Froome's Data
Comments
-
Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World Rugby0 -
Which 5 mins will you get back? Could make a fortune with that kind of knowledge[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762238#p19762238]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Just posted by Dr Mark Burnley on his blog. The last paragraph nails it.
https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/this-oxygen-uptake-value-doesnt-look-right-on-interpreting-exercise-tests-in-athletes/
That's 5 mins of my life I'll never have back.Supporter of Sky, transparency and clean cycling. Opponent of pseudoscience.
The greatest clean cycling performance ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762370#p19762370]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World Rugby
HA HA HA HA! Pot calling the kettle black
0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762266#p19762266]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762238#p19762238]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Just posted by Dr Mark Burnley on his blog. The last paragraph nails it.
https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/this-oxygen-uptake-value-doesnt-look-right-on-interpreting-exercise-tests-in-athletes/
That's 5 mins of my life I'll never have back.
Fortunately Dec ain't a taxing month for recruiters :-)
Take it you've never had to do BD?
Must just be your happy carefree persona, these days0 -
He's tweeted about asking questions and not being afraid of being excluded from the 'inner circle'. What inner circle does he think he might gain access to? Any status he might have in cycling is entirely self manufactured.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762370#p19762370]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World RugbyTwitter: @RichN950 -
He's tweeted about asking questions and not being afraid of being excluded from the 'inner circle'. What inner circle does he think he might gain access to? Any status he might have in cycling is entirely self manufactured.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762370#p19762370]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World Rugby
That status is corroborated by the fact it's deemed relevant enough to discuss him on a forum.
If he's that irrelevant, why is he a topic of discussion, and why do you read what he tweets?0 -
But it's still entirely self manufactured. He's just the media go to guy for a headline.
He's tweeted about asking questions and not being afraid of being excluded from the 'inner circle'. What inner circle does he think he might gain access to? Any status he might have in cycling is entirely self manufactured.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762370#p19762370]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World Rugby
That status is corroborated by the fact it's deemed relevant enough to discuss him on a forum.
And to answer your edited bit, he's just been on the podcast which we are discussing. And I read his tweets to see his reaction to it (defensive) and others reaction to him (not great).Twitter: @RichN950 -
He's tweeted about asking questions and not being afraid of being excluded from the 'inner circle'. What inner circle does he think he might gain access to? Any status he might have in cycling is entirely self manufactured.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762370#p19762370]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World Rugby
After Swart explained why he had seen no unexplainable performances from Froome (including Ventoux 2013 etc), Tucker repeated that he was only asking the questions that needed answering. Unfortunately he wasn't asked to specify these questions. I suspect he'd look a fool trying to answer this....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
He's tweeted about asking questions and not being afraid of being excluded from the 'inner circle'. What inner circle does he think he might gain access to? Any status he might have in cycling is entirely self manufactured.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762370#p19762370]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World Rugby
That status is corroborated by the fact it's deemed relevant enough to discuss him on a forum.
If he's that irrelevant, why is he a topic of discussion, and why do you read what he tweets?
Because he's revered as Head Troll, Rick.
It probably even says that on his CV.
Quiet month ha ha ha.0 -
But it's still entirely self manufactured. He's just the media go to guy for a headline.
He's tweeted about asking questions and not being afraid of being excluded from the 'inner circle'. What inner circle does he think he might gain access to? Any status he might have in cycling is entirely self manufactured.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762370#p19762370]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World Rugby
That status is corroborated by the fact it's deemed relevant enough to discuss him on a forum.
And to answer your edited bit, he's just been on the podcast which we are discussing. And I read his tweets to see his reaction to it (defensive) and others reaction to him (not great).
Don't moan he's irrelevant and has self manufactured status and then give him the oxygen of attention.
Can't have it both ways Richard. It may have been self manufactured initially but it obviously isn't now because you are discussing him.
Basically, if you don't approve of his status, stop discussing him. Or be content with being inconsistent.0 -
He's tweeted about asking questions and not being afraid of being excluded from the 'inner circle'. What inner circle does he think he might gain access to? Any status he might have in cycling is entirely self manufactured.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762370#p19762370]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World Rugby
Eh? What does that even mean, RT? Jesus. Someone buy him http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/suspicious-minds-9781472915641/0 -
He's tweeted about asking questions and not being afraid of being excluded from the 'inner circle'. What inner circle does he think he might gain access to? Any status he might have in cycling is entirely self manufactured.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762370#p19762370]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World Rugby
You mean he's tweeted about this in the past Rich. Not today? Cuz I went over to his feed and I can't see him saying that.
Twitter is a pain in the arse to follow most of the time. So tbh it would be great if all you avid users that want to flag interesting tweets could post them here in a screengrab or something so we can all see it. I find myself trawling around and eventually finding something and going, really is that it... meh... (e.g. the Vaughters/Bruyneel "spat")0 -
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
But any oxygen I provide is miniscule. Media organisations who go to him because he'll dutifully provide enough for headline on the other hand....
But it's still entirely self manufactured. He's just the media go to guy for a headline.
He's tweeted about asking questions and not being afraid of being excluded from the 'inner circle'. What inner circle does he think he might gain access to? Any status he might have in cycling is entirely self manufactured.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19762370#p19762370]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Tucker lashing out at Moore, Friebe and Birnie for 'having an agenda'
Jesus, the self-awareness gene is not strong in this one
Mind you, he does introduce himself as working with World Rugby
That status is corroborated by the fact it's deemed relevant enough to discuss him on a forum.
And to answer your edited bit, he's just been on the podcast which we are discussing. And I read his tweets to see his reaction to it (defensive) and others reaction to him (not great).
Don't moan he's irrelevant and has self manufactured status and then give him the oxygen of attention.
Can't have it both ways Richard. It may have been self manufactured initially but it obviously isn't now because you are discussing him.
Basically, if you don't approve of his status, stop discussing him. Or be content with being inconsistent.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Daniel's point at the end is the most important I think. Everyone talks about needing to define the question but the question is clear and obvious - Is Chris Froome (and by extension Team Sky) doping?
During the 2013 tour Froome was told to release his power data "To prove he was clean", which he did to Fred Grappe. This did not, and could not, answer the question
Tucker seems to deny this now but during the 2015 Tour, Vayer and he were constantly on twitter bleating about what Froome's VO2 max was. It was apparently the most important piece of data the could be provided. Hence why Froome went and did a test, hence why Michelle spent (I imagine) quite a lot of time trying to find the 1997 test. As most people (including most of us) pointed out at the time, this would have no bearing whatsoever on answering the question - and it has not. (to answer Rick's question. One of the reasons we are discussing Tucker, and Vayer, is that he clearly can influence the PR of a Pro Cyclist.)
Sky was also asked to release his power data for that first climb (I forget which one), which they did on the second rest day. Again (see a pattern yet?) this did not, and could not answer the question.
The problem is that the question cannot be answered. It's a cliche because it's true - You can't prove a negative.
During the interview, Tucker did not disgrace himself, sitting next to Swart he was a lot more rational and science based than he is on twitter. However he clearly does nt like Daniel's point that none of what he asks for will ever answer the ultimate question and so faffing around the edges of it is indeed a "blind alley". Again he has taken to twitter where he does not exactly promote himself well.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Yeah it's a criticism I level at mainsteam media outlets too. Good to know you're comfortable with your own inconsistency. I'm sceptical you're so tolerant of others' inconsistency, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
The Internet is vastly over represented in mainstream media outlets and it creates vicious cycles like you saw at the Tour; it gives it legitimacy that is ill deserved. This whole data thing has basically spawned from that cycle and it's basically a farce.
Cav got it bang on when he made his "who said that, Internet forum people?" Same can be applied to Twitter. I like to think the majority of us here appreciate that what is said here should be entirely inconsequential. If it wasn't, we would have a duty to watch what we say.
The same goes for Twitter, only there's less awareness as discussed.
Don't fee the beast with unwarranted attention. I know the echo chamber is very attractive; one picks up similar voices naturally on Twitter and it's a feel good. it isn't however.
It's s home for the narcissistic, and socially inept.
You can't even argue you go there for discussions because 140 characters won't do it. It's basically a massive blow- idol.0 -
It's quite funny reading the comments on here now regarding Froomes data and all the people now wading in saying this and that, especially given the fact that a lot of you are only now just beginning to realise what i said a few weeks ago (and immediately go shot down in flames for it) which was 'what difference does it make?'
I made the point to various people who said Froome was cheating that it didn't matter, and if it did matter then why watch the sport? if you are that bothered by doping and think everyone is cheating, then why seriously waste your time watching something you despise?
The point i was making underneath it all was that people 'don't really hate it', which is why they carry on watching it. All they are doing is constantly fuelling a fire they can never put out or don't want to put out for various reasons (ego....ignorance..delete as appropriate). It becomes a soap opera and because their lives (quote Wiggins) are so boring, they feel they can sit on their backsides and just have a pop are people (for example Froome) to make themselves feel better.
Its only taken you lot 20 odd pages on this post to finally accept what i said ages ago. But knowing you lot i won't expect a 'you were right mate' so i'll just pat myself on the back. Thanks. 0 -
I think most people here generally agree with you. By and large this forum only discusses doping when it's actually in the news. I don't think there's much of a 'they're all doping' vibe here. There are other social media places where people claim to want to fight doping but would feel empty without it, but I wouldn't say this is one.It's quite funny reading the comments on here now regarding Froomes data and all the people now wading in saying this and that, especially given the fact that a lot of you are only now just beginning to realise what i said a few weeks ago (and immediately go shot down in flames for it) which was 'what difference does it make?'
I made the point to various people who said Froome was cheating that it didn't matter, and if it did matter then why watch the sport? if you are that bothered by doping and think everyone is cheating, then why seriously waste your time watching something you despise?
The point i was making underneath it all was that people 'don't really hate it', which is why they carry on watching it. All they are doing is constantly fuelling a fire they can never put out or don't want to put out for various reasons (ego....ignorance..delete as appropriate). It becomes a soap opera and because their lives (quote Wiggins) are so boring, they feel they can sit on their backsides and just have a pop are people (for example Froome) to make themselves feel better.
Its only taken you lot 20 odd pages on this post to finally accept what i said ages ago. But knowing you lot i won't expect a 'you were right mate' so i'll just pat myself on the back. Thanks.Twitter: @RichN950 -
That's a rather arrogant view Rick but ok
Like it or not, this stuff affects the sport, affects the reporting of the sport, the performance of the cyclists and the perception of the sport in the wider world. Pretending that it doesnt exist does not make it go away
...it's also interestingWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Also, the prevailing thought on this forum has always been that releasing data wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.0
-
It's an entirely legitimate topic for discussion. End of story.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
-
Friebe makes a fleeting appearance and gets it spot on... "the democratization of public discourse"
Truly the Janan Ganesh of Pro-Cycling0 -
-
Good podcast that.0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19754905#p19754905]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:this is all far too technical for me but just so i'm clear, is this saying that he is just a natural talent and has the perfect physique for cycling ?
It says he has the engine to be capable of doing what he does (well, doh). It says he had an engine back in 07, but was a lard ars*, compared to the skeletor he became. How he got that engine, is what the people who remain sceptical, say, combined with losing their shoot over seeing Zorzoli's name on that 2007 doco.
Another factor that is hard to quantify, is the biological passport kicking in from 2009, I think. Pretty much coinciding with team Sky forming.0 -
-
Alright Alex?
Picked up the forum pretty fast after one post!
Mmm... Suspicious. Has no presence before end 2015, then wham! Straight in with a pertinent post...
Either the content on this forum is child's play or someone is telling him the answers... If indeed Alex is a "him": fallen for that one before, too...0 -
-
Froomintroll alert0
-
Doc Swart goes postal in the asylum. Recommended....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
