Sky release Froome data to Equipe

ddraver

Becasue soem of you (understandably) don't go near the doping thread. I think this is news that needs to be shouted from the rooftops, especially with the problems in Athletics at the mo

the Inner Ring @inrng wrote:
Sky release Froome's climbing data and power stats to L'Equipe who have numbers reviewed by @fredgrappe who draws four conclusions:
1. Froome's power curve (W vs time) has a normal slope and his rides in the Tour are consistent with data from last 2 years
2. Sky have never measured his V02 max but Grappe says he must have a score close to the known physiological limits
3. his weight's been stable for races and
4. Grappe says he must have excellent powers of recovery. Data go from Vuelta 2011 to Mont Ventoux

All discussion here - viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12930855

Now quick Chasey, lock the thread!

goonz

Surely that case closed?

Tom Butcher

Good move - we need this kind of transparency - too much heed paid to twitter and the like when 90% of fans aren't even aware of what the twitterati are saying and most of those that are pay it little regard anyway.

ridgerider

So it this type of data more reliable than the Blood Passport?

RichN95.

Ridgerider wrote:

So it this type of data more reliable than the Blood Passport?

No. But a loud PE teacher has made it the data du jour in an effort to shift some supermarket tabloids.

izza

GIven Brailsford's/Sky's want for marginal gains it seems remarkable that they do not measure his VO2.

I say this as a point of interest - not with any implication of a lack of transparency or doping.

No_Ta_Doctor

izza wrote:

GIven Brailsford's/Sky's want for marginal gains it seems remarkable that they do not measure his VO2.

I say this as a point of interest - not with any implication of a lack of transparency or doping.

VO2 isn't really anything anybody bothers with any more, according to Vaughters - "a bit 1985"

hammerite

izza wrote:

GIven Brailsford's/Sky's want for marginal gains it seems remarkable that they do not measure his VO2.

I say this as a point of interest - not with any implication of a lack of transparency or doping.

Apparently it's a bit old skool when it comes to measuring athletic performance and there are better indicators.

No expert, just saying what I read elsewhere!

dish_dash

No tA Doctor wrote:

izza wrote:

GIven Brailsford's/Sky's want for marginal gains it seems remarkable that they do not measure his VO2.

I say this as a point of interest - not with any implication of a lack of transparency or doping.

VO2 isn't really anything anybody bothers with any more, according to Vaughters - "a bit 1985"

Oooh Oooh Vaughters joins the 'new omerta'...

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

izza wrote:

GIven Brailsford's/Sky's want for marginal gains it seems remarkable that they do not measure his VO2.

I say this as a point of interest - not with any implication of a lack of transparency or doping.

VO2 isn't really anything anybody bothers with any more, according to Vaughters - "a bit 1985"

He's also said it was a concept from the 50s and now here it is in the 2010s. This leads me to conclude that the leading advocates of VO2 max are Marty McFly and Doc Brown.

rickyrider

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

izza wrote:

GIven Brailsford's/Sky's want for marginal gains it seems remarkable that they do not measure his VO2.

I say this as a point of interest - not with any implication of a lack of transparency or doping.

VO2 isn't really anything anybody bothers with any more, according to Vaughters - "a bit 1985"

He's also said it was a concept from the 50s and now here it is in the 2010s. This leads me to conclude that the leading advocates of VO2 max are Marty McFly and Doc Brown.

As I said in the doping thread, I got it direct from a gold medal winning rower from London 2012 that bloods are the only thing they are interested in now. I think that is pretty conclusive that V02 max is indeed very out-dated.

thomthom

Just a genuine question. Is 'normal slope' the same as normal figures..?

ddraver

What are normal figures?

thomthom

What are normal slopes?

ddraver

Slopes without any significant peaks and troughs in performance that would suggest a sudden"injection of form"

dorlomin

So he seems to get tired at a rate consistent with someone not racing full of EPO. This profile is similar every climb suggesting he is not getting a boost for critical stages.

The big Sky advantage seems to be recovery from a days racing rather than his performance during it. IIRC they have claimed to use intravenous rehydration and nutrition replenishment.

Their story is credible if not conclusive. The real superman thing about the Froome story is making the pro tour and even trying to do a GT race while suffering Bilharzia. His leap in performance really does match recovering from that.

Either Sky are the best dopers in history or are in the process of revolutionising stage racing.

RichN95.

If Froome had measured his VO2 max and releases it here are the ready responses for the twitterati according to the figure:

<85 - "that's not freakish. He's definitely a doper"
85-92.5 - "LeMond was 92.5. Grappe said he was at the limit so how can this be right? Doper!"
>92.5 - "VO2 max is an outdated concept it proves nothing"

ddraver

dorlomin wrote:

The big Sky advantage seems to be recovery from a days racing rather than his performance during it. IIRC they have claimed to use intravenous rehydration and nutrition replenishment.
.

I think they specifically claim NOT to do that - it's now banned by the UCI anyway (one of the genuinely good things they ve done to stop doping)

RichN95.

dorlomin wrote:

The big Sky advantage seems to be recovery from a days racing rather than his performance during it. IIRC they have claimed to use intravenous rehydration and nutrition replenishment.

Isn't 'nutrition replenishment' what the rest of us call 'eating'?

above_the_cows

This thread seems a little one sided to me? Where are the believers?

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

dorlomin wrote:

The big Sky advantage seems to be recovery from a days racing rather than his performance during it. IIRC they have claimed to use intravenous rehydration and nutrition replenishment.

Isn't 'nutrition replenishment' what the rest of us call 'eating'?

Yes. They control what they eat, weigh the riders every morning to make sure their fluids are ok etc. Don't use Gatorade either

above_the_cows

Kerrison checks their urine every morning too to check their hydration levels. What a great job. Analysing 9 people's pee every morning.

keyser__soze

rickyrider wrote:

As I said in the doping thread, I got it direct from a gold medal winning rower from London 2012 that bloods are the only thing they are interested in now. I think that is pretty conclusive that V02 max is indeed very out-dated.

If you'd posted this in the Clinic you'd be told that rowing is a sport Britain is good at, just like track cycling, and as Brailsford was in charge of the GB Olympic track cycling the other Olympics sports teams are clearly in on it and the rowers are likely doping too. Plus that Jurgen Grobler, he's from East Germany (just like Jan Ullrich) and there's been lots of rumours about his training methods and connection to doping before he came over to the UK (this bit is at least true) so he's clearly dodgy and this is further evidence that Froome is indeed doping

nickel

Not that I'm arguing that it's a good measurement of performance as I really don't know enough about the subject but I just find it interesting given Sky's highly scientific approach that they've never bothered to do a VO2 max test purely out of curiosity.

junglist_matty

But a bunch of forumites cannot decipher this technical data

Rider data is meaningless, a good rider will have higher numbers than a poor rider, just as a doped up rider will have consistently higher numbers than if they were not doped up and it's not as if they've only just started doping in the last few months, if they've been at it, you can be guaranteed it started well before 2011, so of course the figures are going to be consistent for the period they have supplied data for.

Paulie W

junglist_matty wrote:

But a bunch of forumites cannot decipher this technical data

Rider data is meaningless, a good rider will have higher numbers than a poor rider, just as a doped up rider will have consistently higher numbers than if they were not doped up and it's not as if they've only just started doping in the last few months, if they've been at it, you can be guaranteed it started well before 2011, so of course the figures are going to be consistent over the years!

Think you're missing the point which has been well made above. Consistency doesnt fit with a model of a rider e.g. blood doping during a race.

disgruntledgoat

junglist_matty wrote:

But a bunch of forumites cannot decipher this technical data

Rider data is meaningless, a good rider will have higher numbers than a poor rider, just as a doped up rider will have consistently higher numbers than if they were not doped up and it's not as if they've only just started doping in the last few months, if they've been at it, you can be guaranteed it started well before 2011, so of course the figures are going to be consistent over the years!

See Vaughters yesterday, there has been no study done on linking power output to doping. But all the skeptics were after power data and now they've got it. Now they;ve got to figure out what it tells them and what it means.

Paulie W

Nickel wrote:

Not that I'm arguing that it's a good measurement of performance as I really don't know enough about the subject but I just find it interesting given Sky's highly scientific approach that they've never bothered to do a VO2 max test purely out of curiosity.

They've not bothered with leeches either!

nickel

Paulie W wrote:

Nickel wrote:

Not that I'm arguing that it's a good measurement of performance as I really don't know enough about the subject but I just find it interesting given Sky's highly scientific approach that they've never bothered to do a VO2 max test purely out of curiosity.

They've not bothered with leeches either!

Pah, what do you think Porte went back to the team car for today?

iainf72

Ferrari on VO2Max

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=47

plectrum

ddraver wrote:

Becasue soem of you (understandably) don't go near the doping thread. I think this is news that needs to be shouted from the rooftops, especially with the problems in Athletics at the mo

the Inner Ring @inrng wrote:
Sky release Froome's climbing data and power stats to L'Equipe who have numbers reviewed by @fredgrappe who draws four conclusions:
1. Froome's power curve (W vs time) has a normal slope and his rides in the Tour are consistent with data from last 2 years
2. Sky have never measured his V02 max but Grappe says he must have a score close to the known physiological limits
3. his weight's been stable for races and
4. Grappe says he must have excellent powers of recovery. Data go from Vuelta 2011 to Mont Ventoux

All discussion here - viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12930855

Now quick Chasey, lock the thread!

Just out of interest - considering Sky have an absolute rock solid handle on power outputs and their riders are glued to their power meters would this mean they can push power to the absolute acceptable limit in the same way that doing daily Hb tests allowed people to get to 49 - Haematocrit - just legit?

Its not a spurious dig - just a query i.e. is power data controllable and so manipulable i.e. in english - Chris slow down a bit there's no need to push faster the rest of the field are xxxx'd