Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
For all their ramblings, the folks in the Clinic do raise some valid questions.
Mostly - about Froome's weight. It's unlikely that he actually weighs 67.5kg - and probably significantly less by the end of a hot stage. Of course, this could be easily verified with a set of scales, but that probably won't happen!
The "overestimation' of power by 6% due to the Asymmetric chainrings is also probably being generous.
But by releasing the data and stating his weight and this overestimation, they have come up with a very plausible set of figures to calm the storm.
I wonder if other teams (Movistar, Saxo, etc) are looking at the their own figures for the same part of the climb and nodding in agreement or calling BS quietly.
Being cynical, I suspect you'd call BS as loudly as possible but off the record, to ensure that the sht-storm carried on as vociferously as possible (assuming that it has a negative effect, of course - what if Froome is simply one of those buggers who responds by going harder?)0 -
It's getting serious when the weight lost during a stage becomes a factor. I don't imagine that was on the list of questions that might arise....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
Look Chris, I know you are trying to win the stage but can you just jump off the bike for a second and step on these scales so we can get an accurate weight for you. Merci.0
-
And that the stages prior to the final climb where ridden exactly the same, which they weren't. What people never ask is "What power did they do on the penultimate climbs?".Presumably we are all assuming that, when comparing to 10 years ago, the bikes are a) the same weight and b) transfer the power into the road in the same fashion.
And all the kit they wear is no lighter. Nor are the wheels more aerodynamicly efficient.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I don't see why Froome and Sky would lie about his weight, it's not like the story changes. Froome said last year he was about 70-71kg after being out injured but his best racing weight was 66-67kg.
Plus the Stages error margin for Osymetric chainrings - Stages state 4-5%, hardly exact, and you'd expect Sky to have checked and calculated the difference themselves.
Everything adds up unless you don't want it to, then you can find fault with anything. Lying about his weight, lying about the power, Gesink was 5.9 so how can Froome be 5.8, all ignoring the data that is there staring you in the face.0 -
Paul Kimmage continues to have his doubts but he is softening (a little)........
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-could-be-one-of-the-greatest-riders-of-all-time-but-questions-remain-31394433.html
DD.
Puffing on an inhaler is hardly going to going to turn a donkey in to a race horse. Really he needs to STFU. :roll:0 -
Another thing to remember about power is that if you had two people of approximately the same weight and had them ride a mountain, alone, at an exactly identical steady power to weight (let's say 5.5 w/kg), they wouldn't do the same time as the aerodynamics and rolling resistance will be different, amongst other things.
Rob Hayles tweeted today that in the Individual Pursuit he once put out more average power in the final the the qualifying round but went three seconds slower. That's the same man with the same kit.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I heard his interview earlier. He has little of substance to say. It's just buzzwords - his favourite being 'transparency'. He only seems to think judgement by Antoine Vayer - a man called incompetant and insulting by a Professor at the Lausanne Institute - as the only acceptable course of action. He called The Times, Sky's Pravda. He's a sideshow act these days.Paul Kimmage continues to have his doubts but he is softening (a little)........
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-could-be-one-of-the-greatest-riders-of-all-time-but-questions-remain-31394433.html
DD.
Puffing on an inhaler is hardly going to going to turn a donkey in to a race horse. Really he needs to STFU. :roll:
Whenever, Paul Kimmage demands 'transparency' from Sky, I'm reminded of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjHOtxCRhnwTwitter: @RichN950 -
Another thing to remember about power is that if you had two people of approximately the same weight and had them ride a mountain, alone, at an exactly identical steady power to weight (let's say 5.5 w/kg), they wouldn't do the same time as the aerodynamics and rolling resistance will be different, amongst other things.
Rob Hayles tweeted today that in the Individual Pursuit he once put out more average power in the final the the qualifying round but went three seconds slower. That's the same man with the same kit.
Riding further?0 -
Paul Kimmage continues to have his doubts but he is softening (a little)........
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-could-be-one-of-the-greatest-riders-of-all-time-but-questions-remain-31394433.html
DD.
if thats softening, I really need to go back and read some of his books when he was really having a go, he cant insist Sky should open their doors and give all their data away, and then moan he cant make any sense of the numbers anyway, simply because they dont suit the agenda the press corp daft enough to inflate what actually even without the data looked to be a fairly by the numbers attack on a climb as "extraordinary".
I really do think Sky are just wasting their time dealing with these people at this level, it just perpetuates it, there isnt anything Sky can produce that wont make them claim the data isnt accurate or there are question marks on it or it opens another hundred different questions .so they need to just haul Wiggo in and let him swear at them during the press conferences instead for the rest of the race.0 -
Paul Kimmage continues to have his doubts but he is softening (a little)........
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-could-be-one-of-the-greatest-riders-of-all-time-but-questions-remain-31394433.html
DD.
KimmageI would be very curious to know as to what Chris Froome and the elite riders regard as being clean.
basically nails it.0 -
If he's curtious, he could always ask them. Like what a journalist might do."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 -
Paul Kimmage continues to have his doubts but he is softening (a little)........
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-could-be-one-of-the-greatest-riders-of-all-time-but-questions-remain-31394433.html
DD.
KimmageI would be very curious to know as to what Chris Froome and the elite riders regard as being clean.
basically nails it.
UCI rules define limits, where's the difficulty in understanding that?'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 -
Jesus christ the cynics are grasping at straws... his weight is completely irrelevant! (well not completely) the whole watts per/kg is based on an assumption. It does not matter how much weight he loses during a race, as the weight he loses is just water.
Do you think that the water he loses contributes in any way to the power his muscles can produce?
The watts per kg power output is a complete misnomer. What it is really saying is that for a person of any given weight we are assuming that the percentage of muscle mass in that body is the same as for everyone else. Muscle mass cannot be measured directly, the engine cannot be measured directly, so we use this figure of watts per kg as a guide to compare relative power outputs. The numbers cannot be used in isolation, they are only useful when you compare two riders of equal weight and equal body composition ie % muscle mass, % body fat, % water etc.. then it is possible to compare two riders performances in every other situation this cannot be done with any hope of accuracy, so arguing about a few kilos is wholly ludicrous.
There are just so many variables at work that screaming foul play because some numbers seem wrong is just insanity or stupidity.0 -
This is all so boring now. Seems pretty clear that as there isn't the super close GC contest being fought out as was expected, the poor showing of French riders compared to last year and the fact it's a British team leading the tour the French press have decided to make this their story. Quintana et al wouldn't get this kind of scrutiny/criticism if they were leading the tour either.0
-
Jesus christ the cynics are grasping at straws... his weight is completely irrelevant! (well not completely) the whole watts per/kg is based on an assumption. It does not matter how much weight he loses during a race, as the weight he loses is just water.
Do you think that the water he loses contributes in any way to the power his muscles can produce?
The watts per kg power output is a complete misnomer. What it is really saying is that for a person of any given weight we are assuming that the percentage of muscle mass in that body is the same as for everyone else. Muscle mass cannot be measured directly, the engine cannot be measured directly, so we use this figure of watts per kg as a guide to compare relative power outputs. The numbers cannot be used in isolation, they are only useful when you compare two riders of equal weight and equal body composition ie % muscle mass, % body fat, % water etc.. then it is possible to compare two riders performances in every other situation this cannot be done with any hope of accuracy, so arguing about a few kilos is wholly ludicrous.
There are just so many variables at work that screaming foul play because some numbers seem wrong is just insanity or stupidity.
You've completely misunderstood the whole point of how watts per kilo works. It doesn't matter if you're made of air or 100% muscle - the w/kg is completely relevant when it comes to climbing. All else being equal - it's what determines how fast you go up that climb in relation to other athletes of different shapes and sizes (based on THEIR w/kg). It's how you can directly compare someone like Froome to Quintana in a scientific way.
If you make the rider lighter - the watts per kilo measure go up. Same goes for the bike, how many bottles they are carrying, how many gels, etc. You can lose 2-5kg in water weight on any given ride - that will affect your climbing ability.
Even overstating the rider's weight by .5kg will change the ew/kg number. It's completely relevant.0 -
[quote="RichN95
Rob Hayles tweeted today that in the Individual Pursuit he once put out more average power in the final the the qualifying round but went three seconds slower. That's the same man with the same kit.[/quote]
But that is 2 different rides in 2 different conditions at 2 different times of day. I've done the same thing myself.
And despite saying he had the same 'position' - subtle changes in head and hand position can contribute to those changes, especially at pursuit speeds. (The main difference is likely to have come from conditions in the velodrome itself though).
The comparison IS valid somewhat when talking about 2 riders going up a mountain. If they are going up at slightly different times (even a gap of 10 seconds), there will be subtle differences in wind conditions, etc.
And yes - the bikes (with the riders) themselves will play a part - as will riding position. Rolling resistance, small changes in aerodynamics based on position will all contribute to different times.
You would expect to see SMALL changes between riders if power to weight is similar (on a climb). Not big ones.0 -
Another thing to remember about power is that if you had two people of approximately the same weight and had them ride a mountain, alone, at an exactly identical steady power to weight (let's say 5.5 w/kg), they wouldn't do the same time as the aerodynamics and rolling resistance will be different, amongst other things.
Rob Hayles tweeted today that in the Individual Pursuit he once put out more average power in the final the the qualifying round but went three seconds slower. That's the same man with the same kit.
True, but we must bear in mind though that overcoming air resistance at 50-odd kph on the flat is very different to 20 kph uphill (where fighting gravity becomes the largest component of power). I think Sky have probably been over zealous (conservative?) in their corrections to the raw power output. They could have offered a range rather than the minimum but maybe that would be too challenging for the papers to digest...0 -
Gesink had his Jersey unzipped and flapping around if I recall correctly?0
-
The only thing Sky could have done to keep the press and the Twitterati happy was say, 'Here's the details of our doping programme.' Anything else just won't cut it. You have to admire the fact that they remain calm and still try to do as much as possible (more than others anyway) to provide some evidence. However, as Brailsford keeps on saying 'you can't prove a negative'. So I don't really see the point in trying.0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19659484#p19659484]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:Another thing to remember about power is that if you had two people of approximately the same weight and had them ride a mountain, alone, at an exactly identical steady power to weight (let's say 5.5 w/kg), they wouldn't do the same time as the aerodynamics and rolling resistance will be different, amongst other things.
Rob Hayles tweeted today that in the Individual Pursuit he once put out more average power in the final the the qualifying round but went three seconds slower. That's the same man with the same kit.
Riding further?
air density.0 -
Instead of useless power data perhaps details of when and where he was tested in the last 2 months might be more useful along with ALL the results.0
-
Instead of useless power data perhaps details of when and where he was tested in the last 2 months might be more useful along with ALL the results.
How would that be at all useful?
In the absence of any positive test we can assume they're just going to be negative. It tells us nothing.Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0 -
The only thing Sky could have done to keep the press and the Twitterati happy was say, 'Here's the details of our doping programme.'
This x 1,000,000@shraap | My Men 2016: G, Yogi, Cav, Boonen, Degenkolb, Martin, J-Rod, Kudus, Chaves0 -
The only thing Sky could have done to keep the press and the Twitterati happy was say, 'Here's the details of our doping programme.'
This x 1,000,000
HAHAHAH and around these parts all theses scientists would claim it was all placebo and therefore not really doping since the stages cranks are +- 4% of the benefit / weight loss midstage + one pint of spectator piss and a lamp post.
0 -
I have to say I am thoroughly bored of all of this now. It is stupid—and I mean STUPID in the strongest possible terms—tabloid sensationalism and it is damn off putting. People are making themselves look like idiots in the pursuit of whipping up a little 'drama' and consolidating their over-inflated sense of their own importance.
As a result of all this I have not been following this Tour as closely as I have in previous years as I find the whole charade to be a childish pantomime.
If the sport isn't careful it is going to loose fans.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Instead of useless power data perhaps details of when and where he was tested in the last 2 months might be more useful along with ALL the results.
You mean his bio-passport? That's what it's there for, of course. And people far more expert in the field than anyone on a cycling forum, or any ex-pro, or any Twitter pseudonym are indeed pouring over that data if it is flagged for them to do so. Which, in the absence of any news that he has been served with an anti-doping violation, we must conclude that it hasn't due to the fact there is nothing wrong with his values.
And, Above The Cows, well said mate. Couldn't agree more.2020 Reilly Spectre - raw titanium
2020 Merida Reacto Disc Ltd - black on black
2015 CAAD8 105 - very green - stripped to turbo bike
2018 Planet X Exocet 2 - grey
The departed:
2017 Cervelo R3 DI2 - sold
Boardman CX Team - sold
Cannondale Synapse - broken
Cube Streamer - stolen
Boardman Road Comp - stolen0 -
I have to say I am thoroughly bored of all of this now. It is stupid—and I mean STUPID in the strongest possible terms—tabloid sensationalism and it is damn off putting. People are making themselves look like idiots in the pursuit of whipping up a little 'drama' and consolidating their over-inflated sense of their own importance.
As a result of all this I have not been following this Tour as closely as I have in previous years as I find the whole charade to be a childish pantomime.
If the sport isn't careful it is going to loose fans.
Well said, the voice of reason at last.
I am not a fan of Froome but I feel heartily sorry for the poor guy. Knocking his pipe out to try and win the Tour and all he gets is negative publicity and doping alegations I can fully understand Wiggins rant at the press in 2012. He should be enjoying, if thats the right word, his journey to the Yellow jersey but all he gets is "Are you doping".
For goodness sake, it was reported on the BBC national news this morning that Froome is releasing his data to to try and prove he is not doping. If its on national news you can guess what joe public will think. Its a Witch hunt, nothing less, and it needs to stop, now. Trying to prove a negative is not possible. Innocent till proven guilty.0 -
Sky release power data with a trust us 6% fudge to remain within the speedlimit, that appears to violate the laws of physics. Tricky.
I thought this was good on powermeters as a tool and explains some of how the numbers get all over the place.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-elusive-dopeometer.html...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
I don't think you can tell whether someone is doping from power data anyway, nor do I think they are doping either but does anyone actually believe they are really using consumer Stages PMs?
Doubling power numbers from left leg only is not accurate enough regardless of what their marketing guys want you to believe.
If they are using them it is quite possible along with the error range, the oval chainrings etc that the accuracy is up to 15% (or more) out when doubling left leg power, which can get worse with increased effort and fatigue.
Power numbers prove nothing either way anyway and if they are using Stages even less so.
Meanwhile back at the race Froome is the best rider and here come the Alps, bring it on.0
