Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

This. They are going for a double which is keeping up to the masterrace narrative to prove not only that they are cleanest of the clean but the others are still doping. Then they will complain on people of being "anti-british"' when not sticking to Guardians masterrace theory.

What i dont believe is the few, angry, yet very vocal posters on here in this period of time not seen before. Makes one think Sky has sleeping accounts ready for engagement.

gordonstoun, muscular christianity, chariots of fire, redgrave, muscular christianity, oxbridge, harrow

#Poeslaw

He's off again.

Somebody else on here described the Brits as 'snaggle-toothed hobbits', and in my decade in the UK I'd say that is closer to the truth

 

[carton]

Re:

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.

Thanks for that. Very useful when trying to break down that interview. Would be interesting to see were Sallet gets his other assumptions for the 7.04 W/kg power @ V02max estimate.

The interviewers weren't really up to snuff, IMHO, but at least they brought in Sallet. Interesting window on the mood in Britain, though. But to be honest given the shelling Froome gets outside these forums versus someone like Nibali or Evans, I can see why the Brits would be so defensive. I seem to be the only one that thinks putting some of the data out there and worrying about who you associate with and asking for more testing and paying lip service to clean cycling is a good thing, regardless of whether or not Froome is clean. Outside of Britain it just seems to rile everyone up even more. Froome is not going to all of the sudden turn out to have developed more traditionally. Nobody is going to be convinced by any data unless his starts doing worse. At this point I'm wondering if they're better off borrowing the old Thor Hushovd / Alexandre Vinokourov "I said I'm clean, I don't know or care what everyone else does, good day" playbook.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

[

Nope, that's really not the point
If you take someone like Sastre, doped or not, the guy won a single GT when all the stars aligned in his favor
Chris Froome has won a Tour in a dominant fashion, could've done it in 2012, looks like he'll do it again this year
Meanwhile he also wins Dauphines, Romandies, and other races
He also posts multiple very impressive climbing times
The assumption at work here is that, if a rider is capable of dominating three Tours and a plethora of other races, clean, his talent should've been visible at a younger age
If you take the current top 10 of the Tour, ALL those riders have been hailed as future GT contenders at a very young age - apart from Froome (and probably Thomas)
On the other hand, nobody said anything about Froome contending GT's, let alone dominate multiple Tours, before he suddenly went head to head with Cobo in the Vuelta
That is the point
Froome's performances imply talent showing at a young age
Feel free to provide counterarguments i.e., any link to someone predicting Froome's greatness before the 2011 Vuelta, or an example of a clean rider performing at a similar high level without showing much talent at a young age

Talent is only successful if it is nurtured and has elite coaching from an early age.

Froome showed talent by coming 17th at the Commonwealths with rubbish equipment and little coaching, that is talent. I'm not sure how much coaching and nurturing Barloworld did but it is reasonably safe to say, Froome didn't have any elite coaching or nurturing until the end of 2009 when he was 24. Add in the bacterial infection they didn't discover until 2011, it is feasible what he has accomplished.

Or have you never in any sport heard of the term late bloomer?

So where are the guys who came ahead of Froome. Don't think they've won any WT races. Surely if the guy coming 17th had talent those ahead of him have more.

Read my actual point where I also say about poor equipment and little coaching then come back to me. FYI Cummings was one of the men who beat him and Froome was 20 at the time[/quote]

Did his bike have 2 round wheels? I'm sure all the guys who finished ahead of him had access to the top level coaching around at that time. But then probably kicked back on the training and thought I finished 12th in the Commonwealth games ITT, won't be long before I win the TdF and a medal at the Olympics.

As for Cummings, he's hardly set the world of cycling alight, has he?

 

[samhocking]

I think his point is the European riders Froome is beating now were identified at an early age with potential and this is nurtured through an established results-based progression though the European ranks with Pro Tour the end goal. For Froome there is no results-based progression and so to look back on it misses the talent it must have taken to break into the Pro Tour outside that European system. The film Cool Runnings is how I see Froomes early years until Barloworld anyway lol!

 

[hrotha]

Say, are you going to admit you were completely wrong about Mollema? Or are you just going to keep making new, easily refutable points ad infinitum until people give up out of boredom?

Barloworld was riding GTs. They had a good racing schedule packed full with top races. Froome had plenty of opportunity to show that talent. And same goes for Sky before September 2011, or in 2010, or whenever he says he was free of badzilla.

 

[jalep]

Re: Re:

This. They are going for a double which is keeping up to the masterrace narrative to prove not only that they are cleanest of the clean but the others are still doping. Then they will complain on people of being "anti-british"' when not sticking to Guardians masterrace theory.

What i dont believe is the few, angry, yet very vocal posters on here in this period of time not seen before. Makes one think Sky has sleeping accounts ready for engagement.

gordonstoun, muscular christianity, chariots of fire, redgrave, muscular christianity, oxbridge, harrow

#Poeslaw

starting to really be a fan, blackcat. had to look up gordonstoun but I just might be getting it.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

Joined Sky 2010, won 2013, I make that 3 years to win Tour de France. Your point?

so much lol

Well... Sam's desperate Wiki scramble came to late for him to hide his ignorance.

I would also laugh if it wasn't bloody par for the course. He's just one of those fanatics who have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about. It's Lance all over again.

Say, are you going to admit you were completely wrong about Mollema? Or are you just going to keep making new, easily refutable points ad infinitum until people give up out of boredom?

Barloworld was riding GTs. They had a good racing schedule packed full with top races. Froome had plenty of opportunity to show that talent. And same goes for Sky before September 2011, or in 2010, or whenever he says he was free of badzilla.

Hrotha, just give it up. He has shown multiple times that he has no clue about cycling. It's obvious his experience is starting in 2012 on the wings of the Sky wave.

And that's fine, you got to start once, but it's not fine to think that you can talk like an expert if you don't do the effort of actually looking into the sport and it's past.

 

[samhocking]

Re:

Say, are you going to admit you were completely wrong about Mollema? Or are you just going to keep making new, easily refutable points ad infinitum until people give up out of boredom?

Barloworld was riding GTs. They had a good racing schedule packed full with top races. Froome had plenty of opportunity to show that talent. And same goes for Sky before September 2011, or in 2010, or whenever he says he was free of badzilla.

Look the point is not about Mollema, it's the fact that in 2011 Contador & Valverde were not riding Vuelta and Mollema was 4th. When they returned in 2012 Mollema was 28th and so looking at past performances of a rider from one year to the next is flaky. It doesn;t matter what the reason was for Mollema's 28th, it's just because he placed 4th the same as Froome and past performance is a poor indication of natural ability or doping.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

But in 2013 Mollema was 6th in the Tour, so I doubt he's allergic to Contador & Valverde!
... or what was your point?

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

Say, are you going to admit you were completely wrong about Mollema? Or are you just going to keep making new, easily refutable points ad infinitum until people give up out of boredom?

Barloworld was riding GTs. They had a good racing schedule packed full with top races. Froome had plenty of opportunity to show that talent. And same goes for Sky before September 2011, or in 2010, or whenever he says he was free of badzilla.

Look the point is not about Mollema, it's the fact that in 2011 Contador & Valverde were not riding Vuelta and Mollema was 4th. When they returned in 2012 Mollema was 28th and so looking at past performances of a rider from one year to the next is flaky. It doesn;t matter what the reason was for Mollema's 28th, it's just because he placed 4th the same as Froome and past performance is a poor indication of natural ability or doping.

Are you basing your theory in Mollema being 28th one year? Are you serious?

 

[samhocking]

I'm talking about comparing riders palamares is flaky, not their results!

 

[samhocking]

My beef is you can't have the general consensus that all the top riders are all doping, yet also use the reason Froome is beating them to be doping too and when asked for evidence say it's his lack of palamares. Palamares means nothing if you think all the top riders are doping anyway.

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

I'm talking about comparing riders palamares is flaky, not their results!

I'm sure if you presented any DS/team manager 5 years ago with the option of Mollema or Froome for the final spot on a teams 30 man roster, 99.9999999% of them would've selected Mollema.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

I'm talking about comparing riders palamares is flaky, not their results!

I'm sure if you presented any DS/team manager 5 years ago with the option of Mollema or Froome for the final spot on a teams 30 man roster, 99.9999999% of them would've selected Mollema.

I'm not trying to give the odds of who becomes a Tour winner though, i'm saying if you think all the top riders are doping how can you use doping as the excuse for Froome's performance and justify it simply by comparing riders palamares, especially when that riders hasn't come through the typical European racing set-up.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

I'm talking about comparing riders palamares is flaky, not their results!

I'm sure if you presented any DS/team manager 5 years ago with the option of Mollema or Froome for the final spot on a teams 30 man roster, 99.9999999% of them would've selected Mollema.

I'm not trying to give the odds of who becomes a Tour winner though, i'm saying if you think all the top riders are doping how can you use doping as the excuse for Froome's performance and back that up looking at a riders palamares.

Ok this is like Godwin's Law, but here goes:

Look at the palamares of Lance Armstrong pre and post Cancer, now look at Froome's pre and post his many illnesses. For both neither should any sign of being a GT winner and post illnesses they both won GT's. Now we know that Armstrong had the UCI in his back pocket, does Froome/Sky have the UCI in their back pocket?

I mean the UCI has shown over time that it can't be trusted(Armstrong/Pat trying to cover up Contador's clen issue etc) and I haven't seen any signs of a change since Cookson came into office. So maybe Froome/Sky just have to call Cookson, like Lance used to call Hein and say 'Random guy looks strong, can you call him in for a chat/target test him etc etc'.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Nibali looking ready shark-like

 

[jmdirt]

Re: 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.

I floated that idea 20 or so pages back. I think that the top 10 on GC should step on a scale at sign in (not at the end). If the teams are concerned about us hacks chopping up the data, there could be an independent number cruncher who gets the raw data, and then gives the fans the important number that we want.

 

[blackcat]

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.

delgados you are a kinder man than me, I will just flat out call him a liar. Just like no one punched Porte, and he never confronted someone who called him a doper and the person who he confronted was a coward.

Sky have been lying for the past month since that missed test at the 5 star hotel. They are lying. I cannot believe a word they say.

I actually dont care about them doping, everyone else is, and to this extent, I can appreciate the necessary lie, the grand lie. But that does not mean I need to be silent and not contest the lie. I will not enable their lies, but I concede their freedom to dope like the rest.

 

[samhocking]

Well then, the World are barking up the wrong tree accusing Sky of doping and trying to prove it, if the real issue is corruption or collaboration with UCI.

 

[jalep]

Re:

Well then, the World are barking up the wrong tree accusing Sky of doping and trying to prove it, if the real issue is corruption or collaboration with UCI.

Very convinced after following cycling since 2009 that it's all unfortunately on the same tree:

Doping
corruption
collaboration

If you are a Sky fan though - it's your year to enjoy.

 

[Saint Unix]

I've developed a distinct eye twitch reading samhocking's posts lately.

I mean... what?!?

 

[samhocking]

I can take of leave Froome. I don't really have a favourite, just enjoy road racing full stop. I've not enjoyed the accusations against Sky though and I do feel for Froome having to soak up this while in Yellow. He's got tough skin though and I admire him for that if nothing else!

 

[samhocking]

Re:

I've developed a distinct eye twitch reading samhocking's posts lately.

I mean... what?!?

Don't worry, BYOP88 got the answer I was looking for and that Sky are winning because the UCI is corrupt and protecting them doping more than other teams. I've finished here now - back to work tomorrow anyway, so no more lazy afternoons! Enjoy Le Tour!

 

[the sceptic]

another joke of a stage by Dawg. Closing down attack after attack.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re: Re:

I've developed a distinct eye twitch reading samhocking's posts lately.

I mean... what?!?

Don't worry, BYOP88 got the answer I was looking for and that Sky are winning because the UCI is corrupt and protecting them doping more than other teams. I've finished here now - back to work tomorrow anyway, so no more lazy afternoons! Enjoy Le Tour!

Nobody on here has produced any evidence to suggest that the UCI are protecting Sky. ---edited by mod---