Garmin vs Sky (non-doping related)
Comments
-
I'm not really that bothered by the exact times. It's what you think they signify that's flawed.rayjay wrote:
I also think if you checked out this http://journalvelo.com/opinion/did-froo ... r-at-last/
I agree it's not concrete evidence but it makes for interesting reading .
It is certainly not crap evidence
Froome is quicker and don't forget Armstrong's rivals were doping as well so he destroyed some of their times.
For all this mention of Ax 3 times, here's a question. Have you actually watched the 2001 Ax 3 stage? I mean recently - since the 2013 Tour? I have.Twitter: @RichN950 -
sjmclean wrote:Rayjay do you take into account anything else other than the time, you kept mentioning Ax3, so someone showed you a video of the favorites track standing on that climb. You just ignored it. It is widely known that Froome is one of the only favorites ever to really use that climb, so obviously he is going to be faster
I have mentioned other reasons before so lets not go over old ground. Rich has quoted a few on his post above.
Some of Froomes performances in my opinion have been incredible.
He has dominated riders in a way which we have not seen for some time i.e. Armstrong or Contador at their best.
Other riders are scared of him.
His performance in the vuelta was outstanding and really he should have been given the reigns to win instead of looking after Wiggo.
In the tour for instance, at some points it just looked so easy.
Again the 2 GC races with Wiggo , he had gears to go, he was holding back.
Before he joined sky he never showed anywhere near this kind of ability. Maybe I am wrong and he has responded to all those marginal gains in a very short space of time and turned into one of the best GC riders I have ever seen . Ventoux was an incredible performance .
I have no issues with admitting I am wrong. I have apologised on this sight more than once.
But for me the evidence does not weigh in His favour IMO.0 -
rayjay wrote:TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:No lets be honest what really angers you is the fact that we don't believe Froome is clean.
What angers me is, like the proverbial chicken, you are sh1tting all over the board.
The same could be said for you.
You see Froome clean, I don't
Difference of opinion .
You make comments like above then I will respond like wise if need be .
But I am obviously not as worked up as you.
I think you know in your heart you are wrong that's why your so angry .....
I'm not doping, Chill, keep it civil.
Why do you continue to insist that I see Froome as clean?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
rayjay wrote:sjmclean wrote:Rayjay do you take into account anything else other than the time, you kept mentioning Ax3, so someone showed you a video of the favorites track standing on that climb. You just ignored it. It is widely known that Froome is one of the only favorites ever to really use that climb, so obviously he is going to be faster
I have mentioned other reasons before so lets not go over old ground. Rich has quoted a few on his post above.
Some of Froomes performances in my opinion have been incredible.
He has dominated riders in a way which we have not seen for some time i.e. Armstrong or Contador at their best.
Other riders are scared of him.
.
NO he hasn't. And I have demonstrated that he hasn't. The facts of Froome's tour win simply do not bear out this analysis.
The "scared of him" bit is you just making it up. Who is scared of him? Why?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Ok, the Froome beating Talansky by a margin thing drove me to this. You are all to blame.
I took 10 random Tours from 1950 to the present day including 2013 and measured the deviation from the winner of the top ten. I assigned 100 points to the winner, based on their time and an appropriate amount of points for the rest (eg if a rider took 10% longer than the leader he would get 90 pts.). Points are expressed as a % of the whole number given to the winner. DQ'd times are still included as we're arguing about what doped cycling looks like compared to clean cycling. Here we are...
As we can see the spread between the winner and 10th place is pretty consistent. The Average spread we see is 0.0343 or less than 1 10th of 1% between 1st and 10th. As it happens, 2013 is bang in the middle of the selection my RNG came up with. For interests sake, the biggest spread is 0.005012 and the smallest 0.00098
Take that!
There you go. He has not dominated riders in a way any different to any of the 9 other random tour winners in that sample."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:No lets be honest what really angers you is the fact that we don't believe Froome is clean.
What angers me is, like the proverbial chicken, you are sh1tting all over the board.
The same could be said for you.
You see Froome clean, I don't
Difference of opinion .
You make comments like above then I will respond like wise if need be .
But I am obviously not as worked up as you.
I think you know in your heart you are wrong that's why your so angry .....
I'm not doping, Chill, keep it civil.
Why do you continue to insist that I see Froome as clean?
As you seem to be always questioning my reasons
I just took it for granted that you thought Froome was clean
,My mistake
Sitting on the fence is actually the smartest option in this case.
I'm not much of a fence sitter.0 -
Quintana and Rodriguez certainly. That's why they rode away from him on Alpe d'Huez and Semnoz. Like antelopes running away from a lion.disgruntledgoat wrote:The "scared of him" bit is you just making it up. Who is scared of him?Twitter: @RichN950 -
I just wanted to show my chart again."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Ok, the Froome beating Talansky by a margin thing drove me to this. You are all to blame.
I took 10 random Tours from 1950 to the present day including 2013 and measured the deviation from the winner of the top ten. I assigned 100 points to the winner, based on their time and an appropriate amount of points for the rest (eg if a rider took 10% longer than the leader he would get 90 pts.). Points are expressed as a % of the whole number given to the winner. DQ'd times are still included as we're arguing about what doped cycling looks like compared to clean cycling. Here we are...
As we can see the spread between the winner and 10th place is pretty consistent. The Average spread we see is 0.0343 or less than 1 10th of 1% between 1st and 10th. As it happens, 2013 is bang in the middle of the selection my RNG came up with. For interests sake, the biggest spread is 0.005012 and the smallest 0.00098
Take that!
There you go. He has not dominated riders in a way any different to any of the 9 other random tour winners in that sample.
My Point was and his this ....when the tour started Froome was the favourite.
Contador and everyone else knew he was the rider to beat.
On nearly all of the cols who were the other riders most concerned with? Froome
He had defeated them most of that year and they knew he was the man to beat.
Some of Armstrong's wins were not by a great margin but he dominated the peloton and IMO Froome dominated the peloton in a similar way .
The other riders all knew he was the man to beat and they were scared of him.
That's the way I saw things. IMO he dominated the tour and won it quite easily.0 -
It's a fine chart. But it needs colours. People are more easily perusaded by colours than actual numbersdisgruntledgoat wrote:I just wanted to show my chart again.
For example, look at this. You don't know what it is or what it shows, but what you do know is that need to stay away from the Mexican border.
Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
It's a fine chart. But it needs colours. People are more easily perusaded by colours than actual numbersdisgruntledgoat wrote:I just wanted to show my chart again.
Rich, do you ever not talk sense?0 -
rayjay wrote:sjmclean wrote:Rayjay do you take into account anything else other than the time, you kept mentioning Ax3, so someone showed you a video of the favorites track standing on that climb. You just ignored it. It is widely known that Froome is one of the only favorites ever to really use that climb, so obviously he is going to be faster
I have mentioned other reasons before so lets not go over old ground. Rich has quoted a few on his post above.
Some of Froomes performances in my opinion have been incredible.
He has dominated riders in a way which we have not seen for some time i.e. Armstrong or Contador at their best.
Other riders are scared of him.
His performance in the vuelta was outstanding and really he should have been given the reigns to win instead of looking after Wiggo.
In the tour for instance, at some points it just looked so easy.
Again the 2 GC races with Wiggo , he had gears to go, he was holding back.
Before he joined sky he never showed anywhere near this kind of ability. Maybe I am wrong and he has responded to all those marginal gains in a very short space of time and turned into one of the best GC riders I have ever seen . Ventoux was an incredible performance .
I have no issues with admitting I am wrong. I have apologised on this sight more than once.
But for me the evidence does not weigh in His favour IMO.
I can see that point, I've read your other views and we have discussed them. This was a direct question on climb times, which I don't feel you've answered. Do you ever consider anything else other than the overall time.
Any information on riders you feel are clean as well? I am genuinely interested to know.0 -
14. IRL MARTIN Daniel 175 GARMIN - SHARP 05h 51' 21'' + 02' 36''
25. USA TALANSKY Andrew 178 GARMIN - SHARP 05h 55' 23'' + 06' 38''
Only Froome can be clean and climb as fast as EPO dopers. Other clean riders will lose many minutes, which makes sense.0 -
The Truth wrote:14. IRL MARTIN Daniel 175 GARMIN - SHARP 05h 51' 21'' + 02' 36''
25. USA TALANSKY Andrew 178 GARMIN - SHARP 05h 55' 23'' + 06' 38''
Only Froome can be clean and climb as fast as EPO dopers. Other clean riders will lose many minutes, which makes sense.
Nice cherry, here's another:
2. USA VAN GARDEREN Tejay 39 BMC RACING TEAM 04h 52' 31'' + 00' 59''
7. GBR FROOME Christopher 1 SKY PROCYCLING 04h 54' 50'' + 03' 18''"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
It's a fine chart. But it needs colours. People are more easily perusaded by colours than actual numbersdisgruntledgoat wrote:I just wanted to show my chart again.
For example, look at this. You don't know what it is or what it shows, but what you do know is that need to stay away from the Mexican border.
Ooo a map. Much better. I'm good with maps. I can assign you some reading about 'why' you should stay away from the Mexican border if you like, for a variety of reasons, weather, the geography, border violence, international drug cartels, a big fence, the use of drones by security services...
As for the argument of this thread (or just the sad abuse of statistics and I say that as someone who works with qualitative data), what do people make of the fact that a woman once finished a Grand Tour? Was she doping? Disguised as a man? How do we work that into our data sets? I know it pertains to nothing in particular I just wanted to change the subject and get back to why cycling and its history is awesome.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Lets face it, climbing statistics, from different years, are absolute tosh.
Factor in........
Position of climb in stage.
TT or not
Position in Tour. ie early stage or late in the event
Weather
Strength of competition
Rider attacking or defending
Timing of effort, ie from bottom of climb, half way up, last Kilo, etc etc
Is rider trying to defend race lead or take time from rivals.
Is rider in group most of the way up, or alone.
Douse rider have domestiques helping to make the pace, or riding un aided.
Is rider flat out or simply doing enough to win the stage.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
You see, far too many variables to make times on a climb have ANY relevance whatsoever.
Get a life and give us all a break. :roll: :roll: :roll:0 -
rayjay wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Ok, the Froome beating Talansky by a margin thing drove me to this. You are all to blame.
I took 10 random Tours from 1950 to the present day including 2013 and measured the deviation from the winner of the top ten. I assigned 100 points to the winner, based on their time and an appropriate amount of points for the rest (eg if a rider took 10% longer than the leader he would get 90 pts.). Points are expressed as a % of the whole number given to the winner. DQ'd times are still included as we're arguing about what doped cycling looks like compared to clean cycling. Here we are...
As we can see the spread between the winner and 10th place is pretty consistent. The Average spread we see is 0.0343 or less than 1 10th of 1% between 1st and 10th. As it happens, 2013 is bang in the middle of the selection my RNG came up with. For interests sake, the biggest spread is 0.005012 and the smallest 0.00098
Take that!
There you go. He has not dominated riders in a way any different to any of the 9 other random tour winners in that sample.
My Point was and his this ....when the tour started Froome was the favourite.
Contador and everyone else knew he was the rider to beat.
On nearly all of the cols who were the other riders most concerned with? Froome
He had defeated them most of that year and they knew he was the man to beat.
Some of Armstrong's wins were not by a great margin but he dominated the peloton and IMO Froome dominated the peloton in a similar way .
The other riders all knew he was the man to beat and they were scared of him.
That's the way I saw things. IMO he dominated the tour and won it quite easily.
I'm sure in every one of those anonymous Tours I put up, there was a favourite... There is, for example Indurain, Hinuault and Contador.
The point is, that you see that dominance with your eyes but the data shows that, put in its historical context, Froome is no more dominant than a "replacement level" Tour winner"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
-
Above The Cows wrote:
As for the argument of this thread (or just the sad abuse of statistics and I say that as someone who works with qualitative data), what do people make of the fact that a woman once finished a Grand Tour? Was she doping? Disguised as a man? How do we work that into our data sets? I know it pertains to nothing in particular I just wanted to change the subject and get back to why cycling and its history is awesome.
This sounds interesting, any more details?0 -
Paul 8v wrote:Above The Cows wrote:
As for the argument of this thread (or just the sad abuse of statistics and I say that as someone who works with qualitative data), what do people make of the fact that a woman once finished a Grand Tour? Was she doping? Disguised as a man? How do we work that into our data sets? I know it pertains to nothing in particular I just wanted to change the subject and get back to why cycling and its history is awesome.
This sounds interesting, any more details?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonsina_StradaIt's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
Wow, that's quite a story!Salsiccia1 wrote:Paul 8v wrote:Above The Cows wrote:
As for the argument of this thread (or just the sad abuse of statistics and I say that as someone who works with qualitative data), what do people make of the fact that a woman once finished a Grand Tour? Was she doping? Disguised as a man? How do we work that into our data sets? I know it pertains to nothing in particular I just wanted to change the subject and get back to why cycling and its history is awesome.
This sounds interesting, any more details?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonsina_Strada0 -
sjmclean wrote:rayjay wrote:sjmclean wrote:Rayjay do you take into account anything else other than the time, you kept mentioning Ax3, so someone showed you a video of the favorites track standing on that climb. You just ignored it. It is widely known that Froome is one of the only favorites ever to really use that climb, so obviously he is going to be faster
I have mentioned other reasons before so lets not go over old ground. Rich has quoted a few on his post above.
Some of Froomes performances in my opinion have been incredible.
He has dominated riders in a way which we have not seen for some time i.e. Armstrong or Contador at their best.
Other riders are scared of him.
His performance in the vuelta was outstanding and really he should have been given the reigns to win instead of looking after Wiggo.
In the tour for instance, at some points it just looked so easy.
Again the 2 GC races with Wiggo , he had gears to go, he was holding back.
Before he joined sky he never showed anywhere near this kind of ability. Maybe I am wrong and he has responded to all those marginal gains in a very short space of time and turned into one of the best GC riders I have ever seen . Ventoux was an incredible performance .
I have no issues with admitting I am wrong. I have apologised on this sight more than once.
But for me the evidence does not weigh in His favour IMO.
I can see that point, I've read your other views and we have discussed them. This was a direct question on climb times, which I don't feel you've answered. Do you ever consider anything else other than the overall time.
Any information on riders you feel are clean as well? I am genuinely interested to know.
In the previous posts I thought the Truth made a good point about time's on the Ventoux.
Pro cycling is a race tactics, all the variables come into play obviously.
You have to make your own call.
A lot of people thought lance was clean.
I have no idea who is clean. Riders are still getting busted on quite a regular basis so IMO I don't think the peloton is as clean as people think it is .0 -
TakeTheHighRoad wrote:
Ounce agaian I oplogize0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:rayjay wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Ok, the Froome beating Talansky by a margin thing drove me to this. You are all to blame.
I took 10 random Tours from 1950 to the present day including 2013 and measured the deviation from the winner of the top ten. I assigned 100 points to the winner, based on their time and an appropriate amount of points for the rest (eg if a rider took 10% longer than the leader he would get 90 pts.). Points are expressed as a % of the whole number given to the winner. DQ'd times are still included as we're arguing about what doped cycling looks like compared to clean cycling. Here we are...
As we can see the spread between the winner and 10th place is pretty consistent. The Average spread we see is 0.0343 or less than 1 10th of 1% between 1st and 10th. As it happens, 2013 is bang in the middle of the selection my RNG came up with. For interests sake, the biggest spread is 0.005012 and the smallest 0.00098
Take that!
There you go. He has not dominated riders in a way any different to any of the 9 other random tour winners in that sample.
My Point was and his this ....when the tour started Froome was the favourite.
Contador and everyone else knew he was the rider to beat.
On nearly all of the cols who were the other riders most concerned with? Froome
He had defeated them most of that year and they knew he was the man to beat.
Some of Armstrong's wins were not by a great margin but he dominated the peloton and IMO Froome dominated the peloton in a similar way .
The other riders all knew he was the man to beat and they were scared of him.
That's the way I saw things. IMO he dominated the tour and won it quite easily.
I'm sure in every one of those anonymous Tours I put up, there was a favourite... There is, for example Indurain, Hinuault and Contador.
The point is, that you see that dominance with your eyes but the data shows that, put in its historical context, Froome is no more dominant than a "replacement level" Tour winner
I can't disagree with your data.
My point was more about the psychology as I stated.0 -
rayjay wrote:TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:No lets be honest what really angers you is the fact that we don't believe Froome is clean.
What angers me is, like the proverbial chicken, you are sh1tting all over the board.
The same could be said for you.
You see Froome clean, I don't
Difference of opinion .
You make comments like above then I will respond like wise if need be .
But I am obviously not as worked up as you.
I think you know in your heart you are wrong that's why your so angry .....
I'm not doping, Chill, keep it civil.
Squeeze those butt cheeks as you stamp your feet Ray.... another thread gets shredded.'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0 -
Bo Duke wrote:rayjay wrote:TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:No lets be honest what really angers you is the fact that we don't believe Froome is clean.
What angers me is, like the proverbial chicken, you are sh1tting all over the board.
The same could be said for you.
You see Froome clean, I don't
Difference of opinion .
You make comments like above then I will respond like wise if need be .
But I am obviously not as worked up as you.
I think you know in your heart you are wrong that's why your so angry .....
I'm not doping, Chill, keep it civil.
Squeeze those butt cheeks as you stamp your feet Ray.... another thread gets shredded.
I think all responses to this thread should be in Haiku now. Bo has raised the bar."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
This calls for Maca
He'll be along any minute0 -
It's threads like this that gave me the dangerously elevated 5ky values in the first place. Nevertheless, complete the following phrase...
Climb times are best way we have of comparing today's performance against that of convicted/confessed dopers. Since top riders always ride full gas on all climbs, we can ignore variables like wind, and distractions like race situation. Froome's 87th all-time fastest ascent of Alpe d'Huez is as suspicious as his rides up Ax 3 and Ventoux because...
Why waste your time responding to moronic claims regarding times up Ventoux and Ax 3 while ignoring the equally startling time up Alpe D'Huez?...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
This discussion has been closed.
