• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 22 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 20, 2012
4,238
0
0
Race Radio said:
Yup, as I have said, and the article says, the more exposed last 1-2km does have a headwind.....but the the climb is 21.5 km. The video clearly shows a tailwind for the majority of the climb
Tailwind in the forest? Mmmh, that is interesting. Doesnt offer much help in the forest...

What also is interesting is the peloton didnt ride the first 8/10 km of the climb. Quick Step 'paced' the bunch as Chavanel was in front. Team SKY was even able to grap a white lunchbag. What does that do for the actual complete climbing time? Would that make the comparison with Mayo's idiotic time in the Dauphinee TT useless? Not even mentioning the little mistake in math, you know, the 12% stuff.

Also, not even mentioning - now I do - Froome was able to call home in the middle of the climb what clearly is sign he was not at max effort. What is the name of the Sojasun DS who called BS on that?
Race Radio said:
Froome was actually 2 seconds faster then Indurain on the entire climb. Not too surprising, Indurain was a TT guy. He does not hold many climbing records and rode most of the way in a group.

What do you make of Moncoutie being only 50 seconds slower then Froome?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFM7wcMiPdI

Please. Watch that video. Watch the Hautacum 1994 too and then come back. Not a climber. Omg. I'll do you even a favour, watch the ridicilousness from this moment on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tFM7wcMiPdI#t=3106

Moncoutie was a climber, in a TT. I have him 3 minutes down on Froomes last 16K though. So, who has the correct times? That time puts him on par with EPO fuelled - sarcasm - Charly Mottet. Woopiedoo.
 
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
Ferminal said:
My opinion of such a matter is of no relevance to the quality of the argument. There are plenty of arguments used to come to a conclusion of doping which are as flawed as the "never tested positive" is to conclude that doping is not happening. I am not interested in "proofs" only in details and information which can improve our understanding of the sport.

In any case, how is a journalist supposed to "prove Sky are clean" , that is an enormous task even for the riders themselves. Are you somehow saying that Walsh did in fact "prove" this?

NB Need to be careful with words here as the team dynamic is completely different to the individual rider, it is possible to support the idea that Sky as an entity is "clean" whilst having a completely different view of individuals who represent the team.
That is what I was driving at: You can't prove any of this satisfactory in either way, hence why we chase our tail here on a daily basis. It's just an exchange of opinions. We can't even agree on wind direction.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Digger said:
I would like you to address one thing though...your tweet on the day of Ventoux, where you said Froome's time in comparison to Mayo's was encouraging...one being after 200 plus Kms and the other a TT...
Pretty easy to understand if you read my series of tweets from that day. There were a series of times flying around, some from 15km to go, some from 15.63, some from the bottom. At first it appeared Froomes time was 5 minutes slower then Mayo's (It was actually about 3:30 slower). As it became clear that it was better to wait for the final times I suggested people follow the SportsScientists and Vetoo on Twitter as they are much better analysis then I am and had written this great preview

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/mont-ventoux-preview-looking-forward-by.html

They followed up on the topic in the comments and on twitter. Note the comments about a tailwind.....guess I am not the only person who imaged it.

Understand where I am coming from on this. It is not that I think that Froome has not had some questionable performances, I have made it clear that I think this is the case. My point is that I can understand why Walsh, and many other journalists, have not attacked. They simply do not have as much to go on. There are still lots of questions
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Tailwind in the forest? Mmmh, that is interesting. Doesnt offer much help in the forest...

What also is interesting is the peloton didnt ride the first 8/10 km of the climb. Quick Step 'paced' the bunch as Chavanel was in front. Team SKY was even able to grap a white lunchbag. What does that do for the actual complete climbing time? Would that make the comparison with Mayo's idiotic time in the Dauphinee TT useless? Not even mentioning the little mistake in math, you know, the 12% stuff.

Also, not even mentioning - now I do - Froome was able to call home in the middle of the climb what clearly is sign he was not at max effort. What is the name of the Sojasun DS who called BS on that?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFM7wcMiPdI

Please. Watch that video. Watch the Hautacum 1994 too and then come back. Not a climber. Omg. I'll do you even a favour, watch the ridicilousness from this moment on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tFM7wcMiPdI#t=3106

Moncoutie was a climber, in a TT. I have him 3 minutes down on Froomes last 16K though. So, who has the correct times? That time puts him on par with EPO fuelled - sarcasm - Charly Mottet. Woopiedoo.
Very valid points on the lower part of the climb. As for Indurain, his time up Ventoux barely cracks the top 30.

I wonder how fast Mayo would have been on the last 15km if he had soft pedaled in a group for the first 6km?
 
Race Radio said:
Froome was actually 2 seconds faster then Indurain on the entire climb. Not too surprising, Indurain was a TT guy. He does not hold many climbing records and rode most of the way in a group.

What do you make of Moncoutie being only 50 seconds slower then Froome?
What do you make of Froome setting the third fastest time up Ax-3-Domaines? Or was there a tailwind there as well?
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Race Radio said:
Link to Mollema saying it was a headwind the whole way up the climb?

It is pretty clear from the videos that the vast majority of the climb was a tailwind. The more exposed last 2-3km might not have been but the other 20km it is pretty obvious
Sorry, I have to disagree with you based on the available data. http://uk.weather.com/weather/almanacHourly-Bedoin-FRPA0759:1:FR?day=14&page=almanac_monthly

The weather in Bedoin that afternoon had a ~20 km/hr wind coming from the NNW. That would make it cross or headwind on most of Ventoux. Prevailing conditions on the mountain (i.e., at altitude) could shift the direction a bit, but wouldn't ever make it a tailwind.

John Swanson
 
Why are we talking about a headwind or tailwind? Who cares? The original point was that RR thought Semnoz was a better indicator of suspicious performance due to a number of variables, including that there wasn't wind.

Hitch's post accused RR of lying deliberately (which, if that was the case, presumably might tie into some bigger picture of him being a Froome apologist, I dunno), RR laid out in numerous posts why he thought it was a tailwind, people disagree. Whatever. It's thoroughly beside the point, unless we're being so nitpicky that we think that someone's opinion on which way a wind is blowing from video is the tip of the iceberg in terms of their participation in a vast conspiracy or something. Or if we think that RR's opinion on this is fabricated in some way because he's trying to obfuscate things somehow.

Just catching up on this discussion now, it seems like RR, who has always been a good source of actual opinion within cycling, is just relating that lots of people within cycling aren't as convinced that Froome is doping as people were about Armstrong, for example. That makes sense to me, it was insanely obvious with Armstrong for reasons beyond performance (plus, friggin' everyone was doping then and talking openly about it, so of course riders knew). Plus, it's not like if I'm, I dunno, Andrew Talansky, I'm going to be analyzing power numbers for Froome, watching videos of Ventoux and scoffing, or catching up on the Clinic 'evidence' amongst the mountain of mudslinging and speculation. I'm probably spending most of my time preparing for races (or partying and spending my money). So yeah, I'm not surprised if the peloton is a less vigilant than us. RR relating that does not really make me suspicious that he's trying to cover something up.

For Froome, it could be that he's not doping (unlikely), that people in cycling don't know what he's doing so they're confused (my opinion - most likely), or something in between. Most reasoned posters would probably agree on this, right? I don't have a problem with saying I don't know, but I've seen a number of examples here where someone expressing that gets somehow lumped in with some kind of omerta/conspiracy idea. I agree with what I've seen Libertine say a few times - that there are so many leaps of faith required to think that Froome is clean that it's ludicrous to think he is. But, I don't KNOW anything. Seems like most people posting here are in the same boat. (except maybe Hog - could you tell me how you know that Julich is getting paid a bunch of money or that Leinders is freelancing? I never heard any of that before your post)

Personally, it seems annoying that Walsh has dropped his journalistic skepticism, and I can't help but think he'd be more skeptical if the team in question wasn't UK-based. That's my contribution to this discussion.

Oh, and I think it was mostly a tailwind. So there.
 
JimmyFingers said:
That is what I was driving at: You can't prove any of this satisfactory in either way, hence why we chase our tail here on a daily basis. It's just an exchange of opinions. We can't even agree on wind direction.
Yes but the exchange of opinions is not for nothing (when it is interpretations of relevant information not pointless she did she didn't), at least not from my perspective, which is why I deteste the more pointless subject matter.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
ScienceIsCool said:
Sorry, I have to disagree with you based on the available data. http://uk.weather.com/weather/almanacHourly-Bedoin-FRPA0759:1:FR?day=14&page=almanac_monthly

The weather in Bedoin that afternoon had a ~20 km/hr wind coming from the NNW. That would make it cross or headwind on most of Ventoux. Prevailing conditions on the mountain (i.e., at altitude) could shift the direction a bit, but wouldn't ever make it a tailwind.

John Swanson
Again, I suggest watching the video.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Bronstein said:
What do you make of Froome setting the third fastest time up Ax-3-Domaines? Or was there a tailwind there as well?
Yes, there was a tailwind but still questionable.....very questionable.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
thehog said:
You mean this tweet? :rolleyes:
I have addressed this.....now it is your turn.

You claim Julich and Yates got 400,000 to stay quite....... Link?
You claim Sky has been filing TUE's, yet they say that none of the Tour team had a TUE.....who is lying?
 
ScienceIsCool said:
Prevailing conditions on the mountain (i.e., at altitude) could shift the direction a bit, but wouldn't ever make it a tailwind.
So the topography of the mountain couldn't lead to the wind be say SE at one point of the exposed section and then further up the road be say, 120 degrees different? Only asking as I have no idea (mountains are a foreign concept in my land).
 
May 26, 2009
2,762
0
0
thehog said:
Isn't he the guy you and JV hint is dirty? :rolleyes:
I knew someone called out Moncoutié, but couldn't remember who and I didn't know St. Jonathan was involved too.
 
Race Radio said:
I have addressed this.....now it is your turn.

You claim Julich and Yates got 400,000 to stay quite....... Link?
You claim Sky has been filing TUE's, yet they say that none of the Tour team had a TUE.....who is lying?
What? Sacked without severance? Do you know anything about EU law? :rolleyes:

Beside your friend Yates confirmed it. Have a chat to him.

Race you're a cool dude. But a little pretentious. Drop the insider act.

The Clinic is pure. It's not for pushing agendas.

Sweet?
 
Apr 20, 2012
4,238
0
0
Race Radio said:
Very valid points on the lower part of the climb. As for Indurain, his time up Ventoux barely cracks the top 30.

I wonder how fast Mayo would have been on the last 15km if he had soft pedaled in a group for the first 6km?
Please, Indurain's last 15.65 kilometres were a minute faster than Froome's, how come he doesnt rank top 30 if Froome is second to Armstrong's time :confused:

And again, Mayo was in a TT, not after two weeks in a GT, after a 200 km stage.
Again, I suggest watching the video.
I suggest you do the same. Even on that vid you just linked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=57

it starts with a sidewind. In the forest there are no signs of any tailwind, yet you claim there is a tailwind for the whole climb bar the last 2/3 kilometres, given the parcours of the climb - swirving - that does not make sense at all.

At best the swirling parcours of the climb evens out the sidewinds and frontwinds.



In 1994 it was another thing, then there actually was a tailwind.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Ferminal said:
So the topography of the mountain couldn't lead to the wind be say SE at one point of the exposed section and then further up the road be say, 120 degrees different? Only asking as I have no idea (mountains are a foreign concept in my land).
Winds are caused by pressure gradients in the atmosphere. Warm air is higher pressure than cold, which leads to winds as the pressures try to equalize. So over flat lands you can expect the winds to be fairly uniform over a fairly large distance.

Mountains can have an affect on local winds because the warm air in the valley gets blocked and move up the face of the mountain rather than through or around it. This is why the winds in Bedoin were definitely NNW, but from observations on Ventoux the winds were more westerly (i.e., perpendicular to the face of the mountain).

As you get higher up the mountain the winds will again shift back to the prevailing direction (NNW) because the mountain is no longer providing much resistance.

At high/higher altitudes the direction can change completely because the temperatures (and therefore pressures) can be completely different from near ground level. This is more frequent for aircraft type altitudes than modest sized mountains.

John Swanson
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
thehog said:
What? Sacked without severance? Do you know anything about EU law? :rolleyes:

Beside your friend Yates confirmed it. Have a chat to him.

Race you're a cool dude. But a little pretentious. Drop the insider act.

The Clinic is pure. It's not for pushing agendas.

Sweet?
Yates was not sacked, he retired. He made no mention of this big settlement you claim when I talked to him last month, Do you have a link for this confirmation? While you are at it a link for the TUE's....or did you make that up too?
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Please, Indurain's last 15.65 kilometres were a minute faster than Froome's, how come he doesnt rank top 30 if Froome is second to Armstrong's time :confused:

And again, Mayo was in a TT, not after two weeks in a GT, after a 200 km stage.I suggest you do the same. Even on that vid you just linked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oOC4ahW9rP0#t=57

it starts with a sidewind. In the forest there are no signs of any tailwind, yet you claim there is a tailwind for the whole climb bar the last 2/3 kilometres, given the parcours of the climb - swirving - that does not make sense at all.

At best the swirling parcours of the climb evens out the sidewinds and frontwinds.



In 1994 it was another thing, then there actually was a tailwind.
Drawing lines on a photo does not change the video. It is clear that for 15 km prior to Chalet Reynard to several km after there is a tailwind, or a crosswind sheltered by RV's. The last 3km or so has a head, side, and tailwind as it is much more expose. Even the lines you draw on your picture support this as the climb from Bedoin would have solid tailwind.

It is pretty clear that 16 km of the climb had a tailwind, 2 km had a head wind, and 3-4km had a crosswind

You might be confused as you did not read what I wrote
 
ScienceIsCool said:
Winds are caused by pressure gradients in the atmosphere. Warm air is higher pressure than cold, which leads to winds as the pressures try to equalize. So over flat lands you can expect the winds to be fairly uniform over a fairly large distance.

Mountains can have an affect on local winds because the warm air in the valley gets blocked and move up the face of the mountain rather than through or around it. This is why the winds in Bedoin were definitely NNW, but from observations on Ventoux the winds were more westerly (i.e., perpendicular to the face of the mountain).

As you get higher up the mountain the winds will again shift back to the prevailing direction (NNW) because the mountain is no longer providing much resistance.

At high/higher altitudes the direction can change completely because the temperatures (and therefore pressures) can be completely different from near ground level. This is more frequent for aircraft type altitudes than modest sized mountains.

John Swanson
This why Henderson's account is slightly dodgy. Whilst I'm sure he wasn't making up his tweet he is a joker and was drinking beer up the climb. He's not a climber and is a journey man. I'm sure he felt a headwind the whole way.

I've climb Ventoux. It always feels like a headwind. It's an awful awful climb. The worst.

TV really doesn't so justice just now steep the climb is. What Froome was doing was insane. It's just not normal.

I don't know why Race Walsh tries to pretend it was normal.

It's offensive to Iban Mayo to say Froome is clean! :rolleyes:
 
Race Radio said:
Pretty easy to understand if you read my series of tweets from that day. There were a series of times flying around, some from 15km to go, some from 15.63, some from the bottom. At first it appeared Froomes time was 5 minutes slower then Mayo's (It was actually about 3:30 slower). As it became clear that it was better to wait for the final times I suggested people follow the SportsScientists and Vetoo on Twitter as they are much better analysis then I am and had written this great preview

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/mont-ventoux-preview-looking-forward-by.html

They followed up on the topic in the comments and on twitter. Note the comments about a tailwind.....guess I am not the only person who imaged it.

Understand where I am coming from on this. It is not that I think that Froome has not had some questionable performances, I have made it clear that I think this is the case. My point is that I can understand why Walsh, and many other journalists, have not attacked. They simply do not have as much to go on. There are still lots of questions

That is all irrelevant though until you explain why Walsh suddenly changed his lifelong opinion of strong ascents being suspicious.

Its all nice and all to say that Walsh is right not to criticise froome without evidence ok, but that is not the smoking gun in his hand.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
The Hitch said:
That is all irrelevant though until you explain why Walsh suddenly changed his lifelong opinion of strong ascents being suspicious.

Its all nice and all to say that Walsh is right not to criticise froome without evidence ok, but that is not the smoking gun in his hand.
You think you have the smoking gun. I suggest going to UKAD with your findings. Walsh, and many others, do not share such a solid conviction. It is that simple. That does not mean they have **** for brains
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts