Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[danielovichdk2]

Re: Re:

the second quote you posted shows Froome at 388w - isnt that well below doping level?

Obviously not.

Btw, many watts does doping produce?

[Edit]
(and everything "burning" said.)

Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

And anyway, the second quote you posted shows Froome at 388w - isnt that well below doping level?

I guess you'd have to explain what you mean by "doping level", since obviously not all riders on dope or off dope ride at the same level. If you mean the standard "not possible to achieve this level without doping" you'd need watts per kilogram, not just watts.

The other funny thing about these numbers, particularly in the context of your comments here, is that riders known to be on full programs regularly have put out watts p/kg far lower than "not possible to achieve without doping" levels. Factors include the natural gifts of the doped rider, race tactics, wind, course, fatigue and others.

Which is all to say that pointing out Froome posted 388w is completely, utterly meaningless with regard to any question of whether he's doping.

What is relevant is all the times he's posted numbers and times which equal or exceed past known dopers with much better pedigree than Froome's. Which has never been explained, and as such, is all one needs to see that he's a doper. Full stop.

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

First of all, there is nothing like "doping level"

Really? So why do people cite certain Watts or W/Kg levels as indicative of doping?

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

And anyway, the second quote you posted shows Froome at 388w - isnt that well below doping level?

I guess you'd have to explain what you mean by "doping level", since obviously not all riders on dope or off dope ride at the same level. If you mean the standard "not possible to achieve this level without doping" you'd need watts per kilogram, not just watts.

The other funny thing about these numbers, particularly in the context of your comments here, is that riders known to be on full programs regularly have put out watts p/kg far lower than "not possible to achieve without doping" levels. Factors include the natural gifts of the doped rider, race tactics, wind, course, fatigue and others.

Which is all to say that pointing out Froome posted 388w is completely, utterly meaningless with regard to any question of whether he's doping.

What is relevant is all the times he's posted numbers and times which equal or exceed past known dopers with much better pedigree than Froome's. Which has never been explained, and as such, is all one needs to see that he's a doper. Full stop.

'Doping level' may have been a poor choice of words but it was meant to indicate a Watts figure people often quote. That is whenever high Watts or high W/Kg are seen it seems its an immediate indicator of doping. Those Watts are usually > 415, so 388 seems low compared with what people have called out before - almost 7% below.

Also RF - I only addressed your first paragraph. I will read, digest and respond to the rest of it - I am not ignoring it. Its Friday here, so my priorities are elsewhere ...

 

[Oufeh]

Re: Re:

Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.

388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.

388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point

What were the w/kg for that climb?

 

[Oufeh]

Re: Re:

Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.

388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point

What were the w/kg for that climb?

Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.

388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point

What were the w/kg for that climb?

Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/

Ok, so below what most people class as doping then ...

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.

388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point

What were the w/kg for that climb?

Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/

Ok, so below what most people class as doping then ...

Only if you believe he's one of the most genetically gifted humans alive.

John Swanson

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Only if you believe he's one of the most genetically gifted humans alive.

John Swanson

Meh John, dont kill the the discussion please...........



Cant wait for 'the study'. Jeroen Swart already confirmed my question - regarding the Grappe 'study' - via Twitter @doefnix, so dont be surprised with the results in Esquire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIRIAinJo0E

The days cycling got a new face.

 

[peloton]

Re: Re:

Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.

388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point

What were the w/kg for that climb?

Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/

Ok, so below what most people class as doping then ...

Not really, 388 watts for 50 minutes?

It's ridiculous to think for a second that's possible to do, cleanly

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.

388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point

What were the w/kg for that climb?

Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/

Ok, so below what most people class as doping then ...

A) What evidence do you have that "most people" wouldn't class it as doping.
B) Why would it matter if "most people" did class it as below doping. Since when are the masses an authority on science?

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

isn't there plenty of evidence out there that says he couldn't produce that kind of wattage to save his life, prior to vuelta '11?

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

isn't there plenty of evidence out there that says he couldn't produce that kind of wattage to save his life, prior to vuelta '11?

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.

But that evidence doesn't count for anything since:

(a) he was crap in races.
(b) its UCI data so not trustworthy.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

A) What evidence do you have that "most people" wouldn't class it as doping.
B) Why would it matter if "most people" did class it as below doping. Since when are the masses an authority on science?

Spending a year on here reading all the posts about anything over certain W or W/Kg being suspicious - from you and many others.

It seems now that low Watts are suspicious too - make your mind up.

 

[Arrowfarm]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

isn't there plenty of evidence out there that says he couldn't produce that kind of wattage to save his life, prior to vuelta '11?

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.

I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.

 

[Bonerjams96]

Re: Re:

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.

Has anyone seen whether this trainer gave any details on what Hinault's numbers were and what tests they had performed on Hinault to be able to compare Froome and Hinault? It's quite a difference in time periods between the two, so I'm wondering whether test equipment/methodology could be compared easily. The answer may well be yes, I'm just curious as I don't know.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

But that evidence doesn't count for anything since:

(a) he was crap in races.
(b) its UCI data so not trustworthy.

I just found out that the sports physiologist/scientist? Ross Tucker that the clinic love for being a crusader against doping but who is strangely fixated on Froome and no one else, trains/ is involved with the South African 7's rugby team. Well I never, the guy is clearly full of the brown stuff, as anyone with an ounce of nouse knows SA rugby and doping go hand in hand, it appears his ethics are somewhat questionable.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.

Yes, do you want me to find the quotes and links or is it not worth it as you've made your mind up ?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

isn't there plenty of evidence out there that says he couldn't produce that kind of wattage to save his life, prior to vuelta '11?

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.

But that evidence doesn't count for anything since:

(a) he was crap in races.
(b) its UCI data so not trustworthy.

Would you trust an international sporting federation?

It he had such potential, why did Barloworld not realise it nor Sky? Remember Sky did not rate the guy and they leave no stone unturned in their testing looking to get every possible margianl gain out of and for a rider.....

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

A) What evidence do you have that "most people" wouldn't class it as doping.
B) Why would it matter if "most people" did class it as below doping. Since when are the masses an authority on science?

Spending a year on here reading all the posts about anything over certain W or W/Kg being suspicious - from you and many others.

It seems now that low Watts are suspicious too - make your mind up.

We learn today that anyone can get a place on certain Italian teams if they pay? So yes low watts from untalented guys who dope can be possible and therefore suspicious.

A veteran of the sport can tell you that. Heck Stephen Roche used to claim the guys at the back of the peloton had to dope to keep up with the naturally talented at the front. He claimed that in 1990.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.

Found this one, it's via Google translate as it was in French:

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.

Yes, do you want me to find the quotes and links or is it not worth it as you've made your mind up ?

Is this trolling?

Froome vaguely claims that he spent his entire career on the attack, even though there is no record of this. This is a forum full of cycling fans who watch every race religiously, even weak *** like Tour of Cape whatever, and not a single person ever singled out Froome as "that guy who is always attacking". Hoogerland, yes. Moncoutie, yes. Pirrazi, yes. Voeckler, yes. Even though 2 of those guys had very little success to show for it, we remember they were always on the attack. Froome wasn't. He spent his time trying to hold onto the gruppeto never mind attacking.

You want quotes? In his book Froome admits he spent several days in the Tour de France resting in order to prepare for the Alpe d huez stage. He then bided his time, attacked at the right point, followed the right wheels, and finished 31st. A result he is proud of and believes show his talent.

Finishing 31st on Alpe when playing it tactically well, and resting for it, was the height of his ability. Years later on the last stage, he is tired from defending the yellow jersey every day for 2 weeks, AND he is ill (very very ill as his doctor told him) doesn't even take TUE's and he rides the same mountain 5, 6 minutes faster.

Yeah, I think we can dismiss the "froome was just tactically inept" idea. And I HAVE made up my mind on that. Because the evidence says so.

And Arrowfarm has a point. If someone as strong as post 2011 Froome was attacking early in stages, they wouldn't finish in gruppeto. Look at Landis 2006, or Contador in several stages of his career, or Quintana in 2013 or Andy Schleck in 2011.


When strong riders attack early they blow the race apart and still finish very high often winning. Same would have been true for Froome. If he really was that strong early in his career.

The one major example we have of Froome even making the breakaway he finished 6th out of 7 breakway riders

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.

Found this one, it's via Google translate as it was in French:

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

So famous they are in French and need translation. That they are socalled famous and not in English nor any other language, tells us how famous.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

So famous they are in French and need translation. That they are socalled famous and not in English nor any other language, tells us how famous.

I didn't realise French wasn't a real language and wasn't taken seriously, particularly given the antagonism a lot of France appears to have against Froome.