Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

Paulie W

Is this thread just an excuse for people to hurl abuse at each other now? There is a debate to be had here clearly but if people want to use that debate to begin a sh!t fight there are plenty of better places to do it.

Clearly, it is not unreasonable for someone to have doubts about Froome's performance and they dont have to have 'evidence' to feel or express those doubts - 'that's where the sport is. Comparison of performance with dopers is inevitable and seems to be the way guilt or innocence is now being decided. Wiggins performance appeared to compare unfavourably (as in was slower, less explosive) with past 'winners. Froome's performance based on what it 'looked' like and on (very incomplete and questionable) figures appears to be as good as or better than that of dopers. But we are dealing with an inexact science or at least inexact figures here so it remains about opinion. On the flip side, it is reasonable for others to defend Froome's performance. There is a narrative that makes sense of Froome's rise - but again it is about faith or lack of faith whether you accept/reject that narrative.

No_Ta_Doctor

The Mad Rapper wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Boring. You remain unsilenced.

If your sensitive little personality can't deal with the fact that other opinions still exist on our board, then either find another board or block everyone that won't be brow beaten.

Want to move onto Hincapie?

Want to move on to sucking my c*ck? F*cking idiot.

You've been on one for days. Get over yourself. And if you don't like what people post, you know what to do. It's not rocket science, chopper.

powerbookboy

ddraver wrote:

nferrar wrote:

Has anyone done an analysis on Froome's Ventoux ascent yet? Would be interesting to see how it compares with times during 95-05. Maybe if it really is a clean and level playing field now then natural ability + Sky's training methods are enough to produce rides that look exceptional?

Yes, but the numbers are all under 6 W/kg so funnily enough there is a lot less shouting about them this time...[snip]

Could you post some urls please?

ddraver

Only twitter I'm afraid...

zammmmo

powerbookboy wrote:

Whilst my gut feeling is Sky are clean, I can't deny that when Froome spun away from Bertie I blurted "that's ridiculous" out loud. The gap that he pulled in such a short distance was astonishing. That it inched out over the next few k until the elastic finally snapped in the last k, was somewhat reassuring, but you can't be surprised that people have doubts about Froome. His story bears too many similarities to LA for people not to draw parallels.

I wonder if Sky have found a way to train the phoso-creatine system that we all have which delivers very high power for 10seconds or so before becoming depleted for 3-4mins. Or Froome might just be naturally adept at this, or both or......

alihisgreat

The Mad Rapper wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

You cannot judge by sight. Ever.

Of course you can. Common sense is common sense. I know what the body is capable of. Look at the difference in Contador pre and post ban. Where are the repeated attacks gone? He could do it before because he could recover far faster and attack again, he can't do it now because he's clean.

Why don't you judge this by sight then:



just look at the guy, he's a freak, looks like he was born to ride a bike.

Compare to Armstrong:

Look at Armstrong's build.. doesn't look like a bike rider at all.

So that's me judging it on sight.. and Froome looks faster than Armstrong because he's built like a perfect GC contender.

It must have taken a hell of a lot of naught sauce to haul Armstrong's biceps up these climbs faster than Froome whose absolutely skeletal.

davidof

nferrar wrote:

Has anyone done an analysis on Froome's Ventoux ascent yet? Would be interesting to see how it compares with times during 95-05. Maybe if it really is a clean and level playing field now then natural ability + Sky's training methods are enough to produce rides that look exceptional?

These figures are doing the rounds

MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)

-1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
-2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
-3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
-4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
-5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
-6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
-7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
-8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
-9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009

11. Franco Pellizotti ____ ITA | 49:15 | 2009
12. Vincenzo Nibali ______ ITA | 49:17 | 2009
13. Bradley Wiggins ______ GBR | 49:22 | 2009
14. Joseba Beloki ________ ESP | 49:26 | 2000
15. Jan Ullrich __________ GER | 49:30 | 2000
16. Raimondas Rumsas _____ LTU | 49:49 | 2002
17. Roberto Heras ________ ESP | 49:49 | 2000
18. Ivan Basso ___________ ITA | 49:52 | 2002
19. Mikel Nieve __________ ESP | 49:58 | 2013
20. Joaquim Rodriguez ____ ESP | 49:58 | 2013
...
24. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 50:15 | 2013
25. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 50:15 | 2013
26. Jakob Fuglsang _______ DEN | 50:18 | 2013
...
29. Nauke Mollema ________ NED | 50:21 | 2013
...
31. Laurens Ten Dam ______ NED | 50:28 | 2013
...
37. Jean-Christophe Peraud FRA | 50:43 | 2013
...
39. Bart de Clercq _______ BEL | 50:47 | 2013

L'expert français Frédéric Grappe (entraîneur de l'équipe FDJ.fr) a exposé les données chiffrées: "Les 20 derniers kilomètres de Froome réalisés à 378 watts (5,56 W/kg). Tout simplement exceptionnel. Cette performance va dans le sens de celle d'Ax-3 Domaines."

More on Grappe and Power: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... imate.html

Greg LeMond, le triple vainqueur du Tour (1986, 1898, 1990) dont les performances personnelles n'ont pas été remises en question, a donné son avis: "Il ne faut pas trop juger. Je n'étais pas comme lui mais il ne faut pas comparer avec avant. Il est tellement maigre..." Et de regretter surtout: "Il faut en finir avec la suspicion. J'ai envie d'y croire. On peut faire des exploits sans se doper."

Paul 8v

There seems to be some people n here making some reasoned arguments for and against on here then others who just want to abuse everyone, time to unsubscribe to this one I think, shame as there seems to be some intelligent discussion in here but it's just getting a bit too nasty..

kleinstroker

ddraver wrote:

FatTed wrote:

Laurens Ten Dam Strava for the stage 396W for the Ventoux
http://app.strava.com/activities/67057155

How do you see the power numbers?

here's his numbers here..

t4tomo

The Mad Rapper wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

Very good ride by Froome yesterday, I think you have to ask not did he sprint up the mountain at an unfeasible pace, but is it feasible he could ride quicker than Contador up the mountain and be marginally quicker than a young columbian debutant in teh closing stages of a very high mountian stage?

I think you are trying to justify what you saw to yourself. That's up to you obviously.

Errr no I'm saying he didn't go up at an unfeasible pace - what was his time compared to known doped ascents of Ventoux by Armstrong or Pantani? I'm pretty sure its wasn't as fast.

He had one shortish burst after he'd been paced by Porte for a long time and overall went marginally quicker than the young rookie Quitana?

jimmythecuckoo

I saw that last night and thought the average of over 25mph was pretty good considering the finish.

But then Europcar and Movistar were driving before Sky started pulling towards the base of the mountain.

okgo

LOL everything on this forum is totally null and void if people are going to use Strava Estimate power to try and back up statements. Might as well pick numbers out of a hat if you're going to do that!

r0bh

okgo wrote:

LOL everything on this forum is totally null and void if people are going to use Strava Estimate power to try and back up statements. Might as well pick numbers out of a hat if you're going to do that!

459W "average" for almost 6 hours - now that really would be "not normal"!!!

Probably about as accurate as Vayer et al's numbers though!

MrTapir

kleinstroker wrote:

ddraver wrote:

FatTed wrote:

Laurens Ten Dam Strava for the stage 396W for the Ventoux
http://app.strava.com/activities/67057155

How do you see the power numbers?

here's his numbers here..

Does that average power put Ten Dam in the 'mutant' category?

And Quintana only 3 seconds off Pantani's pace, and Wiggins only 21 seconds off!

r0bh

MrTapir wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

ddraver wrote:

FatTed wrote:

Laurens Ten Dam Strava for the stage 396W for the Ventoux
http://app.strava.com/activities/67057155

How do you see the power numbers?

here's his numbers here..

Does that average power put Ten Dam in the 'mutant' category?

And Quintana only 3 seconds off Pantani's pace, and Wiggins only 21 seconds off!

No, it just puts him in the "Strava calculated power is complete bobbins" category.

TMR

Post removed - Personal insults and abuse will not be tolerated on here

bigmat

+1 re the Strave power estimates. Come on people...

Wasn't yesterday's ascent with a tailwind, whereas 2009 (at least) was into a headwind which neutralised a lot of the attacking?

MrTapir

r0bh wrote:

MrTapir wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

ddraver wrote:

FatTed wrote:

Laurens Ten Dam Strava for the stage 396W for the Ventoux
http://app.strava.com/activities/67057155

How do you see the power numbers?

here's his numbers here..

Does that average power put Ten Dam in the 'mutant' category?

And Quintana only 3 seconds off Pantani's pace, and Wiggins only 21 seconds off!

No, it just puts him in the "Strava calculated power is complete bobbins" category.

Yes it was sort of a tongue in cheek comment.

kleinstroker

davidof wrote:

nferrar wrote:

Has anyone done an analysis on Froome's Ventoux ascent yet? Would be interesting to see how it compares with times during 95-05. Maybe if it really is a clean and level playing field now then natural ability + Sky's training methods are enough to produce rides that look exceptional?

These figures are doing the rounds

MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)

-1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
-2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
-3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
-4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
-5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
-6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
-7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
-8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
-9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009

11. Franco Pellizotti ____ ITA | 49:15 | 2009
12. Vincenzo Nibali ______ ITA | 49:17 | 2009
13. Bradley Wiggins ______ GBR | 49:22 | 2009
14. Joseba Beloki ________ ESP | 49:26 | 2000
15. Jan Ullrich __________ GER | 49:30 | 2000
16. Raimondas Rumsas _____ LTU | 49:49 | 2002
17. Roberto Heras ________ ESP | 49:49 | 2000
18. Ivan Basso ___________ ITA | 49:52 | 2002
19. Mikel Nieve __________ ESP | 49:58 | 2013
20. Joaquim Rodriguez ____ ESP | 49:58 | 2013
...
24. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 50:15 | 2013
25. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 50:15 | 2013
26. Jakob Fuglsang _______ DEN | 50:18 | 2013
...
29. Nauke Mollema ________ NED | 50:21 | 2013
...
31. Laurens Ten Dam ______ NED | 50:28 | 2013
...
37. Jean-Christophe Peraud FRA | 50:43 | 2013
...
39. Bart de Clercq _______ BEL | 50:47 | 2013

snip..

So 8 of the fastest times in the top 40 ever up Ventoux were done yesterday. That's 20% of all the best performances ever were achieved yesterday..
I think the "it must be doping" brigade need to really sit down and understand what is happening on the wider scale, it's not that hard to understand.

okgo

Wiggins says in his own book that he is capable of 450w for an hour
Wiggins did 476 watts in the 2011 national UK 10 mile TT champs
Wiggins reportedly did 477 watts for the last 20 mins of the Giro TT where he lost out to Dowsett

These figures are mind boggling, if Froome is only doing low 400's then I cannot see the issue, the way in which he delivered yesterday wasn't 'orthodox' in as much as it wasn't a bike swinging contador style attack, it was a seated spin up, which seems to have riled people more than anything else, if that's his style, what is the problem...

davidof

BigMat wrote:

+1 re the Strave power estimates. Come on people...

Wasn't yesterday's ascent with a tailwind, whereas 2009 (at least) was into a headwind which neutralised a lot of the attacking?

A headwind coming from their left shoulders after Chalet Reynard, below in the woods the wind is much less noticeable. This is why the riders were sheltering on the final kms.

I've cycled up where a 120km/h mistral was blowing at the top and in the woods it was relatively calm.

As the poster above notes the road turns over the last 6km but is broadly to the NW with small sections to the NE where the riders would have had the wind in their rear left quarter.

frenchfighter

A good few posts Davidof, merci.

okgo

kleinstroker wrote:

davidof wrote:

nferrar wrote:

Has anyone done an analysis on Froome's Ventoux ascent yet? Would be interesting to see how it compares with times during 95-05. Maybe if it really is a clean and level playing field now then natural ability + Sky's training methods are enough to produce rides that look exceptional?

These figures are doing the rounds

MONT VENTOUX (last 15.65 km [from St. Esteve], 8.74 %, 1368 m)

-1. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 48:33 | 2002
-2. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 48:35 | 2013
-3. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 48.57 | 2009
-4. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 48:57 | 2009
-5. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:00 | 2009
-6. Marco Pantani ________ ITA | 49:01 | 2000
-7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 49:01 | 2000
-8. Frank Schleck ________ LUX | 49:02 | 2009
-9. Nairo Quintana _______ COL | 49:04 | 2013
10. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 49:05 | 2009

11. Franco Pellizotti ____ ITA | 49:15 | 2009
12. Vincenzo Nibali ______ ITA | 49:17 | 2009
13. Bradley Wiggins ______ GBR | 49:22 | 2009
14. Joseba Beloki ________ ESP | 49:26 | 2000
15. Jan Ullrich __________ GER | 49:30 | 2000
16. Raimondas Rumsas _____ LTU | 49:49 | 2002
17. Roberto Heras ________ ESP | 49:49 | 2000
18. Ivan Basso ___________ ITA | 49:52 | 2002
19. Mikel Nieve __________ ESP | 49:58 | 2013
20. Joaquim Rodriguez ____ ESP | 49:58 | 2013
...
24. Roman Kreuziger ______ CZE | 50:15 | 2013
25. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 50:15 | 2013
26. Jakob Fuglsang _______ DEN | 50:18 | 2013
...
29. Nauke Mollema ________ NED | 50:21 | 2013
...
31. Laurens Ten Dam ______ NED | 50:28 | 2013
...
37. Jean-Christophe Peraud FRA | 50:43 | 2013
...
39. Bart de Clercq _______ BEL | 50:47 | 2013

snip..

So 8 of the fastest times in the top 40 ever up Ventoux were done yesterday. That's 20% of all the best performances ever were achieved yesterday..
I think the "it must be doping" brigade need to really sit down and understand what is happening on the wider scale, it's not that hard to understand.

Also it doesn't take a genius to realize that the wind makes a HUGE difference.

Even on something as tiny as Box Hill getting a good wind can make 20 or so seconds difference at the same power, there was a huge tailwind yesterday at parts, over the course of an hour having a bad wind could certainly explain some of the slower times, and likewise it could explain some of the quicker ones. Wiggins 50 secs back, 50 secs over an hour up a mountain with different wind is totally explainable.

No_Ta_Doctor

The Mad Rapper wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

You've been on one for days. Get over yourself. And if you don't like what people post, you know what to do. It's not rocket science, chopper.

Some stuff

MR, you are a singularly aggressive individual with apparently no sense of self-irony. I suggest you calm down before one of the mods has to have a word.

above_the_cows

Can people stop using such foul language.

As for Laurens Ten Dam's Strava Data. Max heart rate of 179? Up Ventoux? My god these people are freaks. 179? I'd be hitting 190 if I was putting in those efforts.

alihisgreat

Above The Cows wrote:

Can people stop using such foul language.

As for Laurens Ten Dam's Strava Data. Max heart rate of 179? Up Ventoux? My god these people are freaks. 179? I'd be hitting 190 if I was putting in those efforts.

You are a woman though... so you naturally have a higher HR.

jimmythecuckoo

No tA Doctor wrote:

The Mad Rapper wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

You've been on one for days. Get over yourself. And if you don't like what people post, you know what to do. It's not rocket science, chopper.

SOME STUFF.

MR, you are a singularly aggressive individual with apparently no sense of self-irony. I suggest you calm down before one of the mods has to have a word.

Post gone. You can chop it from your quote too maybe.

above_the_cows

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Can people stop using such foul language.

As for Laurens Ten Dam's Strava Data. Max heart rate of 179? Up Ventoux? My god these people are freaks. 179? I'd be hitting 190 if I was putting in those efforts.

You are a woman though... so you naturally have a higher HR.

Aye that is true. We need that extra effort to shift our higher body fat percentage. 'S'not fair. :x

rickyrider

Above The Cows wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Can people stop using such foul language.

As for Laurens Ten Dam's Strava Data. Max heart rate of 179? Up Ventoux? My god these people are freaks. 179? I'd be hitting 190 if I was putting in those efforts.

You are a woman though... so you naturally have a higher HR.

Aye that is true. We need that extra effort to shift our higher body fat percentage. 'S'not fair. :x

Check Froome's HR from the Vuelta '11 TT http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/Z3JDD63 ... SXNITPULAE

Now that's a freaky HR... but people have hugely differing natural HRs. A friend of mine regularly gets into the 190s (he's 35) my max is 180 (same age)

Velonutter

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Can I remind you that this is a forum, not a platform for personal insults, having had various reports about one particular member, please do not reply to cantankerous, gibing or insulting posts, report them using the report function in the top right hand corner and us mods will deal with it from there.

Everyone can get passionate about their sport, but we will not tolerate rudeness or personal insults.

Thank-you