Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Netserk]

7.1km from the end conveniently being the point at which Froome attacked Contador. While Armstrong in 2000 only attacks 8 minutes from the end. (He counter-attacked further out in 2002, but with no stage win up for grabs and a comfortable lead how hard did he go?)

You often go harder when a stage win isn't up for grabs. He had a comfortable lead (almost) all years.

 

[Parker]

The Armstrong time most are comparing Froome with is the one 2 years later.

But the people in that video aren't (and neither is the Hog who seems to have missed by earlier post) and my point is about how nobody ever considers the race circumstances. Just comparing hand picked times with no context at all is either stupid or dishonest.

You often go harder when a stage win isn't up for grabs.

Do you? Why would you do that? This is just something you've made up isn't it?

He had a comfortable lead (almost) all years.

Exactly. He didn't need to go full bore a lot of the time. Yet people compare times with no regard for this.

 

[thehog]

You often go harder when a stage win isn't up for grabs. He had a comfortable lead (almost) all years.

And why even try and dumb down the stages to make Froome slower than Armstrong. Like it will prove he's clean.

If Froome was riding in 2000 he would have beaten Pantani and Armstrong cleans! He would have also rode an extra 70km just for fun.

 

[Netserk]

But the people in that video aren't (and neither is the Hog who seems to have missed by earlier post) and my point is about how nobody ever considers the race circumstances. Just comparing hand picked times with no context at all is either stupid or dishonest.


Do you? Why would you do that? This is just something you've made up isn't it?


Exactly. He didn't need to go full bore a lot of the time. Yet people compare times with no regard for this.

Because you don't need to go full gas to win a stage. When you are away and on the way to the stage win, it doesn't matter if you win by 10 or 30 seconds.

When the break takes the stage win, all there's left for you is to gain time on your rivals, so if you're going to attack you might as well give it your best.

...

Now please explain the logic that dictates the opposite, that you'd hold back when the break takes the stage win, and give it your best when you're alone in front.

 

[Parker]

Because you don't need to go full gas to win a stage. When you are away and on the way to the stage win, it doesn't matter if you win by 10 or 30 seconds.

When the break takes the stage win, all there's left for you is to gain time on your rivals, so if you're going to attack you might as well give it your best.

...

Now please explain the logic that dictates the opposite, that you'd hold back when the break takes the stage win, and give it your best when you're alone in front.

It's a stage race the aim of taking time from a rival is constant on any given stage. Therefore the effort will be constant unless varying it will change the stage this result. If the break is uncatchable he will never win. If he is at the front he wins as a by product of the primary aim. In these scenarios the need for effort remains the same. However, there is a third scenario - the break is catchable ('the stage is up for grabs') and in that scenario extra effort is worthwhile.

 

[thehog]

Final 6.1km, Ventoux;
Mayo: 16.47s (ITT-EPO)
Hamilton: 17.05s (ITT-EPO)
Armstrong: 17.07s (ITT-EPO)
Froome: 17.20s (stage @ 236km-Cleans)

Woooo..

 

[ebandit]

Because of course Froome will have ridden all 236k out there on his own into the wind.....totally relevant comparison hog...well done

Mark L

 

[Netserk]

It's a stage race the aim of taking time from a rival is constant on any given stage. Therefore the effort will be constant unless varying it will change the stage this result. If the break is uncatchable he will never win. If he is at the front he wins as a by product of the primary aim. In these scenarios the need for effort remains the same. However, there is a third scenario - the break is catchable ('the stage is up for grabs') and in that scenario extra effort is worthwhile.

That would be true if GC riders didn't care about stage wins. But they do. Therefore you often see tactical riding that will ensure or increase the likelihood of a stage win at the expense of riding full gas/taking as much time on your rivals as possible.

 

[Benotti69]

Because of course Froome will have ridden all 236k out there on his own into the wind.....totally relevant comparison hog...well done

Mark L

dont all the team leaders ride out there on their own into the wind

 

[thehog]

Because of course Froome will have ridden all 236k out there on his own into the wind.....totally relevant comparison hog...well done

Mark L

Yes riding in a group at record speed for 236km is easy. So easy you can keep up with Mayo in an ITT of a one week stage race

 

[Netserk]

Yes riding in a group at record speed for 236km is easy. So easy you can keep up with Mayo in an ITT of a one week stage race

I don't think it's fair to say that losing 5'' per km is "keeping up".

 

[The Hitch]

Because of course Froome will have ridden all 236k out there on his own into the wind.....totally relevant comparison hog...well done

Mark L

Length of stage is totally relevant. The riders always point out length of stage being relevant. Your sarcastic comment is stupid. Froome didn't ride into the wind, that doesn't mean he wasn't riding. By your logic all stages should just be taken down to 10km because apparently the previous x kilometers are totally meaningles


Especially when the stage is done at a significant pace, which was the case that day - a pace way beyond what was expected.

 

[The Hitch]

and my point is about how nobody ever considers the race circumstances. Just comparing hand picked times with no context at all is either stupid or dishonest.
.

The context is very well known and has been debated ad nauseam but of course you know that and like always resort to straight up lies.

 

[The Hitch]

The races where completely different though. You'd be a fool to think that a climb that long is raced in the same way each time.

There's a video on YouTube which plays Froome's climb alongside Armstrong/Pantani (the last 45 minutes of the climb). The video maker thinks it's some sort of smoking gun, but it actually highlights the differences. The main difference being that after the point where Froome attacks, Armstrong spends another twelve minutes riding tempo in rivals wheels while the front group just looks at each other. (The front group actually gets bigger during this period).

Now don't you think that those twelve minutes at least may have a serious impact on the relative times?

These are not time trials.

The response to this is the same now as it was then - variables even themselves out to a large extent. Some variables were in lances favour, some in froomes.


The chances that on 2 seperate mountains where froome matched lance all the variables were in froomes favour to such an extent that it would overcome the ginormous doping advantage lance had are tiny and unrealistic. In any Case even you don't have any arguments to make that case. You just say the two ascents are different as if that would automatically suggest froome had all the variables in his favour.

Not to mention that the fact that everyone else struggled on ventoux and peyresoudes strongly suggests that froome did not merely chance upon the greatest conditions in the history of the mountain.

Twice.

 

[thehog]

Length of stage is totally relevant. The riders always point out length of stage being relevant. Your sarcastic comment is stupid. Froome didn't ride into the wind, that doesn't mean he wasn't riding. By your logic all stages should just be taken down to 10km because apparently the previous x kilometers are totally meaningles


Especially when the stage is done at a significant pace, which was the case that day - a pace way beyond what was expected.

25 years of vector doping for purposes of recovery and the conclusion been draw is the distances of the stage doesn't matter... bring on Walsh!

 

[thehog]

I don't think it's fair to say that losing 5'' per km is "keeping up".

Agreed. Darn close compared to Mayo, who was on one week stage race and starting from the base of Ventoux.

Walsh compared the average speeds to he could get Froome going slower. Whatever it takes, I guess.

 

[TailWindHome]

The response to this is the same now as it was then - variables even themselves out to a large extent. Some variables were in lances favour, some in froomes.


The chances that on 2 seperate mountains where froome matched lance all the variables were in froomes favour to such an extent that it would overcome the ginormous doping advantage lance had are tiny and unrealistic. In any Case even you don't have any arguments to make that case. You just say the two ascents are different as if that would automatically suggest froome had all the variables in his favour.

Not to mention that the fact that everyone else struggled on ventoux and peyresoudes strongly suggests that froome did not merely chance upon the greatest conditions in the history of the mountain.

Twice.

Certainly the more frequently Froome beats historic times the more convincing these times become as evidence.

Twice wouldn't be enough for me.

 

[Parker]

The response to this is the same now as it was then - variables even themselves out to a large extent. Some variables were in lances favour, some in froomes.

No they don't. That's trite nonsense that routinely trotted out in many fields, but has absolutely no basis in reality.

Here's how science works. For any tested data point there are many variables that contribute to that data point. To find significance in the data points the variables have to be managed.

Ideally they are eliminated - this is what control experiments are for. One's in which there are as few variables (preferably one) left.

The next best is to minimise them and the next best weight them through modelling and equations.


The worst is thing is they are ignored. And that is what they current purveyors of 'scientific analysis' in the cycling media are doing. They are ignoring the variables so that they can attributed any change (or lack of change) to just one - doping. This is not science, it's deception (or ignorance).

The chances that on 2 seperate mountains where froome matched lance all the variables were in froomes favour to such an extent that it would overcome the ginormous doping advantage lance had are tiny and unrealistic.

And on both of those climbs Froome had team mates setting a fast pace right from the bottom before leaving to to attack solo half may up (much in the way a 5000m runner would run when trying to break a world record). By contrast on both of those climbs Armstrong followed opponents' wheels almost to the top before attacking them with around 2km to go (much like a 5000m runner trying to win a championship race).

Now given that variable always even themselves out, as you say, why are time times of 5000m championship finals almost always so much slower than the 5000m records?

 

[Parker]

Certainly the more frequently Froome beats historic times the more convincing these times become as evidence.

Twice wouldn't be enough for me.

He needs to get close to the best performances of those dopers. Not ones that just happened to be at the same venue. In athletics be compare athletes according to their personal bests, not what they did on a particular track.

 

[thehog]

No they don't. That's trite nonsense that routinely trotted out in many fields, but has absolutely no basis in reality.

Here's how science works. For any tested data point there are many variables that contribute to that data point. To find significance in the data points the variables have to be managed.

Ideally they are eliminated - this is what control experiments are for. One's in which there are as few variables (preferably one) left.

The next best is to minimise them and the next best weight them through modelling and equations.


The worst is thing is they are ignored. And that is what they current purveyors of 'scientific analysis' in the cycling media are doing. They are ignoring the variables so that they can attributed any change (or lack of change) to just one - doping. This is not science, it's deception (or ignorance).


And on both of those climbs Froome had team mates setting a fast pace right from the bottom before leaving to to attack solo half may up (much in the way a 5000m runner would run when trying to break a world record). By contrast on both of those climbs Armstrong followed opponents' wheels almost to the top before attacking them with around 2km to go (much like a 5000m runner trying to win a championship race).

Now given that variable always even themselves out, as you say, why are time times of 5000m championship finals always so much slower than the 5000m records?

This is just stupid. Controlled studies are just that, controlled. Weather patterns through the years have significant numbers of variables impacting them but are still used to make determinations of the earths warming or cooling.

What you're trying to do is invalidate all the data because there are variables. That's nonsense.

 

[ebandit]

Length of stage is totally relevant. The riders always point out length of stage being relevant. Your sarcastic comment is stupid. Froome didn't ride into the wind, that doesn't mean he wasn't riding. By your logic all stages should just be taken down to 10km because apparently the previous x kilometers are totally meaningles


Especially when the stage is done at a significant pace, which was the case that day - a pace way beyond what was expected.

Which riders? The ones doing the pulling.....or the ones nicely sheltered all the way?.......ever ridden 236k?......ever ridden in a peloton?.........no, thought not........but you still know what is and what isn't relevant and you know how easy/difficult it is.

Mark L

 

[ebandit]

This is just stupid. Controlled studies are just that, controlled. Weather patterns through the years have significant numbers of variables impacting them but are still used to make determinations of the earths warming or cooling.

What you're trying to do is invalidate all the data because there are variables. That's nonsense.

No he isnt .......he is pointing out that you are cherry picking data with no context.......and doing it to fit your preconceived notion

Mark L

 

[Parker]

This is just stupid. Controlled studies are just that, controlled. Weather patterns through the years have significant numbers of variables impacting them but are still used to make determinations of the earths warming or cooling.

What you're trying to do is invalidate all the data because there are variables. That's nonsense.

First of all weather patterns are based on thousands of pieces of recorded data, maybe millions.

Not two.

If I took a temperature outside my house and yours today at noon and again in exactly ten year's time and drew conclusions about climate change from them - that would be stupid.

I'm not trying to invalidate all the data. I'm highlighting the fallacy of the conclusions some are drawing from very small amounts of it due ignoring all variables except the one that interests you. (And even then cherry picking the data). This may convince you, but it won't convince anyone objective and numerate.

 

[TailWindHome]

Weather patterns through the years have significant numbers of variables impacting them but are still used to make determinations of the earths warming or cooling.

Exactly.
You're starting to get it now.

Taking the last 7k of 1 climb and jumping to a conclusion is like determine globalling warming because it was nice last Tuesday

 

[TailWindHome]

He needs to get close to the best performances of those dopers. Not ones that just happened to be at the same venue. In athletics be compare athletes according to their personal bests, not what they did on a particular track.

Agreed. However the more frequently Froome beats dopers times the more likely that those times were reflective of other riders best.