Froome's Data Hacked

kelliano

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/11737387/Tour-de-France-2015-Chris-Froomes-ride-for-glory-under-threat-in-data-spying-storm.html

Nice tweet from Jonathan Liew @ Telegraph:

Smart work by Dave Brailsford to pre-empt one story (doping) by giving everyone another (hacking). Straight out of the New Labour playbook.

I presume story is as a result of a YouTube video which looks like it has been pulled.

ddraver

Boys - Bullsh!t shields to full power. This is going to run and run....

RonB

It will be alright. These folks have wanted the data for ages. Now obtained illegally, they'll be bound to be reasonable and not do anything hasty.

Macaloon

@TheRaceRadio 6m6 minutes ago
If Froome's max HR is 168 then 10bps increase at threshold makes sense, but if he is close to max how does he produce huge jump in watts?

curium

On monday night a video was posted on Twitter showing Froome's famous climb of Mont Ventoux in the 2013 Tour overlaid with data including his heart rate, power, cadence and speed

Anybody have a link to this video?

kelliano

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19650661#p19650661]curium[/url] wrote:

On monday night a video was posted on Twitter showing Froome's famous climb of Mont Ventoux in the 2013 Tour overlaid with data including his heart rate, power, cadence and speed

Anybody have a link to this video?

Been pulled.

Video was online from around 8:30pm, 10:30pm press release saying data been hacked, 10:40 video pulled.

Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport
Jump to 27:50 in video for the attack. 400W to 650W, stays > 550 for 30s, and HR barely shifts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99dqfiQcbio&feature=youtu.be … I've no explanation

RichN95.

I saw the key bits of the video before it got removed and it really didn't show anything that extraordinary, other than he has a low maximum heart rate - something he has mentioned before. His attacks used 200w more than usual for about ten seconds. His max power was around 650w (bar a split second jump to 1000w which is almost certainly just a measurement glitch).

Two things I have seen people on social media saying.

1. His heart rate doesn't jump enough. Dopers hearts react just the same as non-dopers. If they didn't it kind of negates the point of doping - delivering more oxygen though the blood. There's no point increasing the carriers if they are going to move at the same rate when there's an urgent need

2. Sky should have claimed in was fake data. If it's real, why would you do that?

I'm still amused by people who think that a clean Tour winner would be 'normal' or 'typical'

Macaloon

I couldn't tolerate much of the video. (Kirby). It showed running graphics of Froome's speed, cadence, power (and another parameter) over the last 45 mins of the 2013 Ventoux stage. And I don't see what the fuss is about power-wise, either. Froome's motor is in the chest.

If someone knew they were handling stolen data when they put this together, there might be big trouble. And protecting proprietary data is a very good reason for Sky to have the video removed, despite the developing 'PR disaster' narrative.

curium

What was his cadence in this video, before and during attacks?

Crampeur

This is supposedly the data from his attack: https://twitter.com/festinaboy/status/618171008038608901

Trustworthy or not?

Macaloon

This appears to be a great opportunity to compare real data against estimates from the power models.

RichN95.

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19650677#p19650677]Macaloon[/url] wrote:

This appears to be a great opportunity to compare real data against estimates from the power models.

They won't be far off.

The issue with the estimates isn't really their accuracy, but the use of those numbers with absolutely no reference to the context of the race. It's the obsession with the climb in isolation with no regard for anything else that is wrong.

For example. Tomorrow they finish of the Col de Soudet. The record up their is apparently 39.05 by Tyler Hamilton in 2003 - a self confessed doped performance. Tomorrow, I will be surprised if they don't go comfortably faster. And the times will be presented with no reference to the massive differences in race situation.

thomthom

And so it begins...

Is there anything better than perspective interpretations of data from amateur analysts?

Macaloon

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19650678#p19650678]RichN95[/url] wrote:

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19650677#p19650677]Macaloon[/url] wrote:

This appears to be a great opportunity to compare real data against estimates from the power models.

They won't be far off.

The issue with the estimates isn't really their accuracy, but the use of those numbers with absolutely no reference to the context of the race. It's the obsession with the climb in isolation with no regard for anything else that is wrong.

For example. Tomorrow they finish of the Col de Soudet. The record up their is apparently 39.05 by Tyler Hamilton in 2003 - a self confessed doped performance. Tomorrow, I will be surprised if they don't go comfortably faster. And the times will be presented with no reference to the massive differences in race situation.

I don't understand how the models account for mountain support. For example, if two riders climb a mountain in the same time, but one rider (call him Alberto) is in the wheels for all but the final 100m, you'd expect a significant difference in power. Or drafting is overrated on most climbs.

Anyone who ignores the race situation in citing a climbing time is not to be trusted.

apriliarider

Best quote of the thread from the "Asylum" -

"And I find it hard to believe that someone actually _stole_ the data, but rather made a copy of it. And copying a file isn't stealing, it's copying. Original isn't lost like happens in actual theft."

:roll: :roll:

rick_chasey

It's like none of these people have actually ridden a bike.

r0bh

These people have clearly never trained themselves or heard about heart rate lag. If course his heart rate doesn't jump immediately his power increases, it takes some time for HR to respond to effort. That's why using HR to guide short sharp training efforts is fairly useless (HR is an indirect measure of effort) and why power meters are the right tool for this (a direct measure)

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19650665#p19650665]RichN95[/url] wrote:

1. His heart rate doesn't jump enough. Dopers hearts react just the same as non-dopers. If they didn't it kind of negates the point of doping - delivering more oxygen though the blood. There's no point increasing the carriers if they are going to move at the same rate when there's an urgent need

disgruntledgoat

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19650691#p19650691]apriliarider[/url] wrote:

Best quote of the thread from the "Asylum" -

"And I find it hard to believe that someone actually _stole_ the data, but rather made a copy of it. And copying a file isn't stealing, it's copying. Original isn't lost like happens in actual theft."

:roll: :roll:

As any copyright lawyer will tell you.

Lanterne_Rogue

Despite the fact that we have hard evidence doping exists, the whole debate is far closer to a religion than science. And as usual, the high priests have their own agenda.

milton50

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19650671#p19650671]Crampeur[/url] wrote:

This is supposedly the data from his attack: https://twitter.com/festinaboy/status/618171008038608901

Trustworthy or not?

Doesn't seem to be anything crazy looking at those numbers. Apart from the random sudden jump to 1000W.

disgruntledgoat

I take it the usual suspects are equally agog at Contador's 6.77 w/kg FTP from that warmup pic somebody posted up the other day?

Macaloon

Froome's 'most alien' performance seems to amount to 5.6 watts/kg. Why would a guy like Seance in Sport's Ross 'does a lot for transparency' Tucker lose his shed over this? This man needs recalibration.

RichN95.

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19650732#p19650732]Milton50[/url] wrote:

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19650671#p19650671]Crampeur[/url] wrote:

This is supposedly the data from his attack: https://twitter.com/festinaboy/status/618171008038608901

Trustworthy or not?

Doesn't seem to be anything crazy looking at those numbers. Apart from the random sudden jump to 1000W.

The jump to 1000w was a jump from about 600w to 1000w and back again in about a quarter of a second. It looked like a rogue data point.

ddraver

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19650737#p19650737]Macaloon[/url] wrote:

Froome's 'most alien' performance seems to amount to 5.6 watts/kg. Why would a guy like Seance in Sport's Ross 'does a lot for transparency' Tucker lose his shed over this? This man needs recalibration.

Someone must be paying him for his articles from somewhere. Otherwise why would you sell out any academic credibility you have (unless he already has none - given his output seems to be a blog, this is a possibility...)

blazing_saddles

Like Rich, I saw a fair bit of it last night, having read DD's post in the rest day thread. 8)
Vayer frothing at the mouth, but in reality I saw what Rich saw: nothing extraordinary, quite the contrary.
Apart from a very shortburst of power around the 650watts, there whole climb was done in the 350-450 watt range.
His heart rate rose very gradually as the climb progressed, but because his HR didn't spike, during that short burst, we get meltdown. The rest, conveniently ignored.

ddraver

Nice post BS. Sorry to ruin your evening

above_the_cows

I can't even be bothered...

kleinstroker

Now I am no professor of cardiology, but...

davidof

[quote="kelliano]

I presume story is as a result of a YouTube video which looks like it has been pulled.[/quote]

presumably people downloaded it first?

ic.

I've no idea what W'balance is, but this guy seems to know.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/124045491453/w-balance-analysis-of-a-grand-tour-climb

I saw bit of the video last night and wasn't too bothered by it. Seemed fine to me, just a superb athlete in great condition.

RichN95.

I've seen some people saying that because the overall power matched the estimates, it proves the accuracy of their estimates.

With this in mind, I'd like to point out that I got the winner of stage 7 on PTP. This proves the accuracy of my predictions and I would like my other picks acknowledged as winners as well please.