• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

The Froome Files, test data only thread

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Merckx index said:
Let's see if I can post again...

The efficiencies were estimated using Alex's curves, but there is a formula that the curves are derived from that can be used to calculate exact values. I apparently underestimated the values from the curves. By the formula, the efficiencies are 26.5% for 2015, and 25.6% for 2007. These are indeed unusually high values, and though I can't access all the relevant literature--Coggan would probably know--i don't think anyone with a V02max value this high has ever been reported to have an efficiency this high. Though in fairness, most elite cyclists have never published this kind of information (though some have, albeit anonymously, which for our purposes here, is just as good).

Anyway, from the studies I've seen, the highest published product of V02max x GME is about 0.202. Froome's is 88.2 x .265 = 0.234. About 15% higher than the highest published. Keep in mind that V02max x GME is two-thirds of the formula for power, the remaining number being utilization (the rest of the formula involves fixed numbers, at any rate numbers the same for all riders, generally). Froome's value for that, however, about 80%, is not exceptionally high, a very high value would be about 90%. Still, if you throw that in, Froome's product is 0.0187. Assuming the rider with the highest published product had a utilization of 90%, his product would be 0.0182. This would be the best case scenario for anyone with published values (even anonymously) AFAIK. So by the physiological parameters, Froome is one of the strongest riders ever.

I don't have a problem with this, per se. The problem, of course, is that by his own testimony, he weighed 70-71 kg way back at Barloworld, which means he would have been very close to being at this unworldly level even then. Indeed, for the August test, he was basically at the same weight, 70 kg, and had a V02max/kg of just a shade under 6.0 W/kg. Even without the weight loss down to 67 kg, that value would put him at the top of the peloton. So at Barloworld, collating his own records and testimony, he was every bit as good as he was this August.

Alex Simmons/RST said:
if you lose weight and have same absolute VO2max (nothing overly unusual with that), then your absolute VO2max remains the same while relative VO2max goes up.

Up to a point. Froome is claiming he lost > 10% of his body weight, with < 3% loss of peak power, and essentially no loss of sustained power. That would be very suspicious for anyone who was already a fit pro. We're not talking about some weekend warrior who starts riding and sheds weight.

Except that it apparently is not the case. As posted before, he told Kimmage he was at 70-71 kg at Barloworld. Quite frankly, this 75-76 kg value looks like a story used to explain how he could increase his power/weight so much. If it's really true, he needs to explain why he told Kimmage something very different.

There is also the fact that the report that just came out is using 67 kg, when Froome again told Kimmage something different, 66 kg. That's not a big deal, perhaps, but assuming this V02max stays the same, his V02max/kg now rises to nearly 90, and his power to 6.35 W/kg.

What formula is that ?
 
Re:

armchairclimber said:
Fascinating stuff. So he clearly had the physiology to be a top rider in 2007 (as claimed by the UCI coach?), aside from carrying a stone too much pudding. His August test figures are remarkably consistent with the 2007 figures.
People are getting a little bogged down with a kilo here and there discrepancy between his self-reported weight at various times and the measured lab weights, which are solid. To be honest, most people's weight will vary up to a few kilos .... and most people are prone to mis-reporting their weight when asked off the cuff. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference.
What seems to me to be the most remarkable thing about his "numbers" is the combination of pretty high VO2max AND high efficiency (something Ross Tucker flagged up earlier this week).

So, what isn't surprising is that the one of best GT riders of his generation has the physiology and power output that one would expect to find. If he turns out to be the best ever then, again, these numbers would suggest nothing out of the ordinary.

The one thing that remains a mystery is not "why is he now so good?", it's "why was he so unfathomably bad?" prior to the 2011 Vuelta. Badzilla probably played some part but, as has been pointed out, there are so many versions of the timeline/narrative it's not trustworthy. Someone at SKY (Kerrison?) suggested that he could race in fits and starts, but had no clue how to use/manage the power that he had on tap in order to race properly.

Weight loss... well, that would certainly help, but it can't explain it all.

Discovering (thanks to his Badzilla Doctor) the wonders of Prednisolone (this was, I believe in the early part of 2011)? Well, he is still clearly partial to using it now, so maybe this has some bearing.

Motivation? Suddenly about to lose the SKY contract and the big future in the sport...because he was not cutting it? Possibly part of it too.

AICAR? Maybe... that would help with weight and metabolising fats during exertion.

Perhaps the reason he went from potentially great rider to great rider was a combination of several of those things. What we do know now, and what the rest of the peloton also now know, is that he is a bit of a freak.

These are all really good points. I would also like to know if there are other 'workout wonders' in the peloton that can pump out good numbers in a lab, but are unable to translate these watts into tangible results. That is common in sports requiring more elements of skill (NFL, MLB, NBA), but it seems inconceivable in a sport like cycling that is so driven by physiology. The numbers just don't have enough context.

In a test like this, I think it would be in Froome's best interest to soft pedal a bit, but only Froome would know if he went full gas or not.
 
Previously we had some numbers that people doubted and we knew he was good and we knew that some people said he has always been good.

Now we have more numbers that people doubt that say exactly the same and we still know that he's good and that some say he's always have been good.

How are we any further forward? We didn't need a VO2 test to know that he's currently one of the strongest riders in the world. Its how he go there that matters and we've learned nothing new on that score, neither are we likely to.
 
Re: Re:

danielovichdk2 said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Joelsim said:
LeindersGains said:
How long is his "Peak Power Output" supposed to be? 1-2 min?

5

Uh no. It's 30 seconds.

Must Be 5 minutes. Even I can hold 550w for a minute.
The protocol is normally to measure the last [however long - often 1min, in this case 30s] of a ramped test to exhaustion. It's to force the max to be aerobic only.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
JRanton said:
So basically he was always an elite talent who through a combination of being a bit of a chubster, struggling with his health (Bilharzia) and initially very poor bike handling ability was unable to show his true self until the 2011 Vuelta.

We can put the donkey to racehorse narrative to bed. This was the perfectly logical story of an incredibly rough diamond which after a great deal of polishing turned into the greatest grand tour rider of the modern era.

There is no possible way he had those numbers early in his career and posted no results. It just doesn't happen. By comparison, there's an up and coming 17 year old local woman who is a massive talent. She can't help but win everything in sight. That's how it works. BC's Elite cyclocross championship? First place against all elite women. Junior national champ in the Omnium, Individual Pursuit and Sprint. 2nd in everything else. Worst placing is 25th in the five pro races she entered.

You simply can't have an FTP of 420 Watts and *never* place top ten in a time trial prior to some magical transformation whereby you *never* place out of the top ten. He's doping. The only question is what he's on.

John Swanson
 
simoni said:
Previously we had some numbers that people doubted and we knew he was good and we knew that some people said he has always been good.

Now we have more numbers that people doubt that say exactly the same and we still know that he's good and that some say he's always have been good.

How are we any further forward? We didn't need a VO2 test to know that he's currently one of the strongest riders in the world. Its how he go there that matters and we've learned nothing new on that score, neither are we likely to.

We're further forward in as much as we now know that his numbers are "freakish". If I understand the implication of Ross Tucker and MI, pretty much unprecedented.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re:

Joelsim said:
Moore didn't do the tests. He is a journalist.

I know in some cases PE Teachers can also claim to be scientists, but journalists?

No one is claiming Richard 'omerta' Moore did the tests.

I know in some cases fans with a keyboard claim to be journalists.........
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Joelsim said:
gillan1969 said:
Joelsim said:
Rouleur said:
Joelsim said:
His 75.6 Kg weight was as tested in Switzerland in 2007, not his racing weight at Barloworld (as per PK discussion).

In which case, and as Alex alluded too, why was he being dropped on climbs in the 2008-2011 period despite his race weight and threshold power apparently not being much different to what it is now. Even at 71kg he would be at 5.9 W/kg on climbs so why wasn't he up there in summit finishes and TT's.

A lot doesn't add up.

Well he beat Wiggo in the 2009 Worlds ITT.

And then there's the minor point of him working as a dom and hence being in the wind all day.

And maybe even take into account the Bilharzia. Either the 2009 'unpolished diamond' comments from Sky were one massive 'future planning' shenanigan, just Froome rather than G or others, or he really had bags of potential on Sky's internal testing...and it wasn't happening...so they sent him for full medical testing to find out why not.

It's perfectly credible if you are not scratching around looking for justification of your own views.

guys with that physiology don't work as domestiques...they are winning races...look at Fignon heping Hinaul in Vuelta and Giro...that was before winning le tour at 22...or Ullrich in '96

Fair enough, you know more about Brailsford than me then. He doesn't give young doms those opportunities, he makes them work for the team.

That's just not how it works... It just isn't. Being a domestique does not mean that you cannot ride well or win. It means you look after the leader. If you happen to have talent, it just means that you're there in the last kilometer with him. And winning time trials. And crits. And six-day events. And cyclocross races.

John Swanson
 
simoni said:
Previously we had some numbers that people doubted and we knew he was good and we knew that some people said he has always been good.

Now we have more numbers that people doubt that say exactly the same and we still know that he's good and that some say he's always have been good.

How are we any further forward? We didn't need a VO2 test to know that he's currently one of the strongest riders in the world. Its how he go there that matters and we've learned nothing new on that score, neither are we likely to.

Not actually true.

The numbers from 2007 are high, in fact they are the same as his 2015 numbers bar his weight.

Which means....

How was he just so bad on the SA racing scene. Why was he so bad in every single race he ever entered. Why even when he went from the reported 76kg to 71kg to 69kg he was still bad. It was only in the mysterious 3 week period between Poland and Vuelta in 2011 he "reportedly" dropped a further 2kg's and went from grupetto to leading a GT, climbing and TT'ing.

I would say if anything the 2007 numbers as stated cannot be real. It doesn't show a rider who progressed through the ranks. It shows a rider who should have been winning the SA races which were around 100km in length, a rider who should have always been in the top 5-10 in TTs and in the front group of climbing stages.

With those numbers in 2007, he should have or would have been using those results to get contracts on teams. Strange why the results have been hidden away and it took Miss Froome to work at tracking them down in 2015.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
Visit site
while the 2007 tests indeed show that he was never a 'donkey', the transformation at the Vuelta '11 will always be the equivalent of 'donkey to racehorse' in terms of the difference between before and after and in terms of how quickly it happened. So the donkey to racehorse 'narrative' should never be put to bed. How much weight could he plausibly have lost between Poland '11 and Vuelta '11 (14 days between end and start, 6 August to 20 August 2011) and if this was a large amount of weight how did he do it so quickly and without losing power?

From the Kimmage interview:-
'PK: Now this parasite (Bilharzia) attacks your red blood cells?

CF: Yeah.'

From Walsh in Inside Team Sky:-
'Having something consuming your red blood cells and depriving you of oxygen is a nightmare. Your bilharzia eats the body, steals the breath and gnaws the confidence. ..... The idea is that [biltricide/praziquantel] having paralysed or killed most of the flatworms, your immune system will do the rest. If you are consistently underweight and riding yourself to the brink of exhaustion, your immune system may not get around to finishing the job.'

This is a massive change in his backstory, a rewriting of history, and you have to ask why weight loss wasn't relied on as the major factor at the time the Bilharzia story was relied on as the major factor in his transformation. And we know that he wasn't fully rid of the disease in August 2011? Why are they changing the story again? If he was 'consistently underweight' then he would surely have put weight on after a treatment?
 
Dec 4, 2015
16
0
0
Visit site
ScienceIsCool said:
JRanton said:
So basically he was always an elite talent who through a combination of being a bit of a chubster, struggling with his health (Bilharzia) and initially very poor bike handling ability was unable to show his true self until the 2011 Vuelta.

We can put the donkey to racehorse narrative to bed. This was the perfectly logical story of an incredibly rough diamond which after a great deal of polishing turned into the greatest grand tour rider of the modern era.

There is no possible way he had those numbers early in his career and posted no results. It just doesn't happen. By comparison, there's an up and coming 17 year old local woman who is a massive talent. She can't help but win everything in sight. That's how it works. BC's Elite cyclocross championship? First place against all elite women. Junior national champ in the Omnium, Individual Pursuit and Sprint. 2nd in everything else. Worst placing is 25th in the five pro races she entered.

You simply can't have an FTP of 420 Watts and *never* place top ten in a time trial prior to some magical transformation whereby you *never* place out of the top ten. He's doping. The only question is what he's on.

John Swanson

But the lab test of 2007 says that he did have 'those numbers' - so how do you explain that?
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
The whole thing stinks. Anyone with a 420 Watt FTP would have been identified very early - as in their teens. Several teams would have fought for him. The only question at that age would have been whether he could adapt to the longer mileage in pro races and recover well enough in 1-week and 3-week races. This is what has happened for every talent since forever. Some can adapt to the loads (win one day events) and some can recover well enough to win GTs. Everyone else with that kind of talent flames out and finds their niche (TT, prologue, polka dot jersey, super-domestique, etc).

It's only guys with middling numbers that do nothing while on Barloworld and then nearly get dropped from their first World Tour team after time as an okay domestique.

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
Chris James said:
ScienceIsCool said:
JRanton said:
So basically he was always an elite talent who through a combination of being a bit of a chubster, struggling with his health (Bilharzia) and initially very poor bike handling ability was unable to show his true self until the 2011 Vuelta.

We can put the donkey to racehorse narrative to bed. This was the perfectly logical story of an incredibly rough diamond which after a great deal of polishing turned into the greatest grand tour rider of the modern era.

There is no possible way he had those numbers early in his career and posted no results. It just doesn't happen. By comparison, there's an up and coming 17 year old local woman who is a massive talent. She can't help but win everything in sight. That's how it works. BC's Elite cyclocross championship? First place against all elite women. Junior national champ in the Omnium, Individual Pursuit and Sprint. 2nd in everything else. Worst placing is 25th in the five pro races she entered.

You simply can't have an FTP of 420 Watts and *never* place top ten in a time trial prior to some magical transformation whereby you *never* place out of the top ten. He's doping. The only question is what he's on.

John Swanson

But the lab test of 2007 says that he did have 'those numbers' - so how do you explain that?

Yeah. That's the question that needs to be answered. You can't explain it. It's not plausible.

John Swanson
 
Chris James said:
ScienceIsCool said:
JRanton said:
So basically he was always an elite talent who through a combination of being a bit of a chubster, struggling with his health (Bilharzia) and initially very poor bike handling ability was unable to show his true self until the 2011 Vuelta.

We can put the donkey to racehorse narrative to bed. This was the perfectly logical story of an incredibly rough diamond which after a great deal of polishing turned into the greatest grand tour rider of the modern era.

There is no possible way he had those numbers early in his career and posted no results. It just doesn't happen. By comparison, there's an up and coming 17 year old local woman who is a massive talent. She can't help but win everything in sight. That's how it works. BC's Elite cyclocross championship? First place against all elite women. Junior national champ in the Omnium, Individual Pursuit and Sprint. 2nd in everything else. Worst placing is 25th in the five pro races she entered.

You simply can't have an FTP of 420 Watts and *never* place top ten in a time trial prior to some magical transformation whereby you *never* place out of the top ten. He's doping. The only question is what he's on.

John Swanson

But the lab test of 2007 says that he did have 'those numbers' - so how do you explain that?

that is indeed the question...how do you make the unbelievable believable...
 
armchairclimber said:
simoni said:
Previously we had some numbers that people doubted and we knew he was good and we knew that some people said he has always been good.

Now we have more numbers that people doubt that say exactly the same and we still know that he's good and that some say he's always have been good.

How are we any further forward? We didn't need a VO2 test to know that he's currently one of the strongest riders in the world. Its how he go there that matters and we've learned nothing new on that score, neither are we likely to.

We're further forward in as much as we now know that his numbers are "freakish". If I understand the implication of Ross Tucker and MI, pretty much unprecedented.

But by definition he's a freak. The best in the world at what he does.

People doubted before, they still doubt now. The whole exercise seems like a waste of time.
 
Chris James said:
ScienceIsCool said:
JRanton said:
So basically he was always an elite talent who through a combination of being a bit of a chubster, struggling with his health (Bilharzia) and initially very poor bike handling ability was unable to show his true self until the 2011 Vuelta.

We can put the donkey to racehorse narrative to bed. This was the perfectly logical story of an incredibly rough diamond which after a great deal of polishing turned into the greatest grand tour rider of the modern era.

There is no possible way he had those numbers early in his career and posted no results. It just doesn't happen. By comparison, there's an up and coming 17 year old local woman who is a massive talent. She can't help but win everything in sight. That's how it works. BC's Elite cyclocross championship? First place against all elite women. Junior national champ in the Omnium, Individual Pursuit and Sprint. 2nd in everything else. Worst placing is 25th in the five pro races she entered.

You simply can't have an FTP of 420 Watts and *never* place top ten in a time trial prior to some magical transformation whereby you *never* place out of the top ten. He's doping. The only question is what he's on.

John Swanson

But the lab test of 2007 says that he did have 'those numbers' - so how do you explain that?

That is a very good question. Could you explain it? Why he didn't perform with 'those numbers'?
 
Dec 4, 2015
16
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I would say if anything the 2007 numbers as stated cannot be real. ...

With those numbers in 2007, he should have or would have been using those results to get contracts on teams. Strange why the results have been hidden away and it took Miss Froome to work at tracking them down in 2015.

So you think Michelle Froome falsified the lab report and then got in published in a magazine with a worldwide readership and has her fingers crossed that the lab won't notice what she has done?

You lot are weird. I have read that anonymous posters on the internet reckon they know exactly what weight Chris Froome was in 2007, but the lab who weighed him in 2007 didn't. Or was lying. Or the report is a fake. Whatever.

Froome may well be doping, but some people are coming up with bizarre conspiracy theories to justify their preconceived views and it just makes them look daft.
 
Chris James said:
thehog said:
I would say if anything the 2007 numbers as stated cannot be real. ...

With those numbers in 2007, he should have or would have been using those results to get contracts on teams. Strange why the results have been hidden away and it took Miss Froome to work at tracking them down in 2015.

So you think Michelle Froome falsified the lab report and then got in published in a magazine with a worldwide readership and has her fingers crossed that the lab won't notice what she has done?

You lot are weird. I have read that anonymous posters on the internet reckon they know exactly what weight Chris Froome was in 2007, but the lab who weighed him in 2007 didn't. Or was lying. Or the report is a fake. Whatever.

Froome may well be doping, but some people are coming up with bizarre conspiracy theories to justify their preconceived views and it just makes them look daft.

No, I don't think that at all.

But 'those numbers' are truly bizarre for a rider who underperformed in every single race he was in, including in SA.
 
Dec 4, 2015
16
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
That is a very good question. Could you explain it? Why he didn't perform with 'those numbers'?

It isn't up to me to explain anything, I'm not Chris Froome's mum. I'm just saying that there appears to be independent lab testing to show that he was able to put out those numbers in 2007.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Chris James said:
thehog said:
I would say if anything the 2007 numbers as stated cannot be real. ...

With those numbers in 2007, he should have or would have been using those results to get contracts on teams. Strange why the results have been hidden away and it took Miss Froome to work at tracking them down in 2015.

So you think Michelle Froome falsified the lab report and then got in published in a magazine with a worldwide readership and has her fingers crossed that the lab won't notice what she has done?

You lot are weird. I have read that anonymous posters on the internet reckon they know exactly what weight Chris Froome was in 2007, but the lab who weighed him in 2007 didn't. Or was lying. Or the report is a fake. Whatever.

Froome may well be doping, but some people are coming up with bizarre conspiracy theories to justify their preconceived views and it just makes them look daft.

The lab run by Martial Saugy who told Armstrong and Bruyneel all about how the EPO tests work back in the noughties! yeah they're really going to be upset by that or whatever.

Froome may well have had weight loss issues, may well have had tactical problems, may have had a blood parasitic disease, may have well had crazy adaptive physiology or may well have had whatever.
 
Mar 26, 2010
39
0
0
Visit site
The numbers released make total sense and I am sure are completely accurate.

Looking at 2007:
It would take a threshold north of 400 watts for a 75kg rider enter the Pro-tour ranks. Particularly if that rider has limited sprinting abilities. And a rider with a threshold of 420 watts at 75kg is not going to be riding at the front of any races at that level. 420 watts at 75kg is only 5.6 watts/kg, that is boarding on what the top women do.


Looking at present:
Again no surprise for August numbers. But keep in mind these are post tour numbers. If you know any thing about training and recovery you know that these numbers are probably a fair bit lower then what he was doing in beginning of July.

When I look at those results I think: July 1st, 2015: Threshold 435 watts, Weight 67kg. A cool 6.5 watts/kg.
 
Chris James said:
thehog said:
That is a very good question. Could you explain it? Why he didn't perform with 'those numbers'?

It isn't up to me to explain anything, I'm not Chris Froome's mum. I'm just saying that there appears to be independent lab testing to show that he was able to put out those numbers in 2007.

Well it is up to you to enter into a debate. Otherwise there's not much point you being in this thread. Most are here to discuss the data in relation to his performances. If that troubles you then you might be in the wrong thread.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
MTBrider said:
The numbers released make total sense and I am sure are completely accurate.

Looking at 2007:
It would take a threshold north of 400 watts for a 75kg rider enter the Pro-tour ranks. Particularly if that rider has limited sprinting abilities. And a rider with a threshold of 420 watts at 75kg is not going to be riding at the front of any races at that level. 420 watts at 75kg is only 5.6 watts/kg, that is boarding on what the top women do.


Looking at present:
Again no surprise for August numbers. But keep in mind these are post tour numbers. If you know any thing about training and recovery you know that these numbers are probably a fair bit lower then what he was doing in beginning of July.

When I look at those results I think: July 1st, 2015: Threshold 435 watts, Weight 67kg. A cool 6.5 watts/kg.


Look at in between: when he was 70kgs and no one wanted him.

The 6.2watts/kg figure is what Aldo Sassi said was believable, after that #notnormal.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Michael Rasmussen @MRasmussen1974 2h
2) ITT is about aerodynamic and absolut power. Bodyweight is of little influence, so unless he rode a tricycle, he should have been up there

Again no explanation from Sky or Froome about why he was so bad as a pro for so long, except tactics because he was from Kenya.
 

TRENDING THREADS