Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Perhaps explain why he is 'well qualified'?

He has a Masters in Sports Medicine and a PhD in Exercise physiology. Faculty member at the Univ of Cape Town. He has published 22 papers, many of which involve cycling physiology. He is not particularly senior, considering that his PhD was awarded in 2012, but seems like a strong CV.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

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.

These are fair points but it's also worth noting the lack of mention of Froome in Brailsford's comments which do in fact list those which he views have potential. You're sitting on this freak of genetics apparently and don't mention it? Hard to believe.

Couple with the fact that no one ever mentioned him in this way anywhere before September 2011 and you can feel the chart is probably fairly accurate. No one was trying to slag Froome at that point. No one knew who the *** he was.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

All this testing Froome has done? Do Sky the masters of getting every last performance enhancement from 'clean' methods, ie marginal gains, not have all this data to hand on Froome as they strived to get every marginal gain out of him?

If not, why not? Sky telling lies.

Again, Froome needing to do these tests prove Sky/Froome are liars either way.

Nailed it.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

These are fair points but it's also worth noting the lack of mention of Froome in Brailsford's comments which do in fact list those which he views have potential. You're sitting on this freak of genetics apparently and don't mention it? Hard to believe.

Couple with the fact that no one ever mentioned him in this way anywhere before September 2011 and you can feel the chart is probably fairly accurate. No one was trying to slag Froome at that point. No one knew who the **** he was.

Yes, that is the most likely interpretation. The fact that he was likely out of contract in a few months despite his youth suggests as much. My comment was more in reference to this not being a smoking gun for Brailsford lying about thinking Froome had potential in 2011, when we are not sure how the chart came into being. Of course, there are plenty of other things to nail him on.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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.

yeah but Froome is bottom of the class....when he should have been top ..you don't get it that wrong and Brailsford and/or froome (although probably Cound via twitter) would have corrected us at the time...but hey that was all pre-transformation...before he became what we 'see' before us...

Considering the context of the article, Brailsford was telling the reporter the reasons why his master tactician skills will result in Sky performing well. DB had earmarked EBH as the next Valverde and of course Froome wasn’t even ranked as a dom. He was going to be pro-conti and likely to lose his contract.

Fast forward two years later and the master plan was the worse rider overnight became the best climber and TT’er in the world and EBH couldn’t win a race to save himself.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Re: Re:

Im not sure if youre missing the point intentionally, or if youre just having some sort of comprehension issue.

Right back at you. I'll type this really slowly to help.

2011 Vuelta - now: 6.1W/kg easy
2007 WCC - pre-2011 Vuelta: ???

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

If it's 5.8 - 6.1W/kg as you suggest, then how the hell are they going to explain that every team he was on and every race he entered he was utter crap?

If every team and race showed him to be ordinary, isnt it then those teams who have some explaining to do, as to why they hired him? Of course they do.

I am not nor have I ever said "why did they hire him". I am saying "why was he so sht?"

1. I suggest no such thing. Ever. Anywhere. Further, Ive already said- repeatedly- that his transformation is absurd. Not credible. Further, Ive even given my opinion on what compounds he used to make this transformation...so stop making **** up.
2. Look at the bold. Who is "they"? Unless "they" is Froome, WTF are you talking about?

To be honest, I dont really care what your glitch is. Ive got anything better to do this evening, than to argue semantics on a forum. lulz

1. I quoted your post right there, [ETA hoping] that very thing. You did write "I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine". So no, it was not a suggestion, it was a hope. This seems a minor quibble given the resulting numbers required are the same.

What's a major engine for you? 5W/kg? 5.5W/kg? The NRS guys are a dime a dozen in a tiny little country of 23M people and they put out 5.0 - 5.5 W/kg @ FTP no worries. If he was 5W/kg, that's not only not a "major engine", but how did he improve 20% to 6W/kg?

So what is a "major engine" for you?

2. "They" are the entire group of people - scientists, UCI/WCC, Froome and yes, even Team Sky, who are either employing this freak of nature, or testing and analysing him and his physiology.

I thought this was obvious.

Right, so I never made any such suggestion. Thanks for clearing that up.
Instead, in what was likely some flakey, beer fueled keyboard flurry, you decide that a tongue in cheek comment about "hoping" his power progression was linear, was instead some defense of his w/kg.
It was not, as I made sure to mention, repeatedly.

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

Considering the context of the article, Brailsford was telling the reporter the reasons why his master tactician skills will result in Sky performing well. DB had earmarked EBH as the next Valverde and of course Froome wasn’t even ranked as a dom. He was going to be pro-conti and likely to lose his contract.

Fast forward two years later and the master plan was the worse rider overnight became the best climber and TT’er in the world and EBH couldn’t win a race to save himself.

If this was written 200 years ago, the conclusion would be: Vroom sucked Edvald's lifepower!

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Yes, that is the most likely interpretation. The fact that he was likely out of contract in a few months despite his youth suggests as much. My comment was more in reference to this not being a smoking gun for Brailsford lying about thinking Froome had potential in 2011, when we are not sure how the chart came into being. Of course, there are plenty of other things to nail him on.

Yeah, I don't really see it that way. First, I don't recall seeing that little qualifier on the chart when it first came out, but more to the point, the chart is clearly accurate regarding all the other riders and how Brailsford discusses them. The fact that he doesn't even mention Froome is clearly a smoking gun. He wasn't even going to be on the Vuelta team in 2011 but someone else scratched. How does a guy not even going to make the team ride like that? Clearly if Brailsford thought he was worth a darn he'd have been available and riding in that race.

Basically all of the statements, or rather lack of statements about Froome pre Vuelta 2011 are completely consistent with him being a nobody, which he was. All the statements afterwards are completely consistent with a team trying to explain the unexplainable.

 

[djpbaltimore]

The asterisk qualifier was really the only thing that bothered me, but I can't argue with any of your logic about the other stuff. It certainly falls beyond a reasonable doubt IMO that DB didn't really know what he had in Froome.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Right, so I never made any such suggestion. Thanks for clearing that up.
Instead, in what was likely some flakey, beer fueled keyboard flurry, you decide that a tongue in cheek comment about "hoping" his power progression was linear, was instead some defense of his w/kg.
It was not, as I made sure to mention, repeatedly.

I noticed you very quickly ignore very simple questions. Easier to insert personal attacks yeah?

Still not comfortable in stating a W/kg?

Telling.

Whilst the word you wrote, was "hope" -- it is an implied suggestion of what his power was / is that you hope will be revealed, allowing you to be a fan again.

I am sorry you want to believe.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Re: Re:

Right, so I never made any such suggestion. Thanks for clearing that up.
Instead, in what was likely some flakey, beer fueled keyboard flurry, you decide that a tongue in cheek comment about "hoping" his power progression was linear, was instead some defense of his w/kg.
It was not, as I made sure to mention, repeatedly.

I noticed you very quickly ignore very simple questions. Easier to insert personal attacks yeah?

Still not comfortable in stating a W/kg?

Telling.

Whilst the word you wrote, was "hope" -- it is an implied suggestion of what his power was / is that you hope will be revealed, allowing you to be a fan again.

I am sorry you want to believe.

Tongue in cheek, dude. Really, you cant be this daft.

How about this, since youve missed it the other 10 times Ive said it:
I THINK FROOME IS DOPED. NO WAY HE IS CLEAN, AT ALL.

I didnt imply anything. You did, and now youre digging yourself a deep hole asking about w/kg? lmaowtfbbq?!?!?!
Now go home and get your shinebox.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Perhaps explain why he is 'well qualified'?

He has a Masters in Sports Medicine and a PhD in Exercise physiology. Faculty member at the Univ of Cape Town. He has published 22 papers, many of which involve cycling physiology. He is not particularly senior, considering that his PhD was awarded in 2012, but seems like a strong CV.

Yet he never heard of fred Grappe

 

[gillan1969]

what's the badzilla timeline?
...looks like even Froome didn't know he had it in June 2011

VN: Have you been happy with your year so far?

CF: Yes, it's going well but I've been a bit unlucky with my health recently, picking up a chest infection which seems to be lingering. No regrets, though. I've had some great days and some not so great

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8859/Chris-Froome-Interview-Ive-been-able-to-climb-in-the-front-group-quite-often-this-season.aspx#ixzz3rBf3F300

...might have rated a mention along with the chest...

apologies if already covered (the quote...not the badzilla )

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Right, so I never made any such suggestion. Thanks for clearing that up.
Instead, in what was likely some flakey, beer fueled keyboard flurry, you decide that a tongue in cheek comment about "hoping" his power progression was linear, was instead some defense of his w/kg.
It was not, as I made sure to mention, repeatedly.

I noticed you very quickly ignore very simple questions. Easier to insert personal attacks yeah?

Still not comfortable in stating a W/kg?

Telling.

Whilst the word you wrote, was "hope" -- it is an implied suggestion of what his power was / is that you hope will be revealed, allowing you to be a fan again.

I am sorry you want to believe.

Tongue in cheek, dude. Really, you cant be this daft.

How about this, since youve missed it the other 10 times Ive said it:
I THINK FROOME IS DOPED. NO WAY HE IS CLEAN, AT ALL.

I didnt imply anything. You did, and now youre digging yourself a deep hole asking about w/kg? lmaowtfbbq?!?!?!
Now go home and get your shinebox.

As an aside, I really hope that the pre- 2011 numbers indicate that he is a major engine. It will go a LONG way to convince me that he is in fact clean. Ish.

I have had women get upset because I couldn't read their minds before.

Somehow, not only do you expect me to read your mind, but insult me, calling me daft because I can't.

So this whole time you have been going apesht at me for responding to your desire to believe Froome is clean, and you could have stopped it pages ago by just saying, "no, i was only joking, it was tongue in cheek, i just forgot the smiley to make that clear, much apologies"?

Good one champ. Maybe lay off the estrogen supps a bit yeah?

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

All this testing Froome has done? Do Sky the masters of getting every last performance enhancement from 'clean' methods, ie marginal gains, not have all this data to hand on Froome as they strived to get every marginal gain out of him?

If not, why not? Sky telling lies.

Again, Froome needing to do these tests prove Sky/Froome are liars either way.

Nailed it.

Sky might have all the data but if they released it and it showed nothing suspicious regards Froome, nobody would believe it and would then claim it was doctored by SKY before release to make Froome look clean. At least this way, there might be a small bit more independent analysis which is what SKY is aiming for I guess. As eveyrone knows, we need the pre 2011 stuff. At the end of the day I don't think anything will exonerate Froome. His jump was so implausible, people will still refuse to believe it regardless of whatever data is presented.

Just as an aside, I would be interested in how the likes of LeMond(86v88) and Fignon(84-88) would have fared if subjected to the same level of physiological testing. Would their hypothetical results have been pretty consistent or would they have risen and fallen in line with how they performed in competition.

 

[The Hitch]

what's the badzilla timeline?
...looks like even Froome didn't know he had it in June 2011

VN: Have you been happy with your year so far?

CF: Yes, it's going well but I've been a bit unlucky with my health recently, picking up a chest infection which seems to be lingering. No regrets, though. I've had some great days and some not so great

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8859/Chris-Froome-Interview-Ive-been-able-to-climb-in-the-front-group-quite-often-this-season.aspx#ixzz3rBf3F300

...might have rated a mention along with the chest...

apologies if already covered (the quote...not the badzilla )

Has been covered, but good find nonetheless.

The response del came up with (last comment I think he made on bilharzia before totally disappearing from all bilharzia threads) was that Froome should not be expected to notify the press every time he gets a new disease. Which considering Froome gets a new disease approximately every 2 weeks or so may be a fair point.

Only Bilharzia is, according to Froome the most serious challenge he faced in his life. And he is specifically asked about his health.

If you trace Froome's revisionist history back to June 2011 he is supposed to be undergoing PZQ treatment.
Yet when asked at the time he didn't say a word and claimed to be healthy.

It is proof beyond all reasonable doubt that Froome is lying through his teeth about Bilharzia and no rational person could possibly reach a conclusion other than that in September 2011 Brailsford and Froome conjured it up as an excuse.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

All this testing Froome has done? Do Sky the masters of getting every last performance enhancement from 'clean' methods, ie marginal gains, not have all this data to hand on Froome as they strived to get every marginal gain out of him?

If not, why not? Sky telling lies.

Again, Froome needing to do these tests prove Sky/Froome are liars either way.

Nailed it.

Sky might have all the data but if they released it and it showed nothing suspicious regards Froome, nobody would believe it and would then claim it was doctored by SKY before release to make Froome look clean.

Considering that is exactly what they did in July earlier this year with his power outputs, I think that would be a perfectly rational position to take

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Perhaps explain why he is 'well qualified'?

He has a Masters in Sports Medicine and a PhD in Exercise physiology. Faculty member at the Univ of Cape Town. He has published 22 papers, many of which involve cycling physiology. He is not particularly senior, considering that his PhD was awarded in 2012, but seems like a strong CV.

Yet he never heard of fred Grappe

Source for this please?

However, there are scientists in my field that I have never heard of, but that doesn't mean I can't carry out the science in the lab. As mentioned, he is not a senior faculty by any means, so his network is not likely to be as extensive as someone who has been around longer. If there is a Grappe publication that is relevant to the study, part of the peer reviewer's role is to point this out so the author can make the revision.

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

Perhaps explain why he is 'well qualified'?

He has a Masters in Sports Medicine and a PhD in Exercise physiology. Faculty member at the Univ of Cape Town. He has published 22 papers, many of which involve cycling physiology. He is not particularly senior, considering that his PhD was awarded in 2012, but seems like a strong CV.

Yet he never heard of fred Grappe

Source for this please?

However, there are scientists in my field that I have never heard of, but that doesn't mean I can't carry out the science in the lab. As mentioned, he is not a senior faculty by any means, so his network is not likely to be as extensive as someone who has been around longer. If there is a Grappe publication that is relevant to the study, part of the peer reviewer's role is to point this out so the author can make the revision.

There were Twitter exchanges on which he was asked about his findings in comparison to Grappes.

He said he hadn't read it, asked for a link, got it, read it and confirmed that his report would be something similar. (note I assume this is in reference to current data, Froome 2015 if you will)

I think I've summarised it accurately enough there. If I could work Twitter better I'd post the exact Tweets.

 

[TailWindHome]

The 2007 data will be the interesting bit.
After all that's what people have been demanding. Evidence that Froome had potential.
It would seem reasonable to re-evaluate your own assumptions should the data published support that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

The 2007 data will be the interesting bit.
After all that's what people have been demanding. Evidence that Froome had potential.
It would seem reasonable to re-evaluate your own assumptions should the data published support that.

To be honest I trust UCI / WCC less than Sky.

2010/2011 data would be closer to his breakthrough and more valuable IMO. Pretty easy to match power values to race days.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

There were Twitter exchanges on which he was asked about his findings in comparison to Grappes.

He said he hadn't read it, asked for a link, got it, read it and confirmed that his report would be something similar. (note I assume this is in reference to current data, Froome 2015 if you will)

I think I've summarised it accurately enough there. If I could work Twitter better I'd post the exact Tweets.

OK, thank you for the clarification. That makes a whole lot more sense than 'never heard of'. Keeping up with the literature is never an easy task, especially if you have a heavy teaching load or lab schedule.

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

There were Twitter exchanges on which he was asked about his findings in comparison to Grappes.

He said he hadn't read it, asked for a link, got it, read it and confirmed that his report would be something similar. (note I assume this is in reference to current data, Froome 2015 if you will)

I think I've summarised it accurately enough there. If I could work Twitter better I'd post the exact Tweets.

OK, thank you for the clarification. That makes a whole lot more sense than 'never heard of'. Keeping up with the literature is never an easy task, especially if you have a heavy teaching load or lab schedule.

Claudio's Cappuccino ‏@Doefnix · Nov 7
@JeroenSwart @Scienceofsport did you read Fred Grappes analysis on Froome in 2013?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart · Nov 7
@Doefnix @Scienceofsport I must confess ignorance. Send me the link.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart · Nov 7
@Doefnix @Scienceofsport @fredgrappe thanks. I have read it now & Fred is spot on with his analysis. I agree entirely.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

All this testing Froome has done? Do Sky the masters of getting every last performance enhancement from 'clean' methods, ie marginal gains, not have all this data to hand on Froome as they strived to get every marginal gain out of him?

If not, why not? Sky telling lies.

Again, Froome needing to do these tests prove Sky/Froome are liars either way.

Nailed it.

Sky might have all the data but if they released it and it showed nothing suspicious regards Froome, nobody would believe it and would then claim it was doctored by SKY before release to make Froome look clean. At least this way, there might be a small bit more independent analysis which is what SKY is aiming for I guess. As eveyrone knows, we need the pre 2011 stuff. At the end of the day I don't think anything will exonerate Froome. His jump was so implausible, people will still refuse to believe it regardless of whatever data is presented.

Wildly hypothetical there. People have claimed Sky data was doctored before because there is ample evidence that it was doctored because other riders putting out higher watts per Kg rode slower. So rather than blame the consumers of the data, let's just blame those putting out shite data.

Good arguments for having all riders do physiological testing by an outside group when they enter the pro peloton. Teams have been doing it forever, since at least the 60's to determine the potential of their riders. I'm sure Sky skipped this common practice in their search for marginal gains however, and just guessed at rider potential...

Not really realistic to make it public as it's a competitive advantage to have this data, that I'll concede. But it would be great to have an outside group like WADA test everyone early and start targeting laughable transformations like Froome's.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

All this testing Froome has done? Do Sky the masters of getting every last performance enhancement from 'clean' methods, ie marginal gains, not have all this data to hand on Froome as they strived to get every marginal gain out of him?

If not, why not? Sky telling lies.

Again, Froome needing to do these tests prove Sky/Froome are liars either way.

Nailed it.

Sky might have all the data but if they released it and it showed nothing suspicious regards Froome, nobody would believe it and would then claim it was doctored by SKY before release to make Froome look clean. At least this way, there might be a small bit more independent analysis which is what SKY is aiming for I guess. As eveyrone knows, we need the pre 2011 stuff. At the end of the day I don't think anything will exonerate Froome. His jump was so implausible, people will still refuse to believe it regardless of whatever data is presented.

Just as an aside, I would be interested in how the likes of LeMond(86v88) and Fignon(84-88) would have fared if subjected to the same level of physiological testing. Would their hypothetical results have been pretty consistent or would they have risen and fallen in line with how they performed in competition.

Might! So sky are liars. This team was built on the promise of clean performance and transparency. When asked how they were going to beat doping, it was by getting every last gain out of the best of training etc and leaving no stone unturned with extreme attention paid to the details. Nicely packaged as "marginal gains'.

Now if they dont have a huge file of data one every guy who rode for sky then it has all been lies. Froome should not need to do these tests as Sky would have done them countless times to find where Froome was gaining and where he wasn't in there 'quest' to do it clean!

Sky are dopers. Froome is a doper. It is as plain as the nose on Pierrick Fédrigo!