Froome's Data
Comments
-
One of the twitterati (the one that likes to time climbs) shared with Swart supposed evidence of Froome doing 6.25w/kg or the like, compared against a list of known dopers. But this didn't take into account where in the 3 weeks these times were taken, where the riders were on GC at the time, what the stage itself was like ie /\/\/\ or ____/. And was it even a climb at a crucial point in the race? These comparative times are as worthless as a politician's word.
To be fair to ammattipyöräily (the guy that calculates power for climb times) I think he was just sharing for the benefit of all. I've followed him for a couple of years and never seem him accuse anyone of doping based on these numbers. He also likes to compare his caulculations againts known data, sometimes shared by pros, and IIRC he's within 2-3%, on average. However, individual calculations can be out by quite a bit more which is probably why he doesn't draw conclusions from them.0 -
Going back to the Armstrong thing. The journalists like Whittle and McGrath who seem to be his PR team nowadays are crying tears that his life ban was disproportionate. But was it? What has he actually missed? He was nearly 41 and retired by the time he was banned.
In three years all he has missed out on is being prevented from riding Hincapie's sportive. For a decade of systematic cheating his effective punishment from the sport was the same a guy who forget his helmet. Basso, Vino, Valverde, Millar etc actually sat out two years. Most of his US Postal chums missed actual races.
He could have gone to CAS and would most likely had his ban reduced. But he didn't. He preferred to use the victim card and keep the journalists running to the click of his fingers. Don't they see they are being used?
Not sure, but did he not want to get back into Iron Man comps?0 -
One of the twitterati (the one that likes to time climbs) shared with Swart supposed evidence of Froome doing 6.25w/kg or the like, compared against a list of known dopers. But this didn't take into account where in the 3 weeks these times were taken, where the riders were on GC at the time, what the stage itself was like ie /\/\/\ or ____/. And was it even a climb at a crucial point in the race? These comparative times are as worthless as a politician's word.
To be fair to ammattipyöräily (the guy that calculates power for climb times) I think he was just sharing for the benefit of all. I've followed him for a couple of years and never seem him accuse anyone of doping based on these numbers. He also likes to compare his caulculations againts known data, sometimes shared by pros, and IIRC he's within 2-3%, on average. However, individual calculations can be out by quite a bit more which is probably why he doesn't draw conclusions from them.
He comes across as snide and snarkey on Twitter when it concerns certain riders, butwhen its someone like Quintana, you can search high and low for his usual MO 'I cant possibly wait a second longer to get my calcs out to everyone' at play with other particular riders.
Like a number of these types who crowd cycling and social media who love the cloak of 'science', he comes across as craving followers.0 -
Without wanting to go back into Lance, he doped, it was a period of time where everyone had to.
On a completely different note there are some lobotomies on Twatter tonight. I despair.
That thinking is part of the problem. Everyone didn't have to and Armstrong didn't 'level the playing field' by cheating. There are scores of riders who lost careers in the 90s because of cheats taking their spots on teams. Clean riders have been losing out to doped riders for years and it's even getting worse on the domestic scene in the UK. Doping there is far worse now than in the 90s. It's no surprise that a rider living in Monaco being told towards the end of the season that there is no place for him in the team next year would speak to his coach who managed a big result on EPO and try another way to save his career. The system is the problem, not really the riders and it's counter productive to shout down the guys pointing out the obvious as they are only trying to clean up the sport. Unlike the UCI!0 -
If it's all about weight as Ferrari said 16 years ago then why did LA weigh 7.5 Kg more than the dawg, and with only one testicle.
This doesn't really tell us anything new. Just weight, and again that Froome isn't a Ferrari client.
Interesting that per the 2007 testing date the taller Froome weighed the same as Armstrong at his peak but Froome had his bodyfat percentage at near 17% (which seems extraordinarily high for a neo-pro commencing racing in Europe).0 -
I've decided social meeedja plays far too big a role in cycling.
It's totally disproportionate.
Press are as much to blame for using it as a crutch.0 -
I've decided social meeedja plays far too big a role in cycling.
It's totally disproportionate.
Press are as much to blame for using it as a crutch.
Not just cycling... but yes...0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757403#p19757403]El Grosso Bastardo[/url] wrote:
If it's all about weight as Ferrari said 16 years ago then why did LA weigh 7.5 Kg more than the dawg, and with only one testicle.
This doesn't really tell us anything new. Just weight, and again that Froome isn't a Ferrari client.
Interesting that per the 2007 testing date the taller Froome weighed the same as Armstrong at his peak but Froome had his bodyfat percentage at near 17% (which seems extraordinarily high for a neo-pro commencing racing in Europe).
I know right! Anyone would think he had grownup OUTSIDE the european junior racing scene
The cheek of it!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757390#p19757390]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:One of the twitterati (the one that likes to time climbs) shared with Swart supposed evidence of Froome doing 6.25w/kg or the like, compared against a list of known dopers. But this didn't take into account where in the 3 weeks these times were taken, where the riders were on GC at the time, what the stage itself was like ie /\/\/\ or ____/. And was it even a climb at a crucial point in the race? These comparative times are as worthless as a politician's word.
To be fair to ammattipyöräily (the guy that calculates power for climb times) I think he was just sharing for the benefit of all. I've followed him for a couple of years and never seem him accuse anyone of doping based on these numbers. He also likes to compare his caulculations againts known data, sometimes shared by pros, and IIRC he's within 2-3%, on average. However, individual calculations can be out by quite a bit more which is probably why he doesn't draw conclusions from them.
He comes across as snide and snarkey on Twitter when it concerns certain riders, butwhen its someone like Quintana, you can search high and low for his usual MO 'I cant possibly wait a second longer to get my calcs out to everyone' at play with other particular riders.
Like a number of these types who crowd cycling and social media who love the cloak of 'science', he comes across as craving followers.
I've no idea how you can arrive at that conclusion from what I've read - it's a deeply cynical interpretation of what he's doing. He posts masses of info from riders birthdays to how many race days they've done in a year. He watches races (current and historical) and calculates powers for the big riders doing the big climbs (whoever they are) and likes to check his accuracy publically.
Are we talking about the same person? https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757403#p19757403]El Grosso Bastardo[/url] wrote:
If it's all about weight as Ferrari said 16 years ago then why did LA weigh 7.5 Kg more than the dawg, and with only one testicle.
This doesn't really tell us anything new. Just weight, and again that Froome isn't a Ferrari client.
Interesting that per the 2007 testing date the taller Froome weighed the same as Armstrong at his peak but Froome had his bodyfat percentage at near 17% (which seems extraordinarily high for a neo-pro commencing racing in Europe).
I know right! Anyone would think he had grownup OUTSIDE the european junior racing scene
The cheek of it!
To be in a position where he was undergoing lab tests in Ch and had already raced amongst the likes of Pierre Roland he was at a level some way above pootling around Nairobi on a rusty mountain bike. 17% is extraordinarily high for someone riding at that level - Dario Pieri may disagree.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757390#p19757390]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:One of the twitterati (the one that likes to time climbs) shared with Swart supposed evidence of Froome doing 6.25w/kg or the like, compared against a list of known dopers. But this didn't take into account where in the 3 weeks these times were taken, where the riders were on GC at the time, what the stage itself was like ie /\/\/\ or ____/. And was it even a climb at a crucial point in the race? These comparative times are as worthless as a politician's word.
To be fair to ammattipyöräily (the guy that calculates power for climb times) I think he was just sharing for the benefit of all. I've followed him for a couple of years and never seem him accuse anyone of doping based on these numbers. He also likes to compare his caulculations againts known data, sometimes shared by pros, and IIRC he's within 2-3%, on average. However, individual calculations can be out by quite a bit more which is probably why he doesn't draw conclusions from them.
He comes across as snide and snarkey on Twitter when it concerns certain riders, butwhen its someone like Quintana, you can search high and low for his usual MO 'I cant possibly wait a second longer to get my calcs out to everyone' at play with other particular riders.
Like a number of these types who crowd cycling and social media who love the cloak of 'science', he comes across as craving followers.
I've no idea how you can arrive at that conclusion from what I've read - it's a deeply cynical interpretation of what he's doing. He posts masses of info from riders birthdays to how many race days they've done in a year. He watches races (current and historical) and calculates powers for the big riders doing the big climbs (whoever they are) and likes to check his accuracy publically.
Are we talking about the same person? https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily
We are indeed. We clearly have 2 very different views and experiences of him0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757401#p19757401]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Without wanting to go back into Lance, he doped, it was a period of time where everyone had to.
On a completely different note there are some lobotomies on Twatter tonight. I despair.
That thinking is part of the problem. Everyone didn't have to and Armstrong didn't 'level the playing field' by cheating. There are scores of riders who lost careers in the 90s because of cheats taking their spots on teams. Clean riders have been losing out to doped riders for years and it's even getting worse on the domestic scene in the UK. Doping there is far worse now than in the 90s. It's no surprise that a rider living in Monaco being told towards the end of the season that there is no place for him in the team next year would speak to his coach who managed a big result on EPO and try another way to save his career. The system is the problem, not really the riders and it's counter productive to shout down the guys pointing out the obvious as they are only trying to clean up the sport. Unlike the UCI!
You're right, the system is the problem and if the system is failing then some will take advantage of it, and then others will to be able to compete, and then so will most of the others. I suspect very few of them really want to dope in order to be able to compete, but back then if the 15% benefit is to be believed then there is no choice. That appears to have improved.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757403#p19757403]El Grosso Bastardo[/url] wrote:
If it's all about weight as Ferrari said 16 years ago then why did LA weigh 7.5 Kg more than the dawg, and with only one testicle.
This doesn't really tell us anything new. Just weight, and again that Froome isn't a Ferrari client.
Interesting that per the 2007 testing date the taller Froome weighed the same as Armstrong at his peak but Froome had his bodyfat percentage at near 17% (which seems extraordinarily high for a neo-pro commencing racing in Europe).
I know right! Anyone would think he had grownup OUTSIDE the european junior racing scene
The cheek of it!
Stop knee-jerking. He was measured with that body fat number - and it IS very high (as has been commented on by the very same sports scientists who we agree are talking sense). But the guy managed to beat some very good names in amateur races on the Italian scene, whatever his body fat. And that's where the poster was coming from, I think.0 -
This is a picture of him taken about three weeks after the date on the 2007 report. It's at the Mi Aout Bretonne race (which he won). The other guy is Michel Theze, coach at WCC[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757424#p19757424]El Grosso Bastardo[/url] wrote:To be in a position where he was undergoing lab tests in Ch and had already raced amongst the likes of Pierre Roland he was at a level some way above pootling around Nairobi on a rusty mountain bike. 17% is extraordinarily high for someone riding at that level - Dario Pieri may disagree.
Bear in mind that 17% isn't overweight for non pro athletes and he's not someone with a muscular torso.Twitter: @RichN950 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757401#p19757401]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Without wanting to go back into Lance, he doped, it was a period of time where everyone had to.
On a completely different note there are some lobotomies on Twatter tonight. I despair.
That thinking is part of the problem. Everyone didn't have to and Armstrong didn't 'level the playing field' by cheating. There are scores of riders who lost careers in the 90s because of cheats taking their spots on teams. Clean riders have been losing out to doped riders for years and it's even getting worse on the domestic scene in the UK. Doping there is far worse now than in the 90s. It's no surprise that a rider living in Monaco being told towards the end of the season that there is no place for him in the team next year would speak to his coach who managed a big result on EPO and try another way to save his career. The system is the problem, not really the riders and it's counter productive to shout down the guys pointing out the obvious as they are only trying to clean up the sport. Unlike the UCI!
You're right, the system is the problem and if the system is failing then some will take advantage of it, and then others will to be able to compete, and then so will most of the others. I suspect very few of them really want to dope in order to be able to compete, but back then if the 15% benefit is to be believed then there is no choice. That appears to have improved.
The difference, at it's most extreme is being able to compete or being dropped by your team. Some teams get a free pass with backdated TUEs etc, others get busted and thrown to the lions. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757433#p19757433]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757403#p19757403]El Grosso Bastardo[/url] wrote:
If it's all about weight as Ferrari said 16 years ago then why did LA weigh 7.5 Kg more than the dawg, and with only one testicle.
This doesn't really tell us anything new. Just weight, and again that Froome isn't a Ferrari client.
Interesting that per the 2007 testing date the taller Froome weighed the same as Armstrong at his peak but Froome had his bodyfat percentage at near 17% (which seems extraordinarily high for a neo-pro commencing racing in Europe).
I know right! Anyone would think he had grownup OUTSIDE the european junior racing scene
The cheek of it!
Stop knee-jerking. He was measured with that body fat number - and it IS very high. But the guy managed to beat some very good names in amateur races on the Italian scene, whatever his body fat. And thats where the poster was coming from, I think.
Sorry, but I'm getting bored of this.
This is like Donald Trump and Obama's birth certificate now.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
^maybe pick your battles and battlegrounds, then
Or join me in a swoon over the Blessed Bernie
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-loyal-lieutenant-through-the-years-with-bernhard-eisel/0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757427#p19757427]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757390#p19757390]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:One of the twitterati (the one that likes to time climbs) shared with Swart supposed evidence of Froome doing 6.25w/kg or the like, compared against a list of known dopers. But this didn't take into account where in the 3 weeks these times were taken, where the riders were on GC at the time, what the stage itself was like ie /\/\/\ or ____/. And was it even a climb at a crucial point in the race? These comparative times are as worthless as a politician's word.
To be fair to ammattipyöräily (the guy that calculates power for climb times) I think he was just sharing for the benefit of all. I've followed him for a couple of years and never seem him accuse anyone of doping based on these numbers. He also likes to compare his caulculations againts known data, sometimes shared by pros, and IIRC he's within 2-3%, on average. However, individual calculations can be out by quite a bit more which is probably why he doesn't draw conclusions from them.
He comes across as snide and snarkey on Twitter when it concerns certain riders, butwhen its someone like Quintana, you can search high and low for his usual MO 'I cant possibly wait a second longer to get my calcs out to everyone' at play with other particular riders.
Like a number of these types who crowd cycling and social media who love the cloak of 'science', he comes across as craving followers.
I've no idea how you can arrive at that conclusion from what I've read - it's a deeply cynical interpretation of what he's doing. He posts masses of info from riders birthdays to how many race days they've done in a year. He watches races (current and historical) and calculates powers for the big riders doing the big climbs (whoever they are) and likes to check his accuracy publically.
Are we talking about the same person? https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily
We are indeed. We clearly have 2 very different views and experiences of him
So it would seem! Fair enough.0 -
Well maybe, but as Rich points out,it's not actually that big a deal and further, it is not something that raises any concerns to anyone with actual genuine knowledge, it's just more snark.
Guy from Africa goes to Switzerland and indulges in a bit too much chocolate and cheese - big whoop. I suspect that attitude is a hell of a lot more healthy than telling a 14 year old boy that he has to be borderline anorexic to ride for his village team. No different from the Northern/Southern Hemisphere appraoch to just bulking up/developing skillsWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757442#p19757442]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:^maybe pick your battles and battlegrounds, then
Or join me in a swoon over the Blessed Bernie
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-loyal-lieutenant-through-the-years-with-bernhard-eisel/
swoon away... just don't take stock tips from him...We should all have a share in HTC.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757438#p19757438]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757401#p19757401]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Without wanting to go back into Lance, he doped, it was a period of time where everyone had to.
On a completely different note there are some lobotomies on Twatter tonight. I despair.
That thinking is part of the problem. Everyone didn't have to and Armstrong didn't 'level the playing field' by cheating. There are scores of riders who lost careers in the 90s because of cheats taking their spots on teams. Clean riders have been losing out to doped riders for years and it's even getting worse on the domestic scene in the UK. Doping there is far worse now than in the 90s. It's no surprise that a rider living in Monaco being told towards the end of the season that there is no place for him in the team next year would speak to his coach who managed a big result on EPO and try another way to save his career. The system is the problem, not really the riders and it's counter productive to shout down the guys pointing out the obvious as they are only trying to clean up the sport. Unlike the UCI!
You're right, the system is the problem and if the system is failing then some will take advantage of it, and then others will to be able to compete, and then so will most of the others. I suspect very few of them really want to dope in order to be able to compete, but back then if the 15% benefit is to be believed then there is no choice. That appears to have improved.
The difference, at it's most extreme is being able to compete or being dropped by your team. Some teams get a free pass with backdated TUEs etc, others get busted and thrown to the lions. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
You've forgotten to include the grassy knoll.
There is no evidence of preferential treatment in the current peloton/UCI management.0 -
0
-
This is the 2007 WCC team.Well maybe, but as Rich points out,it's not actually that big a deal and further, it is not something that raises any concerns to anyone with actual genuine knowledge, it's just more snark.
Guy from Africa goes to Switzerland and indulges in a bit too much chocolate and cheese - big whoop. I suspect that attitude is a hell of a lot more healthy than telling a 14 year old boy that he has to be borderline anorexic to ride for his village team. No different from the Northern/Southern Hemisphere appraoch to just bulking up/developing skills
They don't look much different to a local club run (but with more Chinese people)Twitter: @RichN950 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757438#p19757438]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757401#p19757401]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Without wanting to go back into Lance, he doped, it was a period of time where everyone had to.
On a completely different note there are some lobotomies on Twatter tonight. I despair.
That thinking is part of the problem. Everyone didn't have to and Armstrong didn't 'level the playing field' by cheating. There are scores of riders who lost careers in the 90s because of cheats taking their spots on teams. Clean riders have been losing out to doped riders for years and it's even getting worse on the domestic scene in the UK. Doping there is far worse now than in the 90s. It's no surprise that a rider living in Monaco being told towards the end of the season that there is no place for him in the team next year would speak to his coach who managed a big result on EPO and try another way to save his career. The system is the problem, not really the riders and it's counter productive to shout down the guys pointing out the obvious as they are only trying to clean up the sport. Unlike the UCI!
You're right, the system is the problem and if the system is failing then some will take advantage of it, and then others will to be able to compete, and then so will most of the others. I suspect very few of them really want to dope in order to be able to compete, but back then if the 15% benefit is to be believed then there is no choice. That appears to have improved.
The difference, at it's most extreme is being able to compete or being dropped by your team. Some teams get a free pass with backdated TUEs etc, others get busted and thrown to the lions. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
You've forgotten to include the grassy knoll.
There is no evidence of preferential treatment in the current peloton/UCI management.
Apart from allowing a team to conduct its own research into the effects altitude has on the biopassport, allowing teams that share sponsors in the same race, allowing backdated TUEs to explain cortisone usage, etc, etc There are plenty of others but this isn't the thread to go into detail. Remember, the UCI is still run by the same people.0 -
Well maybe, but as Rich points out,it's not actually that big a deal and further, it is not something that raises any concerns to anyone with actual genuine knowledge, it's just more snark.
Guy from Africa goes to Switzerland and indulges in a bit too much chocolate and cheese - big whoop. I suspect that attitude is a hell of a lot more healthy than telling a 14 year old boy that he has to be borderline anorexic to ride for his village team. No different from the Northern/Southern Hemisphere appraoch to just bulking up/developing skills
You're spending time trying to defend something which I really don't think was being attacked on this forum - that's my point. He was carrying a higher body fat compo that was standard. That's all - a curiosity, no more. As per his Aug test, even though that was a lot lower as his body has gone through a transformation over the years (ref his weight), it showed that he stores fat around the organs and shizz. Shrug.
If the Clinic loons want to attack it, so be it. But I dont think its being attacked here.0 -
Basically the situation is this:
The case for the defence has been made. Froome over the years has been more obliging than any other stage race you could name. It is time for the defence to rest.
What we know need to hear is the coherent case for the prosecution. As Froome moves into his sixth season of success, the prosecution's case still looks mighty thin on the ground despite an army of online researchers constantly testing for a weak point like the raptors in Jurassic Park.
Suspicions of someone due to the past actions of others is fine, but after a time, if those suspicions aren't supported then suspicions that remain become prejudices.Twitter: @RichN950 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757464#p19757464]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Well maybe, but as Rich points out,it's not actually that big a deal and further, it is not something that raises any concerns to anyone with actual genuine knowledge, it's just more snark.
Guy from Africa goes to Switzerland and indulges in a bit too much chocolate and cheese - big whoop. I suspect that attitude is a hell of a lot more healthy than telling a 14 year old boy that he has to be borderline anorexic to ride for his village team. No different from the Northern/Southern Hemisphere appraoch to just bulking up/developing skills
You're spending time trying to defend something which I really don't think was being attacked on this forum - that's my point. He was carrying a higher body fat compo that was standard. That's all - a curiosity, no more. As per his Aug test, even though that was a lot lower as his body has gone through a transformation over the years (ref his weight), it showed that he stores fat around the organs and shizz. Shrug.
If the Clinic loons want to attack it, so be it. But I dont think its being attacked here.
Without evidence it's all really a moot point. He says 17% body fat but has no evidence, photos don't help either so it's not much use. The problem is that as cycling fans, we have been lied to so many times that without concrete proof it is hard to believe.0 -
Then if you don't believe any of it, why do you keep watching? What do you get out of 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'"
@gietvangent0 -
Basically the situation is this:
The case for the defence has been made. Froome over the years has been more obliging than any other stage race you could name. It is time for the defence to rest.
What we know need to hear is the coherent case for the prosecution. As Froome moves into his sixth season of success, the prosecution's case still looks mighty thin on the ground despite an army of online researchers constantly testing for a weak point like the raptors in Jurassic Park.
Suspicions of someone due to the past actions of others is fine, but after a time, if those suspicions aren't supported then suspicions that remain become prejudices.
Completely agree. Time to put this to bed otherwise it just becomes a self-fulfilling soap opera. If thats what everyone wants then go and watch Eastenders.
Fat % this....weight that....power this and that...jesus. Anyone interested in cycling by any chance?
:roll:0
