Yes yes Froome had a 5.8W/kg FTP, 85 VO2 max and 24% efficiency but couldn't ride to save himself. Coz reasons.
Good oh. Sounds sciencey enough for me.
Next.
Good oh. Sounds sciencey enough for me.
Next.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
doperhopper said:In this "data" business, all that puzzles me is why the heck are they doing this? It won't help them at all, certainly not in the eyes of sceptic fans, and the impact of this publicity stunt for the general public will be minuscule (people don't undersand the details, and mostly don't even care).
On the other hand, imagine Astana/Tinkoff /Movistar come next year with some undetectable new juice that gives you extra 10+%, so, say 6.5W/kg now becomes mainstream among good climbers and the top will go even a bit higher.
Now what? They will have to juice up as well, and become the obvious target, as everyone will compare the new Tour winning standard of, say, 6.8 to Vroome's published 6.1 (exact number not that important for the sake of argument), and will demand a lab test comparison.
Now, knowing Brailsford & co. are not stupid, they must be very well aware of this trap. They must be damn sure something like this simply won't happen. They know they are the best under the current biopass system that actually protects them, because trying any radically new and too powerful stuff would likely trigger the passport alarm even if otherwise undetectable. Or they are protected also from other sides, who knows...
So, this whole testing story is not so much about the past, but rather about the future. Basically a demonstration of power in an arms race called cycling - something like this russian 500megaton czar bomb: here you have it, beat this. And be sure you won't beat us in the future.
del1962 said:irondan said:Your attempt to derail this discussion has not gone unnoticed.Savant12 said:Catwhoorg said:Peer review is flawed for sure, my favorite example is the Wakefield/Lancet fraudulent paper.
It is still, however, the best method out there.
The best method surely is the Monty Python witch method.
Peasants: We have found a doper! (A doper! a doper!)
Burn him burn him!
Peasant 1: We have found a doper, may we burn him?
(cheers)
Vladimir: How do you know he is a doper?
P2: He looks like one!
There we go, problem solved! No need to wait for any that peer reviewed stuff because the jury's already spoken. Burn them all! The whole sport!
Peasant 1: Now that cycling's gone what can we watch?
Vladimir: Athletics? I hear the Russians are rather good.
P2: Athletics!
Please take your trolling to another forum and let these members have their conversation without being interrupted by this silliness.
Dont understabd you reply here, seems like you don't like a different opinion, he ho, your a mod what can I say
doperhopper said:In this "data" business, all that puzzles me is why the heck are they doing this? It won't help them at all, certainly not in the eyes of sceptic fans, and the impact of this publicity stunt for the general public will be minuscule (people don't undersand the details, and mostly don't even care).
On the other hand, imagine Astana/Tinkoff /Movistar come next year with some undetectable new juice that gives you extra 10+%, so, say 6.5W/kg now becomes mainstream among good climbers and the top will go even a bit higher.
Now what? They will have to juice up as well, and become the obvious target, as everyone will compare the new Tour winning standard of, say, 6.8 to Vroome's published 6.1 (exact number not that important for the sake of argument), and will demand a lab test comparison.
Now, knowing Brailsford & co. are not stupid, they must be very well aware of this trap. They must be damn sure something like this simply won't happen. They know they are the best under the current biopass system that actually protects them, because trying any radically new and too powerful stuff would likely trigger the passport alarm even if otherwise undetectable. Or they are protected also from other sides, who knows...
So, this whole testing story is not so much about the past, but rather about the future. Basically a demonstration of power in an arms race called cycling - something like this russian 500megaton czar bomb: here you have it, beat this. And be sure you won't beat us in the future.
Ok, I'll explain it for you.del1962 said:irondan said:Your attempt to derail this discussion has not gone unnoticed.Savant12 said:Catwhoorg said:Peer review is flawed for sure, my favorite example is the Wakefield/Lancet fraudulent paper.
It is still, however, the best method out there.
The best method surely is the Monty Python witch method.
Peasants: We have found a doper! (A doper! a doper!)
Burn him burn him!
Peasant 1: We have found a doper, may we burn him?
(cheers)
Vladimir: How do you know he is a doper?
P2: He looks like one!
There we go, problem solved! No need to wait for any that peer reviewed stuff because the jury's already spoken. Burn them all! The whole sport!
Peasant 1: Now that cycling's gone what can we watch?
Vladimir: Athletics? I hear the Russians are rather good.
P2: Athletics!
Please take your trolling to another forum and let these members have their conversation without being interrupted by this silliness.
Dont understabd you reply here
Dear Wiggo said:Yes yes Froome had a 5.8W/kg FTP, 85 VO2 max and 24% efficiency but couldn't ride to save himself. Coz reasons.
Good oh. Sounds sciencey enough for me.
Next.
Savant12 said:Dear Wiggo said:Yes yes Froome had a 5.8W/kg FTP, 85 VO2 max and 24% efficiency but couldn't ride to save himself. Coz reasons.
Good oh. Sounds sciencey enough for me.
Next.
Given your scientific analysis of Froome and with the results of "Coz reasons" can you elaborate further on your hypothesis of "couldn't ride to save himself"? Or shall we wait for some real scientists to analyse what they have been given [at this point we don't know all the details] and we we can comment on their findings at a later date?
Benotti69 said:Savant12 said:Dear Wiggo said:Yes yes Froome had a 5.8W/kg FTP, 85 VO2 max and 24% efficiency but couldn't ride to save himself. Coz reasons.
Good oh. Sounds sciencey enough for me.
Next.
Given your scientific analysis of Froome and with the results of "Coz reasons" can you elaborate further on your hypothesis of "couldn't ride to save himself"? Or shall we wait for some real scientists to analyse what they have been given [at this point we don't know all the details] and we we can comment on their findings at a later date?
"couldn't ride to save himself" = Brailsford asking Bruyneel did they want Froome?
gillan1969 said:Benotti69 said:Savant12 said:Dear Wiggo said:Yes yes Froome had a 5.8W/kg FTP, 85 VO2 max and 24% efficiency but couldn't ride to save himself. Coz reasons.
Good oh. Sounds sciencey enough for me.
Next.
Given your scientific analysis of Froome and with the results of "Coz reasons" can you elaborate further on your hypothesis of "couldn't ride to save himself"? Or shall we wait for some real scientists to analyse what they have been given [at this point we don't know all the details] and we we can comment on their findings at a later date?
"couldn't ride to save himself" = Brailsford asking Bruyneel did they want Froome?
or putting him bottom of the class....
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615
MTBrider said:Anybody willing to bet what the numbers are?
I think:
Absolute Vo2: 6.0
Relative Vo2: 85-93 (depending on how fat he as when he took the test).
SeriousSam said:"Proof of my cleanliness has been published in a peer-reviewed journal!" is good PR even with a scientifically illiterate public.
Dear Wiggo said:Merckx index said:Some good posts here, esp. Electress’ comments. However, while I generally agree that one wouldn’t think analysis of a single rider’s data would be published as a journal article, the fact that he’s a two time TDF winner and considered currently the dominant GT rider in the world (sorry, Flor) might be used to justify that, just as Coyle published an entire paper just on LA. And obviously this works to Froome’s advantage, as having his data published in a peer-reviewed journal could be used as “proof” that the data are both valid and consistent with being clean. So when the Esquire article comes out, whatever negative reactions to it there may be, Froome can reply, “these data were thought good enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, when that comes out, you will see that all your criticisms are addressed.”
Exactly what I wrote
Dear Wiggo said:Here's the main problem I have with the publishing of this data set in particular:
When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Good post, Dear Wiggo.
Richard Smith was editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group for 13 years. In his last year at the journal he retreated to a 15th century palazzo in Venice to write a book. The book will be published by RSM Press [www.rsmpress.co.uk], and this is the second in a series of extracts that will be published in the JRSM.
gillan1969 said:or putting him bottom of the class....
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615
TourOfSardinia said:gillan1969 said:or putting him bottom of the class....
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615
CF = Chris Froome (2011) i.e ProConti Podium
djpbaltimore said:The key is whether CF is placed where he is on the chart based on what Brailsford told to the journalists at the time or what they interpreted his position to be based on his unremarkable palmares. "This graph is our approximation of Brailsford's rider analysis" is pretty open-ended and the text of the article does not clarify the issue.
Savant12 said:gillan1969 said:Benotti69 said:Savant12 said:Dear Wiggo said:Yes yes Froome had a 5.8W/kg FTP, 85 VO2 max and 24% efficiency but couldn't ride to save himself. Coz reasons.
Good oh. Sounds sciencey enough for me.
Next.
Given your scientific analysis of Froome and with the results of "Coz reasons" can you elaborate further on your hypothesis of "couldn't ride to save himself"? Or shall we wait for some real scientists to analyse what they have been given [at this point we don't know all the details] and we we can comment on their findings at a later date?
"couldn't ride to save himself" = Brailsford asking Bruyneel did they want Froome?
or putting him bottom of the class....
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615
Maybe, Shane Sutton saw something that DB didn't.
“Shane Sutton is the least ‘numbers’ person you’ll get. He will work with a rider and he’ll see something that we can’t see. He’ll spot something and we’ll go and have a proper look at it and he’ll be right. It’s as if he’s watching colour television and we’re watching black and white. He doesn’t get that from numbers."
bigcog said:Swart seems to be a well qualified standup exercise physiologist/scientist. I guess they should have got the other south african involved, although there is probably too much antagonism there. I don't know why he's bothered doing it, he won't change the doubters minds so it pretty pointless. He should just keep stum like the rest of them.
Savant12 said:Maybe, Shane Sutton saw something that DB didn't.
“Shane Sutton is the least ‘numbers’ person you’ll get. He will work with a rider and he’ll see something that we can’t see. He’ll spot something and we’ll go and have a proper look at it and he’ll be right. It’s as if he’s watching colour television and we’re watching black and white. He doesn’t get that from numbers."