Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance

Froome is only getting what he deserves. He is the biggest fraud in cycling history and him and Team Sky have been insulting everyones intelligence with their lies for the past 4 years.

I hope Team Sky get busted soon so we can get back to watching some real cycling.

Yet another post that implies that only Sky and Froome are dirty.

it implies nothing of the sort

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

Is there a recording of the kimmage interview?

Worth reposting

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/paul-kimmage-on-chris-froome-team-sky-and-the-2015-tour-de-france

From the bits that I understood it was good interview. Thanks.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance

Froome is only getting what he deserves. He is the biggest fraud in cycling history and him and Team Sky have been insulting everyones intelligence with their lies for the past 4 years.

I hope Team Sky get busted soon so we can get back to watching some real cycling.

Yet another post that implies that only Sky and Froome are dirty.

It implies that some people are only interested in Sky and Froome doping.

That's as clear as day for some time now.

 

[Energy Starr]

Re: Re:

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance

Froome is only getting what he deserves. He is the biggest fraud in cycling history and him and Team Sky have been insulting everyones intelligence with their lies for the past 4 years.

I hope Team Sky get busted soon so we can get back to watching some real cycling.

I agre with you but since when have we ever seen real cycling?

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance

Froome is only getting what he deserves. He is the biggest fraud in cycling history and him and Team Sky have been insulting everyones intelligence with their lies for the past 4 years.

I hope Team Sky get busted soon so we can get back to watching some real cycling.

Yet another post that implies that only Sky and Froome are dirty.

Close. It's implying that Sky are the worst of a bad lot...

 

[Merckx index]

I think I’ve finally unraveled what Sallet is talking about, though the media reports sure make it very confusing. The 7.04 W/kg value is apparently Froome’s power at V02max, and based on 500 watts at 71 kg. Someone upthread said it was peak power, but that is not quite correct; it is peak aerobic power. The figure 425 watts also appears in media stories. Apparently Sallet believes—on the basis of some mathematical model—that Froome’s utilization is 85% (425/500), that is, he can put out 85% of his V02max for a sustained climb. Assuming 425 W and 71 kg, his sustained output is 5.98 W/kg, which Sallet was initially reported to have found.

In the podcast he says 408 W, which further confuses the issue. However, here he means sustained power, not maximum power, and he's also correcting for weight. His original calculations assumed a weight of 71 kg, but after Kerrison provided the 67.5 kg value, Sallet uses this for the weight. Thus he gets 500 W x .85 x (67.5/71) = 404 W (close enough to 408).

So there have two sources of confusion, first and most important, Sallet is talking about Wmax, which is not normally the figure one determines from climbs or from power meters; I don't think the other guy, Pickering, on that podcast understood this, nor have most other people discussing this. This is a better value to use if you know it, as it combines two of the three key parameters needed, V02max and utilization, but how Sallet thinks he knows it I don't know, apparently he thinks he can get it from his model. And second, his original W value (though not W/kg value) was changed when he got a different weight value from Kerrison.

In any case, if you use Sallet's figures, you find that:

V02max x GE = 20.2

Not knowing either of those two values, one can’t solve for the other, but one can solve for one by making assumptions about the other. If we assume V02max is 90, which of course is extraordinarily high, then GE = 22.5. That is fairly high, but certainly not inconceivable. The highest power/weight value in the study of GT elite riders by Santalla et al that reported an inverse relationship was for an individual with a V02max of 80, which would require a GE of 25.5. Though GE values were not determined in this study, from the DE values it appears this rider probably exceeded that. Probably no other rider in the study did, though. The highest power value in the Lucia study was for a rider with a V02max of 70 and an efficiency of 28. The product of those numbers is 19.6, a little lower than the 20.2 calculated above. So Froome’s power, according to Sallet, is about as high as that of the highest of 12 elite riders in one study, and higher than that of any of 11 elite riders in another study.

Interestingly, though, Sallet’s own work reported very high efficiencies (mean of 25.6%) with no mention of an inverse relationship. Using that mean, Froome would need a V02max of just 79 to put out the power calculated by Sallet. I’m a little surprised that in his interviews he emphasizes the likelihood of cheating when his own work reports efficiencies that could account for such a high power. However, maybe he thinks he has some information bearing on Froome's efficiency as well. There is clearly much about the model that has not been reported.

According to the podcast, Sallet is going to furnish more data as rebuttal to Sky/Kerrison. Stay tuned.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance

Froome is only getting what he deserves. He is the biggest fraud in cycling history and him and Team Sky have been insulting everyones intelligence with their lies for the past 4 years.

I hope Team Sky get busted soon so we can get back to watching some real cycling.

Yet another post that implies that only Sky and Froome are dirty.

it implies nothing of the sort

What does it imply then? It either implies that sky is the only dirty team, and once they are busted we can watch real cycling again, or it implies that real cycling is watching all doped teams except Sky.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance

Froome is only getting what he deserves. He is the biggest fraud in cycling history and him and Team Sky have been insulting everyones intelligence with their lies for the past 4 years.

I hope Team Sky get busted soon so we can get back to watching some real cycling.

Yet another post that implies that only Sky and Froome are dirty.

it implies nothing of the sort

What does it imply then? It either implies that sky is the only dirty team, and once they are busted we can watch real cycling again, or it implies that real cycling is watching all doped teams except Sky.

don't bother with that, everyday is the same story
or like Sky threads are so long because we have to open the eyes of the believers who still say they're clean
join the new religion, we have to un-believe the believers!

 

[blackcat]

Froome had reported knee problems, and was abandoning. Apparently.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/racing/giro-ditalia/froome-disqualified-from-giro-ditalia-60517

plausible. but not necessarily the truth. ofcourse, not riding for GC, but that prompts the question, could he have pulled aside and waited for the sag wagon save inflaming his injury

He was trying to get up to the soigneur at the top of the Mortirolo.

Why lie?

it all sounds plausible.

to your question "why lie" i offer you "why tell the truth".

cycling as a domain has no awareness of this concept called "truth".

cycling is a grand metaphor for the fable "the boy who cried wolf"

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance

Froome is only getting what he deserves. He is the biggest fraud in cycling history and him and Team Sky have been insulting everyones intelligence with their lies for the past 4 years.

I hope Team Sky get busted soon so we can get back to watching some real cycling.

Yet another post that implies that only Sky and Froome are dirty.

it implies nothing of the sort

What does it imply then? It either implies that sky is the only dirty team, and once they are busted we can watch real cycling again, or it implies that real cycling is watching all doped teams except Sky.

Maybe it implies that Sky are simply the worst of a bad lot. Once they stop taking the p!ss we can then move on to targeting the dirty teams that "clean" Sky are somehow miraculously thrashing....

 

[blackcat]

hey, what is it with brailsford's fake tan or his oompa loompa melanotan supplements and peptides? is this his mid-life crisis. hey dave, you may no longer be as pale as gollum, but you are still as goddamn ugly as him

 

[doperhopper]

Whatever the "truth" is, SkyFans want you to keep "abusing" Vroom more and more, day and night, because, as Prophet RM said, "abusing makes rider only stronger". So, if 1000 Clinic posts mean some 0.1 W/kg... you do the math.

 

[the delgados]

Froome had reported knee problems, and was abandoning. Apparently.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/racing/giro-ditalia/froome-disqualified-from-giro-ditalia-60517

plausible. but not necessarily the truth. ofcourse, not riding for GC, but that prompts the question, could he have pulled aside and waited for the sag wagon save inflaming his injury

He was trying to get up to the soigneur at the top of the Mortirolo.

Why lie?

it all sounds plausible.

to your question "why lie" i offer you "why tell the truth".

cycling as a domain has no awareness of this concept called "truth".

cycling is a grand metaphor for the fable "the boy who cried wolf"

Forgive me if this has been discussed ad nauseum (I've fallen way behind), but I'm wondering if anyone--i.e. bbc journos--followed up with the urine-throwing scandal. Froome is always surrounded by teammates, so surely someone else got hit too, no? Who was it, and where along the course did it happen?
There are multiple cameras covering every inch of the route, so it must have been caught on tape. After all, Robert Millar said the culprit should be caught and charged.
Also, I'm pretty sure it's protocol for the peloton to slow down when the yellow jersey has to go pee, so why didn't the team slow down to confront the guy while every one took notice of what was going on and confront the culrpit en masse? Was it a critical moment of the race where everyone had their head down and were chasing like mad?
I'm not saying he's lying about the incident, but when it becomes the central narrative designed to elicit sympathy for the poor guy, you'd think some more questions would be asked.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

So Brailsford is proved right all along - it was utterly pointless releasing data, because people will see what they want to see from it

The treatment of Froome has been dusgusting the last few days. I think he's handled it exceptionally well personally

I want to see dopers named and shamed. But this lynch mentality is out of hand and I think actually damages the credibility of those seeking the truth about performance

It's because of what I said in the power data thread yesterday. Brailsford has lied, obfuscated and provided half-truths and misdirection for so long now that it's too late: even if he does release the data now, people won't believe it. The mistrust and doubt has grown too big for people to be won over by some figures that don't seem to match up with what other teams and riders (who've released their data without having their hand forced by a tidal wave of public suspicion) are saying. There have been too many lies that there needs to be a huge amount of transparency for them to get that trust from the fans back. Part of it's not their fault, it's the intrinsic mistrust of anybody putting out Armstrong's times in the post-Armstrong generation, and bearing the brunt of the resentment for the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" disillusionment fans have in realizing that the UCI is just as bad as it ever was, and whoever became the big names next were likely to face some resentment even before you take into account Sky's egregious wealth and unsubtle self-aggrandizement along with hypocritical and unlikable behaviours (see New England Patriots, Real Madrid etc), however they've barely even scratched the surface of what would need to be done to win the fans' belief back.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Is there a recording of the kimmage interview?

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/paul-kimmage-on-chris-froome-team-sky-and-the-2015-tour-de-france

Disappointing interview. His frustration is born from the fact that he still doesn't have much to go on. Asking DB for a doctor's telephone number or contact details and being told no then seeing this as a problem is getting silly. It's not that difficult to trace a British doctor's details.

In truth, Paul Kimmage should have joined a monastery decades ago when he understood (correctly in my view) that Western Civilization is collapsing. His Irish ancestors took this approach during the last so called "dark age".

 

[Dalakhani]

Ross Tucker's latest piece (http://sportsscientists.com/2015/07/great-power-great-responsibility-less-power-greater-speeds/), makes Sky look like the Keystone Cops.

For all their 'superior scientific approach' stuff (my words, not theirs), they don't seem to be gathering even the most basic information: they don't know how heavy Froome is; they don't know the size of the error in the power data; they don't know how different riders in the team compare to each other.

This makes them seem, instead of one of the most advanced and scientific teams on the Tour, one of the more amateurish.

Is that believable? Has Brailsford really been bullshitting about the science stuff, and all of BC successes under him just been a matter of him being lucky to inherit a golden crop of natural cycling talent?

Was that really the story Kerrison was selling yesterday?

 

[Franklin]

I'm having the biggest brainmelt ever.

What the hell am I reading here?

Are some posters here seriously arguing Froome did lower wattage per KG than his competitors when riding in the wind and dropping them like they were chumps? That's simply impossible.

I understand people being a huge fan, but there's someting as logic here.

 

[buckle]

Re:

I'm having the biggest brainmelt ever.

What the hell am I reading here?

Are some posters here seriously arguing Froome did lower wattage per KG than his competitors when riding in the wind and dropping them like they were chumps? That's simply impossible.

I understand people being a huge fan, but there's something as logic here.

In common with many here I don't understand all the metrics. Does higher wattage equate to efficiency? Will the athlete with the highest output generally win?

Gesink does seem a good starting point.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re:

Ross Tucker's latest piece (http://sportsscientists.com/2015/07/great-power-great-responsibility-less-power-greater-speeds/), makes Sky look like the Keystone Cops.

For all their 'superior scientific approach' stuff (my words, not theirs), they don't seem to be gathering even the most basic information: they don't know how heavy Froome is; they don't know the size of the error in the power data; they don't know how different riders in the team compare to each other.

This is what is most striking about yesterday's "data" release to me: they accuse people of being "pseudo-scientists" who don't know how to handle data, yet they themselves use arbitrary corrections (the 6%) and numbers (weight) that seem - shall we say - somewhat unrealistic. Then they end up with a number that has the winner at a lower W/kg than riders finishing more than a minute behind.

If they are genuine about them having nothing to hide, they should release the raw data and have Froome step on a scale right after one of the next stages. If they want to talk the talk, they should walk the walk. Now, it just seems like a bunch of questionable PR.

 

[meat puppet]

Yes, Sky's party line is that Froome had a free lunch ride destroying the others while putting out less w/kg than they did. Gesink did 5,85w/kg and lost 1min33 to Froome, who according to the Sky fable did 5,78w/kg. This does not add up.

The time and w/kg comparisons between riders have been posted in this thread a numerous times, but have been lost in the vortexing. Going uphill highest w/kg prevails, as has been explained in these threads time after time.

Sky is doing a great job of vortexing the issues, but in the real world. Kudos.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

He is the biggest fraud in cycling history

Err... that's a bit over the top. There's at least one guy being comfortably in the lead of that classification.

I hope Team Sky get busted soon so we can get back to watching some real cycling.

Yes, because everything before Sky was so much better

=> I'm far from a Sky fan, but I'm not so naive to think that if we just eradicate Sky things will improve. It also could get worse

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

its lipotropin or another peptide. something in the last 5 years. the one wiggins was on too.

the polish rider for nettap or netapp or nettapp

but here are vroome's legs

 

[blackcat]

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

In common with many here I don't understand all the metrics. Does higher wattage equate to efficiency?

That's a red herring. The wattages posted are what the drive-train is receiving. There's no reason to think the bikes of Sky are massively more efficient that those of Lotto Jumbo.

Will the athlete with the highest output generally win?

In a direct comparison of times on a climb: yes. Because something that needs to be stressed: we are talking direct drive-train numbers here, which pretty directly translate to speed differences.

Basically the story of Sky is that with lower performance they managed to defeat everyone else. The only word for that is: impossible.

This was not drafting for 40 minutes and then outsprinting someone for the win.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

In common with many here I don't understand all the metrics. Does higher wattage equate to efficiency? Will the athlete with the highest output generally win?

Gesink does seem a good starting point.

The W/kg value is inversely proportional to time spent on the climb, yes. Two riders with the same value will finish at almost the same time, so it's physically impossible for Gesink to produce more W/kg than Froome and finish 1'30" down, unless Froome has some sort of equipment advantage that saves him about 20W. The only thing that comes to mind that could realistically save that much over another top-of-the-line bike is a motor.

In other words, let's hope for Sky's sake their numbers are wrong.