Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

As an exercise, go ride a hill sub max @ 85rpm.
Now ride the same hill at 100 rpm.
Now at 110 rpm.

Report back here how it felt.

Now go find a 6km climb and do it all again.

If you're alluding to Froome's high cadence I'll have you know he worked specifically on spinning the pedal with Brailsford in the car honking the horn every time he slowed down and got out of the saddle to train his body to maintain the rhythm.

No wait... That was another guy. Oh well, honest mistake.

Is that after they watched videos of the people who beat them and saw they were pedaling faster, so changed his cadence to match their competitors?

 

[Ripper]

Re: Re:

The issue with Froome is the ease with which he disposed of Quintana and the evident lack of suffering.

Well, this and the fact that Froome is hitting these numbers at the end of the race, without too much of a challenge. Day after day.

He's no longer peaking all year round and saying it's 95% though! So a step in the right direction, right???

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Was just reading the Vuelta bit from Froome's book. He identifies one stage where he goes on the front, pushes a little easy, then looks around and there's only a handful of riders left (4 iirc) - the creme de la creme of the race, and they are all dying on their bikes and Froome is sitting their proudly thinking that this is a breeze for him.

As an exercise, go ride a hill sub max @ 85rpm.
Now ride the same hill at 100 rpm.
Now at 110 rpm.

Report back here how it felt.

Now go find a 6km climb and do it all again.

If you're alluding to Froome's high cadence I'll have you know he worked specifically on spinning the pedal with Brailsford in the car honking the horn every time he slowed down and got out of the saddle to train his body to maintain the rhythm.

No wait... That was another guy. Oh well, honest mistake.

Ha, I read that bit recently as well. Good memory

 

[MikeS369]

Re: Re:

So Froome would have had to ridden at a higher w/kg avg than Gesink to put 1:30 into him. Is there any way to calculate what that w/kg avg would have had to been?

Sure. Let’s assume Gesink loses 30” because of riding unprotected longer. This reduces Froome’s gap to about a minute, IOW, without that extra loss, Gesink would have finished at about 42:30. Gesink’s power was about 5.90 W/kg., so Froome’s should be about (42.5/41.5) x 5.90 = 6.04 W/kg.

As Ross Tucker pointed out, if one assumes Froome’s weight was really 66 kg, as a lot of evidence and statements in the past imply it would be at most, then one could take the 414 W value furnished by Sky, reduce it by 4% rather than 6% (because the manufacturer estimated 4-5% correction for oval chainrings), and get 6.03. This is also very close to Sallet's estimate. I think we can pretty confidently conclude that Froome's power was in the range of 6.0-6.1 W/kg.

Which isnt unnatural from what i've seen people say, correct?

IMO it's certainly conceivable to put out that much power clean, at least one unidentified rider in a published study produced numbers compatible with this. It's not a great deal more than what several other riders, e.g., Pinot, have documented. But keep in mind:

a) it's on the cusp of what seems possible;
b) just because numbers have been measured in lab studies that are compatible with this doesn't mean those numbers were accomplished clean; and
c) whether someone with Froome's background is capable of putting out power apparently near the limits of current human performance, clean, is another question.

Merckx Index thanks for doing the calculations. I'm no math genius so seeing the final numbers helps much more than seeing the formulas.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

I'm aware of that, but if your belief is the top 30 are on PEDs based on erroneous observations like less-than perfect palamares, vein bulginess, time gains or comparing todays peloton to that of cycling's past it seems like a belief based on the logic of a type of religion and not the evidence in front of you and I'm not comfortable when belief-alone is used to accuse someone of something they can't prove because it requires the evidence of absence, which is simply impossible.

Oh dear Sam, I think you are a little bit confused.
Just a few Facts:

1. Hiring a Doping doctor
2. Having a DS who is extremely friendly with the dope courier of Lance, just a few weeks before the TdF
3. Multiple blatant lies by manager on things concerning doping and transparency.
4. Lieing about wattages. Because, truly, the posted wattages can't be true...or they are falsely reporting Froomes weight.
5. Having performmances that in the past only have been possible with doping. Which combined with 4 really should get you angry at Sky instead of rejecting ssacience and going into fantasy modus,

Belief:

1. believing everything Dave Brailsford says even though they are clearly lies.

You are on the side of blind faiith and magical skyfairies, whereas the critics are solidly on the facts concluding it's almost certainly doping

You should understand that I'm really uncomfortable talking with someone who believes in magic and trusts the words of a proven patholoigical liar and can only reject facts as they hurt his hero-worship.

1. OK, so Team Sky have doping doctors like every other team
2/3/4 Sure, Team Sky lies about doping when asked just like every other team and rider will
5. They are doing the same as everyone else given your belief of 1,2,3 & 4 therefore it's not the doping making them so dominant is it?

This is my point, you believe they are the same as the other teams and doping, yet can't give a reason why they are dominant and not them. The nearest anyone gets is saying 'oh, Contador, Nibali, Quintana and everyone else are not on top form this year' Bollocks!

So let me get this straight...your argument is that they're beating the dopers because they're clean?
They're not "doing the same"...they're doping better. That simple. Been done before, being done now.
Whether you like it or not the proof of doping is that they're beating the dopers.

No, my argument is, if you generally believe the top riders are all doping and you also believe Froome is doping, then the reason for Froome beating them isn't doping it's either UCI protection allowing Froome to dope more effectively than the opposition or Sky have a new PED the other teams don't. UCI Protection or Sky have developed a new PED has not exactly been everyones argument though, it's that they think Froome is doping isn't it. Well everyone is, so simply attributing Sky's success to doping is not a complete reason is it.

 

[Campervan man]

Re: Re:

I'm aware of that, but if your belief is the top 30 are on PEDs based on erroneous observations like less-than perfect palamares, vein bulginess, time gains or comparing todays peloton to that of cycling's past it seems like a belief based on the logic of a type of religion and not the evidence in front of you and I'm not comfortable when belief-alone is used to accuse someone of something they can't prove because it requires the evidence of absence, which is simply impossible.

Oh dear Sam, I think you are a little bit confused.
Just a few Facts:

1. Hiring a Doping doctor
2. Having a DS who is extremely friendly with the dope courier of Lance, just a few weeks before the TdF
3. Multiple blatant lies by manager on things concerning doping and transparency.
4. Lieing about wattages. Because, truly, the posted wattages can't be true...or they are falsely reporting Froomes weight.
5. Having performmances that in the past only have been possible with doping. Which combined with 4 really should get you angry at Sky instead of rejecting ssacience and going into fantasy modus,

Belief:

1. believing everything Dave Brailsford says even though they are clearly lies.

You are on the side of blind faiith and magical skyfairies, whereas the critics are solidly on the facts concluding it's almost certainly doping

You should understand that I'm really uncomfortable talking with someone who believes in magic and trusts the words of a proven patholoigical liar and can only reject facts as they hurt his hero-worship.

1. OK, so Team Sky have doping doctors like every other team
2/3/4 Sure, Team Sky lies about doping when asked just like every other team and rider will
5. They are doing the same as everyone else given your belief of 1,2,3 & 4 therefore it's not the doping making them so dominant is it?

This is my point, you believe they are the same as the other teams and doping, yet can't give a reason why they are dominant and not them. The nearest anyone gets is saying 'oh, Contador, Nibali, Quintana and everyone else are not on top form this year' Bollocks!

So let me get this straight...your argument is that they're beating the dopers because they're clean?
They're not "doing the same"...they're doping better. That simple. Been done before, being done now.
Whether you like it or not the proof of doping is that they're beating the dopers.

No, my argument is, if you generally believe the top riders are all doping and you also believe Froome is doping, then the reason for Froome beating them isn't doping it's either UCI protection allowing Froome to dope more effectively than the opposition or Sky have a new PED the other teams don't. UCI Protection or Sky have developed a new PED has not exactly been everyones argument though, it's that they think Froome is doping isn't it. Well everyone is, so simply attributing Sky's success to doping is not a complete reason is it.

I'd think it was slightly better doping and a smidgen more protection but we won't know for sure because of the night stood behind the team/scene.

 

[samhocking]

But that's the thing, nobody is accusing Sky of having a Dr who is doping them 'slightly better' than other teams doctors and to believe Dr Leinders only worked out how to dope Sky riders better than Rabobank when he joined Sky just seems simplistic and simply two dots joined without any number next to each one?

 

[Campervan man]

Re:

But that's the thing, nobody is accusing Sky of having a Dr who is doping them 'slightly better' than other teams doctors and to believe Dr Leinders only worked out how to dope Sky riders better than Rabobank when he joined Sky just seems simplistic and simply two dots joined without any number next to each one?

Better than Rabbobank? Seriously, Menchov was a complete joke for a start completely not normal and chicken was their Froome his TT was vastly improved/ing which for a featherweight is mental.

Froome=Rasmussen
Wiggo=Menchov
Boogard=Porte or take your pick, Thomas?

 

[blackcat]

it is not the doping that makes froome better.

it is the USPS template, everyone moving towards one end, having all logistics, all doctors, everything, in aid of Froome winning.

the only thing that is a constraint, is LRP riding GC at the giro. But that might be a gambit at not having LRP do his own putsch like Froome could have in 2012. They need to keep the lieutenant and 2IC as the 2IC and not get too uppity and big for their boots. See LRP in the last week. They will have the same problem if Froome wants to ride out another 5 years as leader with Kennaugh and G wanting a piece of the pie. See how Cavendish and other British riders left Sky to get more opportunities. There are only so many opportunities one team can have, (or offer), and there are less for a team with all objectives to GC. I still reckon LRP could have been on the podium for 2013 if not for that one stage that Garmin smashed them from the start and LRP had to do all the work.

I dont think they have anything different. Everyone has access to Aicar and GW501516 and lipotropin. You can get thru with just epo, transfusions, and some testo, cortisone and hgh. some insulin would help too.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Boogard=Porte or take your pick, Thomas?

his name is LRP

 

[Franklin]

Please be gentle with Sam, he has demonstrated a few times already that he has zero knowledge of the sport. He does not know that in five years years Rabo won three GT's (for all purposes 4), being for example better than CSC. Nor does he know that in those years Leinders was not just the doctor, but also part of the triumvir Management team responsible for the whole enterprise.

Consider he probably started watching at the wings of Sky and is so fanatically believing in his heroes he just tries to talk alomg completely missing the knowledge to understand the cold hard facts.

It's Lance all over again.

 

[Campervan man]

Re: Re:

Boogard=Porte or take your pick, Thomas?

his name is LRP

What's Cound dawg call him, Chrissies little helper?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

What's Cound dawg call him, Chrissies little helper?

cound calls LRP cuckolded

 

[Campervan man]

Re:

Please be gentle with Sam, he has demonstrated a few times already that he has zero knowledge of the sport. He does not know that in five years years Rabo won three GT's (for all purposes 4), being for example better than CSC. Nor does he know that in those years Leinders was not just the doctor, but also part of the triumvir Management team responsible for the whole enterprise.

Consider he probably started watching at the wings of Sky and is so fanatically believing in his heroes he just tries to talk alomg completely missing the knowledge to understand the cold hard facts.

It's Lance all over again.

I thought I was rather gentle! No doubt Sam will stop watching when the Sky falls in, I'm going to pick myself a top end bike up for a wee price then. Roll on that day...

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

No, my argument is, if you generally believe the top riders are all doping and you also believe Froome is doping, then the reason for Froome beating them isn't doping it's either UCI protection allowing Froome to dope more effectively than the opposition or Sky have a new PED the other teams don't. UCI Protection or Sky have developed a new PED has not exactly been everyones argument though, it's that they think Froome is doping isn't it. Well everyone is, so simply attributing Sky's success to doping is not a complete reason is it.

This trips over a couple of logical fallacies:

1. If everyone is doping then the playing field is level.

No. Drugs affect everyone differently. The majority of people respond, some respond extremely well and some respond very poorly or not at all. It's a gaussian distribution. It's perfectly possible the most doped riders in the peloton at at either end of the ability range. I've seen data from athletes given EPO where their performances have dropped, it's extremely rare but has happened (this was a controlled trial and has not been replicated).

2. The whole of someones' argument is contained within a post or conversation.

This is a constant problem in the clinic. Just because someone doesn't go into massive detail in each post doesn't mean their argument isn't more nuanced. If someone says Sky are doing better because of doping that doesn't necessarily mean they think Sky are the only dopers, they have some secret protection, they have access to better PEDs etc. This problem comes with both sides and it's why the same old arguments come up again and again.



What are Sky doing? Well, no-one really knows. What we do know is they have managed to transform two extremely talented track riders into very good GT riders/domestiques (Thomas and Wiggins) which I still think should be possible clean (I'm not saying either are here). They have also taken a reasonably talented domestique (as in, could ride pro tour rather than pro conti talented) and turned him into a world beater at a late age with very little indication this would be possible.

Looked at like that you might think, yeah, this is unlikely but could happen. However, throw in the fact that they have a train of domestiques who also look like world beaters every TDF, have employed people with dodgy pasts while touting a ZTP policy and then kicked them to the curb when found out, had a rider banned through a biological passport case (the UCI couldn't even get Kruziger banned!!), constantly fail to back up promises of testing and refuse to release data that many riders give away freely (Strava) and it suddenly all starts to look very, very dubious.


There are of course problems with this. Riders who should have been very good have failed or performed better when moving away from Sky, they have pretty much failed in one day races or at anything not in the build up to the Tour when compared to their TDF record, etc. But these problems do not rule out Sky doping their riders.

 

[Campervan man]

Re: Re:

What's Cound dawg call him, Chrissies little helper?

cound calls LRP cuckolded

So Chrissies little helper then... No wonder they wanted that RV.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Please be gentle with Sam, he has demonstrated a few times already that he has zero knowledge of the sport. He does not know that in five years years Rabo won three GT's (for all purposes 4), being for example better than CSC. Nor does he know that in those years Leinders was not just the doctor, but also part of the triumvir Management team responsible for the whole enterprise.

Consider he probably started watching at the wings of Sky and is so fanatically believing in his heroes he just tries to talk alomg completely missing the knowledge to understand the cold hard facts.

It's Lance all over again.

I thought I was rather gentle! No doubt Sam will stop watching when the Sky falls in, I'm going to pick myself a top end bike up for a wee price then. Roll on that day...

I'm 40 years old and started racing myself and watching cycling every year since 1986, so don't assume you know me! You know crap about Tour de France history and Rabobank because they've never won Tour de France, this is my point!

Leinders & Rabobank didn't win Le Tour during his employment. To think Leinders has the edge now over all other doctos, simply because he was employed at Sky when his Tour de France record is zero wins in what - all of the 2000's, it doesn't explain why you would think Sky are doping better than everyone else, simply because they hired Leinders.

 

[Campervan man]

Re: Re:

Please be gentle with Sam, he has demonstrated a few times already that he has zero knowledge of the sport. He does not know that in five years years Rabo won three GT's (for all purposes 4), being for example better than CSC. Nor does he know that in those years Leinders was not just the doctor, but also part of the triumvir Management team responsible for the whole enterprise.

Consider he probably started watching at the wings of Sky and is so fanatically believing in his heroes he just tries to talk alomg completely missing the knowledge to understand the cold hard facts.

It's Lance all over again.

I thought I was rather gentle! No doubt Sam will stop watching when the Sky falls in, I'm going to pick myself a top end bike up for a wee price then. Roll on that day...

I'm 40 years old and started racing myself and watching cycling every year since 1986, so don't assume you know me! You know crap about Tour de France history and Rabobank because they've never won Tour de France, this is my point!

Leinders & Rabobank didn't win Le Tour during his employment. To think Leinders has the edge now over all other doctos, simply because he was employed at Sky when his Tour de France record is zero wins in what - all of the 2000's, it doesn't explain why you would think Sky are doping better than everyone else, simply because they hired Leinders.

Sorry didn't mean you personally Sam, should've edited my post better. I also respect the time you watched cycling for.

But, they were all set to win Tour until chicken got deep fried. Rabbobank were as you know a very influential and dominant force for a while and produced ridiculous performance after performance at a dodgy time. Now I'm sure you can appreciate that! And a decent bike at a cheap price once all this washes over, as history has shown us.

 

[samhocking]

No problem. Surely any Dr's main role, other than administering PEDs we assume is to know how to achieve this in a way that his riders won't get caught - in which case Leinders doesn't have a great track record there either lol.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re:

No problem. Surely any Dr's main role, other than administering PEDs we assume is to know how to achieve this in a way that his riders won't get caught - in which case Leinders doesn't have a great track record there either lol.

Rory Sutherland is the only one on Rabobank who failed a regular doping test afaik?
Dekker failed a retroactive test
Rasmussen f'ed up his whereabouts but that's not really the doctor's fault is it

 

[Campervan man]

Re:

No problem. Surely any Dr's main role, other than administering PEDs we assume is to know how to achieve this in a way that his riders won't get caught - in which case Leinders doesn't have a great track record there either lol.

Sure, but expertise comes from many involved with Sky, and Leindeers was clever enough. The chicken was crazily strong like Froome I'm not sure even a good Andy was as good. Just my thoughts though. If I'm lucky enough I'm off to the col du Glandon now so might share pictures if there any good when I get internet. I'm hoping for some good racing today to counter balance the clinic issues.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

I'm 40 years old and started racing myself and watching cycling every year since 1986, so don't assume you know me! You know crap about Tour de France history and Rabobank because they've never won Tour de France, this is my point!

Leinders & Rabobank didn't win Le Tour during his employment. To think Leinders has the edge now over all other doctos, simply because he was employed at Sky when his Tour de France record is zero wins in what - all of the 2000's, it doesn't explain why you would think Sky are doping better than everyone else, simply because they hired Leinders.

Menchov raked in a total of three Vueltas/Giros in four years. Very few reach that level. Contador is the only one in the last 10 years with a better record, and Nibali has matched his total GTs with one of each. As others have said, Rasmussen was also crazy good, albeit in the shadow of Lance. He also f'ed it up for himself when Lance quit and Rasmussen went for it properly.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

What are Sky doing? Well, no-one really knows. What we do know is they have managed to transform two extremely talented track riders into very good GT riders/domestiques (Thomas and Wiggins) which I still think should be possible clean (I'm not saying either are here). They have also taken a reasonably talented domestique (as in, could ride pro tour rather than pro conti talented) and turned him into a world beater at a late age with very little indication this would be possible.

actually, I think you have got it around the wrong way. I know this is the similar pov to everyone else.

I have the opposite pov. If you search a post "search: Froome+fraud poster:blackcat" i gave vroom quite a comprehensive defense. And I think he was more talented than the other native brits. And I think potentially G was a better pursuiter than Wigans. but Wigans had about 7 years on him, and they wanted to win the team pursuit in the same competitions.

vroom's first TdF with John Robertson's Barloworld was a big success, climbed well, timetrialled top 20 in both, was hanging with Konsta Sioutsou in the GC. what a great debut. He was 22. I think it was close to Andy's second place as a 21 yo in the Giro, for his debut in a GT. no, not as good, but still, a phenomenal debut. And we know that Andy was pretty dirty just like Ricco when he was riding in VC Roubaix and Cyrille Guimmard. And before Claudio Corti or whoever gave the putsch on John Robertson, Barloworld and Konica Minolta were not any different to those amateur teams in Italy

 

[lovealiens]

Re: Re:

What are Sky doing? Well, no-one really knows. What we do know is they have managed to transform two extremely talented track riders into very good GT riders/domestiques (Thomas and Wiggins) which I still think should be possible clean (I'm not saying either are here). They have also taken a reasonably talented domestique (as in, could ride pro tour rather than pro conti talented) and turned him into a world beater at a late age with very little indication this would be possible.

actually, I think you have got it around the wrong way. I know this is the similar pov to everyone else.

I have the opposite pov. If you search a post "search: Froome+fraud poster:blackcat" i gave vroom quite a comprehensive defense. And I think he was more talented than the other native brits. And I think potentially G was a better pursuiter than Wigans. but Wigans had about 7 years on him, and they wanted to win the team pursuit in the same competitions.

vroom's first TdF with John Robertson's Barloworld was a big success, climbed well, timetrialled top 20 in both, was hanging with Konsta Sioutsou in the GC. what a great debut. He was 22. I think it was close to Andy's second place as a 21 yo in the Giro, for his debut in a GT. no, not as good, but still, a phenomenal debut. And we know that Andy was pretty dirty just like Ricco when he was riding in VC Roubaix and Cyrille Guimmard. And before Claudio Corti or whoever gave the putsch on John Robertson, Barloworld and Konica Minolta were not any different to those amateur teams in Italy

Froome came 83 I think in that 2008 tour! 2 hours 22 mins behind.

Then hmm 4 years later he is "da man" he is transformed by the miracle (Or Lancified) and probably could have won, but Wiggins was team lead.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

2011 was 3 years later?