Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

Anonymous

How can people be saying Sky/froome are doing unusually well?

No_Ta_Doctor

Sky not looking like they've got the sort of recovery the great dopers of the 90s-00s had today.

tailwindhome

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 3m
Back to overall question: if you base your views on performances only, you can have a different set of conclusions every day.

above_the_cows

Surely someone will suggest that their poor performances today are due to a dodgy blood bag or something. God I've just given some people ideas...

slim_boy_fat

Above The Cows wrote:

Surely someone will suggest that their poor performances today are due to a dodgy blood bag or something. God I've just given some people ideas...

Looking at the Clinic that's one of the more sensible ones!

RichN95.

Above The Cows wrote:

Surely someone will suggest that their poor performances today are due to a dodgy blood bag or something. God I've just given some people ideas...

According to the Clinic, either Sky have been warned off by the ASO and told to make it look less obvious or the ASO have given some of the other teams carte blanche to take what they like.

frenchfighter

Ok so lets look at something other than opinions.

--
doc ‏@veloclinic 2h
top 5 dResiduals compared to 2002-2007 baseline; Froome +1.9%, Porte -1.7%, Valverde -2.9%, Mollema -3.0%, ten Dam -3.4%


doc doc ‏@veloclinic 2h
top 5 residuals compared to the 2008-2013 baseline; froome +4.5%, Porte +0.8%, Valverde -0.4%, Mollena -0.5%, ten Dam -0.9%



--

Quintana did animate things
on the Pailheres
@veloclinic: “@Scienceofsport: @veloclinic I got approx 15:30 for final 5km after Quintana attacked. Not sure of the Vclimb over that section”
"@veloclinic: @Scienceofsport that just got me out of bed and turning on the laptop!"
"@veloclinic: @Scienceofsport @veloclinic residual -1.79 % Dresidual -5.4% so actualy quite fast for the lead up climb"

but
as predicted by the DpVAM
"@veloclinic: @veloclinic @scienceofsport Quintana will crack based on that"
cracked on AX3
as you can’t go @ pVAM
2 climbs in a row
still a solid tactic
giving 3rd on the stage Valverde
a free SKY-tow to the line

--

--

One thing I keep in mind when judging performance based on estimations, calculations or even directly from power meters, is this answer Dr. Aldo Sassi gave me when I interviewed him:
“

“Too high of a performance can be an element to suspect unphysiological performance and doping. The problem is how to measure the performance through biomechanics. You have to make estimations, and do to an estimation you always have 3-4% error. If instead you use a power meter, you need to check the calibration of each rider. Otherwise you could have the same errors in the measurement.”
Another message I took from that interview came when I asked Sassi which emerging Grand Tour talents impressed him. He said “Porte, Richie Porte …”

--

From 2011. Have a look where CF is:


http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/i ... railsford/

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Surely someone will suggest that their poor performances today are due to a dodgy blood bag or something. God I've just given some people ideas...

According to the Clinic, either Sky have been warned off by the ASO and told to make it look less obvious or the ASO have given some of the other teams carte blanche to take what they like.

There's no reasoning with true believers!

frenchfighter

ps. Froome, Brailsford et al always say 'we work so hard'. WTF do they think the rest of the riders are doing? Eating cake and chinking beers? FFS, these guys are Pros and all work very hard.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

From 2011. Have a look where CF is:


http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/i ... railsford/

Have you bothered to read the article which explains that graph? Few who post it seem to have done. They think it is a graph showing a riders' ability. It doesn't. It shows the progression of a rider's career and how they are performing against how the should be. It actually shows that they thought that Froome was massively underachieving in 2010. They were right.

Misuse of information like this is why Sky (and others) are reluctant to release data.

frenchfighter

AX-3-DOMAINES (BONASCRE), ALL-TIME TOP 100 LIST part I

____8.90 km, 7.46 &, 664 m

_1. Roberto Laiseka ______ ESP | 22:57 | 2001 SUSPECT
_2. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 22:59 | 2001 DOPER
_3. Chris Froome _________ GBR | 23:14 | 2013
_4. Jan Ullrich __________ GER | 23:17 | 2003 DOPER
_5. Haimar Zubeldia ______ ESP | 23:19 | 2003 SUSPECT
_6. Jan Ullrich __________ GER | 23:22 | 2001 DOPER
_7. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 23:24 | 2003 DOPER
_8. Alexandre Vinokourov__ KAZ | 23:34 | 2003 DOPER
_9. Ivan Basso ___________ ITA | 23:36 | 2003 DOPER
10. Lance Armstrong ______ USA | 23:40 | 2005 DOPER

1. Ivan Basso ___________ ITA | 23:42 | 2005 DOPER
12. Oscar Sevilla ________ ESP | 23:45 | 2001 DOPER
13. Joseba Beloki ________ ESP | 23:45 | 2001 DOPER
14. Denis Menchov ________ RUS | 23:47 | 2010 DOPER
15. Samuel Sanchez _______ ESP | 23:47 | 2010
16. Jan Ullrich __________ GER | 24:00 | 2005 DOPER
17. Andy Schleck _________ LUX | 24:01 | 2010
18. Joaquim Rodriguez ____ ESP | 24:01 | 2010
19. Robert Gesink ________ NED | 24:01 | 2010
20. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 24:01 | 2010

21. Jurgen van den Broeck_ BEL | 24:01 | 2010
22. Richie Porte _________ AUS | 24:05 | 2013
23. Levi Leipheimer ______ USA | 24:15 | 2005 DOPER
24. Floyd Landis _________ USA | 24:15 | 2005 DOPER
25. Iban Mayo ____________ ESP | 24:15 | 2003 DOPER

http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/show ... ost2045251

slim_boy_fat

frenchfighter wrote:

ps. Froome, Brailsford et al always say 'we work so hard'. WTF do they think the rest of the riders are doing? Eating cake and chinking beers? FFS, these guys are Pros and all work very hard.

So anyone who wins consistently in any sport has to be doping because everyone works hard?

frenchfighter

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

ps. Froome, Brailsford et al always say 'we work so hard'. WTF do they think the rest of the riders are doing? Eating cake and chinking beers? FFS, these guys are Pros and all work very hard.

So anyone who wins consistently in any sport has to be doping because everyone works hard?

You are misunderstanding. When Sky's performances are questioned they say it is because they work so hard... insinuating that the others don't.

The fact is that Sky are great at turning average riders into GT ET riders.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

AX-3-DOMAINES (BONASCRE), ALL-TIME TOP 100 LIST part I

____8.90 km, 7.46 &, 664 m

In 2001, 2003 and 2005 the Alps came before the Pyrenees, meaning that there was a considerably different racing dynamic on those days compared to yesterday which was the first mountain stage.

slim_boy_fat

frenchfighter wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

ps. Froome, Brailsford et al always say 'we work so hard'. WTF do they think the rest of the riders are doing? Eating cake and chinking beers? FFS, these guys are Pros and all work very hard.

So anyone who wins consistently in any sport has to be doping because everyone works hard?

You are misunderstanding. When Sky's performances are questioned they say it is because they work so hard... insinuating that the others don't.

The fact is that Sky are great at turning average riders into GT ET riders.

I think you misunderstand. They all work hard, but someone always works better, which normally means they win.

frenchfighter

Yes Rich that is correct. That performance differential is subjecive however, the other aspects are not. But in your opinion, how much time do you think that would take out of the times?

And as you are aware 2010 was a lot cleaner than earlier in the decade.

ddraver

Someone who isnt blocked tell Frenchie he needs to follow @JournalVelo on twitter...

tailwindhome

As someone tweeted earlier...who is verifying these times? Is everyone being measured over 'exactly' the same distance? Before you can even discuss factors such as weather, windspeed/direction and race dynamics you need to be sure that you are comparing like for like...



Edit - it may have been @Journal Velo

gregster04

Are Movistar dopers today?

gsk82

frenchfighter wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

ps. Froome, Brailsford et al always say 'we work so hard'. WTF do they think the rest of the riders are doing? Eating cake and chinking beers? FFS, these guys are Pros and all work very hard.

So anyone who wins consistently in any sport has to be doping because everyone works hard?

You are misunderstanding. When Sky's performances are questioned they say it is because they work so hard... insinuating that the others don't.

The fact is that Sky are great at turning average riders into GT ET riders.

i've certainly had the impression for a while that sky train all year, most others train on training camps and the rest of the time just ride their bikes with their friends. just look at all the pro's from different teams who ride together, they can't all be doing the same training surely?

chris boardman also did a bit in a wind tunnel on itv saying that on a flat road in the wind you can save 14% effort just by wearing a skinsuit and non vented helmet and riding an aero bike. when ned asked him why they don't all do it he just shrugged.

i think we maybe underestimate how stupid/lazy a lot of these teams and riders are

tailwindhome

frenchfighter wrote:

20. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 24:01 | 2010

What was Contador's time yesterday?

frenchfighter

Read the link. It has 100 times on there.

frenchfighter

If any of you want to debate with me, explain this as a starting point, cheers.

doc ‏@veloclinic 2h
top 5 dResiduals compared to 2002-2007 baseline; Froome +1.9%, Porte -1.7%, Valverde -2.9%, Mollema -3.0%, ten Dam -3.4%


doc doc ‏@veloclinic 2h
top 5 residuals compared to the 2008-2013 baseline; froome +4.5%, Porte +0.8%, Valverde -0.4%, Mollena -0.5%, ten Dam -0.9%

Are we to assume that Froome is just a once in a generation rider and is just so so good?

He is in ET territory for w/kg - although, maybe that 'normal upper level' needs to be revised upwards?

tailwindhome

frenchfighter wrote:

Read the link. It has 100 times on there.

Ta. Had missed the link

58. Alberto Contador _____ ESP | 24:59 | 2013

So he was nearly a minute slower than 2010.

My 2p. Froome took advantage of a rare Contador bad day. Maybe it was the heat, pollen count, lack of form or no longer doping. Either way I put it down to a bad day from Bertie and a good day from Froome......still a long way to Paris

frenchfighter

Yeah - have a look at all the times from 2010/2013 as there are a good many people who did both. Then compare that to Froome today.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

If any of you want to debate with me, explain this as a starting point, cheers.

doc ‏@veloclinic 2h
top 5 dResiduals compared to 2002-2007 baseline; Froome +1.9%, Porte -1.7%, Valverde -2.9%, Mollema -3.0%, ten Dam -3.4%


doc doc ‏@veloclinic 2h
top 5 residuals compared to the 2008-2013 baseline; froome +4.5%, Porte +0.8%, Valverde -0.4%, Mollena -0.5%, ten Dam -0.9%

Are we to assume that Froome is just a once in a generation rider and is just so so good?

He is in ET territory for w/kg - although, maybe that 'normal upper level' needs to be revised upwards?

OK. What is a Residual? Or are you just flinging out stats you have no understanding of just because they suit your arguement.

gsk82

he was 34 seconds quicker than sammy sanchez, pretty conclusive stuff :roll:

frenchfighter

You missed a question Rich. You also know as well as I do that there are plenty of links to explain all terms that are thrown about.

tailwindhome

frenchfighter wrote:

You missed a question Rich. You also know as well as I do that there are plenty of links to explain all terms that are thrown about.

I think he maybe wants you to explain it. "In your own words" as they say.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

You missed a question Rich. You also know as well as I do that there are plenty of links to explain all terms that are thrown about.

I can use google. I just want to be sure you actually understand what you are posting about. Because if you don't understand what it is (and I don't) you cannot understand whether it is actually relevant or just another selective use of statistics.