There's no way he could match Froomtoux. Is there?

I dont believe Grappe.

Pretty damaging for Pinot if his coach puts him in the mutant category with Froome. I wonder why Vayer hasn't said anything. Probably can't get Pinot's data.

Pinot data was the subject of a study by the University of Besancon. Vayer has it. It was possible to download it for 10 Euros or so, I have a PdF version of it. There's a thread about it too. Pinot's data lists his power output at 7.4W/kg for 5 minutes, 6.5W/kg for 20 minutes, 6.1W/kg for 30 minutes.

Grappe is a wannabe guru, and I may say an incompetent one judging by how FDJ is performing right now. The fu**er ruined my month of July .

That's pretty much the same numbers as Grappe had?

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

Pinot data was the subject of a study by the University of Besancon. Vayer has it. It was possible to download it for 10 Euros or so, I have a PdF version of it. There's a thread about it too. Pinot's data lists his power output at 7.4W/kg for 5 minutes, 6.5W/kg for 20 minutes, 6.1W/kg for 30 minutes.

Grappe is a wannabe guru, and I may say an incompetent one judging by how FDJ is performing right now. The fu**er ruined my month of July .

Thanks. That was an interesting thread. Hard to see any upside at all in a team releasing data in this climate.

 

[Red Lobster]

Re:

vein city

https://twitter.com/LoisHorwitz/status/623172973772419072

............

Yikes. I know this proves nothing, but i used to get pretty skinny sometimes when I raced but would always reach a point (well before looking like this) where i stared to feel weak and generally crappy. Can't understand how he has strength and how he doesn't get sick being like this.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

I didn't say that, so no, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's not possible clean. Applies to anyone. Maybe if we thought the person in the discussion was some kind of once-in-a-generation freak, it might be possible. I thought that was pretty clear.

Was Froome on Ventoux possible clean?

At 388w and 67kg weight (todays weight) it would be 5.8w/kg - well within normal pro-cycling limits.

He would have to be down at 61.5kg to get to 6.3w/kg (the assumed alien level). I cant see him being 61.5kg - I know he's thin but, jesus, not that thin.

 

[Cervelo77]

Re: Re:

vein city

https://twitter.com/LoisHorwitz/status/623172973772419072

............

Yikes. I know this proves nothing, but i used to get pretty skinny sometimes when I raced but would always reach a point (well before looking like this) where i stared to feel weak and generally crappy. Can't understand how he has strength and how he doesn't get sick being like this.

He doesn't shake hands with journalists. That is the secret.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

Grappe is the guy who said Armstrong was clean.

I don't understand what you mean. You think he's exaggerating Pinot's power? There's no way he could match Froomtoux. Is there?

I dont believe Grappe.

Pretty damaging for Pinot if his coach puts him in the mutant category with Froome. I wonder why Vayer hasn't said anything. Probably can't get Pinot's data.

Pinot data was the subject of a study by the University of Besancon. Vayer has it. It was possible to download it for 10 Euros or so, I have a PdF version of it. There's a thread about it too. Pinot's data lists his power output at 7.4W/kg for 5 minutes, 6.5W/kg for 20 minutes, 6.1W/kg for 30 minutes.

Grappe is a wannabe guru, and I may say an incompetent one judging by how FDJ is performing right now. The fu**er ruined my month of July .

That means Pinot alone, Pinot in an TTT climb could get 0,2 wat more, and in an TTT with tailwind 0,2 wat more, so he could get 7,8 wat for 5 minutes, and with 30 years old, he could get 8 wat/kg for 5 minutes... so Quintana, who si a bettr talent, could get 8,2.
And i am sure that there is some people born in alttitude, that is not going to ride a bike, or even he doesnt know what a bike is, that could get 8,5 w/kg potencially with legal methods.

But for the expensive legal methods that SKY uses not everybody can use it.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

I didn't say that, so no, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's not possible clean. Applies to anyone. Maybe if we thought the person in the discussion was some kind of once-in-a-generation freak, it might be possible. I thought that was pretty clear.

Was Froome on Ventoux possible clean?

At 388w and 67kg weight (todays weight) it would be 5.8w/kg - well within normal pro-cycling limits.

He would have to be down at 61.5kg to get to 6.3w/kg (the assumed alien level). I cant see him being 61.5kg - I know he's thin but, jesus, not that thin.

But can someone decimate the field like he did with a power output of 5.8W/kg? Something doesn't add up.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

The key word there though is part of his data. It would be like buying a 1,000 piece puzzle and the makers of said puzzle have only given you 250 pieces.

It would depend what the 'part' was.

It could be 3-4 days / stages worth of power meter (and heart rate?) data - flat and mountain perhaps. Then again it could be a couple of hours of each stage - again flat and mountain perhaps. Either of those should be able to give some info.

After all we have some Ventoux data and some other estimates and thats helped, oh wait ... it hasn't because we have about 20 amateur pseudo analysts from here looking at it, a couple of informed posters, and then a number of external twitterati (most of which contradict each other). All it has led to is more arguments.

Note to CN forum admins - get more processing power in quick, this place with explode when anything is released.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

The key word there though is part of his data. It would be like buying a 1,000 piece puzzle and the makers of said puzzle have only given you 250 pieces.

It would depend what the 'part' was.

It could be 3-4 days / stages worth of power meter (and heart rate?) data - flat and mountain perhaps. Then again it could be a couple of hours of each stage - again flat and mountain perhaps. Either of those should be able to give some info.

After all we have some Ventoux data and some other estimates and thats helped, oh wait ... it hasn't because we have about 20 amateur pseudo analysts from here looking at it, a couple of informed posters, and then a number of external twitterati (most of which contradict each other). All it has led to is more arguments.

Note to CN forum admins - get more processing power in quick, this place with explode when anything is released.

Agreed.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

I didn't say that, so no, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's not possible clean. Applies to anyone. Maybe if we thought the person in the discussion was some kind of once-in-a-generation freak, it might be possible. I thought that was pretty clear.

Was Froome on Ventoux possible clean?

At 388w and 67kg weight (todays weight) it would be 5.8w/kg - well within normal pro-cycling limits.

He would have to be down at 61.5kg to get to 6.3w/kg (the assumed alien level). I cant see him being 61.5kg - I know he's thin but, jesus, not that thin.

But have you ever ride a bike?
how you can do an alnalysiswithout considering the wind.. wind is the most important thing to consider a performance in cycling, you can go 50 kms in an hour in the plane with tailwind and you can go the same watts 30 km 7h with forn wind.
In a climb as Ventoux is important, although is not the same than in the plane. at least the forst part of the climb.
You must to consider a lot of factor to give a complete analysys.
Why a rider do 2 minutes more or lees with one year of difference in the same climb?
Who said what numbers are possible or not? ferrari? he was a trainer, not a scientist, he was imporrtant in his era, not in this era with training in altitud, hipoxia, termotraining in the rest day, crioteraphy, and better bikes. he introduce VAM, what is just a reference , nothing serious for a good analisys...
You live in the past.

 

[Taxus4a]

You guys are usually selffeed you nonsense arguments, so that way you consider that is good.

 

[Tonton]

Two thoughts:
1. I'd like to see the 6 year evolution for Froome like in the Pinot study. I can bet it won't be released .
2. I find ironic that Jalabert dares to question other's performances. Although he shaves every morning and can probably tell a doper when he sees one .

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

how you can do an alnalysiswithout considering the wind.. wind is the most important thing to consider a performance in cycling, you can go 50 kms in an hour in the plane with tailwind and you can go the same watts 30 km 7h with forn wind.

The wind! Eureka! How could we all be so stupid?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I didn't say that, so no, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's not possible clean. Applies to anyone. Maybe if we thought the person in the discussion was some kind of once-in-a-generation freak, it might be possible. I thought that was pretty clear.

Was Froome on Ventoux possible clean?

At 388w and 67kg weight (todays weight) it would be 5.8w/kg - well within normal pro-cycling limits.

He would have to be down at 61.5kg to get to 6.3w/kg (the assumed alien level). I cant see him being 61.5kg - I know he's thin but, jesus, not that thin.

But have you ever ride a bike?
how you can do an alnalysiswithout considering the wind.. wind is the most important thing to consider a performance in cycling, you can go 50 kms in an hour in the plane with tailwind and you can go the same watts 30 km 7h with forn wind.
In a climb as Ventoux is important, although is not the same than in the plane.

Travelling on a bike isn't the same as on a plane? The way Vroomie flies up those mountains, I don't think he's far off.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

But can someone decimate the field like he did with a power output of 5.8W/kg? Something doesn't add up.

Agreed. The numbers must be wrong. Where were all the other dopers?