Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Garmin vs Sky (non-doping related)

1567911

Posts

  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    sjmclean wrote:


    My opinion is if it aint over 10% it aint a climb. Which makes mt ventoux a 3km climb followed by a false flat. Respect it please.


    That works both ways
  • andypandyp Posts: 8,506
    RichN95 wrote:
    My main irritation in this thread is that my wins per Euro and winning margin analysis got no love whatsoever.
    I know how you feel. Yesterday I made what I thought was a cracking CIRC du Vacansoleil joke only to met with silence.

    You've set yourself high standards, Rich, and that particular gag was not one of your best.

    Sorry.
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    rayjay wrote:
    I think the point where the Truth is measuring his time from is valid, as the gradient starts to kick in and proves how good Froome was on the hardest part of the climb.

    The problem is that there is no logical reason for excluding the first 6 k unless you want the data to prove your belief in the bit in bold.

    What angers and offends posters from a scientific background isn't the assertion that Froome is doping, they can live with that, it's the shoddy use of numbers....


    "You sir use statistics like a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination"


    No lets be honest what really angers you is the fact that we don't believe Froome is clean.

    The Truth has shown a stat ,that IMO backs his point up.

    The times are correct and it shows how fast he was riding on the toughest part of the course relative to known doped riders.

    You dismiss that stat and say it's not logical because it does not support you opinion.

    But it still is a factual stat that backs up is opinion.
  • No lets be honest what really angers you is the fact that we don't believe Froome is clean.

    I don't even like Froome as a rider. But I like to think I'm objective enough to take arguments and evidence on their merits.

    Most of the stuff you and The Truth put forward is selectively interpreted, pseudo-scientific nonsense and this, coupled with the absence of anything even as convincing as hearsay about Froome's doping is what has me arguing against it.
    "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'"

    @gietvangent
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    rayjay wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    I think the point where the Truth is measuring his time from is valid, as the gradient starts to kick in and proves how good Froome was on the hardest part of the climb.

    The problem is that there is no logical reason for excluding the first 6 k unless you want the data to prove your belief in the bit in bold.

    What angers and offends posters from a scientific background isn't the assertion that Froome is doping, they can live with that, it's the shoddy use of numbers....


    "You sir use statistics like a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination"


    No lets be honest what really angers you is the fact that we don't believe Froome is clean.

    The Truth has shown a stat ,that IMO backs his point up.

    The times are correct and it shows how fast he was riding on the toughest part of the course relative to known doped riders.

    You dismiss that stat and say it's not logical because it does not support you opinion.

    But it still is a factual stat that backs up is opinion.[/quote]

    When my brother was 10 years old I was 100% older than him. Now, Its nearer 20%, so by your reasoning he is ageing a lot faster than I am.

    Another statistic, If you like simply pulling them out of the air. Mark Cavendish rode the last 250 mtrs of the Tour, 4 years in a row, against a peloton containing known dopers, In your world that has to make him a doper.Right?

    Statistics? We all know the saying.
  • Funny thing is, even if we use the entire climb, there are still at best only 1 clean rider ahead of him on the list. And many of those juiced times are from a MTT. Do I really have to explain the difference between that and riding 200+ km beforehand?
  • The Truth wrote:
    Funny thing is, even if we use the entire climb, there are still at best only 1 clean rider ahead of him on the list. And many of those juiced times are from a MTT. Do I really have to explain the difference between that and riding 200+ km beforehand?

    But your list doesn't take into account the Time Trial times. You've selected an arbritrary point from which to start your data collection (what is the significance of 16.35km?) and you've narrowed down the set to those in TDF road stages only (not even the Dauphine when they've raced up rather than TT'd). Can you explain why you took the approach you did to the data? Somebody has to be the fastest clean rider up there, afterall.
    "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'"

    @gietvangent
  • napoleondnapoleond Posts: 5,983
    Just looked through this thread, thought it was meant to be 'non doping related'...

    Sad.
    Twitter - @NapD
    Strava - Alex Taylor (sportstest.co.uk)
    ABCC Cycling Coach
  • NapoleonD wrote:
    Just looked through this thread, thought it was meant to be 'non doping related'...

    Sad.

    Don't be daft, Rajay and The Truth have posted!
  • The Truth wrote:
    Funny thing is, even if we use the entire climb, there are still at best only 1 clean rider ahead of him on the list. And many of those juiced times are from a MTT. Do I really have to explain the difference between that and riding 200+ km beforehand?

    But your list doesn't take into account the Time Trial times. You've selected an arbritrary point from which to start your data collection (what is the significance of 16.35km?) and you've narrowed down the set to those in TDF road stages only (not even the Dauphine when they've raced up rather than TT'd). Can you explain why you took the approach you did to the data? Somebody has to be the fastest clean rider up there, afterall.

    I didn't collect the data, I'm just the messenger. As I said, riding a MTT fresh is a little bit different from riding the climb in the middle of the tour, with 200+ km in your legs. I believe the reason for why he is comparing the times from St. Esteve is because the first 6 km of the climb is basically a false flat, thus it is raced at very different speeds year after year, so it's better to make the comparison from where the real climb begins.

    Mont_Ventoux-B%C3%A9doin_profile.jpg
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 24,929
    The Truth wrote:
    Funny thing is, even if we use the entire climb, there are still at best only 1 clean rider ahead of him on the list. And many of those juiced times are from a MTT. Do I really have to explain the difference between that and riding 200+ km beforehand?
    Two points:

    1. Whoever the fastest clean rider is - no matter who he is or how fast he goes - there will be no clean riders ahead of him on the list. So that point is invalid.

    2. While the differences between a 230k road race and a 22 km MTT are plain for all to see, their significance to performance is not. For example, how does the extra tiredness of that 200km balance against being able to draft for two thirds of the climb (particularly the flatter early section). A comparison of the Alpe d'Huez 2004 MTT times shows they match the road race times fairly well. Maybe, on average slightly faster, but there's certainly not the 8-9% gap with see with Ventoux. Also the MTT times come from the Dauphine, not the Tour. How does this impact on times?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,618
    The Truth:

    Part of the reason people are so dismissive of your points are that you are obviously approaching this with an agenda and rather than want discussion just look to be provocative.

    - You don't discuss anything else on this forum other than Sky and their alleged doping;
    - You've started a thread here which you've obviously intended to put your agenda forward, regardless of the thread title;
    - You continually point to 'evidence' that could be interpreted in myriad different ways, and refuse to consider that it might not be evidence of anything

    You believe Sky are doping. Obviously. And that's fine, if it's a sincerely held belief. But you are always going to come up against people who disagree, and particularly so if you keep making the same points on the same types of threads and refuse to accept any other possibility. If you just want to continue to draw flak, carry on. But it does get wearing and means less enjoyment for people on the forum, and it's not their fault that people don't share your point of view.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 16,282
    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.
    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    mike6 wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    I think the point where the Truth is measuring his time from is valid, as the gradient starts to kick in and proves how good Froome was on the hardest part of the climb.

    The problem is that there is no logical reason for excluding the first 6 k unless you want the data to prove your belief in the bit in bold.

    What angers and offends posters from a scientific background isn't the assertion that Froome is doping, they can live with that, it's the shoddy use of numbers....


    "You sir use statistics like a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination"


    No lets be honest what really angers you is the fact that we don't believe Froome is clean.

    The Truth has shown a stat ,that IMO backs his point up.

    The times are correct and it shows how fast he was riding on the toughest part of the course relative to known doped riders.

    You dismiss that stat and say it's not logical because it does not support you opinion.

    But it still is a factual stat that backs up is opinion.[/quote]

    When my brother was 10 years old I was 100% older than him. Now, Its nearer 20%, so by your reasoning he is ageing a lot faster than I am.

    Another statistic, If you like simply pulling them out of the air. Mark Cavendish rode the last 250 mtrs of the Tour, 4 years in a row, against a peloton containing known dopers, In your world that has to make him a doper.Right?

    Statistics? We all know the saying.

    I really don't understand your mostly childish response.

    Froome has times up cols that are only matched by doped riders, infact his times are quicker than a lot of doped riders.

    Your view I understand is that we are cherry picking.

    But I have posted an article on a previous page and also

    velo news [ I think it was velo] show footage of both Armstrong and Froome on AX3 and Froome is quicker.

    Take into account the fact that Armstrong,s rivals were all doping then that is one hell of a fast clean ride.

    If you want to see it do a google.

    I know we have to take all the variables into consideration but IMO it raises suspicion.

    I think CAV is clean and he has a supreme talent for sprinting.
  • So on what stages of each of their Tours were the Armstrong and Froome rides? What position was the climb in the stage? What was their situation in the GC and what was the situation on the road? What was the weather doing?

    Those are just some of the variables that make side by side comparison of footage/climbing times daft.

    Let me put it this way. Why doesn't Alpe D'Huez feature in your analysis at all?
    "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'"

    @gietvangent
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,618
    Rayjay: is there any possibility in your mind, whatsoever, that Froome is clean? I accept the possibility that he might not be, but given what I know, I think he is. If someone provides proof enough (and I don't think what you and The Truth have presented is proof of anything), I'd reconsider that POV.

    Is there anything that would be proof enough for you? Would anything change your POV?
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    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.
  • markwb79markwb79 Posts: 932
    I have trained up Ventoux and my time is quicker than Armstrong on a training ride. Does that make me a doper?

    You t*t!
    Scott Addict 2011
    Giant TCR 2012
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,618
    I'd just like to post some of what was said by the Secret Pro at the end of the the Tour last year:
    It seems that the media theme of this year’s Tour was all the commotion about the performance calculations and analysis of the top riders and the climbs. The whole thing about performance analysis and Froome not being clean was only 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. From the interactions I’ve had with him over the years he’s been a complete gentleman and his performances certainly haven’t come from nowhere.

    Of course, somebody had to be the media whipping boy this Tour, and if it wasn’t Froome, it would have been someone else. I’m not sure anyone else would have done as good a job as him in handling it as he did.

    In terms of this being a clean Tour, one thing I can say is that the style of racing has changed, even in the past five years. The previous generation of riders, who we all now know were dopers, would put in five or six attacks and then ride to the top of the HC mountain without even being out of breath. Now, you’ll only see a couple attacks and that’s it. Riders are coming past the finish line cross-eyed and completely destroyed now.

    It’s important to keep this in mind when comparing this Tour to the ’90s and early 2000s. It’s much different to be riding a climb at threshold with only a couple attacks or responses in your legs versus what Armstrong and Pantani did. If you’ve ever ridden a bike and looked at your power meter to see what those types of efforts take out of your legs versus riding at constant threshold, you’ll know what I’m talking about. This is likely why some of the top climbers are setting times up the climbs that rival some of the fastest.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    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
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    Rayjay: is there any possibility in your mind, whatsoever, that Froome is clean? I accept the possibility that he might not be, but given what I know, I think he is. If someone provides proof enough (and I don't think what you and The Truth have presented is proof of anything), I'd reconsider that POV.

    Is there anything that would be proof enough for you? Would anything change your POV?


    Yes , I thought Rich made a great point about most of the stats we have are from doped riders.

    I think if we start to see a lot more riders hitting or getting near the markers of Froome ,

    The new breed of riders , not the old doping brigade i.e. Contador etc etc.

    Then I think I would have to change my view and I would be happy to admit I was wrong .

    Time will tell and I really do hope that we start seeing that happen.

    But as things stand now Froome is the only clean rider matching times and bettering those of dopers on those cols.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    rayjay wrote:

    I think if we start to see a lot more riders hitting or getting near the markers of Froome ,

    The new breed of riders , not the old doping brigade i.e. Contador etc etc.

    Then I think I would have to change my view and I would be happy to admit I was wrong .

    So can you let us know which riders times you see as valid. Which riders do you believe are clean?
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,618
    rayjay wrote:
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    Rayjay: is there any possibility in your mind, whatsoever, that Froome is clean? I accept the possibility that he might not be, but given what I know, I think he is. If someone provides proof enough (and I don't think what you and The Truth have presented is proof of anything), I'd reconsider that POV.

    Is there anything that would be proof enough for you? Would anything change your POV?


    Yes , I thought Rich made a great point about most of the stats we have are from doped riders.

    I think if we start to see a lot more riders hitting or getting near the markers of Froome ,

    The new breed of riders , not the old doping brigade i.e. Contador etc etc.

    Then I think I would have to change my view and I would be happy to admit I was wrong .

    Time will tell and I really do hope that we start seeing that happen.

    But as things stand now Froome is the only clean rider matching times and bettering those of dopers on those cols.

    I think that's a fair stand, and appreciate the fair response. I would refer you to what I've just posted from the Secret Pro blog about climb times, though.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 24,929
    edited February 2014
    rayjay wrote:
    Yes , I thought Rich made a great point about most of the stats we have are from doped riders.

    I think if we start to see a lot more riders hitting or getting near the markers of Froome ,

    The new breed of riders , not the old doping brigade i.e. Contador etc etc.

    Then I think I would have to change my view and I would be happy to admit I was wrong .

    Time will tell and I really do hope that we start seeing that happen.

    But as things stand now Froome is the only clean rider matching times and bettering those of dopers on those cols.


    Here's the thing (from my perspective):

    If you want to believe Froome (or anyone else) is doping then fair enough - you're entitled to that opinion - just don't keep bringing it into every argument.
    If as justification for your opinion is due to the past two decades of cycling and the resultant suspicions then I will understand that.
    If you point to Leinders as cause to ask questions then I won't argue (but I will say why I think he's a red herring)
    If you consider Froome's career progression as unusual, I will agree (but we will differ as to the reasons)

    But if you start waving censored statistics around as some sort of proof I will argue you into the ground.


    It's similar to religion. I'm an athiest, but I don't care if people quietly believe in whatever deity they like. I will even agree with some of values and the good that it can inspire. I will find the 'rules' ridiculous but understand their significance and tradition.
    But if they start banging on about intelligent design or how evolution is 'just a theory', I'm going to gear up for a row.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Rich is best.
    "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'"

    @gietvangent
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    edited February 2014
    RichN95 wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Yes , I thought Rich made a great point about most of the stats we have are from doped riders.

    I think if we start to see a lot more riders hitting or getting near the markers of Froome ,

    The new breed of riders , not the old doping brigade i.e. Contador etc etc.

    Then I think I would have to change my view and I would be happy to admit I was wrong .

    Time will tell and I really do hope that we start seeing that happen.

    But as things stand now Froome is the only clean rider matching times and bettering those of dopers on those cols.


    Here's the thing (from my perspective):

    If you want to believe Froome (or anyone else) is doping then fair enough - you're entitled to that opinion - just don't keep bringing it into every argument.
    If as justification for your opinion is due to the past two decades of cycling and the resultant suspicions then I will understand that.
    If you point to Leinders as cause to ask questions then I won't argue (but I will say why I think he's a red herring)
    If you consider Froome's career progression as unusual, I will agree (but we will differ as to the reasons)

    But if you start waving censored statistics around as some sort of proof I will argue you into the ground.


    It's similar to religion. I'm an athiest, but I don't care if people quietly believe in whatever deity they like. I will even agree with some of values and the good that it can inspire. I will find the 'rules' ridiculous but understand their significance and tradition.
    But if they start banging on about intelligent design or how evolution is 'just a theory', I'm going to gear up for a row.


    Come on Rich , I posted an Published article on a previous page that showed some interesting Data.

    I think calling that article censored is a bit strong.

    You can argue about the variables and the effects that the could have on the stats.

    I think it was quite a good article .

    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 censored evidence

    Froome is quicker and don't forget Armstrong's rivals were doping as well so he destroyed some of their times.

    This is quite a good and balanced article from sport scientists and gives sensible reasons for having different views.

    http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07 ... ue-debate/




    Again to call that censored evidence is a bit strong. but also it does not mean you are wrong either

    I agree that The Truth has cherry picked his point about the Ventoux climb.

    But has I have rode the climb quite a few times I don't think it should be just dismissed.


    Cheers

    I'm an atheist.
  • I'm just about through to the end of David Walsh's 'Inside Team Sky'

    I know rayjay has previous argued spurious points based on a few editorial oversights, or in the way he has intepreted how things unfolded on Ventoux etc. so I don't want to get into that again.

    The most interesting aspects for me, and the essence of why Walsh being embedded brings things a normal interview / press conference process wouldn't, are some of his interactions and anecdotes regarding some key figures.

    Won't spoil the full thing for those who havent read it yet, but unless Walsh is just making stuff up, the parts pertaining to the views of Rod Ellingworth, and how Richie Porte expresses his frustrations at the end of tour party, demonstrate why it's pretty insulting, to those guys at least, to try and paint Sky as some massive conspiricy machine.

    As for Froome - don't you think his former mentor Julich, having been effectively sacked for having a dodgy past, might have been somewhat aggrieved and spoken out if Froome was then being juiced to the gills? Same with De Jongh.
  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,781
    I've bitten my tongue so far, but that's the third time you've written 'I have rode'..................
  • nic_77nic_77 Posts: 929
    rayjay wrote:
    You could time the last 2 miles of a marathon or a 5000 metres race.

    You obviously feel that it has no validity and that's fine.

    I think it has validity. Its just a difference of opinion about a stat.

    Um... so Wilson Kipsang recently set a new marathon world record. He ran the last two miles in ~9:07 (the WR for 2 miles is sub-8:00).

    Are you trying to suggest that if another runner ran the first 24.2 miles differently and then ran a faster final 2 miles (in a different race, with different competition and weather), the comparison of the 2 mile time would be in any way meaningful?

    If you want to compare the two runners' marathon times then do so in isolation. If you want to compare their 2 mile times then do so in isolation. But if you try to mix and match the data then you have way too many variables and unknowns to make it a sound comparison.
  • nic_77 wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    You could time the last 2 miles of a marathon or a 5000 metres race.

    You obviously feel that it has no validity and that's fine.

    I think it has validity. Its just a difference of opinion about a stat.

    Um... so Wilson Kipsang recently set a new marathon world record. He ran the last two miles in ~9:07 (the WR for 2 miles is sub-8:00).

    Are you trying to suggest that if another runner ran the first 24.2 miles differently and then ran a faster final 2 miles (in a different race, with different competition and weather), the comparison of the 2 mile time would be in any way meaningful?

    If you want to compare the two runners' marathon times then do so in isolation. If you want to compare their 2 mile times then do so in isolation. But if you try to mix and match the data then you have way too many variables and unknowns to make it a sound comparison.

    Great summation. And rayjay consistently ignores the very sesnsible point ref. comparative times on a mountain that has been used much more often and generally riden in anger - Alpe d'Huez. All the current riders are way down on the past doped performances.
This discussion has been closed.