Catwhoorg said:http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE
At the 2011 Vuelta Time trial his HR hit 169 at the end.
Max of 165 seems unlikely a couple of years later
BigMac said:6 years. Almost as disgusting as the bio-cheaters who ganged en masse to conveniently label mechanical doping the most unacceptable thing in the whole world, while they set attention away from their own dodgy affairs and come ou to be full of virtues to the public eye.
This isn't the UCI making justice, regardless if justice has been server or not. They're clearly just sending a political message full of pretentiousness, shooting the small fish just so that at the end of the day they can say they have a strong anti-doping stance. Meanwhile, the million-dollar-dopers who don't hesitate to crush this small riders in the public court for the very same reasons, will continue to do their own thing knowing they've come one step closer to being regarded as paragons of the sport.
jmdirt said:Yes, I read that, but 5th hand information isn't convincing for me. You are searching for things to prove your point so you only see the end result. I want to see the process and the end result. If the process has multiple factors with margins or error, the end end result is not valid.thehog said:How do we know it matches? Because the data match the accelerations, the changes in speed and the climbing time exactly. Did you not read that in my post?
Yes, the HR may be off but Froome has already stated his max HR is 165. Which is very suspicious indeed.
Case in point, you are using max HR 165 as FACT, when I have read that his max HR is 174. 165 fits your narrative better though right?
Heck, I am 62 yo and 147 HR would be a piece of cakeNick C. said:Catwhoorg said:http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE
At the 2011 Vuelta Time trial his HR hit 169 at the end.
Max of 165 seems unlikely a couple of years later
His average was 147. That seems low doesn't it. For me, as a then 40something cat 4 with no palmares, that would have been "Tempo" type range back when I did such things and those were the terms in vogue. A mid 160s would have been the average for a 3 miles "field test." My circles of people sharing training data seemed to be in that general area from what I recall. (shoot me for having used Carmichael programs it was a different time). Is that all just explained as the difference between 30-40 year old office workers and a twentysomething guy who is a pro?
Nick C. said:Catwhoorg said:http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE
At the 2011 Vuelta Time trial his HR hit 169 at the end.
Max of 165 seems unlikely a couple of years later
His average was 147. That seems low doesn't it. For me, as a then 40something cat 4 with no palmares, that would have been "Tempo" type range back when I did such things and those were the terms in vogue. A mid 160s would have been the average for a 3 miles "field test." My circles of people sharing training data seemed to be in that general area from what I recall. (shoot me for having used Carmichael programs it was a different time). Is that all just explained as the difference between 30-40 year old office workers and a twentysomething guy who is a pro?
djpbaltimore said:Max of 174 in something more recent than the climb. 2015.
http://www.teamsky.com/teamsky/home/article/59618#416jblVREVLuXu70.97
Analysis of final 15.3km of the stage
(It is difficult to identify the exact start point of the climb as there is no clear landmark defining the start.)
Time: 41:28
Average power: 414w
VAM: 1602
Chris's weight: 67.5kg
Corrected power/weight for the whole climb: 5.78w/kg
My narrative is to use bullet proof facts to bust them beyond a shadow of a doubt.thehog said:jmdirt said:Yes, I read that, but 5th hand information isn't convincing for me. You are searching for things to prove your point so you only see the end result. I want to see the process and the end result. If the process has multiple factors with margins or error, the end end result is not valid.thehog said:How do we know it matches? Because the data match the accelerations, the changes in speed and the climbing time exactly. Did you not read that in my post?
Yes, the HR may be off but Froome has already stated his max HR is 165. Which is very suspicious indeed.
Case in point, you are using max HR 165 as FACT, when I have read that his max HR is 174. 165 fits your narrative better though right?
It's 170 from his best selling book The Climb
![]()
Beech Mtn said:I can understand the 6 year ban. She's very young. It would be different if she was 25,30 years old, full-grown and in control. But she's teenager, is she not? With a stage father who probably controls her training, racing, equipment, doping, everything; living in his house, under his thumb. I can see why the UCI would give her a bit of break.
The dad should never be allowed to be credientialled again, if they can come up with a possible way to do it under the rules as they are written.
jmdirt said:My narrative is to use bullet proof facts to bust them beyond a shadow of a doubt.thehog said:jmdirt said:Yes, I read that, but 5th hand information isn't convincing for me. You are searching for things to prove your point so you only see the end result. I want to see the process and the end result. If the process has multiple factors with margins or error, the end end result is not valid.thehog said:How do we know it matches? Because the data match the accelerations, the changes in speed and the climbing time exactly. Did you not read that in my post?
Yes, the HR may be off but Froome has already stated his max HR is 165. Which is very suspicious indeed.
Case in point, you are using max HR 165 as FACT, when I have read that his max HR is 174. 165 fits your narrative better though right?
It's 170 from his best selling book The Climb
![]()
Yes, that was perhaps the thing that angered me most about the Femke saga. All the hypocrites lining up to take a free shot at a veritable nobody while they were down, to score cheap PR points at the expense of dogpiling in her very public shame and humiliation.mr. tibbs said:BigMac said:6 years. Almost as disgusting as the bio-cheaters who ganged en masse to conveniently label mechanical doping the most unacceptable thing in the whole world, while they set attention away from their own dodgy affairs and come ou to be full of virtues to the public eye.
This isn't the UCI making justice, regardless if justice has been server or not. They're clearly just sending a political message full of pretentiousness, shooting the small fish just so that at the end of the day they can say they have a strong anti-doping stance. Meanwhile, the million-dollar-dopers who don't hesitate to crush this small riders in the public court for the very same reasons, will continue to do their own thing knowing they've come one step closer to being regarded as paragons of the sport.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Unbelievable. We should be allowed to use uncensored language in The Clinic so I can express my disgust.
The family stopped trying to fight the case as they didn't have the money for a protracted legal battle that they were never going to win. Not only that but Peter is bankrupt and both he and Niels have criminal charges hanging over their head as well... hard to see them putting forward an appeal unless something radically changes. I'll be amazed if Femke tries to return at anything above the hobby level, if even that.saganftw said:i thought 6 years was fine,i believe in giving second chances because people change and even if she was the evil mastermind behind all this (which i doubt) her reputation will be destroyed beyond that - no need to pile up aditional punishment...ofc i assume she will serve those 6 years and not some BS appeal after 2 years or something
BigMac said:Beech Mtn said:I can understand the 6 year ban. She's very young. It would be different if she was 25,30 years old, full-grown and in control. But she's teenager, is she not? With a stage father who probably controls her training, racing, equipment, doping, everything; living in his house, under his thumb. I can see why the UCI would give her a bit of break.
The dad should never be allowed to be credientialled again, if they can come up with a possible way to do it under the rules as they are written.
Only 6 years isn't really a bit of a break compared to the sanctions we're used to see applied to first-timers.
I make no assertions about the desire of the umpire to eradicate a form of cheating.Maxiton said:Your entire thesis is contingent on the UCI being an honest broker that wants to facilitate a fair contest and find motors. What if they're not, and don't?
Alex Simmons/RST said:I make no assertions about the desire of the umpire to eradicate a form of cheating.Maxiton said:Your entire thesis is contingent on the UCI being an honest broker that wants to facilitate a fair contest and find motors. What if they're not, and don't?
I only point out that unlike doping, prevention/eradication of hidden motors is actually a winnable battle. That's because the process and resources to do so are orders of magnitude less and simpler than would be necessary to eradicate doping.
Of course it will also require an honest broker to do so but that wasn't my main point. The umpire could be an honest broker wrt doping and still be completely ineffective because of the magnitude of the all but impossible task. Eliminating motors would be far less of a challenge.
Maxiton said:Alex Simmons/RST said:I make no assertions about the desire of the umpire to eradicate a form of cheating.Maxiton said:Your entire thesis is contingent on the UCI being an honest broker that wants to facilitate a fair contest and find motors. What if they're not, and don't?
I only point out that unlike doping, prevention/eradication of hidden motors is actually a winnable battle. That's because the process and resources to do so are orders of magnitude less and simpler than would be necessary to eradicate doping.
Of course it will also require an honest broker to do so but that wasn't my main point. The umpire could be an honest broker wrt doping and still be completely ineffective because of the magnitude of the all but impossible task. Eliminating motors would be far less of a challenge.
Since I wrote that, I'm trying not to participate in threads anymore, so that I can focus on moderating. But I don't think it will hurt to finish up with this.
Doping has been presented, explicitly and implicitly, as near-impossible to control for, despite the most stringent good faith efforts to do so. ("Our testing regime is robust and extensive.") Controlling for hidden motors, in contrast, is as you say, "a winnable battle. That's because the process and resources to do so are orders of magnitude less and simpler than would be necessary to eradicate doping."
UCI could convincingly control for hidden motors within a few weeks if they really wanted to. This is something they know how to do.
And so this issue is a test for them. If we see UCI doing what must be done to control for motors, we will know they are serious about the issue. And if we don't see that, we'll know they're not.
Libertine Seguros said:The family stopped trying to fight the case as they didn't have the money for a protracted legal battle that they were never going to win. Not only that but Peter is bankrupt and both he and Niels have criminal charges hanging over their head as well... hard to see them putting forward an appeal unless something radically changes. I'll be amazed if Femke tries to return at anything above the hobby level, if even that.saganftw said:i thought 6 years was fine,i believe in giving second chances because people change and even if she was the evil mastermind behind all this (which i doubt) her reputation will be destroyed beyond that - no need to pile up aditional punishment...ofc i assume she will serve those 6 years and not some BS appeal after 2 years or something
Alex Simmons/RST said:Of course, motor "doping" of another form, i.e. hanging onto the team car, has been going on ever since team cars came along to support riders....
It would have an impact if she wanted to do e.g. Gran Fondos etc. or anything related to the sport even if not competing in it - remember, Niels van den Driessche broke the terms of his ban just by being present in Zolder - but as soon as it happened there was no way she'd come back to pro cycling even if she wanted to (no team would touch her, no organizer will want to risk her name among their winners list, it would be years before she could earn respect from fellow competitors, and fan hostility could become problematic at any reasonable-sized event), and I don't think she'll want to regardless.HSNHSN said:Libertine Seguros said:The family stopped trying to fight the case as they didn't have the money for a protracted legal battle that they were never going to win. Not only that but Peter is bankrupt and both he and Niels have criminal charges hanging over their head as well... hard to see them putting forward an appeal unless something radically changes. I'll be amazed if Femke tries to return at anything above the hobby level, if even that.saganftw said:i thought 6 years was fine,i believe in giving second chances because people change and even if she was the evil mastermind behind all this (which i doubt) her reputation will be destroyed beyond that - no need to pile up aditional punishment...ofc i assume she will serve those 6 years and not some BS appeal after 2 years or something
If I read dutch and belgian news correctly, she already announced she wouldn't return to professional cycling anyway. That being the case, the actual length of the suspension wouldn't matter that much, now, would it?