LeMond III

[Benotti69]

Why post some valid questions and stop playing the man?

There must be lots and lots of questions an eminent sports scientist would like to ask the world's biggest and current most successful team?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

Why post some valid questions and stop playing the man?

There must be lots and lots of questions an eminent sports scientist would like to ask the world's biggest and current most successful team?

Sure. Most would relate to performance, training, nutrition etc.

Aren't we talking about doping here?

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

Why not release proper power data?

Didn't there already do this? They released all his data to Fred Grappe and then released stage power data for last year too but they did a correction factor for the oval rings (which I believe was incorrect).

When tested at GSK the values for the Stages and Load generator were virtually the same so I think the correction factor might have been incorrectly applied. The engineering of the power meter and the physics predict that the PM would measure a lower power with oval rings but in reality this didn't occur for some reason. If you remove the correction factor they used then the power correlates well with the other published data from riders behind him.

But does the power data really tell us anything? Unless they develop a power passport which monitors the rate of change in performance variables and is validated for accuracy and reliability in the detection of prohibited substances or methods, the data doesn't really tell any story. How you get to the data is the story.

I realise a power passport would have to be a UCI thing, but I think Sky could implement something along those lines. My real point was: I'd like them to measure climbing times and release them, and I'd like them not to compare to Dark Era times.

 

[BYOP88]

@Jeroen Swart

May I ask something?

Why were Sky not that keen on keeping Froome when his contract was running out in 2011? I mean, if Nordhaug didn't get sick and rode the Vuelta instead of having to drop out before it started, Froome would've been riding for another team in 2012. So why for a team that prides itself on being the best and ahead of everyone else when it comes to sports science etc unaware that they had the best GT rider in the peloton on it's roster?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

Why post some valid questions and stop playing the man?

There must be lots and lots of questions an eminent sports scientist would like to ask the world's biggest and current most successful team?

In science most questions would lead from answers.

i.e. you ask a pertinent question and when you get an answer it often stimulates or generates many more questions.

That's probably a better process.

 

[Benotti69]

There are lots of posters here who understand sports science very well and who would love to hear what questions an eminent sports scientist would put to TeamSky?

There are former pros posting in here who have a ver good grasp of sports science.

Doping related and non doping related.

There must be lots and lots of very relevant questions. In your own good time.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

...
And maybe Lemond should fess up to his own carreer long doping.
...

Can you please post your proof of LeMond doping? I'm sure you have the time now to post it, its been a while. You said you would post it, yet you haven't.

Seems to be the only reason this thread exists is for sniper to perpetuate this false innuendo.

Too bad, of course.

Greg, as usual, had something interesting to say. And, it was even on one of sniper's pet topics. But, here we go again. Right back into the sewer.

Dave.

And as usual(and no surprise to anyone), Sniper has not responded with anything.

Typical crickets chirp, non answer...

I believe he posted all types of links previously in this thread. Mentioned that a few posts ago and you guys complain about the thread going on and on.

Maybe yall are the ones who can't seem to leave the "pet topic" alone. It is almost as if some have something to gain to keep up the constant complaints about Lemond and dope. Back in the day folks called people like that names etc. Even some of the folks posting in this thread.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

play the ball not the man.

You obviously have no questions you would like to see asked of Sky.

You posted none after posting "Let's ask valid and relevent questions".

Wasting clinic time it would appear.

Instead you went into full blown assault mode and continue.

It's his only mode. He has no dimmer switch

But I guess the point is that asking seemingly crazy questions sometimes lead to interesting answers. As do some not so crazy, but interesting and in fact quite reasonable questions (like several of the ones just posted) that Sky seem just not to want to answer.

And that's the gist of it, IMHO. The Sky marketing spiel is a tiresome. They talk about transparency but maintain an air of secrecy. The marginal gains approach in particular drives most people nuts. Also when they say things (in an article titled "Exclusive! Behind the scenes with Tim Kerrison - the Team Sky visionary" like:

“I think people out there putting limits on human performance are probably not the great visionary thinkers. One thing I am very sure of is that we are not yet close to reaching those limits.”

“ Another cycling norm is being broken this year and, although it is being implemented by Thomas on this training ride, Kerrison requests that what he thinks is “very new thinking” is not specifically explained in this article.”

Again, there's a purposeful aura of visionary "science" that's completely proprietary to Sky and explains why their winning. Whether they're truly deceitful or just being slightly hyperbolic, it was the same approach sold by US Postal and Trek back in the day. I think that's what LeMond was after when he said that there are no miracles in cycling. That the lack of humility and self-awareness (in Sky, not so much Froome) is startling. That doesn't chafe a bona fide sports scientist somewhat? Or do you think they really are all that they try to sell us that they are? Not in a doping sense, but a genuine sports science sense.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

play the ball not the man.

You obviously have no questions you would like to see asked of Sky.

You posted none after posting "Let's ask valid and relevent questions".

Wasting clinic time it would appear.

Instead you went into full blown assault mode and continue.

It's his only mode. He has no dimmer switch

But I guess the point is that asking seemingly crazy questions sometimes lead to interesting answers. As do some not so crazy, but interesting and in fact quite reasonable questions (like several of the ones just posted) that Sky seem just not to want to answer.

And that's the gist of it, IMHO. The Sky marketing spiel is a tiresome. They talk about transparency but maintain an air of secrecy. The marginal gains approach in particular drives most people nuts. Also when they say things (in an article titled "Exclusive! Behind the scenes with Tim Kerrison - the Team Sky visionary" like:

“I think people out there putting limits on human performance are probably not the great visionary thinkers. One thing I am very sure of is that we are not yet close to reaching those limits.”

“ Another cycling norm is being broken this year and, although it is being implemented by Thomas on this training ride, Kerrison requests that what he thinks is “very new thinking” is not specifically explained in this article.”

Again, there's a purposeful aura of visionary "science" that's completely proprietary to Sky and explains why their winning. Whether they're truly deceitful or just being slightly hyperbolic, it was the same approach sold by US Postal and Trek back in the day. I think that's what LeMond was after when he said that there are no miracles in cycling. That the lack of humility and self-awareness (in Sky, not so much Froome) is startling. That doesn't chafe a bona fide sports scientist somewhat? Or do you think they really are all that they try to sell us that they are?

I posted on this last week.

They are a team with a big sponsor and so a good deal of what they put out there will be puff pieces and PR stuff.

So I see it for that and it doesn't grate me like it does others.

I do however see the context in terms of the similarities with Postal PR and deflection.

We don't have anything to determine whether this is nefarious or just bad judgement with regards to PR.

Or are they simply targeting the fans and not taking account of how it will be perceived by anyone with skepticism?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

HI, Jeroen. I'd like to ask your opinion about something. A couple of years ago I did an analysis of Froome's performances in flat time trials (not prologues). The idea was to compare his performance as relative to the peloton. What I found is that from 2008 until Romandie in 2011 he would lose an average of 6.4 seconds/km to the winner (range 3.3 to 9.8 s/km, N=10). His average placing was also, on average, in the top 28%.

After Romandie, Froome's performance changed drastically. Starting in the Tour de Suisse he now lost on average only 1.3 s/km (range 0.0 to 1.9 s/km N=12) and never placed outside the top 6%. If we assume an average TT speed of 50 km/hr, this represents an enormous change of 3.5 km/hr.

Even accounting for a new time trial position or a lowering of CdA, there was an immense shift in performance. Note that his climbing abilities improved at or around the same time. My question: Physiologically, can you offer hypothetical reasons for a sudden change in FTP or similar? Even amongst doping alternatives the transformation seems so implausible.

John Swanson

edit: spelling mistake

 

[IzzyStradlin]

Re: Re:

Why not release proper power data?

Didn't there already do this? They released all his data to Fred Grappe and then released stage power data for last year too but they did a correction factor for the oval rings (which I believe was incorrect).

This is the main problem I have with Sky. They didnt release correct data, and they know it. One-off lab tests can easiy be skewed towards a desired result.

All they need to release is real world racing and training data from before before 2011 and after his transformation. Just give the best two months of data from his pre-sky days, and then the months leading up to and including the 2011 Vuelta. If there is a sudden big jump in wattage, then his bio-passport would be the best way to show his transformation was clean. Things like vo2 max tests are next to useless. It is all about power on the road.

All cyclists who train with power have this information. I can happily provide a huge amount of data from my personal rides going back 5+ years. I can show how I responded to illness how I respond to overload, rest etc. Once you know the fundamentals, it is extremely easy to analyze.

Froome obviously saw a huge jump in threshold power. Showing how he accomplished this is really the only way to prove that he is clean.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Why not release proper power data?

Didn't there already do this? They released all his data to Fred Grappe and then released stage power data for last year too but they did a correction factor for the oval rings (which I believe was incorrect).

This is the main problem I have with Sky. They didnt release correct data, and they know it. One-off lab tests can easiy be skewed towards a desired result.

All they need to release is real world racing and training data from before before 2011 and after his transformation. Just give the best two months of data from his pre-sky days, and then the months leading up to and including the 2011 Vuelta. If there is a sudden big jump in wattage, then his bio-passport would be the best way to show his transformation was clean. Things like vo2 max tests are next to useless. It is all about power on the road.

All cyclists who train with power have this information. I can happily provide a huge amount of data from my personal rides going back 5+ years. I can show how I responded to illness how I respond to overload, rest etc. Once you know the fundamentals, it is extremely easy to analyze.

Froome obviously saw a huge jump in threshold power. Showing how he accomplished this is really the only way to prove that he is clean.

exactemundo.
and for the record, this is something we've already gone through tons of times.
the fact that Swart still pretends to ignore it should tell you a thing or two about Swart.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

Or are they simply targeting the fans and not taking account of how it will be perceived by anyone with skepticism?

Thanks, Jeroen. I apologize if you had addressed that question before, I didn't catch it. Personally, would seem to me that sometimes they are really attuned to the thornier issues but then they put out some really daft or even defiant stuff. It's a strange lack of cohesion for an organization of their general competence.

P.S. Am I right in taking from your answer that you think a lot of the the sports science and training innovations they trot out is somewhat over-inflated? That there's some truth then to the "there are no miracles in cycling" quote?

 

[sniper]

another thing.
The questions Benotti raised are just a handful of many many questions, all of which have one very straightforward answer: Sky are a doping team.
If you're willing to entertain that answer, suddenly all those questions aren't really questions anymore.
Yet again Swart is there to pretend all those questions can be somehow ignored and Sky can somehow still be a clean team against all odds.

But hey, I'm a sports physiologist, not interested in doping. Let's talk nutrition instead. Let's pseudoscience.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

HI, Jeroen. I'd like to ask your opinion about something. A couple of years ago I did an analysis of Froome's performances in flat time trials (not prologues). The idea was to compare his performance as relative to the peloton. What I found is that from 2008 until Romandie in 2011 he would lose an average of 6.4 seconds/km to the winner (range 3.3 to 9.8 s/km, N=10). His average placing was also, on average, in the top 28%.

After Romandie, Froome's performance changed drastically. Starting in the Tour de Suisse he now lost on average only 1.3 s/km (range 0.0 to 1.9 s/km N=12) and never placed outside the top 6%. If we assume an average TT speed of 50 km/hr, this represents an enormous change of 3.5 km/hr.

Even accounting for a new time trial position or a lowering of CdA, there was an immense shift in performance. Note that his climbing abilities improved at or around the same time. My question: Physiologically, can you offer hypothetical reasons for a sudden change in FTP or similar? Even amongst doping alternatives the transformation seems so implausible.

John Swanson

edit: spelling mistake

I forgot to mention something. A simple T-test gave P < 0.004 which a strong suggestion that *something* happened and the transformation is both real and well-defined.

John Swanson

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

HI, Jeroen. I'd like to ask your opinion about something. A couple of years ago I did an analysis of Froome's performances in flat time trials (not prologues). The idea was to compare his performance as relative to the peloton. What I found is that from 2008 until Romandie in 2011 he would lose an average of 6.4 seconds/km to the winner (range 3.3 to 9.8 s/km, N=10). His average placing was also, on average, in the top 28%.

After Romandie, Froome's performance changed drastically. Starting in the Tour de Suisse he now lost on average only 1.3 s/km (range 0.0 to 1.9 s/km N=12) and never placed outside the top 6%. If we assume an average TT speed of 50 km/hr, this represents an enormous change of 3.5 km/hr.

Even accounting for a new time trial position or a lowering of CdA, there was an immense shift in performance. Note that his climbing abilities improved at or around the same time. My question: Physiologically, can you offer hypothetical reasons for a sudden change in FTP or similar? Even amongst doping alternatives the transformation seems so implausible.

John Swanson

edit: spelling mistake

Apologies I was commuting home in the rain!

There could be a any one of a multitude of possibilities.

I heard that Vayer said that any performance improvement of more than 6% is physiologically impossible. I have seen many athletes improve as much as 10% after resolving key problems in their training or health. Obviously at the top end of the spectrum this is unlikely but at lower levels there is often massive room for improvement.

The one that I see most often is excessive training load or poorly structured training. Excessively high training loads interfere with the adaptive response. In addition, they prevent progressive overload due to the inability to perform in training.

We recently wrote an article about this and I am posting the link so that I don't have to retype.

http://www.bikehub.co.za/features/_/articles/training-nutrition/ensuring-training-progression-with-power-r5159

I obviously don't have any insight into Froome's improvement and so I cannot comment other than to speculate.

Maybe it was the treatment of the Bilharzia as he has claimed.

Maybe is was a change in his training.

Maybe it was doping.

Maybe it was simply something that you cannot put a finger on. You sometimes do everything correctly and fail and then you do the same or similar and it all goes perfectly. Performance is sometimes as much of an art as it is a science.

This is probably one of the questions that does deserve some proper consideration and a lengthy response.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Or are they simply targeting the fans and not taking account of how it will be perceived by anyone with skepticism?

Thanks, Jeroen. I apologize if you had addressed that question before, I didn't catch it. Personally, would seem to me that sometimes they are really attuned to the thornier issues but then they put out some really daft or even defiant stuff. It's a strange lack of cohesion for an organization of their general competence.

P.S. Am I right in taking from your answer that you think a lot of the the sports science and training innovations they trot out is somewhat over-inflated? That there's some truth then to the "there are no miracles in cycling" quote?

A bit of both.

I know from feedback from riders that their attention to detail is second to none.

And I am sure that attending to detail can eventually add up to a significant sum.

However, some of the "innovations" touted are definitely over-hyped.

One area that would definitely add value is actively focusing on enhancing recover, which results in a reduced "alarm phase" as per my previous post link. That then allows the athlete to increase training intensity and make further gains. In addition, monitoring response by objectively measuring recovery has been completely neglected until recent years. HRV, LSCT test etc are all fairly recent introductions.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

another thing.
The questions Benotti raised are just a handful of many many questions, all of which have one very straightforward answer: Sky are a doping team.
If you're willing to entertain that answer, suddenly all those questions aren't really questions anymore.
Yet again Swart is there to pretend all those questions can be somehow ignored and Sky can somehow still be a clean team against all odds.

But hey, I'm a sports physiologist, not interested in doping. Let's talk nutrition instead. Let's pseudoscience.

Sniper / Ewon : You repeatedly misquote me to suit your agenda.

So I will rehash for your benefit:

I am very much interested in doping. As you repeatedly point out, I work for our own NADO here in SA.

I have never claimed Sky are clean.

However, I have stated that claims that they dope requires definitive evidence not wild speculation.

But don't let any rational thought or logic stand in your way.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

HI, Jeroen. I'd like to ask your opinion about something. A couple of years ago I did an analysis of Froome's performances in flat time trials (not prologues). The idea was to compare his performance as relative to the peloton. What I found is that from 2008 until Romandie in 2011 he would lose an average of 6.4 seconds/km to the winner (range 3.3 to 9.8 s/km, N=10). His average placing was also, on average, in the top 28%.

After Romandie, Froome's performance changed drastically. Starting in the Tour de Suisse he now lost on average only 1.3 s/km (range 0.0 to 1.9 s/km N=12) and never placed outside the top 6%. If we assume an average TT speed of 50 km/hr, this represents an enormous change of 3.5 km/hr.

Even accounting for a new time trial position or a lowering of CdA, there was an immense shift in performance. Note that his climbing abilities improved at or around the same time. My question: Physiologically, can you offer hypothetical reasons for a sudden change in FTP or similar? Even amongst doping alternatives the transformation seems so implausible.

John Swanson

edit: spelling mistake

Apologies I was commuting home in the rain!

There could be a any one of a multitude of possibilities.

I heard that Vayer said that any performance improvement of more than 6% is physiologically impossible. I have seen many athletes improve as much as 10% after resolving key problems in their training or health. Obviously at the top end of the spectrum this is unlikely but at lower levels there is often massive room for improvement.

The one that I see most often is excessive training load or poorly structured training. Excessively high training loads interfere with the adaptive response. In addition, they prevent progressive overload due to the inability to perform in training.

We recently wrote an article about this and I am posting the link so that I don't have to retype.

http://www.bikehub.co.za/features/_/articles/training-nutrition/ensuring-training-progression-with-power-r5159

I obviously don't have any insight into Froome's improvement and so I cannot comment other than to speculate.

Maybe it was the treatment of the Bilharzia as he has claimed.

Maybe is was a change in his training.

Maybe it was doping.

Maybe it was simply something that you cannot put a finger on. You sometimes do everything correctly and fail and then you do the same or similar and it all goes perfectly. Performance is sometimes as much of an art as it is a science.

This is probably one of the questions that does deserve some proper consideration and a lengthy response.

Thank you for your quick response, though I hope you understand that it feels a bit unsatisfying. The thought that Froome was chronically overtrained/non-adapted would suggest that there would be some health issues that would take more rest, recovery and adaptive training than could occur between Tour de Romandie and Tour de Suisse (the period over which the transformation occurred).

I'm similarly not convinced about Bilharzia as playing any kind of factor. After trying to educate myself a bit, I found that the life-cycle of the schistome and the way the disease presents does not fit at all to what Froome describes. Neither does the timeline fit anywhere close to the transformation.

While I agree that improvements in performance can always be made within the envelope of your genetic limitations, Froome's case just seems odd to me. Almost like he went from zero to hero, but even he can't offer an explanation.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

A bit of both.

I know from feedback from riders that their attention to detail is second to none.

lol, I guess.

They didn't windtunnel test Froome pre-2013.
They didn't properly screen Leinders, bringing in a doping doc.
They didn't screen JTL, a doper.
All accidentally of course.
etc.

As for yourself, you didn't even notice the BMI doesn't match the weight on the 2007 Fax.

If that's what you define as 'attention to detail second to none'...

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

HI, Jeroen. I'd like to ask your opinion about something. A couple of years ago I did an analysis of Froome's performances in flat time trials (not prologues). The idea was to compare his performance as relative to the peloton. What I found is that from 2008 until Romandie in 2011 he would lose an average of 6.4 seconds/km to the winner (range 3.3 to 9.8 s/km, N=10). His average placing was also, on average, in the top 28%.

After Romandie, Froome's performance changed drastically. Starting in the Tour de Suisse he now lost on average only 1.3 s/km (range 0.0 to 1.9 s/km N=12) and never placed outside the top 6%. If we assume an average TT speed of 50 km/hr, this represents an enormous change of 3.5 km/hr.

Even accounting for a new time trial position or a lowering of CdA, there was an immense shift in performance. Note that his climbing abilities improved at or around the same time. My question: Physiologically, can you offer hypothetical reasons for a sudden change in FTP or similar? Even amongst doping alternatives the transformation seems so implausible.

John Swanson

edit: spelling mistake

Apologies I was commuting home in the rain!

There could be a any one of a multitude of possibilities.

I heard that Vayer said that any performance improvement of more than 6% is physiologically impossible. I have seen many athletes improve as much as 10% after resolving key problems in their training or health. Obviously at the top end of the spectrum this is unlikely but at lower levels there is often massive room for improvement.

The one that I see most often is excessive training load or poorly structured training. Excessively high training loads interfere with the adaptive response. In addition, they prevent progressive overload due to the inability to perform in training.

We recently wrote an article about this and I am posting the link so that I don't have to retype.

http://www.bikehub.co.za/features/_/articles/training-nutrition/ensuring-training-progression-with-power-r5159

I obviously don't have any insight into Froome's improvement and so I cannot comment other than to speculate.

Maybe it was the treatment of the Bilharzia as he has claimed.

Maybe is was a change in his training.

Maybe it was doping.

Maybe it was simply something that you cannot put a finger on. You sometimes do everything correctly and fail and then you do the same or similar and it all goes perfectly. Performance is sometimes as much of an art as it is a science.

This is probably one of the questions that does deserve some proper consideration and a lengthy response.

Thank you for your quick response, though I hope you understand that it feels a bit unsatisfying. The thought that Froome was chronically overtrained/non-adapted would suggest that there would be some health issues that would take more rest, recovery and adaptive training than could occur between Tour de Romandie and Tour de Suisse (the period over which the transformation occurred).

I'm similarly not convinced about Bilharzia as playing any kind of factor. After trying to educate myself a bit, I found that the life-cycle of the schistome and the way the disease presents does not fit at all to what Froome describes. Neither does the timeline fit anywhere close to the transformation.

While I agree that improvements in performance can always be made within the envelope of your genetic limitations, Froome's case just seems odd to me. Almost like he went from zero to hero, but even he can't offer an explanation.

John Swanson

Yes. That's why I said it deserves a considered response.

One important point that comes to mind now that you mentioned the stats:

If there was such a dramatic change in performance that this was statistically significant, how was it achieved.

If it was a manipulation of HB mass (which is the one that would be most likely to alter performance to that extent), why did it not trigger a passport sanction?

Or was it some other substance?

I can't think of one or a combination of substances that would cause such a change in performance without being detectable by the biological passport, steroidal passport or analytical technique.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Or are they simply targeting the fans and not taking account of how it will be perceived by anyone with skepticism?

Thanks, Jeroen. I apologize if you had addressed that question before, I didn't catch it. Personally, would seem to me that sometimes they are really attuned to the thornier issues but then they put out some really daft or even defiant stuff. It's a strange lack of cohesion for an organization of their general competence.

P.S. Am I right in taking from your answer that you think a lot of the the sports science and training innovations they trot out is somewhat over-inflated? That there's some truth then to the "there are no miracles in cycling" quote?

A bit of both.

I know from feedback from riders that their attention to detail is second to none.

And I am sure that attending to detail can eventually add up to a significant sum.

However, some of the "innovations" touted are definitely over-hyped.

One area that would definitely add value is actively focusing on enhancing recover, which results in a reduced "alarm phase" as per my previous post link. That then allows the athlete to increase training intensity and make further gains. In addition, monitoring response by objectively measuring recovery has been completely neglected until recent years. HRV, LSCT test etc are all fairly recent introductions.

Now we know you are trolling.

That myth has been dispelled numerous times.

Every team pays attention to details. Cyclist have been doing this attention to detail since Gino Bartali/Coppi/ Merckx etc to today.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

...

A bit of both.

I know from feedback from riders that their attention to detail is second to none.

lol, I guess.

They didn't windtunnel test Froome pre-2013.
They didn't properly screen Leinders, bringing in a doping doc.
They didn't screen JTL, a doper.
All accidentally of course.
etc.

As for yourself, you didn't even notice the BMI doesn't match the weight on the 2007 Fax.

If that's what you define as 'attention to detail second to none'...

Are you still harping on about that BMI figure where they left off the decimal place?

As though that's in any way relevent?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

HI, Jeroen. I'd like to ask your opinion about something. A couple of years ago I did an analysis of Froome's performances in flat time trials (not prologues). The idea was to compare his performance as relative to the peloton. What I found is that from 2008 until Romandie in 2011 he would lose an average of 6.4 seconds/km to the winner (range 3.3 to 9.8 s/km, N=10). His average placing was also, on average, in the top 28%.

After Romandie, Froome's performance changed drastically. Starting in the Tour de Suisse he now lost on average only 1.3 s/km (range 0.0 to 1.9 s/km N=12) and never placed outside the top 6%. If we assume an average TT speed of 50 km/hr, this represents an enormous change of 3.5 km/hr.

Even accounting for a new time trial position or a lowering of CdA, there was an immense shift in performance. Note that his climbing abilities improved at or around the same time. My question: Physiologically, can you offer hypothetical reasons for a sudden change in FTP or similar? Even amongst doping alternatives the transformation seems so implausible.

John Swanson

edit: spelling mistake

Apologies I was commuting home in the rain!

There could be a any one of a multitude of possibilities.

I heard that Vayer said that any performance improvement of more than 6% is physiologically impossible. I have seen many athletes improve as much as 10% after resolving key problems in their training or health. Obviously at the top end of the spectrum this is unlikely but at lower levels there is often massive room for improvement.

The one that I see most often is excessive training load or poorly structured training. Excessively high training loads interfere with the adaptive response. In addition, they prevent progressive overload due to the inability to perform in training.

We recently wrote an article about this and I am posting the link so that I don't have to retype.

http://www.bikehub.co.za/features/_/articles/training-nutrition/ensuring-training-progression-with-power-r5159

I obviously don't have any insight into Froome's improvement and so I cannot comment other than to speculate.

Maybe it was the treatment of the Bilharzia as he has claimed.

Maybe is was a change in his training.

Maybe it was doping.

Maybe it was simply something that you cannot put a finger on. You sometimes do everything correctly and fail and then you do the same or similar and it all goes perfectly. Performance is sometimes as much of an art as it is a science.

This is probably one of the questions that does deserve some proper consideration and a lengthy response.

Thank you for your quick response, though I hope you understand that it feels a bit unsatisfying. The thought that Froome was chronically overtrained/non-adapted would suggest that there would be some health issues that would take more rest, recovery and adaptive training than could occur between Tour de Romandie and Tour de Suisse (the period over which the transformation occurred).

I'm similarly not convinced about Bilharzia as playing any kind of factor. After trying to educate myself a bit, I found that the life-cycle of the schistome and the way the disease presents does not fit at all to what Froome describes. Neither does the timeline fit anywhere close to the transformation.

While I agree that improvements in performance can always be made within the envelope of your genetic limitations, Froome's case just seems odd to me. Almost like he went from zero to hero, but even he can't offer an explanation.

John Swanson

Yes. That's why I said it deserves a considered response.

One important point that comes to mind now that you mentioned the stats:

If there was such a dramatic change in performance that this was statistically significant, how was it achieved.

If it was a manipulation of HB mass (which is the one that would be most likely to alter performance to that extent), why did it not trigger a passport sanction?

Or was it some other substance?

I can't think of one or a combination of substances that would cause such a change in performance without being detectable by the biological passport, steroidal passport or analytical technique.

At one point I started wondering if there was something new that could alter metabolic efficiency, but that just seems so unlikely. According to someone who would know, there are no rumors about anything like that in the peloton either. <shrug>

Anyways, thanks again for your response. Any other insights about the changes in performance would be welcome.

John Swanson

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Or are they simply targeting the fans and not taking account of how it will be perceived by anyone with skepticism?

Thanks, Jeroen. I apologize if you had addressed that question before, I didn't catch it. Personally, would seem to me that sometimes they are really attuned to the thornier issues but then they put out some really daft or even defiant stuff. It's a strange lack of cohesion for an organization of their general competence.

P.S. Am I right in taking from your answer that you think a lot of the the sports science and training innovations they trot out is somewhat over-inflated? That there's some truth then to the "there are no miracles in cycling" quote?

A bit of both.

I know from feedback from riders that their attention to detail is second to none.

And I am sure that attending to detail can eventually add up to a significant sum.

However, some of the "innovations" touted are definitely over-hyped.

One area that would definitely add value is actively focusing on enhancing recover, which results in a reduced "alarm phase" as per my previous post link. That then allows the athlete to increase training intensity and make further gains. In addition, monitoring response by objectively measuring recovery has been completely neglected until recent years. HRV, LSCT test etc are all fairly recent introductions.

Now we know you are trolling.

That myth has been dispelled numerous times.

Every team pays attention to details. Cyclist have been doing this attention to detail since Gino Bartali/Coppi/ Merckx etc to today.

What is this? Tag team trolling by you and sniper?

Was the conversation getting too rational for your liking?

Quickly jump in with some snarky comments and aggression to put paid to any more logical discourse.