The Chris Squared Thread

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I am sure you can link us up for this one?

Question still stands.

 

[thehog]

Question still stands.

And in the dead of night the post has mysteriously disappeared

Most peculiar behavior.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

And in the dead of night the post has mysteriously disappeared

Most peculiar behavior.

That is strange indeed hog. Nevertheless I have respect for the Race Radio and I am sure he will return to answer my sincere question.

It would be strange, Valverde putting out above 400watts when you look at his SRM files:

Croix Fry


Semnoz

Or, could it be the Race Radio is correct - given the durance of the climb a higher wattage is not impossible - but we could dig deeper of course.

Good old Chris Horner release his SRM of the Bonascre climb of 2010:

Dear Chris climb at 5.8w/k there:

While he was riding up to the Port de Pailhères with the first peloton, he knew that it would be impossible to stay with the front group up to Ax 3 Domaines, that the attacks and rhythm changes would kill him. In the high speed downhill (max speed 88.9 km/h) he took bottles from the team car to his teammates Klöden and Leipheimer. After nearly one hour of hard climbing, when they weren't able to eat or drink much, it was essential to get some energy on the downhill when the intensity is low and the gastrointestinal system is able to digest a little better.
When they hit the climb Chris instantly rode his own pace - average power 370 watts (5.8 w/kg), average cadence 74 rpm. He was able to catch a lot of riders who rode above their level. He got to the group with Ivan Basso and Andreas Klöden and was able to stay with the group to the finish. But he had to fight hard (as you read in his very interesting, well written blog on "OregonLive.com"

http://intern.srm.de/index.php/us/s...m-analyse-14-etappe-bergankunft-ax-3-domaines

Followed by:
http://tour-manager.freehostia.com/climbingtimes.htm
Christopher Horner 5.73 25 22

Valverde 2013:
Alejandro Valverde 6.06 24 24

Do note the climbingtimes side puts Horner on 64 kilo and Valverde on 61, that might be close to the truth, for Valverde sure, for Horner 2010 too, this year is something different...
Froome is listed there as 72 kilo by the way...

Christopher Froome 6.64 17 Pena Cabarga 72 2011

So, the question remains, is it possible for a rider to produce in a 7 minute shorter effort 40 watts more?

Lets wait for the source though. It is not like there are no SRM files are made public by non - Sky riders...

 

[thehog]

That is strange indeed hog. Nevertheless I have respect for the Race Radio and I am sure he will return to answer my sincere question.

It would be strange, Valverde putting out above 400watts when you look at his SRM files:


Croix Fry


Semnoz

Or, could it be the Race Radio is correct - given the durance of the climb a higher wattage is not impossible - but we could dig deeper of course.

Good old Chris Horner release his SRM of the Bonascre climb of 2010:
Dear Chris climb at 5.8w/k there:

http://intern.srm.de/index.php/us/s...m-analyse-14-etappe-bergankunft-ax-3-domaines

Followed by:
http://tour-manager.freehostia.com/climbingtimes.htm
Christopher Horner 5.73 25 22

Valverde 2013:
Alejandro Valverde 6.06 24 24

Do note the climbingtimes side puts Horner on 64 kilo and Valverde on 61, that might be close to the truth, for Valverde sure, for Horner 2010 too, this year is something different...
Froome is listed there as 72 kilo by the way...


So, the question remains, is it possible for a rider to produce in a 7 minute shorter effort 40 watts more?

Lets wait for the source though. It is not like there are no SRM files are made public by non - Sky riders...

It is strange.

And often until one has taken the time to review and consider the full sets facts what we once believed may not actually be true.

When dealing with power data the and like its simply not enough to sound right than actually be right.

Defining moment.

Thanks for putting together the information.

I tend to agree with Kerrison here:

“… the gradient of the climb, if they’re climbing solo or in a group, the temperature and humidity, the wind direction, where that climb occurs in a race. And there’s a big difference between a climb that goes from sea level to 1000m, versus one that starts at 1000m and goes to 2000m in the power the athlete can produce. It could be the exact same climb, but depending on the altitude the athlete will produce two very different power outputs.”

The variables are great. Duration has a big impact. Difficult to pull two climbs of alternate durations and the one with a higher w/kg cannot be considered faster/better/doper or otherwise - if in fact the data presented is true??

So to your question;

So, the question remains, is it possible for a rider to produce in a 7 minute shorter effort 40 watts more? Lets wait for the source though. It is not like there are no SRM files are made public by non - Sky riders...

Well, yes. Can Cancellera produce more watts on the Muur than Froome on Ventoux?

Froome at 72kg is a big big problem. Clearly at the Tour he was not this weight. But its neigh impossible to give him an accurate figure. We could esitimate but that’s fraught with inaccuracy.

Alas we can only wait for link on Valverde…..

 

[MatParker117]

Many thanks.

Lack of transparency.

Can’t read much into the data unless I divide it up per number of cyclists.

Are these guys testing at all?

The Data Protection Act is a lovely thing.

 

[thehog]

The Data Protection Act is a lovely thing.

I'm sure it is.

 

[thehog]

Froome is listed there as 72 kilo by the way...


Lets wait for the source though. It is not like there are no SRM files are made public by non - Sky riders...

You think Froome is 72kg?



Maybe we need to apply the Horner-weight-adjustment-index-rule on Froome?

 

[LaFlorecita]

You think Froome is 72kg?



Maybe we need to apply the Horner-weight-adjustment-index-rule on Froome?

his face looks waxen, really creepy

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Still waiting for that source Race Radio.

 

[thehog]

Still waiting for that source Race Radio.

I'm sure it came after viewing multiple (private) SRM files

In seriousness we do need a link to validate the authenticity of the claims.

Smearing riders is not in the best interests of the Clinic. Especially whilst giving Froome a pass.

Hopefully we'll get the link soon.

 

[AcademyCC]

I'm sure it came after viewing multiple (private) SRM files

In seriousness we do need a link to validate the authenticity of the claims.

Smearing riders is not in the best interests of the Clinic. Especially whilst giving Froome a pass.

Hopefully we'll get the link soon.

Hog I like your posts, always have done. I have to say though a lot of your recent ones against RR stink of you wanting to be the big man in the Clinic and seizing on the fact he has taken this stance on SKY.

You make quite a few statements without backing them up with links and have been caught out on numerous occasions when asked to provide them.

Both posters provide colour to the clinic and just because one has taken a stance against the grain it is silly to smash him for it.

I will admit my own view is now so confused. The one thing I can be sure of is Froome is doping but I have no idea how.

 

[thehog]

Hog I like your posts, always have done. I have to say though a lot of your recent ones against RR stink of you wanting to be the big man in the Clinic and seizing on the fact he has taken this stance on SKY.

You make quite a few statements without backing them up with links and have been caught out on numerous occasions when asked to provide them.

Both posters provide colour to the clinic and just because one has taken a stance against the grain it is silly to smash him for it.

I will admit my own view is now so confused. The one thing I can be sure of is Froome is doping but I have no idea how.

Thanks.

I like RR.

I just think the Clinic should be free of affiliation or agenda. It should be pure.

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought what was getting posted was similar to the disinformation that was getting put out by Armstrong and his cronies.

I don't mind if people want to argue to the toss on why a team is clean or not but selectively dropping hints about certain riders then going on super tangents to explain another riders unexplainable was a little silly.

This thread had some excellent analysis on gearing, power etc. and then you get a basic post of VAM with "Horner wins', I mean, whats that about?

Anyway lets not discuss one. I got a fair beating and spent a month in the sinbin for all my troubles.

For what its worth I'll lay off.

I love talking about gear ratios. Lets get back to that. Gear ratio are fun.

 

[Benotti69]

Hog I like your posts, always have done. I have to say though a lot of your recent ones against RR stink of you wanting to be the big man in the Clinic and seizing on the fact he has taken this stance on SKY.

You make quite a few statements without backing them up with links and have been caught out on numerous occasions when asked to provide them.

Both posters provide colour to the clinic and just because one has taken a stance against the grain it is silly to smash him for it.

I will admit my own view is now so confused. The one thing I can be sure of is Froome is doping but I have no idea how.

RR has not taken a stance on Sky being clean or dirty. He says what they have done has questions that need answering, but he is unwilling to call it as people called Armstrong. RR pointed to how we knew much more about Armstrong than we do about Sky.

That is fair enough.

But if people watching think guys coming from the gruppetto are going to destroy the other contenders in cycling and there is not performance enhancement going on then you might as well get hulk hogan out there on a dogma.

 

[Digger]

Froome is 72kg?!

 

[hiero2]

Thanks.

I like RR.

I just think the Clinic should be free of affiliation or agenda. It should be pure.

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought what was getting posted was similar to the disinformation that was getting put out by Armstrong and his cronies.

I don't mind if people want to argue to the toss on why a team is clean or not but selectively dropping hints about certain riders then going on super tangents to explain another riders unexplainable was a little silly.

This thread had some excellent analysis on gearing, power etc. and then you get a basic post of VAM with "Horner wins', I mean, whats that about?

Anyway lets not discuss one. I got a fair beating and spent a month in the sinbin for all my troubles.

For what its worth I'll lay off.

I love talking about gear ratios. Lets get back to that. Gear ratio are fun.

RR has not taken a stance on Sky being clean or dirty. He says what they have done has questions that need answering, but he is unwilling to call it as people called Armstrong. RR pointed to how we knew much more about Armstrong than we do about Sky.

That is fair enough.

But if people watching think guys coming from the gruppetto are going to destroy the other contenders in cycling and there is not performance enhancement going on then you might as well get hulk hogan out there on a dogma.

Beno - well said. I think your summary of RR's stance nails it in 25 words or less.

As I see it, though, the highlighted bits are the real bone of contention. Some people think that there is smoke in the air, as their was around Lance. From where I sit, there is nowhere near as much smoke now as then - but there could be smoke. And where there is smoke . . .

But, on the other hand, I think it is almost also certain that some of these "out of the gruppetto" performances are enabled because, or COULD be enabled because things are cleanER. We have less smoke, more mist, and possibilities in a lot of different directions.

In addition, we get an illustration of one problem with keeping an open mind - everybody wants to throw their trash in.

You know, I think it is pretty well recognized that the year AFTER the Festina affair was cleanER, but that two years later everybody was back at it. I'm wondering if (and tending towards the opinion that) we have seen a similar "clean" year in 2012 as a result of mounting negative publicity. Then a similar bounce-back in 2013 as some riders felt the risk was lower. Which line of thought would lead me to predict that 2014 will be cleanER again. And following that, will depend on the actions of one Mr. Cookson over the next year.

And, yeah, whoever said "I just don't know HOW they are doing it" now - that gets my vote too. Too many unanswered questions and open-ended possibilities, too much speculation, too little evidence.

Oh - and just to reinforce what I said about less smoke now - I quote this sig, itself a set of quotes:

“If you consider my situation: a guy who comes back from arguably, you know, a death sentence, why would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my life again? That's crazy. I would never do that. No. No way."

"Yes, there were six samples with EPO in it, and there were another two samples where it was pretty plain to a trained observer that there was synthetic EPO in those as well." Michael Ashenden on '99 samples

 

[sniper]

Hiero2, good post. Since this is the chris squared thread: do you think there is more smoke surrounding horner than there is surrounding froome?

 

[red_flanders]

I'm not sure anyone disagrees that there was more smoke around Armstrong. Seems clear, obvious and beyond contention to me.

The question for many fans, is how much smoke do you need to see before you realize someone has lit a fire? Seems pretty clear to a lot of people that there's a three alarm fire raging there. Doesn't need to be a 5 alarm before we think someone should send the fire dept.

If you have this view, you naturally wonder why others don't see it and wonder why they go after people like Armstrong and Horner with such intense an sustained vigor, and make excuses for (or ignore, or simply not address) what seems obvious about Froome.

 

[Benotti69]

Hiero2, good post. Since this is the chris squared thread: do you think there is more smoke surrounding horner than there is surrounding froome?

I think Horner has more smoke due to his age, Froome (and Wigans) have massive question marks over how they arrived from the Grupetto to the podium and at that level of thinness. Unreal.

 

[the sceptic]

2012 was a clean year when Wiggins peaked for 6 months and won everything? mkayyy.

Flanders: There might have been more smoke with Armstrong in terms of evidence, but Froome and sky have dominated just as badly if not worse than Lance did.

And back then the fans hadnt seen countless dopers go down in flames after doing something similar, they hadnt heard all the excuses before. you could excuse them for being naive and wanting to believe. But now in 2013 there really is no excuse for anyone that has been paying attention to what has happened in the past.

 

[thehog]

Armstrong had little smoke. Average Joe's had no idea who Ferrari was or even cared.

Sky just like Armstrong have the counter points to fight off evidence.

Cancer, blood parasites, body changes, marginal gains, cadence, resonance of stages, media love-ins, "I'd never do that to my body", "because of my children", ZTP.

It's all much the same.

 

[red_flanders]

Flanders: There might have been more smoke with Armstrong in terms of evidence, but Froome and sky have dominated just as badly if not worse than Lance did.

I think we are in strong agreement.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not sure anyone disagrees that there was more smoke around Armstrong. Seems clear, obvious and beyond contention to me.

The question for many fans, is how much smoke do you need to see before you realize someone has lit a fire? Seems pretty clear to a lot of people that there's a three alarm fire raging there. Doesn't need to be a 5 alarm before we think someone should send the fire dept.

If you have this view, you naturally wonder why others don't see it and wonder why they go after people like Armstrong and Horner with such intense an sustained vigor, and make excuses for (or ignore, or simply not address) what seems obvious about Froome.

An ex mod is leading the mob against RR?

A lot of straw has been used in your post -where have they "ignored" what is "obvious" about Froome?

Also, there was a huge amount against LA, huge, which has already been posted about. To pretend that there is anything close to the same with Froome is either ignorant or deliberate baiting.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

An ex mod is leading the mob against RR?

Can you back that up with evidence? A link perhaps?

Omfg.

Bad dog.

 

[red_flanders]

An ex mod is leading the mob against RR?

Hilarious that you think that comment was directed at one person in particular.

Careful, you might miss someone else actually attacking RR's posts in another part of the forum while you waste time trolling me.

Also, there was a huge amount against LA, huge, which has already been posted about. To pretend that there is anything close to the same with Froome is either ignorant or deliberate baiting.

Obvious and intentional warping of my easily referenced comments.

I'm not sure anyone disagrees that there was more smoke around Armstrong. Seems clear, obvious and beyond contention to me.

What a joke.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hilarious that you think that comment was directed at one person in particular.

Careful, you might miss someone else actually attacking RR's posts in another part of the forum while you waste time trolling me.



Obvious and intentional warping of my easily referenced comments.



What a joke.

I am not trolling you - just exposing your stupid ****.

And of course the mob work in many threads, that is what they do.