The Froome Files, test data only thread

[harryh]

Re: Re:

The guy has made zero physiological progression in 8 years of racing and training.

I think he has made at least some kind of progression. He's capable of putting lots of power also in TT position. He's capable of putting lots power after hours of riding hard. He's capable of putting lots power in subsequent climbs. He's capable of putting lots power in subsequent days.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

It comes back to the 2006 Commonwealth Games ITT. The field was not strong. He had proper equipment, it was one hour long in good but hot conditions. He finished 5 minutes back

Honest question, and one that is at least peripherally related to the general topic of this thread (i.e., Froome's physiology): anybody know how/where Froome prepared for that event, and/or how well he performed in other hot TTs around that time?

(A cyclist with a high absolute power output but who has 17% body fat would likely have difficulty adequately dissipating the large amount of heat they generate. Yes, I know that Froome grew up where it is hot, but acclimatization to the heat is something that is gained and/or lost relatively quickly.)

 

[Rollthedice]

It defies any logic. Froome appears, via a fax sent to Zorzoli which surfaces after 8 years, to be the new Hinault and then some. Nobody had the curiosity to check this story in all these years since he became a world beater except Michelle camp with the purpose of showing that her Chris was good even from young age. In all those years until Vuelta 2011 two WT teams have Froome under contract yet they have no idea that they have the new Hinault under contract. No physiological tests from these periods have been made public and, strategically, Sky is not part of this recent study hence they don't have to show Froome's numbers while he was a grupetto dom with the British team.

That fax is the only proof that Froome has to convince us that he was always good and that's why they revealed it to the public in this context of new tests when he is the best in the world. (I still think it's dubious but let's pretend it's real)

What happened during four years? It is a total blackout. All he had to do in order to win Le Tour, and this is the conclusion of the Esquire piece for their readers, is drop the weight. That's it. He had in him as per that fax from 2007. Funny thing is, the most advanced Cycling team in the world, Sky, had no idea how simple it is even though they had Wiggo loosing 10Kg and aiming for GT greatness. Brailsfraud, Kerisson and all the other geniuses at team Sky did not manage to improve on Froome. He was always good, the fax tell us clearly. Whatever happened at the end of those four dark years just on the eve of Vuelta in 2011 remains a mystery.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

It comes back to the 2006 Commonwealth Games ITT. The field was not strong. He had proper equipment, it was one hour long in good but hot conditions. He finished 5 minutes back

Honest question, and one that is at least peripherally related to the general topic of this thread (i.e., Froome's physiology): anybody know how/where Froome prepared for that event, and/or how well he performed in other hot TTs around that time?

(A cyclist with a high absolute power output but who has 17% body fat would likely have difficulty adequately dissipating the large amount of heat they generate. Yes, I know that Froome grew up where it is hot, but acclimatization to the heat is something that is gained and/or lost relatively quickly.)

Come on Andy, you can do better. Heath? The guy wrestled with Lions and Snakes for fun. Didnt you read Jungle Book?

Jungle Chris love heath.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The guy has made zero physiological progression in 8 years of racing and training. He just lost weight.

That conclusion cannot be draw from the data that has been made available, since the 2007 testing apparently did not include evaluation of either his lactate threshold or his efficiency, only measurement of his VO2max.

(Indeed, even these 2015 data do not include measurement of his efficiency, which I find a bit puzzling. They also screwed up calculation of his threshold using the Dmax and modified Dmax methods, but that's another story.)

Agreed. The 2007 test is rather unusual, there looks to be several other pages under the top page. Maybe there is other data?

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Your'e assuming he was always outright team leader, in a team capable of winning races, in every race he entered though and with the mindset and confidence of someone who knows he has a chance to win, which is what it's all about. I would argue until 2012, Froome never rode as a team leader whatsoever. Unless he races some one-day races now, you can't even look at results in Worlds or Nationals.
My point is, the difference in the performance of a super-domestique and even general-domestique who can climb, is not as big as the gap between themselves and the GC leaders they were riding for is when looking at final GC
Just look at Thomas this year, or Suitsu in either Barloworld or Sky for suggestion, that you can nearly be as good as the GC guys as a domestique, but looking at palamares will never indicate such performance similarities. Explaining it away with weight loss is only part of the picture.

Your argument falls down because Brailsford would not leave any stone unturned in his quest to get the maximum out of his riders. Why did Michelle Cound claim she took over Froome's diet? Why are we now hearing it was weight loss that held Froome back and not the blood disease, Bilharzia or his asthma?

Sorry this test is not answering anything. We have seen similar charades with Armstrong.

If weight loss is the key to riders performance why only Froome at Sky? Why not EBH? Why only Thomas this year? Why not 2 years ago?

Sorry, Sky did not see Froome's big engine or potential because if they did he would have been put forward for team leader in smaller races to see his engine perform. They didn't, he was a dom and not even a great one for Sky hence they tried to get rid of him. If Froome had this great engine we would have seen a Stannard type of performance from him at races. We didn't.

Part of that is easy to explain, Froome is an outsider in terms of the Brits on Sky's team. The rest have come from track backgrounds mainly with BC. They've even said Wiggins and a few others were the priority in terms of being GC contended so they weren't going to be looking at Froome in that context. Plus in the first few years Sky were a joke of a team. Add in the fact that he himself was clueless at making the most of his talents and tactics wise and you wouldn't expect him to be performing at the highest GC level even if he did possess the physiological capability. Anyway the data from 2007 puts a big hole in one of the clinics favourite theories that he never the physiological attributes to ride as a GC contender.

 

[bigcog]

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.

Yes they've fabricated the evidence. You forgot they've also bought off the trainer at the UCI in 2007 who said he such talent.

 

[bigcog]

Re:

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

What, he'd been identified in Kenya or South Africa ? They would have performance tested a teenager who was just cycling for school club. hahaha

 

[bigcog]

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.

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that the lab might have fabricated the results themselves in 2007 to inflate the results of a young Konica Minolta rider for reasons best known to themselves.

Or are you suggesting that the WADA accredited lab in Lausanne would be happy for Michelle Froome to falsify their reports?

Neither sounds very likely to me.

They hate the data from 2007 because it blows apart a large part of their 'he hasn't got the physiology so must be a doper' theory. Now it's become a falsified data/report. Can't say it's a surprise mind.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

It defies any logic. Froome appears, via a fax sent to Zorzoli which surfaces after 8 years, to be the new Hinault and then some. Nobody had the curiosity to check this story in all these years since he became a world beater except Michelle camp with the purpose of showing that her Chris was good even from young age. In all those years until Vuelta 2011 two WT teams have Froome under contract yet they have no idea that they have the new Hinault under contract. No physiological tests from these periods have been made public and, strategically, Sky is not part of this recent study hence they don't have to show Froome's numbers while he was a grupetto dom with the British team.

That fax is the only proof that Froome has to convince us that he was always good and that's why they revealed it to the public in this context of new tests when he is the best in the world. (I still think it's dubious but let's pretend it's real)

What happened during four years? It is a total blackout. All he had to do in order to win Le Tour, and this is the conclusion of the Esquire piece for their readers, is drop the weight. That's it. He had in him as per that fax from 2007. Funny thing is, the most advanced Cycling team in the world, Sky, had no idea how simple it is even though they had Wiggo loosing 10Kg and aiming for GT greatness. Brailsfraud, Kerisson and all the other geniuses at team Sky did not manage to improve on Froome. He was always good, the fax tell us clearly. Whatever happened at the end of those four dark years just on the eve of Vuelta in 2011 remains a mystery.

Good post.

Also remember that in his book Froome writes that he was doing well in tests all the time. Everytime some new trainer looked at Froome's superhuman results and went running to DB, gasping "OMG OMG you won't believe what results Chris put out", Brailsford would dismiss them with a casual "That's Chris".

But.

Neither Froome, nor his supertrainers nor Brailsford could ever figure out what was the reason for his tests to be so good and his road performance to be so pathetic.

It was weightloss all along?

What even after in 2009 Wiggins discovered weightloss they never thought to apply it to Froome until 2011?
lol sure

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Personally, as the test data from 2007 has been talked about long ago, I don't disbelieve it. It is also consistent with the new data.

The question is, as I said earlier, and as Hog is asking, why was he so ordinary on a bike back in 2007? Why wasn't he translating that potential? It might not even be a clinic answer...but it's a big and frickin obvious question.
I don't buy John Swanson's assertion that the 2007 data is baloney... there is just something else there. None of us know what it is yet....and there ain't too much point going over the x,000 posts in the Froome thread again.

Either the data is baloney (as the medical sheet has been highlighted) or Froome is the biggest anomaly known to man kind. Basically Clark Kent and didn't know his own strength as a 22 year old and was afraid to use it in races.

It comes back to the 2006 Commonwealth Games ITT. The field was not strong. He had proper equipment, it was one hour long in good but hot conditions. He finished 5 minutes back, not one minute or 90 seconds accounting for poor position, 5 minutes in 40km! In fact every time he went near a TT same situation. He raced in many shorter races, early career where this power could have been transferred to good placing's, never happened, not even a little bit.

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Personally, as the test data from 2007 has been talked about long ago, I don't disbelieve it. It is also consistent with the new data.

The question is, as I said earlier, and as Hog is asking, why was he so ordinary on a bike back in 2007? Why wasn't he translating that potential? It might not even be a clinic answer...but it's a big and frickin obvious question.
I don't buy John Swanson's assertion that the 2007 data is baloney... there is just something else there. None of us know what it is yet....and there ain't too much point going over the x,000 posts in the Froome thread again.

Either the data is baloney (as the medical sheet has been highlighted) or Froome is the biggest anomaly known to man kind. Basically Clark Kent and didn't know his own strength as a 22 year old and was afraid to use it in races.

It comes back to the 2006 Commonwealth Games ITT. The field was not strong. He had proper equipment, it was one hour long in good but hot conditions. He finished 5 minutes back, not one minute or 90 seconds accounting for poor position, 5 minutes in 40km! In fact every time he went near a TT same situation. He raced in many shorter races, early career where this power could have been transferred to good placing's, never happened, not even a little bit.

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

He was 23 years old. 14th in a gt tt is nothing special at all for a 23 yo. That's before we consider that Froome spent the whole week deliberately resting. Or the fact that only about 15 people bother to actually ride a gt 3rd week tt and the rest cruise within the timelimit just to get through

 

[The Hitch]

Point someone made on twitter:
If the data are reliable and genuine, why weren't they made public earlier?
After all, the VO2 max from 2007 supports the claim he had a decent engine from the start, so why not make that public earlier.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

Point someone made on twitter:
If the data are reliable and genuine, why weren't they made public earlier?
After all, the VO2 max from 2007 supports the claim he had a decent engine from the start, so why not make that public earlier.

Because nobody besides the Countess of Whales could get access to them, and Jonathan of Vaughters of course.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

That shows he was or could be a decent time-trialist. Nothing more, nothing less. It's comparable to this result by 22-year-old Bertogliati.

See, taking isolated results out of context doesn't really say much.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Point someone made on twitter:
If the data are reliable and genuine, why weren't they made public earlier?
After all, the VO2 max from 2007 supports the claim he had a decent engine from the start, so why not make that public earlier.

And that would have kept his contract at Sky or got him a nice pay cheque elsewhere with Bruyneel...?

In fact Walsh would have put those results in his book to demonstrate the engine was always there.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

That shows he was or could be a decent time-trialist. Nothing more, nothing less. It's comparable to this result by 22-year-old Bertogliati.

See, taking isolated results out of context doesn't really say much.

So first you say he didn't produce any performances in that period that indicate he had GC potential, when someone points out such a performance in the biggest GT of them all in his first year as a pro, when he was probably the most inexperienced cyclist in the peloton given his prior experience, it is discarded as evidence because it doesn't fit your agenda. Oh big surprise... pathetic.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

That shows he was or could be a decent time-trialist. Nothing more, nothing less. It's comparable to this result by 22-year-old Bertogliati.

See, taking isolated results out of context doesn't really say much.

So first you say he didn't produce any performances in that period that indicate he had GC potential, when someone points out such a performance in the biggest GT of them all in his first year as a pro, when he was probably the most inexperienced cyclist in the peloton given his prior experience, it is discarded as evidence because it doesn't fit your agenda. Oh big surprise... pathetic.

Did Bertogliati have GT GC potential? Sad to know he wasted it so thoroughly.

And who's this "you" you're referring to? Because that was my first post in this particular discussion.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

That shows he was or could be a decent time-trialist. Nothing more, nothing less. It's comparable to this result by 22-year-old Bertogliati.

See, taking isolated results out of context doesn't really say much.

So first you say he didn't produce any performances in that period that indicate he had GC potential, when someone points out such a performance in the biggest GT of them all in his first year as a pro, when he was probably the most inexperienced cyclist in the peloton given his prior experience, it is discarded as evidence because it doesn't fit your agenda. Oh big surprise... pathetic.

He finished 33rd off the pace in the Stage 4 ITT, one minute off TT'ing powerhouse 24 year old Vincezo Nibali over 29km.

Not sure what happened to that Nibali guy.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

That shows he was or could be a decent time-trialist. Nothing more, nothing less. It's comparable to this result by 22-year-old Bertogliati.

See, taking isolated results out of context doesn't really say much.

So first you say he didn't produce any performances in that period that indicate he had GC potential, when someone points out such a performance in the biggest GT of them all in his first year as a pro, when he was probably the most inexperienced cyclist in the peloton given his prior experience, it is discarded as evidence because it doesn't fit your agenda. Oh big surprise... pathetic.

He finished 33rd off the pace in the Stage 4 ITT, one minute off TT'ing powerhouse 24 year old Vincezo Nibali over 29km.

Not sure what happened to that Nibali guy.

That doesnt count, he whore sandshoes that day, and a sombrero, no aero at Barloworld, just booz and drugs, besides froomey of course.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

That shows he was or could be a decent time-trialist. Nothing more, nothing less. It's comparable to this result by 22-year-old Bertogliati.

See, taking isolated results out of context doesn't really say much.

So first you say he didn't produce any performances in that period that indicate he had GC potential, when someone points out such a performance in the biggest GT of them all in his first year as a pro, when he was probably the most inexperienced cyclist in the peloton given his prior experience, it is discarded as evidence because it doesn't fit your agenda. Oh big surprise... pathetic.

He finished 33rd off the pace in the Stage 4 ITT, one minute off TT'ing powerhouse 24 year old Vincezo Nibali over 29km.

Not sure what happened to that Nibali guy.

So ? You were all going on about he had never produced one performance in that period of any merit. He did as a 1st year pro despite called up to the TDF team on short notice and I think the recent death of his mother. You really do like shifting the goal posts when the data doesn't fit your narrative don't you ? Next you'll be saying he should have won the GC that year.

 

[BullsFan22]

It's obvious Froome is well protected.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

'He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro - which shows not inconsiderable potential.' - Better ignore that eh ?

That shows he was or could be a decent time-trialist. Nothing more, nothing less. It's comparable to this result by 22-year-old Bertogliati.

See, taking isolated results out of context doesn't really say much.

So first you say he didn't produce any performances in that period that indicate he had GC potential, when someone points out such a performance in the biggest GT of them all in his first year as a pro, when he was probably the most inexperienced cyclist in the peloton given his prior experience, it is discarded as evidence because it doesn't fit your agenda. Oh big surprise... pathetic.

He finished 33rd off the pace in the Stage 4 ITT, one minute off TT'ing powerhouse 24 year old Vincezo Nibali over 29km.

Not sure what happened to that Nibali guy.

So ? You were all going on about he had never produced one performance in that period of any merit. He did as a 1st year pro despite called up to the TDF team on short notice and I think the recent death of his mother. You really do like shifting the goal posts when the data doesn't fit your narrative don't you ? Next you'll be saying he should have won the GC that year.

Are you misreading 14th as 4th?

Because just to make it clear, Froome finished 14th.

Nothing special for a 23 year old, nothing special at all. Keep digging through his results list though. Maybe something will stick.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

"
Are you misreading 14th as 4th?

Because just to make it clear, Froome finished 14th.

Nothing special for a 23 year old, nothing special at all. Keep digging through his results list though. Maybe something will stick."

Thanks for proving my point so eloquently. I did say you would say he should have finished first or near the very top even as first year pro.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

It comes back to the 2006 Commonwealth Games ITT. The field was not strong. He had proper equipment, it was one hour long in good but hot conditions. He finished 5 minutes back

Honest question, and one that is at least peripherally related to the general topic of this thread (i.e., Froome's physiology): anybody know how/where Froome prepared for that event, and/or how well he performed in other hot TTs around that time?

(A cyclist with a high absolute power output but who has 17% body fat would likely have difficulty adequately dissipating the large amount of heat they generate. Yes, I know that Froome grew up where it is hot, but acclimatization to the heat is something that is gained and/or lost relatively quickly.)

Come on Andy, you can do better. Heath? The guy wrestled with Lions and Snakes for fun. Didnt you read Jungle Book?

Jungle Chris love heath.

Sorry, but you totally lost me here.