• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1313 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Benotti69 said:
WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?

Isn't that obvious? Do you think Froome would be exonerated if WADA didn't interfered?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
bambino said:
Benotti69 said:
WADA statement.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-07/wada-clarifies-facts-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

In April, WADA requested to intervene in the UCI proceedings as a third party so as to meet any challenge to the salbutamol regime but its request was denied by the UCI Tribunal. Despite this denial, and in order to assist the parties, WADA provided a further detailed note on the salbutamol regime on 15 May, addressing the substance of Mr. Froome’s questions.

When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.

So no testing of Froome.

WADA the PR side of the sport that loves its good personal relations with sports top stars!!!

That is pretty.... bizarre.

Why would they try to intervene? What is the detailed note they delivered on 15th May?

Isn't that obvious? Do you think Froome would be exonerated if WADA didn't interfered?

Nope. Sir Dave rang Sir Craig shared a large port and cigar saying the boy Chris is a guud'un.
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
macbindle said:
What is interesting about this case is the precedent it sets for future Sabutamol cases.
yes without recourse to past cases.

There is no precedent in sports law, a tribunal does not refer to another case for making its decision. That was the point of WADA press release. Nothing has changed in regards Salbutamol, nothing. The very next case, same set of circumstances will most likely result in sanction.
 
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:

Let’s see what they means for his power-to-weight ratio. Taking the 458 watts reading we can work backwards. By finding 5% of that number (22.9) and subtracting that you can find an estimate of what Contador’s FTP for an hour would be. This is a generally accepted rule of thumb for cyclists.

The power at 1 hour is 95% that at 20 minutes? I never heard that before. E.g., when Grappe studied Froome’s power files in 2013, he said:

Grappe pointed out several key indicators. He noted that the drop in Froome's power profile was consistent over intense efforts between 20 and 60 minutes – the point being that there should always be a drop-off in power output as the body struggles with the effort. Froome's drop-off is about 60 watts, as against an average of 50 watts for most of the riders Grappe has studied.

If you take the difference between 20 and 60 minutes as a %, which makes much more sense than some fixed value of watts, and apply to Contador, you get about 6.3 W/kg. That’s still very high, and I’m not sure why he’s bragging about it, since it’s almost certainly a juiced value.

But I'd be interested to hear what Alex says about 20 vs. 60 minutes power.
 
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:

Let’s see what they means for his power-to-weight ratio. Taking the 458 watts reading we can work backwards. By finding 5% of that number (22.9) and subtracting that you can find an estimate of what Contador’s FTP for an hour would be. This is a generally accepted rule of thumb for cyclists.

The power at 1 hour is 95% that at 20 minutes? I never heard that before. E.g., when Grappe studied Froome’s power files in 2013, he said:

Grappe pointed out several key indicators. He noted that the drop in Froome's power profile was consistent over intense efforts between 20 and 60 minutes – the point being that there should always be a drop-off in power output as the body struggles with the effort. Froome's drop-off is about 60 watts, as against an average of 50 watts for most of the riders Grappe has studied.

If you take the difference between 20 and 60 minutes as a %, which makes much more sense than some fixed value of watts, and apply to Contador, you get about 6.3 W/kg. That’s still very high, and I’m not sure why he’s bragging about it, since it’s almost certainly a juiced value.

But I'd be interested to hear what Alex says about 20 vs. 60 minutes power.

Alex may correct me and if he does I won't argue....but the general rule of thumb I've always heard used to calculate (1 hour power) FTP from a 20 minute test is exactly that, 95%. It's certainly the protocol that the likes of Joe Friel, Allen/Coggan refer to.

Of course this is just estimation, the only true way to find 1 hour power is to ride and see what you can sustain for the full hour....but that's not a test that many people like to do!
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
For Pinot, it's 85-90%, this is consistent with what Grappe said about Froome and makes much more sense.

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf

I'm not sure there's any such thing as 'makes sense' in this regard.

The 95% has always been fairly accurate for me in terms of translating what i can do in a 20 minute test into what i can hold for a hour if i really have to.

Of course, we're all different in terms of power profiles, what we can sustain and the rate of drop off over time.

But most coaching manuals use the 95% rule for establishing power zones when going along with Allen/Coggan principles of training with power, which i think is still considered by many to be 'the bible' in this field.

https://help.trainingpeaks.com/hc/en-us/articles/204071934-How-to-Calculate-Threshold-Power-Heart-Rate-or-Pace

PS. That's a great feature on Pinot, never seen that before. Cheers.
 
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
He said it is pre-Tour data for 2014 or maybe 2016 on Spanish eurosport. I don't know exactly what he said but this is what I've read. Actually it was probably 2014 as he claimed many times he had his best numbers ever.
 
Blanco said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:

Yeah, someone is lying, take a guess who? :lol:
Lol :cool:

mrhender said:
Used to be Froome dragged into Bertie thread. Now the sky fans miss bertie for the dirty laundry?
Damn right. Oh, dirty Bertie's dirty numbers overshadow Froome's, proof Froome is squeaky cleans!
Or proof he is a lying POS
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
Visit site
The 95% thing only works if you have done a 5 minute blow out prior to the 20 minute test to clear your FRC/W'/whatever its called now.

Otherwise it's lower, hardly anyone I know or whose results I follow can do 95% of their best power for a 10 mile TT for an hour.
 
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:

Let’s see what they means for his power-to-weight ratio. Taking the 458 watts reading we can work backwards. By finding 5% of that number (22.9) and subtracting that you can find an estimate of what Contador’s FTP for an hour would be. This is a generally accepted rule of thumb for cyclists.

The power at 1 hour is 95% that at 20 minutes? I never heard that before. E.g., when Grappe studied Froome’s power files in 2013, he said:

Grappe pointed out several key indicators. He noted that the drop in Froome's power profile was consistent over intense efforts between 20 and 60 minutes – the point being that there should always be a drop-off in power output as the body struggles with the effort. Froome's drop-off is about 60 watts, as against an average of 50 watts for most of the riders Grappe has studied.

If you take the difference between 20 and 60 minutes as a %, which makes much more sense than some fixed value of watts, and apply to Contador, you get about 6.3 W/kg. That’s still very high, and I’m not sure why he’s bragging about it, since it’s almost certainly a juiced value.

But I'd be interested to hear what Alex says about 20 vs. 60 minutes power.
Berto FTP is or was 420W
So not quite 95% but 92%
 
LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
He said it is pre-Tour data for 2014 and 2016

Did he...when i read the article it was very specific about not saying when it was from, only that it was from tests before he won the tour. He didn't win the Tour in 2014 and 2016.

Has he since updated/changed this?
 
brownbobby said:
LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
He said it is pre-Tour data for 2014 and 2016

Did he...when i read the article it was very specific about not saying when it was from, only that it was from tests before he won the tour. He didn't win the Tour in 2014 and 2016.

Has he since updated/changed this?
Sorry see edited post. I think he just meant to say that this is what it necessary to win the Tour. Probably closely matches his data from other years but somehow I feel he'd post his most impressive data :lol:

Edit: I am reading on his instagram. He replies to someone saying this was his data 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and adds that before that, it wasn't necessary to put out as much, suggesting his numbers were lower.
 
LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
He said it is pre-Tour data for 2014 and 2016

Did he...when i read the article it was very specific about not saying when it was from, only that it was from tests before he won the tour. He didn't win the Tour in 2014 and 2016.

Has he since updated/changed this?
Sorry see edited post. I think he just meant to say that this is what it necessary to win the Tour. Probably closely matches his data from other years but somehow I feel he'd post his most impressive data :lol:

Edit: I am reading on his instagram. He replies to someone saying this was his data 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and adds that before that, it wasn't necessary to put out as much, suggesting his numbers were lower.

Got it, thanks.

Wowsers...7w/kg and it still wasnt enough to win the Tour :eek:

Of course its not all about FTP, but as i said, makes an interesting comparison against the (alleged) numbers with which Froome has been winning the Tour.
 
brownbobby said:
LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
LaFlorecita said:
brownbobby said:
https://cpofficial.com/alberto-contador-reveals-top-secret-tour-de-france-winning-power-data/

7 w/kg, what it took to win the Tour pre 2010....interesting numbers for comparison against Froome's recently released numbers :eek:
He said it is pre-Tour data for 2014 and 2016

Did he...when i read the article it was very specific about not saying when it was from, only that it was from tests before he won the tour. He didn't win the Tour in 2014 and 2016.

Has he since updated/changed this?
Sorry see edited post. I think he just meant to say that this is what it necessary to win the Tour. Probably closely matches his data from other years but somehow I feel he'd post his most impressive data :lol:

Edit: I am reading on his instagram. He replies to someone saying this was his data 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and adds that before that, it wasn't necessary to put out as much, suggesting his numbers were lower.

Got it, thanks.

Wowsers...7w/kg and it still wasnt enough to win the Tour :eek:

Of course its not all about FTP, but as i said, makes an interesting comparison against the (alleged) numbers with which Froome has been winning the Tour.
Naah...
Bertie was only good in training if those numbers are even legit, which I dont think they care.
If he showed this in the Tour, he wouldve been winning by minutes not dropping like a fly whenever Sky put the hammer down.
 
silvergrenade said:
Naah...
Bertie was only good in training if those numbers are even legit, which I dont think they care.
If he showed this in the Tour, he wouldve been winning by minutes not dropping like a fly whenever Sky put the hammer down.
Yeah, he definitely fabricated these numbers several years ago, to brag after retirement :rolleyes:
It's obvious he struggled with endurance a bit more in later years... in 10-30 minute efforts he was top dog. See all those MTTs.
Of course, Froome's data won't be far off, if it isn't similar or better.
What do you make of Berto's claim that before Sky, it wasn't necessary to put out these ridiculous numbers?
 
LaFlorecita said:
silvergrenade said:
Naah...
Bertie was only good in training if those numbers are even legit, which I dont think they care.
If he showed this in the Tour, he wouldve been winning by minutes not dropping like a fly whenever Sky put the hammer down.
Yeah, he definitely fabricated these numbers several years ago, to brag after he retirement :rolleyes:
It's obvious he struggled with endurance a bit more in later years... in 10-30 minute efforts he was top dog. See all those MTTs.
Of course, Froome's data won't be far off, if it isn't similar or better.
What do you make of Berto's claim that before Sky, it wasn't necessary to put out these ridiculous numbers?

That there is a new sheriff aka Froome in town. :p

PS:He got a great deal at Trek by showing off these numbers and doing nothing in any race of significance.
Please dont say Paris Nice. We know who he lost to. :lol:
 

TRENDING THREADS