acoggan said:Now I'm the one who is going to go off on a conspiracy tangent. After seeing this tweet:
https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/669845927184736256
I can't help but wonder if perhaps Froome (or whomever tweets under his name) knew the sort of brouhaha the release of his data was going to cause, and was getting a little shot in ahead of time.
Of course, it could entirely be coincidence...but in any case, Hoggie, there's the coach (i.e., Michel Theze) who has long been quoted as saying that Froome had a big aerobic "engine."
sniper said:theze is french. (just for the record)
more importantly, he's quite obviously quite heavily compromised, so any attempt to use his statements on froome as evidence of the veracity of the 2007 data are either disingenuous or rather naive.
acoggan said:sniper said:theze is french. (just for the record)
more importantly, he's quite obviously quite heavily compromised, so any attempt to use his statements on froome as evidence of the veracity of the 2007 data are either disingenuous or rather naive.
I'm just trying to help out The Hog, who seemed to be unaware of such earlier claims.
thehog said:acoggan said:sniper said:theze is french. (just for the record)
more importantly, he's quite obviously quite heavily compromised, so any attempt to use his statements on froome as evidence of the veracity of the 2007 data are either disingenuous or rather naive.
I'm just trying to help out The Hog, who seemed to be unaware of such earlier claims.
To be fair, the links have not materialized as yet...
But, and lets stop kidding, you are a smart man, I am not a dumb man, wouldnt that show in more than one time trial over all those years?acoggan said:You would assume so. Keep in mind, however, that the 2007 testing really only provides an indirect estimate of his sustainable power back then. The same could actually be said about the 2015 testing.
IOW, it's possible that Froome's absolute power has increased some over the years, even if his VO2max (in L/min) has reportedly gone down a little.
sniper said:theze is french. (just for the record)
more importantly, he's quite obviously quite heavily compromised, so any attempts to use his statements on froome as evidence of the veracity of the 2007 data are either disingenuous or rather naive.
poupou said:sniper said:theze is french. (just for the record)
more importantly, he's quite obviously quite heavily compromised, so any attempts to use his statements on froome as evidence of the veracity of the 2007 data are either disingenuous or rather naive.
What has said Theze is not important for at suck kind of reasons:
- he could lie
- the 2007 data are erroneous(for exemple badly conducted or results coocked, ...)
- Froome was doped
So the 2007 big engine is just an hypothese in all cases, and should be mentionned like that.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:But, and lets stop kidding, you are a smart man, I am not a dumb man, wouldnt that show in more than one time trial over all those years?acoggan said:You would assume so. Keep in mind, however, that the 2007 testing really only provides an indirect estimate of his sustainable power back then. The same could actually be said about the 2015 testing.
IOW, it's possible that Froome's absolute power has increased some over the years, even if his VO2max (in L/min) has reportedly gone down a little.
I would say John Swanson's calculations on his time trial performances are pretty spot on in that regard?
thehog said:I was highliging the irony that you couldn't remember his name or the links, that's how significant the statement was.
thehog said:It was in the French newspaper "Froome is no thief" - https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.letelegramme.fr/cyclisme/theze-froome-n-est-pas-un-voleur-27-07-2015-10720128.php
ttp://www.letelegramme.fr/cyclisme/theze-froome-n-est-pas-un-voleur-27-07-2015-10720128.php
Still can't see this "big engine" claim that is being made. Maybe it doesn't actually exist?
@ acoggan, over to you to provide the correct link of the "big engine" statement from Theze.
acoggan said:I recall reading (via Google Translate) two stories, one of which was much earlier than the other (2011, maybe?) and more explicitly alluded to Froome's having a VO2max comparable to, e.g., Hinault's.
Dont shrug, we are both adults, but thanks for the answer anyways.acoggan said:Fearless Greg Lemond said:But, and lets stop kidding, you are a smart man, I am not a dumb man, wouldnt that show in more than one time trial over all those years?acoggan said:You would assume so. Keep in mind, however, that the 2007 testing really only provides an indirect estimate of his sustainable power back then. The same could actually be said about the 2015 testing.
IOW, it's possible that Froome's absolute power has increased some over the years, even if his VO2max (in L/min) has reportedly gone down a little.
I would say John Swanson's calculations on his time trial performances are pretty spot on in that regard?
<shrug>
I'm only pointing out what conclusions can or can't be drawn based on the physiological data. Specifically, some here seem to have mistakenly assumed that just because his VO2max apparently hasn't increased, his power must not have increased either.
alternatively, you could have helped out the poster who was using the statements to support an unwarranted claim re: the 2007 data.acoggan said:sniper said:theze is french. (just for the record)
more importantly, he's quite obviously quite heavily compromised, so any attempt to use his statements on froome as evidence of the veracity of the 2007 data are either disingenuous or rather naive.
I'm just trying to help out The Hog, who seemed to be unaware of such earlier claims.
sniper said:alternatively, you could have helped out the poster who was using the statements to support an unwarranted claim re: the 2007 data.acoggan said:sniper said:theze is french. (just for the record)
more importantly, he's quite obviously quite heavily compromised, so any attempt to use his statements on froome as evidence of the veracity of the 2007 data are either disingenuous or rather naive.
I'm just trying to help out The Hog, who seemed to be unaware of such earlier claims.
little surprising though you chose to back that up.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:Dont shrug, we are both adults, but thanks for the answer anyways.acoggan said:Fearless Greg Lemond said:But, and lets stop kidding, you are a smart man, I am not a dumb man, wouldnt that show in more than one time trial over all those years?acoggan said:You would assume so. Keep in mind, however, that the 2007 testing really only provides an indirect estimate of his sustainable power back then. The same could actually be said about the 2015 testing.
IOW, it's possible that Froome's absolute power has increased some over the years, even if his VO2max (in L/min) has reportedly gone down a little.
I would say John Swanson's calculations on his time trial performances are pretty spot on in that regard?
<shrug>
I'm only pointing out what conclusions can or can't be drawn based on the physiological data. Specifically, some here seem to have mistakenly assumed that just because his VO2max apparently hasn't increased, his power must not have increased either.
I agree with your conclusions, you cant base anything on the results published in that scientific journal called Esquire.
But again, a rider with such power would/could/should have shown some of his potential before in TT's is my non - scientific view of things. TT'ing with the likes of Dan Martin doesnt spring to mind if I am thinking of a bronze medallist at the 2012 Olympics wouldnt you agree?
sniper said:alternatively, you could have helped out the poster who was using the statements to support an unwarranted claim re: the 2007 data.acoggan said:sniper said:theze is french. (just for the record)
more importantly, he's quite obviously quite heavily compromised, so any attempt to use his statements on froome as evidence of the veracity of the 2007 data are either disingenuous or rather naive.
I'm just trying to help out The Hog, who seemed to be unaware of such earlier claims.
little surprising though you chose to back that up.
If I could translate correctly the above article I would do it, but I am not able to put in words the subtility of such kind of interview.thehog said:poupou said:sniper said:theze is french. (just for the record)
more importantly, he's quite obviously quite heavily compromised, so any attempts to use his statements on froome as evidence of the veracity of the 2007 data are either disingenuous or rather naive.
What has said Theze is not important for at suck kind of reasons:
- he could lie
- the 2007 data are erroneous(for exemple badly conducted or results coocked, ...)
- Froome was doped
So the 2007 big engine is just an hypothese in all cases, and should be mentionned like that.
Are you able to translate the article correctly above? I don't believe there's anywhere on record where he actually said 'big engine'.... in English at least.
Noted.acoggan said:Again, <shrug>.
poupou said:I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:Noted.acoggan said:Again, <shrug>.
<notices Andy Coggins isnt interested in debate/not able to debate/interprete numbers>
poupou said:If I could translate correctly the above article I would do it, but I am not able to put in words the subtility of such kind of interview.thehog said:poupou said:sniper said:theze is french. (just for the record)
more importantly, he's quite obviously quite heavily compromised, so any attempts to use his statements on froome as evidence of the veracity of the 2007 data are either disingenuous or rather naive.
What has said Theze is not important for at suck kind of reasons:
- he could lie
- the 2007 data are erroneous(for exemple badly conducted or results coocked, ...)
- Froome was doped
So the 2007 big engine is just an hypothese in all cases, and should be mentionned like that.
Are you able to translate the article correctly above? I don't believe there's anywhere on record where he actually said 'big engine'.... in English at least.
For sure, that article never use "big engine". He just said that Froome was an exceptionnal rider, but, according the whole spirit of Theze words, related to the riders he has known.
FYI, when it was reported that Theze would have said, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspapers, but failed. Maybe I should have used more time. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.
That is the same kind of articles.acoggan said:poupou said:I must add that when it was reported that Theze would had said, in the past, that Froome had tests as good as Hinault, I tried to find it in french newspaper, but failed. Only articles post 2015 TDF had sometimes it with an uncertain wording.
Have you looked at this one? It seems to specifically mentioned VO2max.
http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/France-Monde/Sport/Cyclisme/Cyclisme/n/Contenus/Articles/2012/07/16/Tour-de-France-Le-mystere-Froome-decode-1055688
Still don't know where I got the Hinault reference, though...