Froome's Data
ocdupalais
Posts: 4,317
With the imminent release of the data - where do we think this one is going?
I see Ross Tucker has walked up to one goal post, unplugged it from its socket and calmly repositioned elsewhere by pointing out that now Froome has apparently done what was asked of him, you do realise it doesn't mean anything, don't you? He's got to do much, much more…etc.
I'm not a fan of Tucker's tone - he's like a reluctant teenager practising to be less snide and more understanding.
On the basis that the usual suspects will damn him either way, I quite like the prospect that some of Froome's physiological parameters give some of the highest readings ever tested.
I see Ross Tucker has walked up to one goal post, unplugged it from its socket and calmly repositioned elsewhere by pointing out that now Froome has apparently done what was asked of him, you do realise it doesn't mean anything, don't you? He's got to do much, much more…etc.
I'm not a fan of Tucker's tone - he's like a reluctant teenager practising to be less snide and more understanding.
On the basis that the usual suspects will damn him either way, I quite like the prospect that some of Froome's physiological parameters give some of the highest readings ever tested.
0
Comments
-
The 2015 data will show that he has the physiology of a potential Tour winner - which I already know because I've seen him win it twice.
The 2007 data will show that he had a raw natural talent, but the bits that can be trained hadn't been trained properly - with I already know because I saw him make sporadically very good (for a first year pro) performances in 2008.
And that's about it.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Tucker has been getting his arse handed to him on a plate this evening. Most amusing.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
Here you go: http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk/
Basically he's exactly the same athlete he was in 2007 - but not as a fat (75.6kg, 17% body fat in 2007). It seems he's still fatter than he looks (although I think Moore may have botched the calculations slightly there)Twitter: @RichN950 -
What would convince Vayer that Froome was clean? He once said that if Froome had a VO2 max of 90 then he might give him the benefit of the doubt, but not any more. “Nothing would convince me,” he says. “He should have called me a year ago and said, ‘Vayer, you make me angry, let’s sit together.’ If you are clean and you have doubters, you phone your doubters, don’t you think? Because I am quite influential.”
Clearly the report has a pro-Froome bias, but this pretty much sums up his problem. It's not going to make any difference.
I found it an interesting read though.0 -
This is his report from 2007:
Big version: http://commercial-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/shorthand/esquire/chrisfroome/froome-scan-hr_lgcg8r4.jpg
He had a threshold power of 420w as an overweight semi-pro university dropout. The man's a freak. If this data shows anything it is that Tim Kerrison might not be all that he's cracked up to be.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Thanks, an interesting read. Have been wondering for a while why has he waited so long to publish them?0
-
I liked that bit. It pretty much shows Vayer for what he is - an egotist. (Moore had previously mentioned that he was an unqualified PE teacher).What would convince Vayer that Froome was clean? He once said that if Froome had a VO2 max of 90 then he might give him the benefit of the doubt, but not any more. “Nothing would convince me,” he says. “He should have called me a year ago and said, ‘Vayer, you make me angry, let’s sit together.’ If you are clean and you have doubters, you phone your doubters, don’t you think? Because I am quite influential.”
Clearly the report has a pro-Froome bias, but this pretty much sums up his problem. It's not going to make any difference.Twitter: @RichN950 -
This report confirms what we've all feared for so long:
Froom'es bike handling skills are seriously sub-par.“I was taking my racing bike and my time-trial bike to wash them in the car wash.” It was around the corner from his apartment in Monaco; he was riding one bike and wheeling the other alongside when the handlebars became entangled. “Down I went, quite heavily.”Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Richard Moore addressed this (on this very forum). Esquire's deadline is six weeks before publication - which means it was actually all written by mid October.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19754740#p19754740]DavidfromWarboys[/url] wrote:Thanks, an interesting read. Have been wondering for a while why has he waited so long to publish them?Twitter: @RichN950 -
I'm just glad it's finally over. It is, isn't it?0
-
He's basically the Forrest Gump of cycling.This report confirms what we've all feared for so long:
Froom'es bike handling skills are seriously sub-par.“I was taking my racing bike and my time-trial bike to wash them in the car wash.” It was around the corner from his apartment in Monaco; he was riding one bike and wheeling the other alongside when the handlebars became entangled. “Down I went, quite heavily.”Twitter: @RichN950 -
So my theory is correct. At 3w/kg over 20 minutes I am half the man he is. But twice his age, so are we even?0
-
So my theory is correct. At 3w/kg over 20 minutes I am half the man he is. But twice his age, so are we even?
Like Vayer, I'm not a scientist, but I reckon you can claim it.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Richard Moore addressed this (on this very forum). Esquire's deadline is six weeks before publication - which means it was actually all written by mid October.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19754740#p19754740]DavidfromWarboys[/url] wrote:Thanks, an interesting read. Have been wondering for a while why has he waited so long to publish them?
Monthly magazine deadlines aren't 6 weeks before publication, more like 4, although the first draft will probably have been 6 weeks before subediting and checking and amending. Advertising is often supplied to the publication 3-4 weeks before publication.
I actually don't think Froome is doping, but it won't silence the doubters unfortunately. They have too much to lose - face, reputation, money...0 -
I'm just going by what Moore himself said.
Monthly magazine deadlines aren't 6 weeks before publication, more like 4, although the first draft will probably have been 6 weeks before subediting and checking and amending. Advertising is often supplied to the publication 3-4 weeks before publication.
Nothing will convince them. But that 420w figure in the 2007 report is the 'non-smoking gun' that needs to be spun by the doubters.I actually don't think Froome is doping, but it won't silence the doubters unfortunately. They have too much to lose - face, reputation, money...Twitter: @RichN950 -
525 watts peak power - wowser!
Great read :-)0 -
I'm just going by what Moore himself said.
Monthly magazine deadlines aren't 6 weeks before publication, more like 4, although the first draft will probably have been 6 weeks before subediting and checking and amending. Advertising is often supplied to the publication 3-4 weeks before publication.
Nothing will convince them. But that 420w figure in the 2007 report is the 'non-smoking gun' that needs to be spun by the doubters.I actually don't think Froome is doping, but it won't silence the doubters unfortunately. They have too much to lose - face, reputation, money...
Given that the 419w figure was after a GT and a load of Criteriums...0 -
That's not sprinting power - it's the power over a five minute period.525 watts peak power - wowser!
Great read :-)
You may remember French rent-a-scientist Pierre Sallet estimating that Froome's was 7.0w/kg - a figure apparently only matched by Armstrong and Ullrich. This was dismissed by a French training company that said that 15% of their riders over the years could do that. Pinot's was revealed as 7.3, Gesink's as 7.45 (PS watch out for him in 2016)Twitter: @RichN950 -
And the 420w figure was done by a rider who wasn't even a pro rider.
Given that the 419w figure was after a GT and a load of Criteriums...
In American Football they have a draft every year. They also have what is known as the 'combine'. A list of physical test scores. Every college player does it. It's not the be all and end of all of talent spotting - but it's taken seriously.
If they had that in cycling, then based solely on the combine - with his power output matched to his body fat - he would be the no.1 draft pick - but one that needed a lot of work.Twitter: @RichN950 -
That's not sprinting power - it's the power over a five minute period.525 watts peak power - wowser!
Great read :-)
You may remember French rent-a-scientist Pierre Sallet estimating that Froome's was 7.0w/kg - a figure apparently only matched by Armstrong and Ullrich. This was dismissed by a French training company that said that 15% of their riders over the years could do that. Pinot's was revealed as 7.3, Gesink's as 7.45 (PS watch out for him in 2016)
Didn't say it was sprinting power.
but agree totally with your Gesink comment 0 -
And the 420w figure was done by a rider who wasn't even a pro rider.
Given that the 419w figure was after a GT and a load of Criteriums...
In American Football they have a draft every year. They also have what is known as the 'combine'. A list of physical test scores. Every college player does it. It's not the be all and end of all of talent spotting - but it's taken seriously.
If they had that in cycling, then based solely on the combine - with his power output matched to his body fat - he would be the no.1 draft pick - but one that needed a lot of work.
Sky knew this, but couldn't work out why it didn't translate for a couple of years.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/road/article/roa20100111-Team-Sky-s-Unpolished-Diamond--Chris-Froome-0
This was Jan 2010.0 -
So my theory is correct. At 3w/kg over 20 minutes I am half the man he is. But twice his age, so are we even?
Like Vayer, I'm not a scientist, but I reckon you can claim it.
Careful, this is the code word for 'I'm running for president' in the republican party.0 -
This is his report from 2007:
Big version: http://commercial-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/shorthand/esquire/chrisfroome/froome-scan-hr_lgcg8r4.jpg
He had a threshold power of 420w as an overweight semi-pro university dropout. The man's a freak. If this data shows anything it is that Tim Kerrison might not be all that he's cracked up to be.
To be honest, that'll suit Froome as according to his book his success is down to himself and his missus, and the team just got in the way at times0 -
i take it this "20-40 minutes" figure of 419//420 is FTP (which doesn't make sense at all)?
and the "peak power" 525 watts number is 5 minute maximal?
hooray for standardised testing0 -
Yeah, but you're not likely to get an unqualified self-publicist with dodgy views running for the Republican nomination. So, you're fired.So my theory is correct. At 3w/kg over 20 minutes I am half the man he is. But twice his age, so are we even?
Like Vayer, I'm not a scientist, but I reckon you can claim it.
Careful, this is the code word for 'I'm running for president' in the republican party.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Yes yes, but let's get down to the important stuff:
Has Vayer taken you up on your Twitter offer this evening to flog him 2nd hand hockey kit, Rich?0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioVY0xnrFHM
Yeah, but you're not likely to get an unqualified self-publicist with dodgy views running for the Republican nomination. So, you're fired.So my theory is correct. At 3w/kg over 20 minutes I am half the man he is. But twice his age, so are we even?
Like Vayer, I'm not a scientist, but I reckon you can claim it.
Careful, this is the code word for 'I'm running for president' in the republican party.0 -
I've never really understood why Vayer thinks Froome owes him the time of day.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
-
or how Vayer has managed to convince other people that Froome owes him the time of day.0
-
Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom0
