The Froome Files, test data only thread

[The Hitch]

Re:

Everyone accepts now that he was never a donkey?

 

[LeindersGains]

Re: Re:

Everyone accepts now that he was never a donkey?

That's the problem. The 2007 data set from his testing is strong. However he never displayed this type of power anywhere ever in at period. Why is that? Why did it only appear once for this test?

Regardless of weight he should have been winning the 2006 Commenwealth Games TT with this output.

Something is not right here, it's even more mysterious.

We are talking about a rider who probably hadn't ridden a TT bike much if at all before those games, hell he didn't start riding in large pelotons until the following year. You can have all the power and potential in the world but if you can't put it onto the tarmac then it's useless.

Matt, seriously. That doesn't explain it. With this power regardless of weight who would have shown something in some race. He put it out on a bike in a test lab, why as soon as he rides outside the power disappears? Not buying that along with the other part is that he hasn't improved since he was 22 bar dropping weight.

At 69kg's 2010 with Sky with that power he would be at the front of the peloton not e groupetto. Losing 2 additional kgs doesn't then equate to sprint up mountains at the 2011 Vuleta and out TTing Wiggins.

I don't think anyone is denying that he could have been juicing up for the Vuelta 2011 in addiction to having lost some weight. But he seems to have had what it takes to become a pro based on the 2007 results. Even the most promising talents in the history of the sport have been using drugs to gain an advantage against rivals. I personally think that he is using the best ingredients available from the medicine cabinet to win. This is particularly noticeable after a day of rest. But for now, I also believe that it's a somewhat level playing field. Otherwise, they would never had let Porte go. Porte clearly knows what's going on. After the Col de la Pierre St Martin stage, the Sky camp kinda indicated the use of dope before the rest day when they were surprised that the rest had not "prepared themselves properly".

Perhaps they had expected Movistar, Nibali and Contador to be "better prepared" than they were that day. Only Movistar took note of it later and juiced up for the third week.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

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.

Its the subtle little lies like this that give away the fact that even the Sky vanguard doesn't really believe in Froome either or they wouldn't constantly be stretching the truth like this

20. GBR WIGGINS Bradley GRM 04'50"

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Everyone accepts now that he was never a donkey?

That's the problem. The 2007 data set from his testing is strong. However he never displayed this type of power anywhere ever in at period. Why is that? Why did it only appear once for this test?

Regardless of weight he should have been winning the 2006 Commenwealth Games TT with this output.

Something is not right here, it's even more mysterious.

We are talking about a rider who probably hadn't ridden a TT bike much if at all before those games, hell he didn't start riding in large pelotons until the following year. You can have all the power and potential in the world but if you can't put it onto the tarmac then it's useless.

Matt, seriously. That doesn't explain it. With this power regardless of weight who would have shown something in some race. He put it out on a bike in a test lab, why as soon as he rides outside the power disappears? Not buying that along with the other part is that he hasn't improved since he was 22 bar dropping weight.

At 69kg's 2010 with Sky with that power he would be at the front of the peloton not e groupetto. Losing 2 additional kgs doesn't then equate to sprint up mountains at the 2011 Vuleta and out TTing Wiggins.

I don't think anyone is denying that he could have been juicing up for the Vuelta 2011 in addiction to having lost some weight. But he seems to have had what it takes to become a pro based on the 2007 results. Even the most promising talents in the history of the sport have been using drugs to gain an advantage against rivals. I personally think that he is using the best ingredients available from the medicine cabinet to win. This is particularly noticeable after a day of rest. But for now, I also believe that it's a somewhat level playing field. Otherwise, they would never had let Porte go. Porte clearly knows what's going on. After the Col de la Pierre St Martin stage, the Sky camp kinda indicated the use of dope before the rest day when they were surprised that the rest had not "prepared themselves properly".

Perhaps they had expected Movistar, Nibali and Contador to be "better prepared" than they were that day. Only Movistar took note of it later and juiced up for the third week.

"level playing field"!!!!!!??????? How does a guy go from donkey to racehorse constitute level playing field? That would mean Contador should be able to win the TdF on a unicycle for a similar transformation!!!

Froome in a few weeks went from grupetto fodder to best GT rider in the world and would have won the Vuelta if not for waiting for Wiggins. How does that make it level?

 

[The Hitch]

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.

How would poor bike handling ability stop the greatest rider who ever lived from ever finishing outside the grupetto?

And if you paid any attention to Froome's story you will no Bilharzia never inhibited him at all since he wasn't cured of it until after he won the Tour de France.

So all your left is is weight loss. Average rider mysteriously loses insane ammounts of weight and loses no power just as weight loss drugs enter the market.

Total coincidence no doubt.

So no other rider uses weight loss drugs? Why are they only working for Froome then since 2007?

Not sure where anyone said other riders don't use weight loss drugs. Bassons said in his book it was a whole lot of the gc contenders not just one or two.
I mentioned Froome because this is the Froome thread.

 

[LeindersGains]

Re:

Isnt these tests depending on test subject going all out? And which doper would go all out if they were to be tested?

That's a valid point for sure! Although Froome has that innocent Tarzan personality going on. He doesn't come off as a great tactician.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Well, whatever. Let's see what the experts think.

Personally I think he should be cut some slack until there is a whiff of doping from an ex-teammate, an email, a phone call, a suspicious blood test, a passport irregularity, a syringe in a Coke can, a visit to Madrid, Sky's doping masterplan unveiled, his name on a document, lunch with Seb Coe or whatever.

well whatever, still the only explanation is weight loss, which when examined offers no explanation how he was crap for years as a pro then boom, best GT rider in the world!

So many pros will be crying into their fry ups this morning thinking if only they too could lose some weight they would be winning GTs, climbing with the best and TTing for glory, well whatever ......

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Everyone accepts now that he was never a donkey?

Based on anything Richard Moore writes, not a hope! But the evidence of him not being a donkey would be his results, but sadly they point to a donkey and Sky wanted rid of said donkey. Nice try, but nope.

 

[samhocking]

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, with their GC leader, is not as big as the gap between themselves and the GC leaders when looking at final GC as evidence.
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.

 

[LeindersGains]

Re: Re:

"level playing field"!!!!!!??????? How does a guy go from donkey to racehorse constitute level playing field? That would mean Contador should be able to win the TdF on a unicycle for a similar transformation!!!

Froome in a few weeks went from grupetto fodder to best GT rider in the world and would have won the Vuelta if not for waiting for Wiggins. How does that make it level?

It could be as simple as he had been "realizing" his potential through a simple combination of dope and weight loss.

I'm just pointing out that it may be less complex than we think.

 

[armchairclimber]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

We have not seen any official documentation that verifies his UCI tests as a young rider. In fact Richard 'omerta' Moore is the independent witness in all this so i take it all with a pinch of salt.

I mean GSK might have had massive MCE the day Froome did his tests...............

 

[TailWindHome]

Re:

We have not seen any official documentation that verifies his UCI tests as a young rider. In fact Richard 'omerta' Moore is the independent witness in all this so i take it all with a pinch of salt.

I mean GSK might have had massive MCE the day Froome did his tests...............

I'll ask again.
Where has it been claimed that Moore is an independent witness?

To my knowledge no one has claimed that he is anything other than a journalist given the opportunity to cover the story who then sold the story to Esquire.

 

[thehog]

Re:

We have not seen any official documentation that verifies his UCI tests as a young rider. In fact Richard 'omerta' Moore is the independent witness in all this so i take it all with a pinch of salt.

I mean GSK might have had massive MCE the day Froome did his tests...............

Yes we do. You have this neatly flayed piled of papers sent to Dr. Zorzoli at the UCI from the Laussane testing centre.

The key results are highlighted in bold and highlighted red.

Make of this what you will....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

How long is his "Peak Power Output" supposed to be? 1-2 min?

5

Uh no. It's 30 seconds.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

We have not seen any official documentation that verifies his UCI tests as a young rider. In fact Richard 'omerta' Moore is the independent witness in all this so i take it all with a pinch of salt.

I mean GSK might have had massive MCE the day Froome did his tests...............

Yes we do. You have this neatly flayed piled of papers sent to Dr. Zorzoli at the UCI from the Laussane testing centre.

The key results are highlighted in bold and highlighted red.

Make of this what you will....

Massive MCE there........

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

We have not seen any official documentation that verifies his UCI tests as a young rider. In fact Richard 'omerta' Moore is the independent witness in all this so i take it all with a pinch of salt.

I mean GSK might have had massive MCE the day Froome did his tests...............

I'll ask again.
Where has it been claimed that Moore is an independent witness?

To my knowledge no one has claimed that he is anything other than a journalist given the opportunity to cover the story who then sold the story to Esquire.

Froome has claimed the whole thing is 'INDEPENDENT'. So you think Moore is not independent? Then you dont trust what he is telling you? i dont!

Bet his computer had MCE writing this 'independent' test article.

 

[Joelsim]

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?

 

[thehog]

The interesting part of these results is they tell a good story, it fits in with the biopic. I'm at a loss why they chose not to reveal before, even in the Walsh book.

The blood data is still missing, we really need that to correlate the Badzhilla stories etc. but they're not going to be revealing that.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

We have not seen any official documentation that verifies his UCI tests as a young rider. In fact Richard 'omerta' Moore is the independent witness in all this so i take it all with a pinch of salt.

I mean GSK might have had massive MCE the day Froome did his tests...............

I'll ask again.
Where has it been claimed that Moore is an independent witness?

To my knowledge no one has claimed that he is anything other than a journalist given the opportunity to cover the story who then sold the story to Esquire.

Froome has claimed the whole thing is 'INDEPENDENT'. So you think Moore is not independent? Then you dont trust what he is telling you? i dont!

Bet his computer had MCE writing this 'independent' test article.

Even I agree you're barking up the wrong tree with this one. Moore just wrote a story wrapped around the testing. He even made mistakes like how EPO works. He's not central to the story here. The data is.

 

[harryh]

Re: Re:

How long is his "Peak Power Output" supposed to be? 1-2 min?

5

Uh no. It's 30 seconds.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 3 t3 tuntia sitten
@Devinmain PPO is the average recorded in the last minute during a ramp test to exhaustion. It's equivalent to what a rider can do for 5min.

 

[Irondan]

Another reminder that any off topic comments will be removed.

This includes general Froome doping conversation.

Don't say I have not warned you when I delete your comment.

 

[samhocking]

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.

The 'process' of a rider winning bike races doesn't come down to numbers. If it were every riders agent would simply value their riders according to such data and the rider with the best numbers demand the highest salary. Cycling and winning, is way more about the mindset of a rider and the strength of the team. Looking at rider data, palamares and weight is a part of it, but not the whole reason a rider wins or not.

 

[danielovichdk2]

Re: Re:

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.