- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
- Sep 16, 2010
- 7,617
- 1,054
- 20,680
Re: Re:
How in the name of God are you involving UCI in this? How? It's Froome's initiative, his response to those calling for such test data. How are you linking this to UCI?
Are you keeping up with *any* of this? The GSK tests were August. The WCC tests were 2007.
You are assuming there are blood/urine tests - beyond lactate tests - in addition to the physiological ones? Or are you asking how we can know he didn't find his doppelgänger and send him in to do the tests?
I thought this was Doping 101 round here, you know the glow time, you know how long it''ll impact a passport profile?
86TDFWinner said:
How in the name of God are you involving UCI in this? How? It's Froome's initiative, his response to those calling for such test data. How are you linking this to UCI?
86TDFWinner said:
Are you keeping up with *any* of this? The GSK tests were August. The WCC tests were 2007.
86TDFWinner said:
You are assuming there are blood/urine tests - beyond lactate tests - in addition to the physiological ones? Or are you asking how we can know he didn't find his doppelgänger and send him in to do the tests?
86TDFWinner said:
I thought this was Doping 101 round here, you know the glow time, you know how long it''ll impact a passport profile?
Re: Re:
Yes for reals. The wording is not unambiguous and a number of posters would agree. You seem to be the only person on here who is sure of what is meant by the passage.fmk_RoI said:
Re:
suggests (or, if you like, infers
) favourable outcome for the Froome....otherwise no need for any conspiracy theory..
harryh said:
suggests (or, if you like, infers
) favourable outcome for the Froome....otherwise no need for any conspiracy theory..
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
From Ross Tucker:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/what-to-expect-from-chris-froomes-physiological-test-data/
I don't quite follow that efficiency is inverse to VO2max. I can understand it at a constant power, that's obvious, but I can't see why it logically follows at maximum effort/threshold/whatever.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/what-to-expect-from-chris-froomes-physiological-test-data/
I don't quite follow that efficiency is inverse to VO2max. I can understand it at a constant power, that's obvious, but I can't see why it logically follows at maximum effort/threshold/whatever.
- Feb 16, 2010
- 15,341
- 6,036
- 28,180
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
Yes, as DW notes, several studies have provided some evidence that efficiency and V02max tend to be inversely correlated. The relationship isn't really logical, it's empirical. Tucker says, "if you are very efficient, then the demand for oxygen is lower, even at maximum exercise, so your VO2max tends to be lower." That assumes that there is some constant energy level that has to be maintained, but of course there isn't. The greater the energy created, the more power. IOW, an elite athlete will have a higher demand for oxygen than an amateur, and so could certainly benefit from both greater V02max and greater efficiency.
There could be an evolutionary logic behind an inverse relationship, though. Taking in oxygen, transporting it to the muscles, and converting it to energy has limits, even in an elite athlete. There are metabolic costs to having larger lungs and heart, more blood vessel area, and larger muscles. The most powerful of our ancestors may have run up against these limits, which would have resulted in selection pressure for an inverse relationship. IOW, there would be diminishing returns for greater energy at some point, so that the ideal individual would have an energy output within some broad range. Under these conditions, the highest V02max values would tend to be associated with lower efficiencies, and vice-versa. Not because logically the one goes with the other, but because as a matter of survival, higher values of one may have had greater survival value if they were associated with lower values of the other.
Some other comments on Tucker's article:
This is exactly the V02max range I suggested earlier And I would add, Froome would have trouble with a higher V02max, as is would raise questions (even more than will be in any case) of why he wasn't better before 2011.
If Tucker is saying that seeing data from both periods would allow us to evaluate how much effect schisto had on him, I have to assume he hasn't followed the schisto story very closely. As Hitch in particular has documented, there are major inconsistencies in that story that seriously undercut its plausibility for his improved performance in 2011. Froome isn't going to be able to point to lower values in 2007 and say, these occurred at the same time that my blood system was compromised with schisto, because we already know from what he has said that there is no correlation. He was being treated for schisto well after his transformation in 2011, indeed, one of his treatments came not long after his original Vuelta surprise. Furthermore, someone, was it Walsh? Grappe? I don't remember who, but someone claimed to have seen his passport values pre-2011, and said they were completely normal. Not to mention that the five treatments he has owned up to are virtually unprecedented and unexplainable for anyone with the disease.
Fair enough. Since Tucker pointed out earlier in this piece that the data aren't going to show that Froome either doped or is clean, there's no reason why the researchers shouldn't be trustworthy.
There could be an evolutionary logic behind an inverse relationship, though. Taking in oxygen, transporting it to the muscles, and converting it to energy has limits, even in an elite athlete. There are metabolic costs to having larger lungs and heart, more blood vessel area, and larger muscles. The most powerful of our ancestors may have run up against these limits, which would have resulted in selection pressure for an inverse relationship. IOW, there would be diminishing returns for greater energy at some point, so that the ideal individual would have an energy output within some broad range. Under these conditions, the highest V02max values would tend to be associated with lower efficiencies, and vice-versa. Not because logically the one goes with the other, but because as a matter of survival, higher values of one may have had greater survival value if they were associated with lower values of the other.
Some other comments on Tucker's article:
This is exactly the V02max range I suggested earlier And I would add, Froome would have trouble with a higher V02max, as is would raise questions (even more than will be in any case) of why he wasn't better before 2011.
If Tucker is saying that seeing data from both periods would allow us to evaluate how much effect schisto had on him, I have to assume he hasn't followed the schisto story very closely. As Hitch in particular has documented, there are major inconsistencies in that story that seriously undercut its plausibility for his improved performance in 2011. Froome isn't going to be able to point to lower values in 2007 and say, these occurred at the same time that my blood system was compromised with schisto, because we already know from what he has said that there is no correlation. He was being treated for schisto well after his transformation in 2011, indeed, one of his treatments came not long after his original Vuelta surprise. Furthermore, someone, was it Walsh? Grappe? I don't remember who, but someone claimed to have seen his passport values pre-2011, and said they were completely normal. Not to mention that the five treatments he has owned up to are virtually unprecedented and unexplainable for anyone with the disease.
Fair enough. Since Tucker pointed out earlier in this piece that the data aren't going to show that Froome either doped or is clean, there's no reason why the researchers shouldn't be trustworthy.
- May 11, 2013
- 13,995
- 5,289
- 28,180
Re:
This part is even better:
“Is it a risk for Froome to release these power numbers? His rivals will see them, for sure, but going from there to the races, what will it mean?” Slongo added.
“It’s like if your car goes 50kph and mine 48… I can see how fast yours goes but I can’t do anything legally to change my speed"
Benotti69 said:
This part is even better:
“Is it a risk for Froome to release these power numbers? His rivals will see them, for sure, but going from there to the races, what will it mean?” Slongo added.
“It’s like if your car goes 50kph and mine 48… I can see how fast yours goes but I can’t do anything legally to change my speed"
- Sep 16, 2010
- 7,617
- 1,054
- 20,680
Re: Re:
You really - really - think that what was written means he got the 2007 WCC results and then did the GSK tests in August? You don't think it means that he did the GSK tests in August and after that - since when - he obtained from the WCC the results of his 2007 tests?
Since when did "since when" - as used by Tom Cary in that article - not mean "after which"?
Serious question: is English a foreign language for you? Genuine question, no barbs attached.
bewildered said:
You really - really - think that what was written means he got the 2007 WCC results and then did the GSK tests in August? You don't think it means that he did the GSK tests in August and after that - since when - he obtained from the WCC the results of his 2007 tests?
Since when did "since when" - as used by Tom Cary in that article - not mean "after which"?
Serious question: is English a foreign language for you? Genuine question, no barbs attached.
Re:
It is definitely ambiguous. My reading could be completely wrong, but that is how data exchange would be talked about. The idiom is used incorrectly, so it should've been edited. As demonstrated above, I have never seen 'since when' used anywhere other than a question. JMO.
Merckx index said:
It is definitely ambiguous. My reading could be completely wrong, but that is how data exchange would be talked about. The idiom is used incorrectly, so it should've been edited. As demonstrated above, I have never seen 'since when' used anywhere other than a question. JMO.
- Sep 16, 2010
- 7,617
- 1,054
- 20,680
Re: Re:
Entry nine here.
If you think 'since when' can only be used as question, where was the question mark in Cary's article?
Try Googling something like "since when he has been"
djpbaltimore said:
Entry nine here.
If you think 'since when' can only be used as question, where was the question mark in Cary's article?
Try Googling something like "since when he has been"
I stand corrected about the usage of 'since when'. I originally thought that it was intended to be 'since then' and was a typo.
- Sep 16, 2010
- 7,617
- 1,054
- 20,680
Re:
So it wasn't "definitely ambiguous" after all? One had to make an assumption in order to read it as such? You had to be, as a wiser man than I claimed, reading into it things that are not actually there, raising questions about how objectively that poster will look at anything else?
djpbaltimore said:
So it wasn't "definitely ambiguous" after all? One had to make an assumption in order to read it as such? You had to be, as a wiser man than I claimed, reading into it things that are not actually there, raising questions about how objectively that poster will look at anything else?
Re: Re:
That is right, I have to change my earlier opinion. Going by the definition you linked above, the meaning for that passage becomes evident. YMMV
fmk_RoI said:
That is right, I have to change my earlier opinion. Going by the definition you linked above, the meaning for that passage becomes evident. YMMV
- Aug 11, 2012
- 2,621
- 24
- 11,530
Re:
I'm not sure what other/different test(s) you're talking about. I'm simply saying that whatever data/results/tests/etc Froome is doing to try to prove he's "cleans", most likely won't be anything that will nail him, or show any positives. It's all a calculated plan imo.
harryh said:
I'm not sure what other/different test(s) you're talking about. I'm simply saying that whatever data/results/tests/etc Froome is doing to try to prove he's "cleans", most likely won't be anything that will nail him, or show any positives. It's all a calculated plan imo.
- Aug 11, 2012
- 2,621
- 24
- 11,530
Re:
If what you're saying here is true, then this supposed current testing/release of info/ whatever by Froome is pointless then, because it won't show either way whether he's cleans or doping?
If what you're saying here is true, then this supposed current testing/release of info/ whatever by Froome is pointless then, because it won't show either way whether he's cleans or doping?
- Aug 11, 2012
- 2,621
- 24
- 11,530
Re: Re:
That's exactly what I was referring to.
gillan1969 said:harryh said:
suggests (or, if you like, infers
That's exactly what I was referring to.
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re:
Tucker is not saying that the testing from pre and post "transformation" will detail the effect of BadZhilla. He is saying that biological data would need to be provided between the two points and prior. Two stakes of testing in the ground only tell what Froome did on those two days and nothing in between.
Tucker is not saying that the testing from pre and post "transformation" will detail the effect of BadZhilla. He is saying that biological data would need to be provided between the two points and prior. Two stakes of testing in the ground only tell what Froome did on those two days and nothing in between.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 10K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram