Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[The Hegelian]

Here's the historical problem. If one wants to resolve it plausibly, it requires some kind of coherent argument based on good knowledge:

2005 - Armstrong's last tdf victory. Manifest evidence that is there widespread - basically total - doping in the pro peloton. Manifest evidence from many sources, including many legal sources, that the problem is not merely one or two bad eggs, but rather, institutionalised. There is no conspiracy about this, it is simply the praxis, the culture, the methods.

2006-2009 - Numerous major doping scandals continue to dominate the sport. Landis, Contador, Rasmussen, Schumacher - we're talking yellow jersey wearers and winners. Sky formed '09.

2010 - Sky's first season. Very limited success.

2011 - Sky take 2nd and 3rd in the Vuelta with Wiggins and Froome.

2012 - Sky take the tdf with Wiggins after dominating the race. Later revelations prove that Wiggins used corticosteriods with a TUE to drop weight whilst retaining and increasing power. Several well known riders assert that this was a common doping practice before GT's during the period of institutionalised doping. Such practices are banned under the MPCC which Sky abstain from joining because 'their own ethical standards are more rigorous.'

2013-2017 - Sky dominate and win every tdf bar 2014 with Froome.

***** *****

So the questions to be answered are these: how and why did the entire problem of institutionalised and widespread doping suddenly just disappear in 2009?
What actual knowledge do we have that this occurred?
If we do not have this actual knowledge, what assumptions are we making which justify the conclusion that institutionalised doping suddenly disappeared? How plausible are they?

In what sense is it more reasonable to believe that institutionalised doping suddenly disappeared (just as Sky came on the scene), rather than it continuing?

 

[meat puppet]

Good post, Science is cool. One way or another, the froome transformation, for which there is ample evidence, needs to be explained.

The primary justification for believing Sky is cleans and thus making the leap of faith thinking that the historical evidence of institutionalised doping is now kaput is clearly nationalism though it is veiled in various guises on these boards (legalism, pedantry, etc).

Change the flag of the reigning tdf chump and a different set of fanboi may go the extra mile to defend him. But the current krew probably will not.

 

[The Hegelian]

Nationalism. Touche.

This is another great parallel between the US Postal & Sky eras: in both cases the tour winner(s) draw out legions of new fans from non-traditional cycling nations/cultures....who start watching the tour for the first time, and then start following the sport per se. One thing is immediately apparent - they don't actually have the history. It's as if everything really did start afresh in 2010.

So, it's ignorance rather than denial.

But if they care to look (even cursorily), denial can kick in pretty strongly - the cherished object must be defended....because 'he's one of us.' Very much a psychoanalytic-nationalist state of affairs (but what isn't these days?)

 

[The Hitch]

This is not a courtroom, no one is charged with anything,

<<<snipped>>>>>

If you want to see legal level actions against dopers in sport you'll have to provide legal level evidence...simple isn't it really?

Maybe you forgot there is no legal requirements in a cycling forum.

But all the evidence, i must repeat ad nauseum, is circumstantial evidence and that is considered in law courts.

I think all the evidence that points to Froome as a doper would get him convicted, as to date he has not shown anything that could be construed as a talented GT rider who never got a chance till he was 26!

Not in any court in the UK he wouldn't, it wouldn't even get to trial, circumstantial evidence can't be the whole case. He wouldn't even lose a case in a civil court where the burden of proof is much lower.
The above highlighted statemennt is the problem, there is nothing that could be considered evidence in any way in a court of law. That being said there is enough to be 'suspicious as fcuk'.

Hilarious how idiots with 0 life experience play up the court system us some absolute barometer of truth and as a flawless system.

The same system where any criminal with any connections can easily escape by simply bribing witnesses. Or killing them until there is no "proof" as has happened a million times accross world. Or certain powerful people just killed any judge who dares try to run a case against them.

And hooray, in this perfect court system they are innocent. Therefore they must be innocent in real life too and never did any crimes.

 

[Singer01]

This is not a courtroom, no one is charged with anything,

<<<snipped>>>>>

If you want to see legal level actions against dopers in sport you'll have to provide legal level evidence...simple isn't it really?

Maybe you forgot there is no legal requirements in a cycling forum.

But all the evidence, i must repeat ad nauseum, is circumstantial evidence and that is considered in law courts.

I think all the evidence that points to Froome as a doper would get him convicted, as to date he has not shown anything that could be construed as a talented GT rider who never got a chance till he was 26!

Not in any court in the UK he wouldn't, it wouldn't even get to trial, circumstantial evidence can't be the whole case. He wouldn't even lose a case in a civil court where the burden of proof is much lower.
The above highlighted statemennt is the problem, there is nothing that could be considered evidence in any way in a court of law. That being said there is enough to be 'suspicious as fcuk'.

Hilarious how idiots with 0 life experience play up the court system us some absolute barometer of truth and as a flawless system.

The same system where any criminal with any connections can easily escape by simply bribing witnesses. Or killing them until there is no "proof" as has happened a million times accross world. Or certain powerful people just killed any judge who dares try to run a case against them.

And hooray, in this perfect court system they are innocent. Therefore they must be innocent in real life too and never did any crimes.

I hope you aren't accusing me of having 0 life experience and being naive re the courts? I've been a police officer for 17 years, and am currently an Inspector.

if you read the whole thread you would see that all i was doing was pointing out the inaccuracy of the statement that the evidence against Froome would get him convicted, it wouldn't. At no point did i say that because the he wouldn't be found guilty in court then he should be considered innocent.
I more than anyone on the board probably know the difference between 'not guilty' and innocent.

Your hyperbole re bribery and killing witnesses is rather bizarre though and a bit 'tin hat', the incidents of it happening in the developed world is so low as to be statistically irrelevant. Unless you are suggesting that if Froome ever went on trial for this he would feed the witnesses to his python?

 

[thehog]

Sounds like you have very little life experience.

You can't possiably be a police office or have any understanding of the court system. The courts don't assume innocence or declare innocence, it provides mearly the "presumption" of innocence not actual innocence.

Additionally it would be important to point out that Froome doesn't I've in the UK nor spend anytime in Britain. He tends to train in South Africa, which has for the most part has no jury trials and it's court system has been open to abuse by judges for years. He also resides in Monaco which separates its tax system from France and has been and still remains a notorious location for tax and criminal avoidance.

In terms of the UK one only needs to look at the corruption that took place during the 70s/80s and the fact that pedophile rings were allowed to operate and thrive because of police cover ups. In 2015 the Met issued a new report on the rise of police corruption specifically officers dealing drugs.

You're examples are poorly constructed and the suspicion of Froome doping covered by flimsy statement like "innocence to proven guilty" which has no basis within the legal system.

 

[deviant]

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.

Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, and in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof.

Some points to consider next time people are screaming for sackings, criminal charges or jail time.... Whether the clinic big hitters choose to acknowledge it or not the burden of proof is on the accuser and the presumption of innocence stands until proven guilty...as some of us have been saying.

Internet speculation and gossip is fine, a suspicion based on historical knowledge of the sport is fine too but when talking about legal ramifications and purple losing jobs, being banned from the sport etc things get serious and you then have to come up with better than 'the sport is dirty so Wiggins and Froome must be to too'...that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, witness testimony is better, failed tests even more so...that's what most people would consider proof.
If you don't have faith in Wada or the testing system put your energies into changing that, it would be more productive than throwing around videos of riders looking good and making snidey comments about motors or doping when there isn't any proof yet.

Lastly, nobody in their right mind thinks the sport is clean...you only have to watch the recent 100m final to see that an unrepentant twice banned doper can win a race at 35 yrs old to see that the testing is far from perfect...but the cloud over Gatlin shouldn't detract from audiences enjoying the performances of athletes that haven't failed tests and are thus seen as clean, that's where I stand on the matter, as a fan of sport in general I love seeing the extreme end of human performance, if it turns out to be dirty then I'll happily see the offending athlete serve a life ban but if the athlete never fails a test, no journalists ever uncover incriminating stories about them and no witnesses come forward then they're either clean or have beaten the system and the overly skeptical voices of a few internet experts doesn't provide the proof needed to tarnish their efforts.

I'm happy to entertain the more fanciful claims in this forum but I'll also never tire of trotting out the above quote when posters are screaming for heads next time their favourite cycling villain has a good ride, there are always at least two sides to any argument and it's good to have a lively debate about doping, what constitutes evidence as opposed to proof etc and what the legal thresholds are when talking about depriving people of their livelihoods and/or liberty having committed (or been suspected of committing) doping offences.

 

[DanielSong39]

Lastly, nobody in their right mind thinks the sport is clean...

Well, this is the key line.

Either you are entertained by the shenanigans or you are not.

I'll take with the bad with the good and acknowledge that professional cycling can be entertaining at times.

 

[Singer01]

Sounds like you have very little life experience.

You can't possiably be a police office or have any understanding of the court system. The courts don't assume innocence or declare innocence, it provides mearly the "presumption" of innocence not actual innocence.

Additionally it would be important to point out that Froome doesn't I've in the UK nor spend anytime in Britain. He tends to train in South Africa, which has for the most part has no jury trials and it's court system has been open to abuse by judges for years. He also resides in Monaco which separates its tax system from France and has been and still remains a notorious location for tax and criminal avoidance.

In terms of the UK one only needs to look at the corruption that took place during the 70s/80s and the fact that pedophile rings were allowed to operate and thrive because of police cover ups. In 2015 the Met issued a new report on the rise of police corruption specifically officers dealing drugs.

You're examples are poorly constructed and the suspicion of Froome doping covered by flimsy statement like "innocence to proven guilty" which has no basis within the legal system.

That's all lovely, but it has absolutely nothing to do with anything i wrote. Or anything anybody wrote ever to be honest.

I never said anything about 'innocent until proven guilty', why would i when under UK law the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a criminal case and 'on the balance of probabilities' in a civil case.

So going back to what i actually said do you think there would be enough evidence to get a conviction against Froome 'if' he was to be tried in a court of law? That is all i said, and all i require an answer to.

No going off on frankly bizarre tangents again, about paedophiles and police dealing drugs???? WTF was that all about? That was Trump level misdirection and avoiding the issue at hand.

I've ignored your third paragraph entirely as I have no idea where you were going with that either.

 

[thehog]

Clearly not a police officer then as you have a remarkably poor understanding of the law. Then again, that's probably a prerequisite for the police force

 

[Cycle Chic]

I agree with ScienceIsCool

"...He's a DOPITY-DOPE-DOPER and it doesn't matter which cocktail of drugs or brand of motorbike he's using. "

Brilliant !

 

[DanielSong39]

Re:

I agree with ScienceIsCool

"...He's a DOPITY-DOPE-DOPER and it doesn't matter which cocktail of drugs or brand of motorbike he's using. "

Brilliant !

It has the added benefit of being true.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I agree with ScienceIsCool

"...He's a DOPITY-DOPE-DOPER and it doesn't matter which cocktail of drugs or brand of motorbike he's using. "

Brilliant !

His cocktail has changed. He has never looked as thin as he was in the non-detectable AICAR age of 2011-2013. 2012 he looked completely scary, his face had zero fat. 2013 his arms were just veins. Motor used on Ventoux. 2014 he didn't look as gaunt but still strong bar from crashing. 2015 onwards looked more like motor Froome as the other drugs dried up.

 

[dolophonic]

@Scienceiscool ... nicely summarized... quality post.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

I agree with ScienceIsCool

"...He's a DOPITY-DOPE-DOPER and it doesn't matter which cocktail of drugs or brand of motorbike he's using. "

Brilliant !

His cocktail has changed. He has never looked as thin as he was in the non-detectable AICAR age of 2011-2013. 2012 he looked completely scary, his face had zero fat. 2013 his arms were just veins. Motor used on Ventoux. 2014 he didn't look as gaunt but still strong bar from crashing. 2015 onwards looked more like motor Froome as the other drugs dried up.

Agreed. 2013 Edition Froome is the most obviously doped up rider I've seen since Contador flew up Verbier like it was a downhill sprint.

And then a couple of months later I got to watch Horner steal the Vuelta in front of my very eyes and get away with it too. That should tell people all they need to know about how effective the testing was that year.

 

[Parker]

I've lost the data, but I can remember the results if not the fine details. Basically, Froome went from consistently top 20% and lost 3-4 seconds per kilometer to a permanent shift to top 5% and a fraction of a second per kilometer. This shift happened in a roughly three week span in 2011. The distributions are quite tight with only one or two outliers in the data set. A t-test showed that p was some ridiculously low value which showed that the shift in the data was real.

Further analysis and making some reasonable assumptions, I estimated that Froome's FTP changed by approximately 15% in that short time frame.

Could there be an external factor which caused this change?

- Reduced CdA due to better position, etc? I concluded no, or at least not fully responsible because his climbing abilities changed at the same time and those aren't very reliant on CdA.

- Lost the fat? That doesn't work because flat time trials aren't reliant on power to weight, rather power to CdA.

- He increased his sustainable power? That fits the data quite well.

So now you have to look for reasonable ways to think of how he gained that power in such a short time frame. That would be pure speculation, but I've made up my mind. He's a dopity-dope-doper and it doesn't matter which cocktail of drugs or brand of motorbike he's using. I'm open to other explanations though... I just can't think of any reasonable ones.

You're statistical 'analysis' relies on the conceit that all riders do time trials at full gas all the time. However, we know this is not the case. Domestiques are expected to take it easy and save energy. Only GC contenders and specialists put everything into it.

The external factor that made him go faster was necessity. Previous to 2011 Froome hadn't needed to go fast - he would have even been encouraged not to.

You were told this when you first came up with this idea. I realize it's hard to be shown the gaping flaw in your hypothesis after spending so much time number crunching, but you shouldn't dismiss variables, it makes you look dishonest.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I agree with ScienceIsCool

"...He's a DOPITY-DOPE-DOPER and it doesn't matter which cocktail of drugs or brand of motorbike he's using. "

Brilliant !

His cocktail has changed. He has never looked as thin as he was in the non-detectable AICAR age of 2011-2013. 2012 he looked completely scary, his face had zero fat. 2013 his arms were just veins. Motor used on Ventoux. 2014 he didn't look as gaunt but still strong bar from crashing. 2015 onwards looked more like motor Froome as the other drugs dried up.

Agreed. 2013 Edition Froome is the most obviously doped up rider I've seen since Contador flew up Verbier like it was a downhill sprint.

And then a couple of months later I got to watch Horner steal the Vuelta in front of my very eyes and get away with it too. That should tell people all they need to know about how effective the testing was that year.

Yes 2013 was a special year; just when we were catching our breath after Froome and Porte smashed apart the Tour with he former putting out the most ridiculous performance on Ventoux in history, Horner comes along and suspends belief again. All of this in the new clear era of cycling.

 

[Benotti69]

I've lost the data, but I can remember the results if not the fine details. Basically, Froome went from consistently top 20% and lost 3-4 seconds per kilometer to a permanent shift to top 5% and a fraction of a second per kilometer. This shift happened in a roughly three week span in 2011. The distributions are quite tight with only one or two outliers in the data set. A t-test showed that p was some ridiculously low value which showed that the shift in the data was real.

Further analysis and making some reasonable assumptions, I estimated that Froome's FTP changed by approximately 15% in that short time frame.

Could there be an external factor which caused this change?

- Reduced CdA due to better position, etc? I concluded no, or at least not fully responsible because his climbing abilities changed at the same time and those aren't very reliant on CdA.

- Lost the fat? That doesn't work because flat time trials aren't reliant on power to weight, rather power to CdA.

- He increased his sustainable power? That fits the data quite well.

So now you have to look for reasonable ways to think of how he gained that power in such a short time frame. That would be pure speculation, but I've made up my mind. He's a dopity-dope-doper and it doesn't matter which cocktail of drugs or brand of motorbike he's using. I'm open to other explanations though... I just can't think of any reasonable ones.

You're statistical 'analysis' relies on the conceit that all riders do time trials at full gas all the time. However, we know this is not the case. Domestiques are expected to take it easy and save energy. Only GC contenders and specialists put everything into it.

The external factor that made him go faster was necessity. Previous to 2011 Froome hadn't needed to go fast - he would have even been encouraged not to.

You were told this when you first came up with this idea. I realize it's hard to be shown the gaping flaw in your hypothesis after spending so much time number crunching, but you shouldn't dismiss it, it makes you look dishonest.

Froome was a dom therefore no need to show his GT potential!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: puhleeease

Doms take it easy.!!!!!!! :lol: Thats why he was hanging on to motorbikes and zigzagging up climbs!!

Froome didn't need to go fast!!!!!!!!! :lol: Of course, not like now where Sky need all the doms in the train so they can take it easy and save energy!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Parker]

Froome was a dom therefore no need to show his GT potential!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: puhleeease

Doms take it easy.!!!!!!! :lol: Thats why he was hanging on to motorbikes and zigzagging up climbs!!

Froome didn't need to go fast!!!!!!!!! :lol: Of course, not like now where Sky need all the doms in the train so they can take it easy and save energy!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The analysis was entirely relating to time trials - not mountain trains, not riding on climbs.

Maybe you should trying reading what has been written.

Answer this question: Do you think that all riders go full gas in a stage race time trial?

(PS Capital letters and exclamation marks don't enhance you arguments)

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I've lost the data, but I can remember the results if not the fine details. Basically, Froome went from consistently top 20% and lost 3-4 seconds per kilometer to a permanent shift to top 5% and a fraction of a second per kilometer. This shift happened in a roughly three week span in 2011. The distributions are quite tight with only one or two outliers in the data set. A t-test showed that p was some ridiculously low value which showed that the shift in the data was real.

Further analysis and making some reasonable assumptions, I estimated that Froome's FTP changed by approximately 15% in that short time frame.

Could there be an external factor which caused this change?

- Reduced CdA due to better position, etc? I concluded no, or at least not fully responsible because his climbing abilities changed at the same time and those aren't very reliant on CdA.

- Lost the fat? That doesn't work because flat time trials aren't reliant on power to weight, rather power to CdA.

- He increased his sustainable power? That fits the data quite well.

So now you have to look for reasonable ways to think of how he gained that power in such a short time frame. That would be pure speculation, but I've made up my mind. He's a dopity-dope-doper and it doesn't matter which cocktail of drugs or brand of motorbike he's using. I'm open to other explanations though... I just can't think of any reasonable ones.

You're statistical 'analysis' relies on the conceit that all riders do time trials at full gas all the time. However, we know this is not the case. Domestiques are expected to take it easy and save energy. Only GC contenders and specialists put everything into it.

The external factor that made him go faster was necessity. Previous to 2011 Froome hadn't needed to go fast - he would have even been encouraged not to.

You were told this when you first came up with this idea. I realize it's hard to be shown the gaping flaw in your hypothesis after spending so much time number crunching, but you shouldn't dismiss variables, it makes you look dishonest.

Let's analyze this:

A. You are told you are a domestique so you never work hard in a time trial. This would be consistent with the data considering the narrow distribution pre transformation. However that would mean that Froome had no ambition until mid-2011 and woke up one day and decided to ride to his abilities.

B. You are a domestique so you take the occasional rest day in the TT. This is not seen in the data. There doesn't seem to be a bimodal distribution or a wide range. Until mid-2011 he rode at a single performance level.

C. You are a domestique and ambitious. You work hard and are fighting for a good contract and hey, your a top 20% rider. Something changes and you go faster. This fits very well.

The most likely answer is "C" and is in fact the story Froome has gone with. Unfortunately the "something that changed" was supposed to be Bilharzia. Good thing we don't hear much about that any more because it's 100% garbage. Same with losing the fat. Being a bit chubby doesn't slow you down on a flat TT.

John Swanson

 

[Parker]

I've lost the data, but I can remember the results if not the fine details. Basically, Froome went from consistently top 20% and lost 3-4 seconds per kilometer to a permanent shift to top 5% and a fraction of a second per kilometer. This shift happened in a roughly three week span in 2011. The distributions are quite tight with only one or two outliers in the data set. A t-test showed that p was some ridiculously low value which showed that the shift in the data was real.

Further analysis and making some reasonable assumptions, I estimated that Froome's FTP changed by approximately 15% in that short time frame.

Could there be an external factor which caused this change?

- Reduced CdA due to better position, etc? I concluded no, or at least not fully responsible because his climbing abilities changed at the same time and those aren't very reliant on CdA.

- Lost the fat? That doesn't work because flat time trials aren't reliant on power to weight, rather power to CdA.

- He increased his sustainable power? That fits the data quite well.

So now you have to look for reasonable ways to think of how he gained that power in such a short time frame. That would be pure speculation, but I've made up my mind. He's a dopity-dope-doper and it doesn't matter which cocktail of drugs or brand of motorbike he's using. I'm open to other explanations though... I just can't think of any reasonable ones.

You're statistical 'analysis' relies on the conceit that all riders do time trials at full gas all the time. However, we know this is not the case. Domestiques are expected to take it easy and save energy. Only GC contenders and specialists put everything into it.

The external factor that made him go faster was necessity. Previous to 2011 Froome hadn't needed to go fast - he would have even been encouraged not to.

You were told this when you first came up with this idea. I realize it's hard to be shown the gaping flaw in your hypothesis after spending so much time number crunching, but you shouldn't dismiss variables, it makes you look dishonest.

Let's analyze this:

A. You are told you are a domestique so you never work hard in a time trial. This would be consistent with the data considering the narrow distribution pre transformation. However that would mean that Froome had no ambition until mid-2011 and woke up one day and decided to ride to his abilities.

B. You are a domestique so you take the occasional rest day in the TT. This is not seen in the data. There doesn't seem to be a bimodal distribution or a wide range. Until mid-2011 he rode at a single performance level.

C. You are a domestique and ambitious. You work hard and are fighting for a good contract and hey, your a top 20% rider. Something changes and you go faster. This fits very well.

The most likely answer is "C" and is in fact the story Froome has gone with. Unfortunately the "something that changed" was supposed to be Bilharzia. Good thing we don't hear much about that any more because it's 100% garbage. Same with losing the fat. Being a bit chubby doesn't slow you down on a flat TT.

John Swanson

There are many variables at play in your analysis

The necessity of the rider to go fast
The standard of the rest of the field
The standard of the equipment used/rider position
The level of doping of the rest of the field
Weather changes on the day
The progression of rider over the first few years of a career

However, you have dismissed all of these as inconvenient and decided the only variable is doping. Why? I don't think you are stupid, so the only explanation is you're trying to fool somebody - most likely yourself.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

BTW, I also analyzed Cadel Evans using the same methods by way of a control. Not because I think he's anywhere near clean, but because he's someone who was identified as a talent early in his career and took what I think is a normal arc as he improved, peaked, and then aged. He was also pretty much randomly selected as I looked for a sample by scrolling through CyclingNews looking for the first name that looked like a GT rider.

What did the data show? Consistency with a clear peak at the height of his career and then a steady decline. There were also a number of outliers, like 10%, where he clearly took the day off.

This kind of "control" is very helpful in analyzing Froome's numbers.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

There are many variables at play in your analysis

The necessity of the rider to go fast
The standard of the rest of the field
The standard of the equipment used/rider position
The level of doping of the rest of the field
Weather changes on the day
The progression of rider over the first few years of a career

However, you have dismissed all of these as inconvenient and decided the only variable is doping. Why? I don't think you are stupid, so the only explanation is you're trying to fool somebody - most likely yourself.

I think you've got it all wrong. I selected my metrics very carefully to eliminate these confounding effects. In order:

"The necessity to go fast" - I just covered that in the previous post

"The standard of the rest of the field" - the effect of this would be variability in the results. Variability which did not exist

"The standard of the equipment used/rider position" - His transformation was like 4 seconds per kilometer without changing equipment or visiting a wind tunnel. All confirmed by Froome.

"The level of doping of the rest of the field" - The change in relative performance was sudden and permanent... If there was a change in doping, does it make more sense that it was the entire peloton or just Froome?

"Weather changes on the day" - This would also show as variability in the data unless Froome only got headwinds until mid 2011 and after that only tailwinds.

"The progression of rider over the first few years of a career" - To then wake up one day and increase your FTP by 15%? Maybe just edit your post to delete that one.

I'm entirely open to alternate explanations for the sudden transformation, but they have to be reasonable. So far Bilharzia and losing the fat are out. And doping is *hugely* consistent with the data and the social structure of cycling.

John Swanson

 

[Valv.Piti]

Parker, you are on deep water here. Its a pretty ridiculous argument to suggest Froome has never gone all-out in a time trial, even has been encouraged not to!

Thats pretty unthinkable. You don't just go slow in time trials being a rider like Froome pre-2011, you fight with everything you have unless its a GT and you have important domestique work to do. And even then.....

 

[Parker]

Re:

BTW, I also analyzed Cadel Evans using the same methods by way of a control. Not because I think he's anywhere near clean, but because he's someone who was identified as a talent early in his career and took what I think is a normal arc as he improved, peaked, and then aged. He was also pretty much randomly selected as I looked for a sample by scrolling through CyclingNews looking for the first name that looked like a GT rider.

What did the data show? Consistency with a clear peak at the height of his career and then a steady decline. There were also a number of outliers, like 10%, where he clearly took the day off.

This kind of "control" is very helpful in analyzing Froome's numbers.

John Swanson

Cadel Evans was a product of the Australian Institute of Sport and was marked as time-triallist from the start (medallist in 1995 Junior Worlds, won Commonwealth Games TT in debut pro year). He didn't turn pro until 25 having been an MTB star for years. He always rode for big teams and usually as a GC contender - he almost won the Giro as neo-pro. He didn't ride the Tour until 28.

By contrast Froome came from a country that has never produced another pro rider, went to university for two years, then joined a low budget pro conti team which lost its funding early in his second year, and he then had illness and injury in his first year at Sky who were making a whole heap of rookie mistakes.

Their development isn't going to be the same is it?

(Even then Froome came 14th in a Tour TT as a neo-pro, which showed he had some TT ability)