Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
We didn't see it with Contador
-Froome
Guess he didn't see the attack from all angles on Contador on him after Verbier then. Contador doesn't moan or get his wife to abuse people on twitter though.
Also Contador has a consistent pedigree since he was 15. Rather than World beater form from a few years ago.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Interesting comparisons to be made there actually, eg I would bet Twitter must have been far less popular 6 years ago. It's a lot easier to throw accusations around on there now and be guaranteed serious attention from many people.We didn't see it with Contador
-Froome
Guess he didn't see the attack from all angles on Contador on him after Verbier then. Contador doesn't moan or get his wife to abuse people on twitter though.
Also Contador has a consistent pedigree since he was 15. Rather than World beater form from a few years ago.
I thought I'd go look back at Tucker's analysis of Contador's performance. It is breathtakingly laid back in comparison to the recent treatment of Froome, especially considering that the numbers they've calculated (however inaccurate they may be) are far in excess of what they say Froome has been doing. Can you imagine the hysteria if they'd been coming up with Contador's figure of 6.7-6.8W/kg for Froome instead of 6.0-6.1W/kg? Then there's this absolute gem of a quote (emphasis in original!):
The change in attitude really could not be any clearer. The doping part of the article is almost an afterthought, and he's going to some lengths to "explain" the "other factors that must be considered". Froome apparently isn't deserving of the same treatment despite his own data indicating a significantly less exceptional performance.I’ve hopefully managed to explain some of the other factors that must be considered in the Contador climb, but this question remains, without a doubt. It would be naive to dismiss it out of hand. I will say that performance analysis of single performances does not constitute proof of anything. In fact, it’s a weak method of inferring doping.0 -
Should be pointed out that on the initial analysis of Col du Soudet to La Pierre St Martin, Ross Tucker et al chose to ignore the strong tailwind which many riders/commentators mentioned as to include it would reduce the power outputs to non-exceptional levels:Quintana, incidentally, at 5.9W/kg, was just slightly above what we’ve seen from the Tour winners for the last four years, for the length of the climb, while everyone else was down on estimates, so a howling tail-wind won’t cut it this time.
http://sportsscientists.com/2015/07/day-1-in-the-mountains-one-more-pixel-context-mistrust/
again this is the problem with much of this analysis - it assumes everyone is at 100%. What if Quintana was on a relatively average day? We know Contador and Nibali (and some of the French riders) were suffering badly with the heat so would have been well below normal levels.
The fact that Froome was only beating rouleurs (who in turn were beating climbers) by relatively small levels was excluded from the context so needed here.0 -
Why are people so confused by the numbers when they've been complaining for 2 weeks solid that Sky are killing the racing with their train. What benefit does Froome get from the mountain train if he doesn't require less power than non-Sky riders?
Who knows if the Gesink - Froome comparison is like with like, but this notion that you can model race power with just a time, a gradient and drag coefficients seems to me to ignore the team aspect of the sport entirely when looking at a long climb. How many gaps did Gesink close himself that Porte/Thomas closed for Froome? etc....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
We didn't see it with Contador
-Froome
Guess he didn't see the attack from all angles on Contador on him after Verbier then. Contador doesn't moan or get his wife to abuse people on twitter though.
Also Contador has a consistent pedigree since he was 15. Rather than World beater form from a few years ago.
From lack of opportunity, Froome didn't start riding seriously until 21/22 and didn't ride in Europe until 23. Their backgrounds are incomparible. Your point would have more relevance if targeted at a continental European who trundled through the Juniors/U23s being ignored.
What you effectively say is that EVERY potentially talented cyclist will ALWAYS be discovered and have talent honed from a young age. And if they happen to appear later on, they MUST be as dodgy as a rotten kebab. I don't consider Froome a late developer, more an unnoticed developer. He outclimbed two future GT winners on his first Pro ride up Alpe d'Huez.0 -
And a known dopers previous results always need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Was his "pedigree" achieved clean? Why on earth people still expect young, clean riders to have been getting results even in 2008 I have no idea.0
-
From lack of opportunity
Private boarding school?Contador is the Greatest0 -
Full details from the presser:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-reveal-froomes-tour-de-france-data-from-stage-10
This one is interesting:
“To put that in context, when you look at the four-minute period when the GC contenders were largely still there, the power was 449 watts and the VAM was 1777. Four minutes after the attack, the power was 435 watts. So after that initial attack, Chris’s power was lower than in the four minutes leading into the attack, yet he continued to ride away from Quintana and the others.”Contador is the Greatest0 -
Full details from the presser:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-reveal-froomes-tour-de-france-data-from-stage-10
This one is interesting:
“To put that in context, when you look at the four-minute period when the GC contenders were largely still there, the power was 449 watts and the VAM was 1777. Four minutes after the attack, the power was 435 watts. So after that initial attack, Chris’s power was lower than in the four minutes leading into the attack, yet he continued to ride away from Quintana and the others.”
I think it's what Sean Kelly commonly refers to as "putting riders into difficulty.""Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
cant say understand the data to be honest, all I know is Froome seems to have riden round the course quicker than the others.
Even with the data out there i'm sure that still wont satisfy some.0 -
Probably using his actual weight if this data is from the team, I imagine they have a set of scales around. I'm pretty sure either he or the team have said very recently his weight is between 67-68kg.the Inner Ring @inrng 4s4 seconds ago
Froome on Col du Soudet to La Pierre St Martin
RPM avg 97
HR avg 158bpm, 174 max
5.78W/kg
via L'Equipe's @a_thomas_commin at Sky press conf.
this finally concludes that they are indeed pseudo scientists with an agenda.
better ignored forever.
Wonder what weight they are using here. Probably one higher than 2013 stats? Which obviously couldn't be the case as Froome is now anorexic.
5.78 is very low for a performance like that. Means that the other riders were doing ridiculously low values themselves.
Also it was pretty clear many of the other riders that day were performing worse than you'd expect them to do normally.
It's not exactly a secret. Froome said 67kg at the start of the tour. In 2012 his Olympic entry form stated 71kg.0 -
Oh for goodness sake! Are all the British riders in the Tour Old Etonians?From lack of opportunity
Private boarding school?0 -
Excellent from the little man, much respect.@robhatchtv
Nairo Quintana:"Chris Froome beat me in 2013 because he was better. I don't at all like how people are insulting him"
I'm a huge admirer of the way Quintana carries himself as a person. fantastic on the bike, and a decent person off it.0 -
Twitter seems suprisingly quiet, after the Sky press conference today. I was expecting it to have fallen over.
Snippets that I have picked up:-
CF has arrived at le Tour very fresh (Will Fotheringham)
oval chainrings will have skewed the data slightly (Dr Hutch)0 -
How does private boarding school help you to become a pro cyclist...?From lack of opportunity
Private boarding school?0 -
thats interesting, Wiggins's bio had him down at 63kg for the tour in 2012.
Probably using his actual weight if this data is from the team, I imagine they have a set of scales around. I'm pretty sure either he or the team have said very recently his weight is between 67-68kg.the Inner Ring @inrng 4s4 seconds ago
Froome on Col du Soudet to La Pierre St Martin
RPM avg 97
HR avg 158bpm, 174 max
5.78W/kg
via L'Equipe's @a_thomas_commin at Sky press conf.
this finally concludes that they are indeed pseudo scientists with an agenda.
better ignored forever.
Wonder what weight they are using here. Probably one higher than 2013 stats? Which obviously couldn't be the case as Froome is now anorexic.
5.78 is very low for a performance like that. Means that the other riders were doing ridiculously low values themselves.
Also it was pretty clear many of the other riders that day were performing worse than you'd expect them to do normally.
It's not exactly a secret. Froome said 67kg at the start of the tour. In 2012 his Olympic entry form stated 71kg.0 -
From lack of opportunity
Private boarding school?
I didn't realise Kenya/SA had the cycling coaching, knowledge and expertise to rival a nation like Spain.0 -
How does private boarding school help you to become a pro cyclist...?From lack of opportunity
Private boarding school?
You're right, all that riding on motorways to and from morning class really set him up as a pro.0 -
I'm amazed how they can keep their weight so low yet retain that kind of power for sustained periods, Without destroying muscle mass.0
-
I'm amazed how they can keep their weight so low yet retain that kind of power for sustained periods.
I know i'm a skinny b****** but I have no muscle definition so cant climb and have no power on the flats either.0 -
[/quote]
Looks 'anorexic' then. His upper arm is smaller than his lower arm for starters.
[/quote]
:?: My upper arms are smaller than lower arms too. Surely that is true for most cyclists? :?:0 -
Interesting comparisons to be made there actually, eg I would bet Twitter must have been far less popular 6 years ago. It's a lot easier to throw accusations around on there now and be guaranteed serious attention from many people.We didn't see it with Contador
-Froome
Guess he didn't see the attack from all angles on Contador on him after Verbier then. Contador doesn't moan or get his wife to abuse people on twitter though.
Also Contador has a consistent pedigree since he was 15. Rather than World beater form from a few years ago.
I thought I'd go look back at Tucker's analysis of Contador's performance. It is breathtakingly laid back in comparison to the recent treatment of Froome, especially considering that the numbers they've calculated (however inaccurate they may be) are far in excess of what they say Froome has been doing. Can you imagine the hysteria if they'd been coming up with Contador's figure of 6.7-6.8W/kg for Froome instead of 6.0-6.1W/kg? Then there's this absolute gem of a quote (emphasis in original!):
The change in attitude really could not be any clearer. The doping part of the article is almost an afterthought, and he's going to some lengths to "explain" the "other factors that must be considered". Froome apparently isn't deserving of the same treatment despite his own data indicating a significantly less exceptional performance.I’ve hopefully managed to explain some of the other factors that must be considered in the Contador climb, but this question remains, without a doubt. It would be naive to dismiss it out of hand. I will say that performance analysis of single performances does not constitute proof of anything. In fact, it’s a weak method of inferring doping.
That's really interesting...
So basically Froome is putting out numbers that are not very exceptional and everyone's getting their knickers in a twist anyway. Has anyone pointed out to Tucker his own inconsistency?0 -
I prefer to avoid schadenfreude, but for you,
I will make an exception:Ufe @oufeh
Now, let's say the REAL overestimation is 3% and Froome's REAL weight is 66kg :
413*0.97/66=6.07
Surprise : it's what pseudoscientists said...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
More mind games from Sky.
Those numbers will be in the heads of the other GC hopefuls until halfway up tomorrow's final climb when not paying attention to their own numbers will no doubt catch up with them.Life is unfair, kill yourself or get over it.0 -
“For that 41:30, Chris had an average power of 414 watts, which gives a 1602 VAM. We know power Osymetric chainrings (used by Froome) over estimate power by about 6 per cent. That’s why it has to be considered when interpreting Chris’ power. With his weight hovering around 67.5kg that gives a correct power of 5.78 watts per kilo.”0
-
I cant believe this Troll induced rubbish is still going, despite the OP being banned.
I will answer the original question. Yes, Sky are clean, 100%, without a doubt, no question. There, thread finished, now can we talk about cycle racing?0 -
Excellent from the little man, much respect.@robhatchtv
Nairo Quintana:"Chris Froome beat me in 2013 because he was better. I don't at all like how people are insulting him"
I'm a huge admirer of the way Quintana carries himself as a person. fantastic on the bike, and a decent person off it.
Class act. I'm impressed that he appears relaxed about the Valverde scenario. That shows incredible, understated self-confidence, and the smarts to know there's no point trying to tame him....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
I cant believe this Troll induced rubbish is still going, despite the OP being banned.
I will answer the original question. Yes, Sky are clean, 100%, without a doubt, no question. There, thread finished, now can we talk about cycle racing?
Relax. It's interesting. We almost never discuss doping here. Ignore the thread. Stop telling people what to do
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
cant say understand the data to be honest,
Congratulations this is all you need to set up a "science blog", make up your mind on the subject and write lots pointing at some of the data to back up your set opinions and tweet incessantly (ensuring you @ all the other people with a similar agenda). Before you know it you will be an expert and everyone will be talking about you; riders, teams, journalists and ex pro's.
However you haven't got long, despite the season being over 10 months long your window is three weeks during one race around France, so you have less than a week left, before you will be ignored until next year when you can repeat the same process.0 -
It would be good if other GCs posted theirs.0
