The Froome Files, test data only thread

[TailWindHome]

It seems some people are struggling to accept the data which doesn't fit their existing opinion.
Ok.
It can be tough admitting you were wrong.

So as a 22 year old university drop out Froome had huge physiological potential, came from a relative cycling backwater and was a late developer in his career, showed some signs of this talent but took 4 years (2007 to 2011) to mature as a pro.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind want to speculate that if he was born in western Europe, even dare I say it the UK this talent may have been spotted earlier and he would have had a more conventional career path.

Makes you wonder just how many potential tour winners have finished the degree and got a nice job in a Big 4 firm like they were supposed to.

None of this of course proves he's clean. Some of the greatest physiological specimens in history have been doped to the eyeballs.

 

[Lyon]

Re:

what would be interesting is to compare other riders who have similar VO2 max values. Peraud is supposed to have 87-88 and EBH is also around 86 yet non of them are consistent like Froome and only some of them are climbers.
If they can release all of the other riders data who along with Froome were tested in 2007, it can put the whole thing in perspective w.r.t the peloton.

EBH has reportedly put on 2-3 kilos again. Judging from his progress last season it seems to have done him good. His new (old) coach has stated that SKY was big believers in loosing weight but that it (obviously) didn't work for EBH. I think it is safe to say that EBH's decline started when he had to give up having his own coach and deal exclusively with SKY's coaches. They don't exactly have a good track record in steadily improving their riders.

If EBH and Froome have similar numbers, and loosing weight is all it takes, how come the one with results goes backwards and the one without becomes one of the greatest cyclists ever? Overnight. Even taking into account all the little things that goes into making an athlete, and which makes each athlete different, the discrepancy seem to great.

 

[Lyon]

Re:

It seems some people are struggling to accept the data which doesn't fit their existing opinion.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind want to speculate that if he was born in western Europe, even dare I say it the UK this talent may have been spotted earlier and he would have had a more conventional career path.

Is South-Africa more of a cycling backwater than Norway? Than Slovakia?

 

[armchairclimber]

Re:

It seems some people are struggling to accept the data which doesn't fit their existing opinion.
Ok.
It can be tough admitting you were wrong.

So as a 22 year old university drop out Froome had huge physiological potential, came from a relative cycling backwater and was a late developer in his career, showed some signs of this talent but took 4 years (2007 to 2011) to mature as a pro.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind want to speculate that if he was born in western Europe, even dare I say it the UK this talent may have been spotted earlier and he would have had a more conventional career path.

Makes you wonder just how many potential tour winners have finished the degree and got a nice job in a Big 4 firm like they were supposed to.

None of this of course proves he's clean. Some of the greatest physiological specimens in history have been doped to the eyeballs.

Anyone who thinks that Froome in this photo is only 1 or 2 kilos heavier than Froome now needs to give their head a shake.
The Lab weights are likely correct. Give that we know how Froome is prone to "inaccuracies" when speaking with journalists about himself, the likelihood is that he was miles out when he reported his Barlowowrld weight as 71kg to Kimmage. Looking at this photo, and the one upthread, 7-8kg overweight is nearer the mark.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

I agree the pics do not need to be repeated /quoted every reply but it is hard to 'visualize' differences in body fat % mentally.

And pictures don't help because they are utterly misleading. I could post pictures of my forearms that would make me look to be in the 6-10% range but then post pictures of my stomach which would put me in the 10-15% range. I could do it after a meal and you'd think more like 20%.

The whole point of this thread is to discuss the data produced from these tests (and with that in mind the 2007 test is very relevant) not make silly assertions about things that are impossible to judge based on photos. That can only end up in an argument as has happened so many times before and seems like an attempt to derail what could be the most interesting thread in the clinic for a very long time.

I agree (so sorry for the quoted pic above). However, the reason the pics become crucial to the discussion is because some people have called into question the veracity of the 2007 data. Maybe because they're having a hard time fitting the data with their own narrative/beliefs. If we're just going to say "well the 2007 data is baloney" or the August data is manipulated for PR purposes then there ain't much point in discussing it.

I want to read the thoughts of MI, Alex, Coggan and, when he has seen the full data set, Ross Tucker. The snide, knowing and sarcastic posts don't help at all. Interrogating the data is good ... dismissing it is pointless.

 

[SundayRider]

No way he was almost 17% bf in 2007 - no way he could achieve that level of aerobic development like that his use of fat for fuel would have been terrible.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Michael Rasmussen@MRasmussen1974 2h

1)I just don't understand why he didn't crush everybody in the ITT in 2007 if the watts where higher than 2015?

all this data and still more unanswered questions!

Shitty equipment and probably piss poor positioning, cadence & gearing.

And how did his positioning improve. It's not like he went into a wind tunnel. Froome himself admits he didn't until 2013. Yet he won the Olympic bronze in 2012. Something doesn't add up.

As for poor equipment, Hog can post the 2007 picture again if you like. Nothing shitty about that equipment at all.

Do you have a source for that? I find it extremely hard to believe that he didn't spend any time in a wind tunnel when Sky realised he may be worth a contract after all after the 2011 Vuelta. Not that that explains why he suddenly improved in the ITT as well for the Vuelta

 

[IndianCyclist]

Re: Re:

what would be interesting is to compare other riders who have similar VO2 max values. Peraud is supposed to have 87-88 and EBH is also around 86 yet non of them are consistent like Froome and only some of them are climbers.
If they can release all of the other riders data who along with Froome were tested in 2007, it can put the whole thing in perspective w.r.t the peloton.

EBH has reportedly put on 2-3 kilos again. Judging from his progress last season it seems to have done him good. His new (old) coach has stated that SKY was big believers in loosing weight but that it (obviously) didn't work for EBH. I think it is safe to say that EBH's decline started when he had to give up having his own coach and deal exclusively with SKY's coaches. They don't exactly have a good track record in steadily improving their riders.

If EBH and Froome have similar numbers, and loosing weight is all it takes, how come the one with results goes backwards and the one without becomes one of the greatest cyclists ever? Overnight. Even taking into account all the little things that goes into making an athlete, and which makes each athlete different, the discrepancy seem to great.

for me loosing wt is always associated with the loss of power. Froome seems to have kept his while loosing 10kgs. Paul Sherwen's oft mentioned about LA used to be "he lost a lot of weight but kept most of his strength". Guess some people are better responders to the weight loss method. Guys like Hejesdal & EBH though failed. Though partly it would also be EBH's fault. He was a great domestique for Wiggins & Froome in the TDF. Had he left the TDF probably would have fared better.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

.

2007
wow look at that neck and cheeks

 

[Cycle Chic]

Re:

I thought this thread was about the data? Please lets not turn it into another stupid photo assessment thread. There has been some really interesting discussion so far, don't ruin it.

yeh for goodness sake enough about his weight

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Michael Rasmussen@MRasmussen1974 2h

1)I just don't understand why he didn't crush everybody in the ITT in 2007 if the watts where higher than 2015?

all this data and still more unanswered questions!

Shitty equipment and probably piss poor positioning, cadence & gearing.

And how did his positioning improve. It's not like he went into a wind tunnel. Froome himself admits he didn't until 2013. Yet he won the Olympic bronze in 2012. Something doesn't add up.

As for poor equipment, Hog can post the 2007 picture again if you like. Nothing shitty about that equipment at all.

Do you have a source for that? I find it extremely hard to believe that he didn't spend any time in a wind tunnel when Sky realised he may be worth a contract after all after the 2011 Vuelta. Not that that explains why he suddenly improved in the ITT as well for the Vuelta

Brailsford said they had not got Froome in for wind tunnel testing.

Why would sky need to put him in a wind tunnel after he blew everyone away in 2012?

 

[gillan1969]

froome's physiology

against: 4 years of mediocrity
for: 1 page fax from....eh....zorzoli

case closed

 

[Benotti69]

So Froome was 68kg at 2006 Melbourne games!

https://mobile.twitter.com/FIacoo/status/672974832825446400/photo/1

Richard Moore says it is not reliable....hahaha

 

[hrotha]

As noted, he was also 10 cm shorter back then if you take that record at face value.

It *is* probably not reliable.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

As noted, he was also 10 cm shorter back then if you take that record at face value.

It *is* probably not reliable.

fair remark

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

As noted, he was also 10 cm shorter back then if you take that record at face value.

It *is* probably not reliable.

Yes, but why trust UCI data from a guy like Zorzoli or any UCI data? They lost their credibility a long time ago.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

As noted, he was also 10 cm shorter back then if you take that record at face value.

It *is* probably not reliable.

Yes, but why trust UCI data from a guy like Zorzoli or any UCI data? They lost their credibility a long time ago.

the new dtata can be at least be 'peer-reviewed' however the one page fax cannot and in moore's words this is the 'interesting bit"...or the magic bullet...'he was always good...yeah yeah ignore the results...we have a fax" i paraphrase

Bliars 45 min WMD claim was famously single source of course. We have some other UCI guy saying he was like Hinault...however I'm not sure that Hinault has 'test results'...in fact I can imagine anyone suggesing he go to a lab being given short shrift as he headed off for another 150kms on the big ring...

 

[bewildered]

of course we should be talking about his weight. That is the most relevant thing in these tests. His physiological data in the GSK report was always going to be impressive, we already knew that from the numbers he's been pushing on climbs the last 4 years. If his 2007 tests didn't say the same thing then they wouldn't have been released.

We've been told for 4 years that Bilharzia was the reason he didn't ride like he is currently for 4 years between 2007 and 2011. Now we are being told that weight is the reason, despite Walsh stating in Inside Team Sky that he was 'consistently underweight' while he had Bilharzia and that he wasn't cured of all of his afflictions until 2012 or 2013.

There is nothing in these latest data that explains why he transformed as a rider in 2 weeks between Poland '11 and Vuelta '11 and has had the palmares of a completely different rider since or how he can dominate both TTs and climbs, something peculiar to the EPO era and since. These are the two biggest red flags and loss of weight and/or illness does not explain either,

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

Do you have a source for that? I find it extremely hard to believe that he didn't spend any time in a wind tunnel when Sky realised he may be worth a contract after all after the 2011 Vuelta.

Well, you're certainly not the only one befuddled by the fact that Team Science never bothered with one of the most common approaches to improving one's TT position. But it's been well covered, and oft repeated. I mean, seriously.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...ns-challenge-to-Tour-de-France-ambitions.html

Despite being the Olympic bronze medallist in the discipline and runner-up to Wiggins in both long time-trials in this year’s Tour [2012], Froome has never tested his position and bike in a wind tunnel. In time-trial terms, he has been operating in the Stone Age, with elbows out as if riding a scooter.

Froome described his riding style as “rugged” with ample room for improvement, even if the time trials will not be as decisive on next year’s Tour. “I’m making a lot of headway but there are so many things I can improve on,” he said.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Back to the data...

Still not a peep from Brailsford, Kerrison...or Knaven?

I imagine that Brailsford is staring at these numbers, mouth agape, with wonderment. "What are these mysterious methods of testing? What to make of all this elaborate machinery? If only we had access to such a laboratory in our own country!"

How Sky, of all teams on the entire planet, wouldn't be putting their most promising riders (if not their entire roster) through such testing, at least once a year, is mind boggling. In fact, it is so absolutely ludicrous that one might even be tempted to question Sky's credibility.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

As noted, he was also 10 cm shorter back then if you take that record at face value.

It *is* probably not reliable.

Yes, but why trust UCI data from a guy like Zorzoli or any UCI data? They lost their credibility a long time ago.

the new dtata can be at least be 'peer-reviewed' however the one page fax cannot and in moore's words this is the 'interesting bit"...or the magic bullet...'he was always good...yeah yeah ignore the results...we have a fax" i paraphrase

Bliars 45 min WMD claim was famously single source of course. We have some other UCI guy saying he was like Hinault...however I'm not sure that Hinault has 'test results'...in fact I can imagine anyone suggesing he go to a lab being given short shrift as he headed off for another 150kms on the big ring...

Did Froome pee into a cup and give a blood sample the day of the tests? Not that testing can catch anyone who knows their stuff.....

I think the data proves absolutely nothing and it brings more questions than it answers. But that is another reason to do it. Obfuscation is the name of the game.

 

[samhocking]

Re:

of course we should be talking about his weight. That is the most relevant thing in these tests. His physiological data in the GSK report was always going to be impressive, we already knew that from the numbers he's been pushing on climbs the last 4 years. If his 2007 tests didn't say the same thing then they wouldn't have been released.

We've been told for 4 years that Bilharzia was the reason he didn't ride like he is currently for 4 years between 2007 and 2011. Now we are being told that weight is the reason, despite Walsh stating in Inside Team Sky that he was 'consistently underweight' while he had Bilharzia and that he wasn't cured of all of his afflictions until 2012 or 2013.

There is nothing in these latest data that explains why he transformed as a rider in 2 weeks between Poland '11 and Vuelta '11 and has had the palmares of a completely different rider since or how he can dominate both TTs and climbs, something peculiar to the EPO era and since. These are the two biggest red flags and loss of weight and/or illness does not explain either,

So there's evidence of a drug out there that can transform an average athlete in '2 weeks' ? Seems as far-fetched as Sky saying they have extra round wheels lol!

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: The 2007 UCI Data

I'd like to know why Inspector Cound seems to have been the only one capable of tracking down this elusive piece of the puzzle. For years there were rumors and whispers about these supposed champion-in-the-making test results. For the past year, at least, many had been clamoring for this information. So how difficult could this have been?

Whoever was involved in the original tests certainly knew that they were involved in the original tests, and it is beyond belief that they weren't aware that there was a growing interest in the results of that time. Froome, and Team Sky, were under more scrutiny during the 2015 TdF than at any other time in their collective history. In the midst of all that, no one steps forward and says, "Oh hey, over here! I've got what you're looking for!"
Really?

When the winner of the TdF is under the microscope of public opinion, the entire sport is under the microscope. So what would it have taken for Cookson to resolve the matter of these tests that were performed while Froome was under the care of UCI's own development center? A phone call? A small-group email?

Hey guys and gals, could we please get to the bottom of this once-and-for-all?

When were the tests done?
Who was there?
Where are the results?

I'll expect some definitive answers within 48 hours. Thanks.

Yours,

Brian

Does this look like the type of place that doesn't keep track of their own records?
The World Cycling Centre (WCC), which houses the headquarters of the International Cycling Union (UCI), is an elite coaching and training centre.

But no. They just let it fester nearly endlessly, allowing more doubt and suspicion to creep into the mix. That is, until Professor Cound comes along to save the day.

And here we are.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

What is all this argument about the data ? Sky fans have it that Brailsford is a genius and the greatest cycling team manager that ever strode across the planet. We have facts that Froome was not performing and Brailsford was in negotiations to palm the Dawg off onto another team.

Team Sky are a multi-million pound enterprise. Murdoch closed the News of the World. Just what are the stakes here for how many people ?

Factually we had this year's Tour climbing data that Sky put out. This was Data Release 1.0. Sadly the factual twist on the data ( multiply everything by 0.87 or whatever it was) they put out, was seen through immediately. Froome, on lower power outputs, was spanking riders putting out more. It really did evidence the contempt with which many in professional cycling view the fan base. "Oh yeah we reduced it because he had elliptical chainrings". Err no - you reduced it to try to undermine all the guys who put numbers to what we had all seen - the Dawg rocketing up the climbs was as Extra Terrestial as supreme tester Big Mig suddenly being able to outclimb the climbers when Banesto got ahead of everyone else with EPO management. Robert Millar - "Suddenly guys with backsides as big as buses were coming past me on the climbs."

So Sky go for Data Release 2.0. They have a multi-million operation to protect. Who thinks that what is going out to the public is going to be the actual data ? If they are stupid enough to leave some holes in it that give experts a small leverage then, it is only because they did not put maximum effort into the disguise. Once again this is of the level of "we win by fluffing pillows" or "we have rounder wheels" type stuff. Those who are disposed to believing it, have something to hang onto and present to others as "substantial defence" for the miraculous transformations we see in a sport historically overpopulated in miracle transformations.

The Hog points out the facts relating to this "big engine" being somewhat temperamental in its output. That would be like Cav, in his peak years, going through periods getting his backside handed to him in sprints and then whipping the best of the best in others. It doesn't happen. I accept that as not being team leader his chance to shine was restricted by the team duties given to him, but the guy giving him those duties, the guy closest to him, to manage him and who is a genius at picking talent, didn't spot this engine.

For me, I am giving this thread a wide berth. Good luck to you all. I am going to gaze at my picture of Michele's mum when she won that body builder competition (now there is a "sport" where they don't give a rat's a * * e what stuff you inject or shove down your throat) and think of all those nice friendly doctors available in Monaco, who are so expert in athletic performance and beating the tests.

Question for everyone - who is currently leading in the PED arms race - testers or dopers ? My money is not on the testers. Can someone tell me just how many riders have been done for Aicar ? Now tell me what the multiplication factor is to users in the professional cycling peloton.

Sky stinks of the same fetid odor as USPostal did. Pro sport is above all an industry. That industry has come to determine who the champions should be, based upon their connection with the biggest market. Was LA not covered by the UCI for any other reason than he allowed cycing to grow in the immense US/Anglo markets?

I detect a similar scent of sulfur in the air of this British champion dominated cycling. In the incandescent moment besides, in which the sport's credibility has reached its nadar, it's better to take advanatage of the "ethical" status Britain enjoys over the currupt image Continental Europe brings to bear.

As I said before when Armstrong became king: povero Pantani, and it appears just so with the second coming of the Messiah for today's cycling.

 

[veganrob]

So Froome gained 4 kilos after the Tdf which is very understandable. But to then have to drop that same 4k in a couple weeks for the Vuelta just screams Aicar.