The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Thanks, Pastronef.

And Jeroen didn't know or bother to check that?
Senza parole indeed.

Added to what Varjas is saying about the 15 sec boost and high cadence,
added to the visual evidence of Froome's never-before-or-after-seen seated acceleration away from Contador,
and added to the remarkably low heart rate during said acceleration (never going above 162-3, which is almost unheard of at that level),
there clearly could be a motor.

Honest mistake here. I should have checked. I assumed they were already using Stages.

I like your work; but you were making an assumption with underlined text, stating categorically that "there can be no motor". When you jump to conclusions like that it dilutes your other good work.

No. Sniper underlined the text.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Thanks, Pastronef.

And Jeroen didn't know or bother to check that?
Senza parole indeed.

Added to what Varjas is saying about the 15 sec boost and high cadence,
added to the visual evidence of Froome's never-before-or-after-seen seated acceleration away from Contador,
and added to the remarkably low heart rate during said acceleration (never going above 162-3, which is almost unheard of at that level),
there clearly could be a motor.

Honest mistake here. I should have checked. I assumed they were already using Stages.

So the power data doesn't really tell us anything if he was using an SRM.

Cheers.

And look, nobody blames you for not knowing.
The problem for me lies in the misplaced confidence with which you brush aside certain speculation.
"clearly there can be no motor". "simple point".
I think you should be much more cautious in your formulation.

That also concerns the way you vouch for the Fax.
You cannot just say "I trust those guys, ergo the Fax is real".

On the first point - This is a forum discussion and so it doesn't really lend itself to doing research between responses. I was under the impression they were on Stages and made a point related to that.

With regards to the fax:

If I had not been in correspondence with the scientists who collected the data I would be more circumspect. There are a lot of comments here that Michelle doctored the fax etc. That is not the case.

There were some changes that Esquire made to the image. They highlighted sections and made some other visual changes. A lot of individuals have jumped on that on this forum as proof that the results were somehow doctored. That is not correct.

Can I have 100% faith in the data on the fax? No. I did not collect the data myself and I have not seen the raw data. But the scientists are well respected and independent of Team Sky and the UCI. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the data.

The decision to not publish the data in tandem with the manuscript we wrote had nothing to do with lack of faith in the data. It was more to do with the length of the manuscript and that the data were collected using differing equipment and methodologies. Which was one of the key criticisms of the Coyle data.

Independent of the UCI?

You may wish to review that statement.

How so? Please do inform us.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

This forum interaction is rather slow.

Forgive me but I am on holiday and need to spend time with my family.

Will respond to further comments tomorrow.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

One thing we did clarify with the testing is that the performances we have seen in the races are within the limits of normal human abilities. Which puts to rest all these inferences that a performance was "mutant" or otherwise.

What are the limits of normal human abilities? How are these determined? Does the testing assume that his test performance is the same as what we've seen in races or does it only establish his abilities at the time tested? I assume you are suggesting the former but I would like that explained as it seems clear with doping possibly involved these conclusions seem premature. If the latter than how does this testing put anything "to rest'?

Once again, whether it was done cleanly or not is not established by the climbing rate or the physiological testing. Neither will answer that question.

Did not Froome/Sky engage i this exercise to show that Froome was clean? No question this test wasn't going to establish that. If that is true, doesn't your reputation become entangled with a fairly dodgy and transparently false PR exercise? Would that not explain some of the reaction you're getting here, informed or otherwise?

By "The limits of human performance" I refer to the recorded distribution of VO2 max values collected over a period of approximately a century of research, starting with the work of AV Hill in 1922. This data has a normal distribution as does most physiological variation. The VO2 max recorded by Froome in the lab, his efficiency values and what flows from it - The workload at VO2max are within that normal distribution. The sub maximal workload required to climb at the rate recorded during key wins in his career fall at a percentage of peak that are compatible with him sustaining those sub maximal workloads for the duration required. Hence it can be inferred that the performances in the field are compatible with normal human physiological limits.

If you refer back to the 2015 Tour and the discussions on social media, you will see that a lot of the discussion was around whether the performances were credible. Vayer, Tucker, Puchowicz and others were inferring that the performances were not possible by a clean athlete. I was quite adamant at the time that putting these thresholds on performances and calling them impossible was not in keeping with known physiological limits.

There were quite a few posts so feel free to go and reread them.

In addition, there were calls for transparency and for him to undergo physiological testing, specifically a VO2 max test. Tucker, Grappe and a few others.

The testing stemmed from the two points above. There was never any claim that they were to assess whether he was doped on not.

c'mon Jeroen....

formally your correct, but informally...that was what is was all about...surely you can see that

And i don't mean the actual testing...I mean the episode, the story of which your test played a major role....

enjoy holiday btw....hope you've advised froome to stay off the pies

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

One thing we did clarify with the testing is that the performances we have seen in the races are within the limits of normal human abilities. Which puts to rest all these inferences that a performance was "mutant" or otherwise.

What are the limits of normal human abilities? How are these determined? Does the testing assume that his test performance is the same as what we've seen in races or does it only establish his abilities at the time tested? I assume you are suggesting the former but I would like that explained as it seems clear with doping possibly involved these conclusions seem premature. If the latter than how does this testing put anything "to rest'?

Once again, whether it was done cleanly or not is not established by the climbing rate or the physiological testing. Neither will answer that question.

Did not Froome/Sky engage i this exercise to show that Froome was clean? No question this test wasn't going to establish that. If that is true, doesn't your reputation become entangled with a fairly dodgy and transparently false PR exercise? Would that not explain some of the reaction you're getting here, informed or otherwise?

By "The limits of human performance" I refer to the recorded distribution of VO2 max values collected over a period of approximately a century of research, starting with the work of AV Hill in 1922. This data has a normal distribution as does most physiological variation. The VO2 max recorded by Froome in the lab, his efficiency values and what flows from it - The workload at VO2max are within that normal distribution. The sub maximal workload required to climb at the rate recorded during key wins in his career fall at a percentage of peak that are compatible with him sustaining those sub maximal workloads for the duration required. Hence it can be inferred that the performances in the field are compatible with normal human physiological limits.

If you refer back to the 2015 Tour and the discussions on social media, you will see that a lot of the discussion was around whether the performances were credible. Vayer, Tucker, Puchowicz and others were inferring that the performances were not possible by a clean athlete. I was quite adamant at the time that putting these thresholds on performances and calling them impossible was not in keeping with known physiological limits.

There were quite a few posts so feel free to go and reread them.

In addition, there were calls for transparency and for him to undergo physiological testing, specifically a VO2 max test. Tucker, Grappe and a few others.

The testing stemmed from the two points above. There was never any claim that they were to assess whether he was doped on not.

c'mon Jeroen....

formally your correct, but informally...that was what is was all about...surely you can see that

And i don't mean the actual testing...I mean the episode, the story of which your test played a major role....

enjoy holiday btw....hope you've advised froome to stay off the pies

Thanks Gillian.

I don't deny that some may have had the perception that these tests were to assess whether there was any evidence of doping.

However, this was not something I have ever perpetuated and certainly not why I agreed to perform the testing.

 

[sniper]

"I don't deny that some may have had that impression"...
That's optimistically formulated.

Froome himself had that perception.
Moore had that perception.
Both of whom then sold that perception to the press.
Who then also had that perception and eagerly sold it to the readers.

 

[sniper]

some headlines from before the testing:

Chris Froome to undergo independent testing to fight doping allegations

Chris Froome considering physical testing to prove he’s clean

from after the testing:

CHRIS FROOME claims his testing data proves he is a clean rider

Chris Froome doping claims: Tour de France champion reveals test data to end the doubts

Cyclist Chris Froome publishes independent test data to prove he’s 100pc clean

I'm really just cherry picking here.
Not sure whom Jeroen is trying to fool, or why.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

How so? Please do inform us.

You want me to do more fact checking on your behalf and correct your ill advised assumptions?

Sorry, it's your turn now to do the heavy lifting. Get to it!

 

[thehog]

Re:

This forum interaction is rather slow.

Forgive me but I am on holiday and need to spend time with my family.

Will respond to further comments tomorrow.

And just remember, if you put on fat over Christmas, you can just lose it and you'll turn into a Tour champion! :lol:

 

[Digger]

Jeroen you're the scientist who said 'he just lost the fat.'

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

One thing we did clarify with the testing is that the performances we have seen in the races are within the limits of normal human abilities. Which puts to rest all these inferences that a performance was "mutant" or otherwise.

What are the limits of normal human abilities? How are these determined? Does the testing assume that his test performance is the same as what we've seen in races or does it only establish his abilities at the time tested? I assume you are suggesting the former but I would like that explained as it seems clear with doping possibly involved these conclusions seem premature. If the latter than how does this testing put anything "to rest'?

Once again, whether it was done cleanly or not is not established by the climbing rate or the physiological testing. Neither will answer that question.

Did not Froome/Sky engage i this exercise to show that Froome was clean? No question this test wasn't going to establish that. If that is true, doesn't your reputation become entangled with a fairly dodgy and transparently false PR exercise? Would that not explain some of the reaction you're getting here, informed or otherwise?

By "The limits of human performance" I refer to the recorded distribution of VO2 max values collected over a period of approximately a century of research, starting with the work of AV Hill in 1922. This data has a normal distribution as does most physiological variation. The VO2 max recorded by Froome in the lab, his efficiency values and what flows from it - The workload at VO2max are within that normal distribution. The sub maximal workload required to climb at the rate recorded during key wins in his career fall at a percentage of peak that are compatible with him sustaining those sub maximal workloads for the duration required. Hence it can be inferred that the performances in the field are compatible with normal human physiological limits.

If you refer back to the 2015 Tour and the discussions on social media, you will see that a lot of the discussion was around whether the performances were credible. Vayer, Tucker, Puchowicz and others were inferring that the performances were not possible by a clean athlete. I was quite adamant at the time that putting these thresholds on performances and calling them impossible was not in keeping with known physiological limits.

There were quite a few posts so feel free to go and reread them.

In addition, there were calls for transparency and for him to undergo physiological testing, specifically a VO2 max test. Tucker, Grappe and a few others.

Thanks for the reply. That does address the "how are these determined" part. I'm reading V02 Max, efficiency, and workload at V02 max. It doesn't address what these human limits are. Is there some representation of the distribution we can look at? I suppose the data for Froome is published, but I'm not aware of what his numbers were at this moment to compare to what you regard as normal. I wonder why the discrepancy between what you regard as normal human capabilities and how others regard it, but I don't ask you to speak for them. I would like to see your definition in some detail with some idea of what athletes define this distribution since 1922. Are we sure they were all clean? I wouldn't know where to dig all that up.

You say it's normal and say I can dig up some old posts, but it seems if one makes the claim the onus is on them to back it up–I assume this information is readily available for you to cite it.

The testing stemmed from the two points above. There was never any claim that they were to assess whether he was doped on not.

That is not my recollection, and subsequent posts on this thread have certainly cast strong doubt on this claim. Sky made a pointed media effort to frame this effort as part of being "transparent", which is certainly a euphemism for "being clean", while neatly and obviously not saying it would prove him to be clean. They did not stop and correct the headlines as written, they kept at it until they had covered every bit of cycling media with this push. This was an orchestrated effort – without question. Your response here is correct in the particular use of words, but entirely misleading. It is hard to imagine that this isn't intentional on your part.

As such I am very skeptical of seemingly subjective and as yet unsubstantiated claims on your part about Froome's performance and the limits of human physiology. If you aren't transparent about one part of it, how can I trust the other parts where I must rely on your expertise? At this point I do not. Clearly I'm not alone.

I think, ironically, that transparency is indeed the answer here. If you had said "Yeah, this was an effort to show Froome could be clean which I knew it never would, but It thought it an interesting enough project to join on despite the nonsense in the media", that would be different. But trying to sell that this wasn't such an effort puts you squarely in the PR blitz camp. IMO.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Thanks Gillian.

I don't deny that some may have had the perception that these tests were to assess whether there was any evidence of doping.

However, this was not something I have ever perpetuated and certainly not why I agreed to perform the testing.

"Some may have had the perception"? Everyone receiving the message had that perception because that's the perception Sky wanted us to have. You put your name to the testing, the testing which was widely advertised as an effort to prove Froome clean.

Surely you can't expect us to buy that you're unaware of the reality of what they were doing and not party to message. I went into my questions with skepticism and doubt, but an open mind. Your answers here have strongly bolstered my skepticism about this entire episode.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Thanks, Pastronef.

And Jeroen didn't know or bother to check that?
Senza parole indeed.

Added to what Varjas is saying about the 15 sec boost and high cadence,
added to the visual evidence of Froome's never-before-or-after-seen seated acceleration away from Contador,
and added to the remarkably low heart rate during said acceleration (never going above 162-3, which is almost unheard of at that level),
there clearly could be a motor.

Honest mistake here. I should have checked. I assumed they were already using Stages.

So the power data doesn't really tell us anything if he was using an SRM.

I have read others say SRM data is unreliable and link to studies on it, but what I don't understand is in what way is it un-reliable? What kind of errors would we expect to see? That it's generally some percentage off, that it's inconsistent in power measurement, or both? Something else? And it's not really the power data which is so curious, is it? It's the HR data. Is the HR data being recorded by the SRM device? I'm not up on power meters, never could justify paying for one.

I want to be clear that I don't hold data released by a cycling team (intentionally or otherwise) as any kind of incontrovertible truth. It could have been doctored or erroneous by any number of means. So I want to say that in general I don't put much stock in what we can learn by the HR data one way or another. But the dismissal of power data is odd, particularly since it doesn't seem to directly address the HR question–but that may be a factor of my own ignorance on SRM power meters.

His HR looks like you would expect it to, with his hear rate fluctuating up and down as the race progresses, even going up on steeper parts of the climb. Nothing jumps out as particularly odd. Then all of a sudden, when presumably everyone is near the limit (some may in fact be holding back) Froome takes off with an acceleration the likes of which we've never seen. Yet the HR really doesn't move at all. Is this the kind of error we'd see in HR data? All of a sudden not functioning and staying flat? Only at the exact time of that key, incredible acceleration? I would expect it to be more consistently off, or shut down altogether, not just fail to record an expected increase in heart rate. Odd.

HR, in my limited racing experience goes up after power goes up, unless I'm at max. At which point I can't put in massive accelerations. Seemed to work that way for everyone on my team.

Now while I find it hard to believe a GT rider would rely on such a device (motor) given the number of stages, the risk of getting caught, etc, that acceleration was wildly suspicious. The lack of increase in HR is bizarre and I am not clear on how SRM unreliability (or whatever device is recording it) would produce the kind of data we see in the Froome video.

Maybe there is some more detail in this explanation, so we can understand why the power data doesn't mean anything because it's SRM. It doesn't address the particular curiosity of the data.

 

[Digger]

Jeroen - when I said carlos sastre doped, and he did, said you were disappointed as you hoped he was clean and said his 08 Alpe ascent was relatively slow time wise...the hypocrisy of this is nuts. Because time and again you've dismissed the fast times of froome as saying they can't be relied upon to tell us much...you can't have it both ways. Clearly you have a soft spot for froome. I can't believe you won't admit it at this point.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Elephant in the room.

I have addressed this question before as well.

The power meter data from the Ventoux video would have been recorded from a stages unit. As such, any motor used to drive the crank axle or a rim or any other known method of motorised doping would not have contributed to the power reading from the Stages. i.e the Stages would have demonstrated a lower power output than required to perform the work of climbing at the rate recorded. As it did not, there can clearly be no motor.

This simple point seems to be lost in the hysteria surrounding HR values.

"clearly". "simple point".
Your certainty here is weird and in fact totally inappropriate.

Here you go:

This looks like SRM
http://img.theepochtimes.com/n3/eet-content/uploads/2013/07/Froome15Ventoux1735093581.jpg

In the case of SRM a small crank axle motor *would* have contributed to the power reading.
So there would be no problems with the power output for the Ventoux stage.

So Jeroen you are clearing Froome based on the dubious assumption that he's using a Stages unit.
Odd.
Can somebody provide evidence that Froome was using a Stages unit?

WRT detecting motorised assistance, it wouldn't really matter if it were an SRM or a Stages. Neither unit would include the power contribution from a hidden motor, since the power measurement of both SRM and Stages (and Pioneer, and Garmin Vectors, and Power2Max and Powertap P1 and Powertap C1 power meters) is done upstream of the bottom bracket.

IOW a Stages or an SRM will tell you the rider's power output, not the total power output if there was a hidden motor. Think of it this way - a hidden motor can drive the bike forward while the rider is not pedalling. Power meter shows 0 watts but of course power is being delivered to the rear wheel.

To do that you need to measure both the upstream power provided by the rider and total power output via measurement downstream of the BB, e.g. with a Powertap hub based power meter, or perhaps by comparing power output with power estimates from climbing times. According to the clinic, power estimates from rider's climbing times have been matching power meter's data pretty well.

Keep in mind that in the lab tests, power was measured both upsteam (Stages) and downstream (Computrainer Lab). Motor assistance in the lab test would have stuck out like dog's balls (let alone show up weirdness in the efficiency calculations from the gas exchange data).

There are of course other issues wrt quality of power meter data to keep in mind, e.g. the non-circular ring issue creates a real and variable error in power measured by power meters (including SRM), and of course Stages introduces a variable unknown error due to natural and variable asymmetry in power output (although it's possible some Sky riders use a beta version of bilateral Stages meters not available to the public).

Jeroen may be able to comment on whether the power meter on Froome's bike was a unilateral or a bilateral Stages unit.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Thanks, Pastronef.

And Jeroen didn't know or bother to check that?
Senza parole indeed.

Added to what Varjas is saying about the 15 sec boost and high cadence,
added to the visual evidence of Froome's never-before-or-after-seen seated acceleration away from Contador,
and added to the remarkably low heart rate during said acceleration (never going above 162-3, which is almost unheard of at that level),
there clearly could be a motor.

Honest mistake here. I should have checked. I assumed they were already using Stages.

So the power data doesn't really tell us anything if he was using an SRM.

I have read others say SRM data is unreliable and link to studies on it, but what I don't understand is in what way is it un-reliable? What kind of errors would we expect to see? That it's generally some percentage off, that it's inconsistent in power measurement, or both? Something else? And it's not really the power data which is so curious, is it? It's the HR data. Is the HR data being recorded by the SRM device? I'm not up on power meters, never could justify paying for one.

I want to be clear that I don't hold data released by a cycling team (intentionally or otherwise) as any kind of incontrovertible truth. It could have been doctored or erroneous by any number of means. So I want to say that in general I don't put much stock in what we can learn by the HR data one way or another. But the dismissal of power data is odd, particularly since it doesn't seem to directly address the HR question–but that may be a factor of my own ignorance on SRM power meters.

His HR looks like you would expect it to, with his hear rate fluctuating up and down as the race progresses, even going up on steeper parts of the climb. Nothing jumps out as particularly odd. Then all of a sudden, when presumably everyone is near the limit (some may in fact be holding back) Froome takes off with an acceleration the likes of which we've never seen. Yet the HR really doesn't move at all. Is this the kind of error we'd see in HR data? All of a sudden not functioning and staying flat? Only at the exact time of that key, incredible acceleration? I would expect it to be more consistently off, or shut down altogether, not just fail to record an expected increase in heart rate. Odd.

HR, in my limited racing experience goes up after power goes up, unless I'm at max. At which point I can't put in massive accelerations. Seemed to work that way for everyone on my team.

Now while I find it hard to believe a GT rider would rely on such a device (motor) given the number of stages, the risk of getting caught, etc, that acceleration was wildly suspicious. The lack of increase in HR is bizarre and I am not clear on how SRM unreliability (or whatever device is recording it) would produce the kind of data we see in the Froome video.

Maybe there is some more detail in this explanation, so we can understand why the power data doesn't mean anything because it's SRM. It doesn't address the particular curiosity of the data.

It's not so much about the usefulness of power (or HR) data in general but more a case about it's potential use to inform us about a rider's doping status (and in the case of this thread - motor assist status).

That's where it goes all fuzzy and unreliable - it's the problem of interpretation of the data more than the data itself (although of course it helps to have reliable, accurate data and that requires an understanding of how the data is produced and what factors can influence its reliability and accuracy).

 

[kingjr]

Flanders, you were talking about an acceleration the likes of which we have never seen. Are you referring to how violent the acceleration was, or what it looked like style-wise?

 

[Tienus]

WRT detecting motorised assistance, it wouldn't really matter if it were an SRM or a Stages. Neither unit would include the power contribution from a hidden motor, since the power measurement of both SRM and Stages (and Pioneer, and Garmin Vectors, and Power2Max and Powertap P1 and Powertap C1 power meters) is done upstream of the bottom bracket.

I think you are wrong. Its discused here:
viewtopic.php?p=2035007#p2035007

IOW a Stages or an SRM will tell you the rider's power output, not the total power output if there was a hidden motor. Think of it this way - a hidden motor can drive the bike forward while the rider is not pedalling. Power meter shows 0 watts but of course power is being delivered to the rear wheel.

You cant use a bottom bracket motor without pedalling.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Flanders, you were talking about an acceleration the likes of which we have never seen. Are you referring to how violent the acceleration was, or what it looked like style-wise?

I don't know, it's subjective. Doesn't really matter, it was a massive acceleration which should have moved his heart rate.

And you know what, I watched it again and it does look like the HR data moves up in the time frame you'd expect, shortly after he puts in the big effort, and declines again some time after he slows. It is a pretty minor spike, but on the whole I would like to retract my diatribe from before. It isn't steady the way I thought I remembered it. I should have re-watched the video before my last post.

Sorry for the red herring.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Flanders, you were talking about an acceleration the likes of which we have never seen. Are you referring to how violent the acceleration was, or what it looked like style-wise?

I don't know, it's subjective. Doesn't really matter, it was a massive acceleration which should have moved his heart rate.

And you know what, I watched it again and it does look like the HR data moves up in the time frame you'd expect, shortly after he puts in the big effort, and declines again some time after he slows. It is a pretty minor spike, but on the whole I would like to retract my diatribe from before. It isn't steady the way I thought I remembered it. I should have re-watched the video before my last post.

Sorry for the red herring.

Hilarious.

 

[Night Rider]

Re: Re:

Elephant in the room.

I have addressed this question before as well.

The power meter data from the Ventoux video would have been recorded from a stages unit. As such, any motor used to drive the crank axle or a rim or any other known method of motorised doping would not have contributed to the power reading from the Stages. i.e the Stages would have demonstrated a lower power output than required to perform the work of climbing at the rate recorded. As it did not, there can clearly be no motor.

This simple point seems to be lost in the hysteria surrounding HR values.

"clearly". "simple point".
Your certainty here is weird and in fact totally inappropriate.

Here you go:

This looks like SRM
http://img.theepochtimes.com/n3/eet-content/uploads/2013/07/Froome15Ventoux1735093581.jpg

In the case of SRM a small crank axle motor *would* have contributed to the power reading.
So there would be no problems with the power output for the Ventoux stage.

So Jeroen you are clearing Froome based on the dubious assumption that he's using a Stages unit.
Odd.
Can somebody provide evidence that Froome was using a Stages unit?

WRT detecting motorised assistance, it wouldn't really matter if it were an SRM or a Stages. Neither unit would include the power contribution from a hidden motor, since the power measurement of both SRM and Stages (and Pioneer, and Garmin Vectors, and Power2Max and Powertap P1 and Powertap C1 power meters) is done upstream of the bottom bracket.

That's not correct.

An SRM, power2max and Quarq will record power from a seatpost type motors that drives the crankset axle.

The strain gauges are in the spyder, so it will record force exerted via the chainrings applying torque to the spyder as normal, and it will also record torque from the axle applying force after being driven by a motor.

 

[Poursuivant]

Re: Re:

Flanders, you were talking about an acceleration the likes of which we have never seen. Are you referring to how violent the acceleration was, or what it looked like style-wise?

I don't know, it's subjective. Doesn't really matter, it was a massive acceleration which should have moved his heart rate.

And you know what, I watched it again and it does look like the HR data moves up in the time frame you'd expect, shortly after he puts in the big effort, and declines again some time after he slows. It is a pretty minor spike, but on the whole I would like to retract my diatribe from before. It isn't steady the way I thought I remembered it. I should have re-watched the video before my last post.

Sorry for the red herring.

Hilarious.

Fair play to him for acknowledging he got something wrong, there is a few on here who actually believe Froome is a shapeshifting grey.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Elephant in the room.

I have addressed this question before as well.

The power meter data from the Ventoux video would have been recorded from a stages unit. As such, any motor used to drive the crank axle or a rim or any other known method of motorised doping would not have contributed to the power reading from the Stages. i.e the Stages would have demonstrated a lower power output than required to perform the work of climbing at the rate recorded. As it did not, there can clearly be no motor.

This simple point seems to be lost in the hysteria surrounding HR values.

"clearly". "simple point".
Your certainty here is weird and in fact totally inappropriate.

Here you go:

This looks like SRM
http://img.theepochtimes.com/n3/eet-content/uploads/2013/07/Froome15Ventoux1735093581.jpg

In the case of SRM a small crank axle motor *would* have contributed to the power reading.
So there would be no problems with the power output for the Ventoux stage.

So Jeroen you are clearing Froome based on the dubious assumption that he's using a Stages unit.
Odd.
Can somebody provide evidence that Froome was using a Stages unit?

WRT detecting motorised assistance, it wouldn't really matter if it were an SRM or a Stages. Neither unit would include the power contribution from a hidden motor, since the power measurement of both SRM and Stages (and Pioneer, and Garmin Vectors, and Power2Max and Powertap P1 and Powertap C1 power meters) is done upstream of the bottom bracket.

That's not correct.

An SRM, power2max and Quarq will record power from a seatpost type motors that drives the crankset axle.

The strain gauges are in the spyder, so it will record force exerted via the chainrings applying torque to the spyder as normal, and it will also record torque from the axle applying force after being driven by a motor.

My bad, yes the spider based meters will include any power applied via the crank axle, thanks for the correction. The crank arm and pedal based meters won't though.

For motors, the drivetrain measurement dividing line is whether it's up-or downstream of the crank spider, not the BB. I was thinking of power balance data, where the drivetrain dividing line is the BB.

 

[Tienus]

And you know what, I watched it again and it does look like the HR data moves up in the time frame you'd expect, shortly after he puts in the big effort, and declines again some time after he slows. It is a pretty minor spike, but on the whole I would like to retract my diatribe from before. It isn't steady the way I thought I remembered it. I should have re-watched the video before my last post.

Maybe there is a small raise because its a combined effort of Froome putting in some extra power and a motor.

Before his attack at 30:54 he is already at "max HR" and he manages to put alot of extra watts in without an increase in HR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNpx2BOabE&t=1665s

 

[sniper]

Re:

And you know what, I watched it again and it does look like the HR data moves up in the time frame you'd expect, shortly after he puts in the big effort, and declines again some time after he slows. It is a pretty minor spike, but on the whole I would like to retract my diatribe from before. It isn't steady the way I thought I remembered it. I should have re-watched the video before my last post.

Maybe there is a small raise because its a combined effort of Froome putting in some extra power and a motor.

Before his attack at 30:54 he is already at "max HR" and he manages to put alot of extra watts in without an increase in HR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNpx2BOabE&t=1665s

In light of everything we know and don't know, that is by far the most plausible hypothesis at the moment.


Whilst hats off to Red Flanders for correcting himself, there is no reason to call it a 'red herring'.
There were good reasons why the leaked Ventoux file triggered such a discussion.

Firstly, although there was a small rise in heart rate, it was indeed small and altogether his heart rate remained suspiciously low during the jump (see the quoted comment at the bottom of my post).
As Tienus says, the small rise maybe explained by froome putting in a bit of extra effort. And, i'm not kidding here, we may also factor in the sudden *excitement* (/ amazement / shock / scare?) Froome would have felt from receiving all that extra power whilst riding into a pretty steep corner. Excitement elevates heart rate.

Secondly, the only time we've ever seen a similarly ridiculous seated acceleration is Cancellara's 2010 Muur jump away from an out-of-the-saddle and in-form Boonen. Both of those jumps were, for all intents and purposes, unrealistic jumps in the eyes of everybody who's ever ridden a bike uphill. Froome's acceleration going through a sharp, steep *corner* arguably makes it even more unreal than Cancellara's Muur.

So, to my knowledge, only the motor hypothesis so neatly explains both (a) the relatively low heart rate during the jump and (b) the type of jump that we saw there.
Is there another explanation that explains both (a) and (b)? I'd love to hear it.


Here's an interesting comment at the bottom of a cyclingtips article about Froome's leaked file and the heart rate issue:

The biggest alarm bell was his heart rate never went above 162-3, that is unheard of at that level. Almost every stage demands you hit the critical 185 bpm at multiple times during each stage, just to stay in contact let alone blowing past the whole field like their standing still and never get past 160. If those are his numbers its very telling he has more power to exertion ratio than everyone else on the tour by a country mile. At least thats what I and all my friends/competitors from cat 1 mountain bike racing are comparing it to. I am a high cadence rider as well and feel very comfortable at 85-100 for 3-5 hour endurance races. But I don't have any data that doesn't include max HR in parts in every race and training session. We have never raced and not, not used full power output without going to 185 for at least a minute, sometimes more sometimes less but we always need it to stay on a wheel or pull away. People may say Froome has bigger lungs/Heart to which I say, well where were those lungs/heart prior to joining Sky in 2010 cause the ones he was using prior to that sucked at climbing anything!
https://cyclingtips.com/2015/07/froomes-ventoux-data-leak-analysed/