The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Saint Unix]

If the 2007 test data was par for the course for Froome, you'd imagine a conversation between Leinders and Brailsford at the start of the 2011 season going something like this:

"Did you get the lab results, Dave?"
"Yep. They're all here."
"Ah yes. Eddy's doing well as usual. Wiggins still at 0% body fat, I see."
"Yep. Very much the same as last season."
"Quite a few decen... JESUS CHRIST!"
"What?"
"Have you seen this?!?"
"Oh, ha ha. Yes, that's just Chris."
"What do you mean 'That's just Chris'?!?"
"Every year he goes into the lab and almost blows out the equipment. Just one of those things, I suppose."
"This is Chris Froome, right? The one who who was getting hauled by motorbikes?"
"That's the one, yes."
"And why isn't he... you know... winning things?"
"No idea."
"Have you checked his riding position?"
"Yes. It's terrible."
"Hmm... what about his weight?"
"He's pushing on 20% body fat."
"And his blood work?"
"Full of worms."
"Have you sent him to a wind tunnel at least? Maybe he could still win a few time trials?"
"Nah."
"Damn it, Dave. We've tried everything!"

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

If the 2007 test data was par for the course for Froome, you'd imagine a conversation between Leinders and Brailsford at the start of the 2011 season going something like this:

 

[thehog]

Re:

If the 2007 test data was par for the course for Froome, you'd imagine a conversation between Leinders and Brailsford at the start of the 2011 season going something like this:

"Did you get the lab results, Dave?"
"Yep. They're all here."
"Ah yes. Eddy's doing well as usual. Wiggins still at 0% body fat, I see."
"Yep. Very much the same as last season."
"Quite a few decen... JESUS CHRIST!"
"What?"
"Have you seen this?!?"
"Oh, ha ha. Yes, that's just Chris."
"What do you mean 'That's just Chris'?!?"
"Every year he goes into the lab and almost blows out the equipment. Just one of those things, I suppose."
"This is Chris Froome, right? The one who who was getting hauled by motorbikes?"
"That's the one, yes."
"And why isn't he... you know... winning things?"
"No idea."
"Have you checked his riding position?"
"Yes. It's terrible."
"Hmm... what about his weight?"
"He's pushing on 20% body fat."
"And his blood work?"
"Full of worms."
"Have you sent him to a wind tunnel at least? Maybe he could still win a few time trials?"
"Nah."
"Damn it, Dave. We've tried everything!"

Very good

Spot the difference?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I don’t have a problem in claiming his effective CdA right now is better than in 2008, but that is not where the comparison begins and ends.

I was mainly commenting on factors to consider. I just quickly looked for examples of earlier set up and later set up to show there is definitely a positional difference but as I said, I've not looked at it in depth or specific times periods. Just suggesting perhaps those that do make more definite statements on reasons for relative TT performance differences should also consider these factors. Changes in performance are almost always multifactoral, and attempts to parse out each factor (legit or otherwise) require far more data that is or ever will be available.

As to impact of weight on CdA, there are other factors more likely to result in CdA changes than weight. The use of weight in estimating CdA is more about morphological formula to estimate CdA, i.e. the population trend is more weight = higher CdA (and taller or longer legs = higher CdA) but for an individual the change factors are more about position and equipment than weight per se (except where the weight change is such that it impacts ability to ride in a given position).

but yaw angles and chronos are never unilateral

 

[blackcat]

ones a little leaner, a little more doped, not hanging on to a car. both are riding bicycles. one is out of the saddle. they look like christ fromme the husband of mrs cound

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

I am sure if someone else posted two photos of TT position to show it worsened over time you'd be in line to dismiss their analysis.

(Instantaneous) photos tell very little of TT position.

Which is why I said what I said to start with, i.e. one cannot really know without the data. The fact that one cannot know the relative aerodynamics without the data does not mean it is not a factor.

And not having the data does not mean it must automatically be dismissed as not being relevant. It just means it's a known unknown.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

but yaw angles and chronos are never unilateral

That's certainly true, and some positions are better at higher yaw than others. The fastest riders though typically experience lower yaw angles, so there is a trend bias towards a bit more stretched* being better, on average. In general UCI regs limit how much one can experiment with this. When rules were not so constrictive then smart riders would have two position options to use depending on wind conditions.

* provided of course no bio-mechanical disadvantage

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

but yaw angles and chronos are never unilateral

That's certainly true, and some positions are better at higher yaw than others. The fastest riders though typically experience lower yaw angles, so there is a trend bias towards a bit more stretched* being better, on average. In general UCI regs limit how much one can experiment with this. When rules were not so constrictive then smart riders would have two position options to use depending on wind conditions.

* provided of course no bio-mechanical disadvantage

well done guys..more analysis of Froome's TT position in a few hours than in 4 years a SKY...who would have thunk it

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

If the 2007 test data was par for the course for Froome, you'd imagine a conversation between Leinders and Brailsford at the start of the 2011 season going something like this:

"Did you get the lab results, Dave?"
"Yep. They're all here."
"Ah yes. Eddy's doing well as usual. Wiggins still at 0% body fat, I see."
"Yep. Very much the same as last season."
"Quite a few decen... JESUS CHRIST!"
"What?"
"Have you seen this?!?"
"Oh, ha ha. Yes, that's just Chris."
"What do you mean 'That's just Chris'?!?"
"Every year he goes into the lab and almost blows out the equipment. Just one of those things, I suppose."
"This is Chris Froome, right? The one who who was getting hauled by motorbikes?"
"That's the one, yes."
"And why isn't he... you know... winning things?"
"No idea."
"Have you checked his riding position?"
"Yes. It's terrible."
"Hmm... what about his weight?"
"He's pushing on 20% body fat."
"And his blood work?"
"Full of worms."
"Have you sent him to a wind tunnel at least? Maybe he could still win a few time trials?"
"Nah."
"Damn it, Dave. We've tried everything!"

While it's a good attempt humour, you also raise an important point.

Froomes 2007 results being legit, froome not performing on the road and brailsford being a half decent coach, are mutually exclusive.

They can not all be true. We know for a fact though that point two - froome not performing on the road, is true. So sky are lying about either 1, 3 or both.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

Clearly he did not create the ideal environment for the athlete to perform or anything close to it. And as the manager if for one and a half years he couldn't get the greatest talent of all time to so much as finish ahead of the gruppeto, then he's not worth **** in that department either.

marginal loss is going to be the new marginal gain

weight, motiviation, bike handling, inexperience, tactics, not living in monaco, not going out with cound etc
add them all up and subtract from brilliant = crap

it's all easily explained.....

Lowered handlebars

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Clearly he did not create the ideal environment for the athlete to perform or anything close to it. And as the manager if for one and a half years he couldn't get the greatest talent of all time to so much as finish ahead of the gruppeto, then he's not worth **** in that department either.

marginal loss is going to be the new marginal gain

weight, motiviation, bike handling, inexperience, tactics, not living in monaco, not going out with cound etc
add them all up and subtract from brilliant = crap

it's all easily explained.....

Lowered handlebars

Nutella bans, hand sanitiser, accurately measured stems, pillows, off switches on SRMs - no wonder Froome's a totally different rider

We should really have Swart do an analysis on power outputs on all the marginal gains...blind though...replica pillow covers...Froome would know if they were his own or not..

 

[armchairclimber]

It's getting too noisy this thread, with stuff that should be in the main Froome thread.

 

[Farcanal]

Re:

If the 2007 test data was par for the course for Froome, you'd imagine a conversation between Leinders and Brailsford at the start of the 2011 season going something like this:

"Did you get the lab results, Dave?"
"Yep. They're all here."
"Ah yes. Eddy's doing well as usual. Wiggins still at 0% body fat, I see."
"Yep. Very much the same as last season."
"Quite a few decen... JESUS CHRIST!"
"What?"
"Have you seen this?!?"
"Oh, ha ha. Yes, that's just Chris."
"What do you mean 'That's just Chris'?!?"
"Every year he goes into the lab and almost blows out the equipment. Just one of those things, I suppose."
"This is Chris Froome, right? The one who who was getting hauled by motorbikes?"
"That's the one, yes."
"And why isn't he... you know... winning things?"
"No idea."
"Have you checked his riding position?"
"Yes. It's terrible."
"Hmm... what about his weight?"
"He's pushing on 20% body fat."
"And his blood work?"
"Full of worms."
"Have you sent him to a wind tunnel at least? Maybe he could still win a few time trials?"
"Nah."
"Damn it, Dave. We've tried everything!"

Or, if the 2007 results are not legit, the more likely one with Murdoch sitting in and getting touchy about Sky's results being poor:
RM: Listen, Brailsford, I'm paying a fortune for this team and all we've got so far is this bloody track rider getting spat out the front group at the tour. What you gonna do about it?
DB: Well its early days and Brad will come through, just needs a firm hand, we can work on him this winter and then maybe after next season...
RM: Manana, manana that's no bloody good. I want a sure fire win in a decent event. Can't we bring someone else in? Who else is on the books?
DB: Well, nobody with the GT potential I think Brad's got but these things take time you can't rush...
RM: Bloody hell, I haven't got time for this, what about some shortcuts? Leinders you're supposed to be good at that, isn't there something you can do?
GL: Well, I thought this was supposed to look like a clean team. Don't you think suddenly bringing Brad on in leaps and bounds will look suspicious?
RM: Well forget Brad, isn't there someone else you can work your magic on?
GL: Yeah, there's quite a few that are up there, but that what about that real donkey from Kenya? He keeps getting dropped even by the grupetto which is not surprising cos his numbers in the lab are really, really abysmal too. Shall I get to work on him, Dave? We can have him up there with Schleck easy by next season, probably be July before he really shows though.
DB: Thank god, now I see why we retained you. That's brilliant, nobody knows anything about him so they'll never suspect that's dodgy, why should they?

 

[Irondan]

Please post to the topic at hand.

Any comments that are off topic will be removed.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Here's something to watch for:

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport
Update - I'll be doing a couple of podcasts with @JeroenSwart next week, discussing the obvious, but also broader views on doping in sport

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport
Those podcasts will be with @lionelbirnie (@cycling_podcast) & @SSbike. Not sure of exact dates, will post soon, but should be interesting!

 

[sniper]

Will Richard Moore's Esquire piece on Froome go down as one of the most biased pieces of cycling journalism ever?

Not that the above statement depends on it, but if i'm not mistaken, he didn't even get the year of the intro of the BP right. Moore:

The Athlete Biological Passport wasn’t introduced until 2009

UCI:

Cycling was one of the first sports to introduce the use of the Athlete Biological Passport back in January 2008.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re:

Will Richard Moore's Esquire piece on Froome go down as one of the most biased pieces of cycling journalism ever?

Not that the above statement depends on it, but if i'm not mistaken, he didn't even get the year of the intro of the BP right. Moore:

The Athlete Biological Passport wasn’t introduced until 2009

UCI:

Cycling was one of the first sports to introduce the use of the Athlete Biological Passport back in January 2008.

He's up against David Walsh there, so the competition for biggest bum-dwelling parasite is extremely hard.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Expert witness gig coming soon for Dr Swart yeah?

to be sure, he already sits on South-Africa's doping control review commission. (see Esquire article)
He's sort of a small-time Stephane Bermon.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Lets give Swart some credit. Perhaps he jumped to a conclusion, not very scientific I agree, but further than that this whole Froome testing stuff hasnt given him anything more than twittertroubles.

Him being the one being the supervisor at the GSK tests initially meant a big Red Flag for me but the GSK tests have given us the same information as the Fred Grappe analysis in 2013: Froome is either one of the best athletes ever or he is one of the biggest Bjarnes ever.

The line 'he always had a big engine' could be an interpretation of the 2007 tests, numbers who werent verified, sloppy at least, but like Joe Dombrovski stated today 'cycling isnt just powerfiles'. Numerous riders can do a lab test at 5.6w/k, those who can do 6w/k after 5 hours of riding are something else.

The question remains how did Froome go from packfodder and a dom for Morris Possoni at the Brixia Tour to a GT Champ?

Bobby Julich?

 

[sniper]

Admittedly, Moore also wrongly puts words in Swart's mouth. E.g. here he states that Swart disagrees with Vayer's suspicion index. But that's not what Swart really says.

The figure corresponds to 5.98 watts-per-kilogram; at his Tour weight of 67kg, it would be 6.25w/kg. Using Vayer’s model, that puts him firmly in the suspicious category. Swart disagrees: “I’ve seen a value of 5.8w/kg being spoken of as the upper limit of human performance for a 40-minute effort. But 6.2w/kg is definitely doable for Chris for 20 minutes if not longer.

That said, I won't hold my breath wrt Swart. If he's on SA's doping control review committee, he should know better, and be much more reserved wrt Froome being clean or not.
The things he's said on twitter, in here it would rightly be considered Sky-botting.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Lets give Swart some credit. Perhaps he jumped to a conclusion, not very scientific I agree, but further than that this whole Froome testing stuff hasnt given him anything more than twittertroubles.

Him being the one being the supervisor at the GSK tests initially meant a big Red Flag for me but the GSK tests have given us the same information as the Fred Grappe analysis in 2013: Froome is either one of the best athletes ever or he is one of the biggest Bjarnes ever.

The line 'he always had a big engine' could be an interpretation of the 2007 tests, numbers who werent verified, sloppy at least, but like Joe Dombrovski stated today 'cycling isnt just powerfiles'. Numerous riders can do a lab test at 5.6w/k, those who can do 6w/k after 5 hours of riding are something else.

The question remains how did Froome go from packfodder and a dom for Morris Possoni at the Brixia Tour to a GT Champ?

Bobby Julich?

Not going to give Swart any credit. He has jumped on the publicity campaign via social media to get himself a bunch of free advertising,

He should've done his research into Froome's career before coming to conclusion, 'Weight loss' !

I am sure the physiological and testing files from Barloworld are sitting on someone's laptop and can be got for those who want to show a linear curve for the 'big engine', but heck why bother when lies, smoke, mirrors, dodgy faxes will suffice.

Sorry that kind of genuine naivety or omerta deserves derision.

 

[Benotti69]

Wonder is Swart checking out office space in Monaco??????

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Lets give Swart some credit. Perhaps he jumped to a conclusion, not very scientific I agree, but further than that this whole Froome testing stuff hasnt given him anything more than twittertroubles.

Him being the one being the supervisor at the GSK tests initially meant a big Red Flag for me but the GSK tests have given us the same information as the Fred Grappe analysis in 2013: Froome is either one of the best athletes ever or he is one of the biggest Bjarnes ever.

The line 'he always had a big engine' could be an interpretation of the 2007 tests, numbers who werent verified, sloppy at least, but like Joe Dombrovski stated today 'cycling isnt just powerfiles'. Numerous riders can do a lab test at 5.6w/k, those who can do 6w/k after 5 hours of riding are something else.

The question remains how did Froome go from packfodder and a dom for Morris Possoni at the Brixia Tour to a GT Champ?

Bobby Julich?

Not going to give Swart any credit. He has jumped on the publicity campaign via social media to get himself a bunch of free advertising,

He should've done his research into Froome's career before coming to conclusion, 'Weight loss' !

I am sure the physiological and testing files from Barloworld are sitting on someone's laptop and can be got for those who want to show a linear curve for the 'big engine', but heck why bother when lies, smoke, mirrors, dodgy faxes will suffice.

Sorry that kind of genuine naivety or omerta deserves derision.

this totally.
Swart is on SA's doping control review committee. He should know better.
And he should know that Sky either have Froome testdata for 2010/11, or they are full of *** about being a scientifically advanced team. Either way it sheds dubious light on Sky and Froome.
Swart's statements on twitter would rightly be considered Sky-botting in here.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Wonder is Swart checking out office space in Monaco??????

Lausanne would also welcome him.

To be sure, if Swart didn't agree with how he was quoted in the Esquire article, he could have distanced himself from it. But he did quite the opposite, went to length to applaud Richard Moore's fluff piece.

 

[sniper]

not to mention the way he's been insulting people left right and centre.
incredible. today again "Just block the fool, Sam", when somebody dared to stand up for Vayer.
Swart gets zero respect from me.