Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Netserk]

^^Relevance?

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Just saw that Team Sky is set to release a lot of data from the 2018 Giro.
Big mistake IMO.

Where have you seen that?

Why is it a big mistake?

Mainly because it can't hope to really achieve all that much at this stage. It follows a pattern of late, or incomplete, release of data by Team Sky, at which point they can't really control the reaction. Lots of teams and riders released some fairly extensive data straight away, but the data that's important here has not been available until a much later date. Given the whole situation, they can't possibly hope for a positive outcome here, because if there are any abnormalities whatsoever they're going to be pounced upon like a pack of hyenas, and if there are none, they'll be accused of fudging the data.

After all, there is precedent of issues with Sky-released data. Such as when they only provided incomplete data to Frédéric Grappe, not including any Froome data from before his September 2011 coming-out party as part of the data release, limiting the usefulness of his pronouncements to explain away Froome's performance levels. And such as when they built such a significant error into the PSM figures which came out some time after the stage, and showed Froome putting out less power than Robert Gesink while clubbing him like a baby seal - and let's remember that Robert Gesink is somebody who is a tall, wiry climber like Froome, who genuinely did show promise as a young pro. Gesink's data was available straight away, Froome had to be coaxed into releasing his reluctantly some time later. Hell, even known crusaders for clean cycling like Alejandro Valverde were releasing data immediately, which only made the delay in Sky releasing theirs more suspect. Why did they require so long to upload those power files, if there was nothing to hide? What exactly did they think would be gleaned from power files that was so frightening to them? Why did Velon only get that one three kilometre burst, two days later, when others gave them the whole stage's worth straight away?

It all means that any data that comes out now is not going to be trusted - it's a bit like that time the drug testers allegedly were kept waiting for half an hour or whatever it was by Lance Armstrong while he was in the shower. It could be completely raw data, straight off Froome's bike, but with the team's history of data handling, and how long it's taken to make it to public consumption, how can we ever believe the numbers they give us?

How competent/proficient are you, or others posting here, in interpreting the data provided .... to conclude, with confidence, that red flags are waving ... indicative of (not just a ‘seemingly anomalous’ performance) doped performance? Thanks in advance.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

^^Relevance?

Poster’s post about Nikki ... is in response to another poster’s post re: Sky not releasing their data. Simply, politely, as a follow up ... asking poster about poster’s proficiency in interpreting power data ... Terpstra’s or Sky’s.

Since I have you on the line, Netserk, I ask you the same legitimate question ... a question that logically follows after posters complain (no value judgement on that) that Sky don’t make public their power data.

What ‘precise’ inferences can you make from looking at a Sky or any other team rider’s data? Thanks in advance.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

^^Relevance?

Poster’s post about Nikki ... is in response to another poster’s post re: Sky not releasing their data. Simply, politely, as a follow up ... asking poster about poster’s proficiency in interpreting power data ... Terpstra’s or Sky’s.

Since I have you on the line, Netserk, I ask you the same legitimate question ... a question that logically follows after posters complain (no value judgement on that) that Sky don’t make public their power data.

What ‘precise’ inferences can you make from looking at a Sky or any other team rider’s data? Thanks in advance.

Still struggling to see why this matters. I'll be honest and say that I can't analyze a power file to save my life, but it doesn't matter at all, because riders aren't releasing their files to be read exclusively by me. They're releasing them so anyone can read them, including actual experts and fellow pros. If I'm not mistaken we have multiple sports scientists posting on this very board that can look at a power file and give good estimations of physiological limits based on the numbers.

Terpstra seemingly puts his numbers online immediately. That means he trusts the legitimacy of his numbers enough to let both experts and the general public see them and analyze them as much as they like.

Sky don't. Why?

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

^^Relevance?

Poster’s post about Nikki ... is in response to another poster’s post re: Sky not releasing their data. Simply, politely, as a follow up ... asking poster about poster’s proficiency in interpreting power data ... Terpstra’s or Sky’s.

Since I have you on the line, Netserk, I ask you the same legitimate question ... a question that logically follows after posters complain (no value judgement on that) that Sky don’t make public their power data.

What ‘precise’ inferences can you make from looking at a Sky or any other team rider’s data? Thanks in advance.

Still struggling to see why this matters. I'll be honest and say that I can't analyze a power file to save my life, but it doesn't matter at all, because riders aren't releasing their files to be read exclusively by me. They're releasing them so anyone can read them, including actual experts and fellow pros. If I'm not mistaken we have multiple sports scientists posting on this very board that can look at a power file and give good estimations of physiological limits based on the numbers.

Terpstra seemingly puts his numbers online immediately. That means he trusts the legitimacy of his numbers enough to let both experts and the general public see them and analyze them as much as they like.

Sky don't. Why?

Hey, S.U. ... thanks for your response. I’m like you. Although I use a power meter for training, testing and racing ... my knowledge beyond that is limited in being able to make any ‘meaningful’ inferences from one’s power data.

Why don’t Sky release their data? Dunno. Could be that they’re doped to the gills ... just to the armpits ... or not at all. Millions of GBs of data are withheld from the public on the hour. Why? Nefarious reasons, strategic reasons, benign reasons, privacy reasons.

Bottom line is ... what do the public, cycling fans, seasoned cycling fans, pseudo- experts, neo-experts and experts do with power data and ‘suspicion.’

 

[silvergrenade]

Re:

Nikki Terpstra puts all his rides, training or racing, on Strava. Posts immediately as far as I can tell.

Rather a different approach.

Who cares about Niki Tersptra?
I dont see Contador, Quintana, Nibali, Porte, Dan Martin, Tom Domoulin either sharing their data.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

Just saw that Team Sky is set to release a lot of data from the 2018 Giro.
Big mistake IMO.

Where have you seen that?

Why is it a big mistake?

Mainly because it can't hope to really achieve all that much at this stage. It follows a pattern of late, or incomplete, release of data by Team Sky, at which point they can't really control the reaction. Lots of teams and riders released some fairly extensive data straight away, but the data that's important here has not been available until a much later date. Given the whole situation, they can't possibly hope for a positive outcome here, because if there are any abnormalities whatsoever they're going to be pounced upon like a pack of hyenas, and if there are none, they'll be accused of fudging the data.

After all, there is precedent of issues with Sky-released data. Such as when they only provided incomplete data to Frédéric Grappe, not including any Froome data from before his September 2011 coming-out party as part of the data release, limiting the usefulness of his pronouncements to explain away Froome's performance levels. And such as when they built such a significant error into the PSM figures which came out some time after the stage, and showed Froome putting out less power than Robert Gesink while clubbing him like a baby seal - and let's remember that Robert Gesink is somebody who is a tall, wiry climber like Froome, who genuinely did show promise as a young pro. Gesink's data was available straight away, Froome had to be coaxed into releasing his reluctantly some time later. Hell, even known crusaders for clean cycling like Alejandro Valverde were releasing data immediately, which only made the delay in Sky releasing theirs more suspect. Why did they require so long to upload those power files, if there was nothing to hide? What exactly did they think would be gleaned from power files that was so frightening to them? Why did Velon only get that one three kilometre burst, two days later, when others gave them the whole stage's worth straight away?

It all means that any data that comes out now is not going to be trusted - it's a bit like that time the drug testers allegedly were kept waiting for half an hour or whatever it was by Lance Armstrong while he was in the shower. It could be completely raw data, straight off Froome's bike, but with the team's history of data handling, and how long it's taken to make it to public consumption, how can we ever believe the numbers they give us?

I certainly agree with you LS. They should release the data quickly. Hell. on the same day itself if they actually want to.
About the Velon data, I'm not sure what happened.
Froome in the interview said that he's carying an extra 180gm of the Velon device and Velon should in essence have all of his data. The question is did the device malfunction? If yes, there are 3 cases I can think of:

1. Device only malfunctioned on Stage 19 and was fine on all other days: Maybe a device error/ A small red flag
2. Device only malfunctioned on important mountain stages and was fine on all other days: A huge red flag
3. Device malfunctioned most of the time: The device in itself is not reliable.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Nikki Terpstra puts all his rides, training or racing, on Strava. Posts immediately as far as I can tell.

Rather a different approach.

Straight up question ... Are you proficient enough in power analysis to peruse Nikki’s data and conclude, with confidence, that there are or are not any red flags waving? In other words, does his data tell you he is a doper or not?

I think we both know I’m not. I simply like that he does it as a matter of course. It is a small act that breeds transparency. I don’t look at his power data at all. In just like where he’s coming from, it stands philosophically in contrast to most everyone else. He isn’t worried about it, and it has nothing to do with doping. Just an entirely different approach.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Nikki Terpstra puts all his rides, training or racing, on Strava. Posts immediately as far as I can tell.

Rather a different approach.

Who cares about Niki Tersptra?
I dont see Contador, Quintana, Nibali, Porte, Dan Martin, Tom Domoulin either sharing their data.

Easy there... It’s just an observation, not meant to be extrapolated into some doping conspiracy theory on my part.

I care about Terpstra, he’s a champion of my two favorite races. He’s interesting.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Nikki Terpstra puts all his rides, training or racing, on Strava. Posts immediately as far as I can tell.

Rather a different approach.

Straight up question ... Are you proficient enough in power analysis to peruse Nikki’s data and conclude, with confidence, that there are or are not any red flags waving? In other words, does his data tell you he is a doper or not?

I think we both know I’m not. I simply like that he does it as a matter of course. It is a small act that breeds transparency. I don’t look at his power data at all. In just like where he’s coming from, it stands philosophically in contrast to most everyone else. He isn’t worried about it, and it has nothing to do with doping. Just an entirely different approach.

Cool.

Sure ....transparency is a feel good item. Interesting, to say the least, what people will conclude .... with it or without it.

Cheers

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Nikki Terpstra puts all his rides, training or racing, on Strava. Posts immediately as far as I can tell.

Rather a different approach.

Straight up question ... Are you proficient enough in power analysis to peruse Nikki’s data and conclude, with confidence, that there are or are not any red flags waving? In other words, does his data tell you he is a doper or not?

I think we both know I’m not. I simply like that he does it as a matter of course. It is a small act that breeds transparency. I don’t look at his power data at all. In just like where he’s coming from, it stands philosophically in contrast to most everyone else. He isn’t worried about it, and it has nothing to do with doping. Just an entirely different approach.

Cool.

Sure ....transparency is a feel good item. Interesting, to say the least, what people will conclude .... with it or without it.

Cheers

Froome has literally asked "what more can I do?"

 

[brownbobby]

I think the amount of debate generated already here over the possibility of data release, with questions already being raised over the validity of the data gives an indication of

a) why the data isn't routinely released
b) the s***storm that will inevitably follow if/when it's released.

No matter what the data says, it will prove/disprove nothing. Someone will be able to angle it any way they want to support their own particular side of the argument.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Nikki Terpstra puts all his rides, training or racing, on Strava. Posts immediately as far as I can tell.

Rather a different approach.

Straight up question ... Are you proficient enough in power analysis to peruse Nikki’s data and conclude, with confidence, that there are or are not any red flags waving? In other words, does his data tell you he is a doper or not?

I think we both know I’m not. I simply like that he does it as a matter of course. It is a small act that breeds transparency. I don’t look at his power data at all. In just like where he’s coming from, it stands philosophically in contrast to most everyone else. He isn’t worried about it, and it has nothing to do with doping. Just an entirely different approach.

Cool.

Sure ....transparency is a feel good item. Interesting, to say the least, what people will conclude .... with it or without it.

Cheers

Froome has literally asked "what more can I do?"

Hey Gillian ... and a happy TGIF to you.

How about you, G ... what’s your proficiency level in being able to draw credible and meaningful inferences from a rider’s power data? It’s a straight up question ... I'm not playing games, honestly. For you ... or anyone else who cares to answer.

Cheers, man.

 

[macbindle]

I remember a few years back when people were asking for Froome's data, Brailsford said that whatever he did it would never be enough for some people. They would always reject it and want more. He's probably right about that, and there may be truth that releasing Froome's full data might show Froome's physical vulnerabilities. However, he's released very little, and as somebody pointed out upthread he didn't even release enough to Grappe for him to be able to make any really meaningful statement about Froome. It was just a PR job straight out of the Armstrong-Catlin book.

Sky find themselves in a peculiar situation. There is a lot of smoke and a few little tiny flames poking out, certainly not a blazing inferno of the likes of Astana a few years back with endless serious dope positives, and Sky seem to be trying to ride it out, looking at the really big picture in which details such as power files aren't on the radar of the majority of people who really matter to Team Sky in commercial terms.

Maybe they are looking at Astana and making the calculation that if Astana can drown in sh*t and yet still be around a few years later, then so can they.

 

[brownbobby]

Eh @Alpe73

I'll take up the open invite.....there is certainly at least one person, likely many more on here far more qualified and capable than me in this regard, but i've been coached, and in recent years doing a bit of coaching of my own using power files. Nothing serious, just low level stuff, but i can find my way around a power file...

Here's the thing, from most pro power/HR files, i will be likely able to make a 'credible' argument for:

Doping
Clean
Motor
No Motor
Normal
Not Normal

All of these from the same power file. Just depends what spin i wanted to put on it really.

 

[Climbing]

We don’t need power data to know he’s doping.
We don’t even need to guess that he’s doping, cause you know, he already got an AAF pending.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Re:

Maybe they are looking at Astana and making the calculation that if Astana can drown in sh*t and yet still be around a few years later, then so can they.

Just heard the end of Brailsford speaking on radio 4 about the media and what is written...he said
"we ignore it" - which is quite obviously their attitude - ridiculous performance today, forgotten tomorrow

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

Maybe they are looking at Astana and making the calculation that if Astana can drown in sh*t and yet still be around a few years later, then so can they.

Just heard the end of Brailsford speaking on radio 4 about the media and what is written...he said
"we ignore it" - which is quite obviously their attitude - ridiculous performance today, forgotten tomorrow

Perhaps it is 'ridiculous performance' 7 years ago (Vuelta 2011) and then normalised over following years?

Now, in 2018, Froome's performances are 'normal for Froome'. Unlike some posters I'm not convinced that recent (say, the last 3 years) has seen anything that crazy and over the top in terms of what is possible for a human. He's just 2 or 3% better than his competitors.

For me, though, I cannot accept how he got to be even 2 or 3% better than other riders, so to that extent, for me, it's the pre-september 2011 data that holds the answer.

We will never see it. I'd believe Sky if they said they don't have it. That stuff has been deleted for ever.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

I remember a few years back when people were asking for Froome's data, Brailsford said that whatever he did it would never be enough for some people. They would always reject it and want more. He's probably right about that, and there may be truth that releasing Froome's full data might show Froome's physical vulnerabilities. However, he's released very little, and as somebody pointed out upthread he didn't even release enough to Grappe for him to be able to make any really meaningful statement about Froome. It was just a PR job straight out of the Armstrong-Catlin book.

Sky find themselves in a peculiar situation. There is a lot of smoke and a few little tiny flames poking out, certainly not a blazing inferno of the likes of Astana a few years back with endless serious dope positives, and Sky seem to be trying to ride it out, looking at the really big picture in which details such as power files aren't on the radar of the majority of people who really matter to Team Sky in commercial terms.

Maybe they are looking at Astana and making the calculation that if Astana can drown in sh*t and yet still be around a few years later, then so can they.

this

 

[Cycle Chic]

just read the INSCYD analysis of Froomes stage 19 by Sebastian Weber

because we didn’t have that information......Without more data, though, it’s impossible to tell how long.

So again this article adds to the 'quite possible performance' and yet Sky have not given complete data

Instead of wasting time on this why dont these journalists get that missing data.

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/06/inscyd-view-a-scientific-analysis-of-chris-froomes-giro-ditalia-performance/

 

[dacooley]

guys come to your senses. froome finishing second 2th in the vuelta 2011 wasn't normal in 2011, fair enough in 2012 and 2013. at this point, he is having a track record of finishing 8th consecutive season with a gt win/podium. none of nibali,ac, quintana has such a succession. froome being on top of three-week races is a norm of today. looking back at 2011 incessantly helps nothing but bashing brailsford.

 

[macbindle]

just read the INSCYD analysis of Froomes stage 19 by Sebastian Weber

because we didn’t have that information......Without more data, though, it’s impossible to tell how long.

So again this article adds to the 'quite possible performance' and yet Sky have not given complete data

Instead of wasting time on this why dont these journalists get that missing data.

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/06/inscyd-view-a-scientific-analysis-of-chris-froomes-giro-ditalia-performance/

Yes, although for clarity, its important to know that Weber undertook this analysis on his own volition. I don't think Sky had any part in this.

Hats off to Shane Stokes, though for presenting a series of pieces on the Sky issue that offer balance.

 

[Bolder]

I fail to see the relevance of a power file, especially a training file, but it's quite likely that I'm missing something.

What do they show? Numbers out of context. And they're self-selected. They will ONLY show that a certain rider is putting out X pct. more power relative to the other riders in that sector/race etc. I have more faith in post-race pee testing.

Far from adding "transparency," they only add more fog.

No one will ever get true transparency from a professional athlete, so we might as well stop chasing that particular shibboleth.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

I remember a few years back when people were asking for Froome's data, Brailsford said that whatever he did it would never be enough for some people. They would always reject it and want more. He's probably right about that, and there may be truth that releasing Froome's full data might show Froome's physical vulnerabilities. However, he's released very little, and as somebody pointed out upthread he didn't even release enough to Grappe for him to be able to make any really meaningful statement about Froome. It was just a PR job straight out of the Armstrong-Catlin book.

Sky find themselves in a peculiar situation. There is a lot of smoke and a few little tiny flames poking out, certainly not a blazing inferno of the likes of Astana a few years back with endless serious dope positives, and Sky seem to be trying to ride it out, looking at the really big picture in which details such as power files aren't on the radar of the majority of people who really matter to Team Sky in commercial terms.

Maybe they are looking at Astana and making the calculation that if Astana can drown in sh*t and yet still be around a few years later, then so can they.

Play o the week! :lol:

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

Eh @Alpe73

I'll take up the open invite.....there is certainly at least one person, likely many more on here far more qualified and capable than me in this regard, but i've been coached, and in recent years doing a bit of coaching of my own using power files. Nothing serious, just low level stuff, but i can find my way around a power file...

Here's the thing, from most pro power/HR files, i will be likely able to make a 'credible' argument for:

Doping
Clean
Motor
No Motor
Normal
Not Normal

All of these from the same power file. Just depends what spin i wanted to put on it really.

Been coached, eh? That explains, maybe a little?, the 3 scoops of Ventoux/ day, n’est ce pas???

In your mind and knowledge, does “Not Normal” automatically mean ... “doped” ... or ... anomalous/red flag?