Froome's Data
Comments
-
Maybe partly true, but he's on a US team, so maybe not the key point I'm looking for. He only succeeded in the US. In Europe, still nothing. There's a reason - go find it chaps.
Simply because he had a leaders role in the US races.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Vaughters is full of shite (he has good views too though). Why were his successes in the US but nothing in Europe? (This shows that there's more to power)In a recent interview he seemed to be suggesting that it was because Vaughters let him eat occasionally and taught him how to ride round corners.
(I have my theory. It's right btw)Twitter: @RichN950 -
Did it turn out that his power had been measured in imperial, and it was actually Watts per Stone? That would be a huge drawback in European races, where everyone is racing in W/Kg, but not an issue in the US.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
Or possibly slightly more realistic - US = long steady climbs without steep, energy-sapping ramps.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
None of your theories match mine (but maybe correct)
But the reason that Dowbrowski thrived in America is because he has more access to doping in the US.
Another theory is that US races have much wider roads, so a skinny rider like JD doesn't have to fight for his place so much. He starts the US climbs at the front.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Hi, from a new member from Canada. Re JDom : I think the reason is the problem with his legs. http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/08/news/dombrowski-surgery-leg-artery-looks-future_3400640
-
J dom looks fantastic in that Sky kit0
-
But we know that with an established max hematocrit of 50% and no other test, riders who have a high natural hematocrit can't gain much - if any - advantage from epo/transfusion. Two equally good riders, one with high natural hematocrit, one with low, have vastly different potentials when doped. In a peloton were we have established that doping was rife, riders would effectively have been selected in those years according to their doping response.
They can gain a significant advantage if they are blood doping throughout a Grand Tour, particularly in the second half of a race. A clean rider's haematocrit levels should normally decrease during the course of a long stage race. If a blood doper can stabilize or even increase their haematocrit levels, particularly before criticical stages, they will have a significant advantage over clean riders.0 -
They can gain a significant advantage if they are blood doping throughout a Grand Tour, particularly in the second half of a race. A clean rider's haematocrit levels should normally decrease during the course of a long stage race. If a blood doper can stabilize or even increase their haematocrit levels, particularly before criticical stages, they will have a significant advantage over clean riders.
Haematocrit is too much of a blunt instrument to be of any use, which is why no one really talks about it in anti-doping any more. My understanding is the concept of it "must decrease" over a GT isn't really true eitherFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
None of your theories match mine (but maybe correct)
But the reason that Dowbrowski thrived in America is because he has more access to doping in the US.
Another theory is that US races have much wider roads, so a skinny rider like JD doesn't have to fight for his place so much. He starts the US climbs at the front.
Has Dombrowski been busted for doping? when did that happen?0 -
(I suspect given the time of Rich's pot, he may have been imitating one of our temporary visitors)
Hopefully that's the case, or he needs to get Ashbeck on speed dial for the account hack defence0 -
But we know that with an established max hematocrit of 50% and no other test, riders who have a high natural hematocrit can't gain much - if any - advantage from epo/transfusion. Two equally good riders, one with high natural hematocrit, one with low, have vastly different potentials when doped. In a peloton were we have established that doping was rife, riders would effectively have been selected in those years according to their doping response.
They can gain a significant advantage if they are blood doping throughout a Grand Tour, particularly in the second half of a race. A clean rider's haematocrit levels should normally decrease during the course of a long stage race. If a blood doper can stabilize or even increase their haematocrit levels, particularly before criticical stages, they will have a significant advantage over clean riders.
I think you've completely, and quite spectacularly, missed my point. Any advantage a rider with high natural hematocrit can gain is only a fraction of what a rider with lower natural hematocrit, but some other natural advantage, can gain - regardless of where in a GT they are. Doping isn't a level playing field - especially when a 50% ceiling is set.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I've just re-read the veloclinic article, and Pseudoscience is definitely the right word.
These are just the holes in it I found with a cursory reading:
1) Weight estimate - relies on unverified data from an interview with Froome, makes no attempt to provide margin of error.
2) Relies on comparison on single climb to "illustrate" - I think Tucker calls this "pixelation", though I see Tucker hasn't bothered to point out the flaw. No doubt because he's too busy or it just escaped his attention, I'd not like to suggest he's ignored it for convenience.
3) "So the weight would have put him back by 48 sec and 1 min 36 sec respectively. Those times would still have been good enough for 1st and 4th on the stage that day if we substitute in the simulation for Froome’s actual time." 1'36'' seconds - or even 48'' is a significant chunk of time. But it case anyone didn't realise, the climb is raced on the road, not on a power meter. The difference between dropping someone and being dropped is just a tiny bit important. To drop someone without burning yourself out you need a margin over them. And if you hang on to avoid being dropped you risk blowing up and falling even further back. Sorry I'm stating the obvious, I don't mean to be patronising.
3) "Froome’s TT performance should have not improved or worsened with the weight loss if it was the dominant factor." - The decontextualisation here is extreme, and the assumptions made are never stated, let alone mitigated or accounted for. E.g. assumption that all TTs were ridden at max effort (as a DS, if your non-protected domestique did that, you'd be livid). Another assumption is that TT performance isn't related to other performance factors in a race: e.g. if you're otherwise struggling to hang in, or if you're dishing out the hurt to everyone else.
4) "The best available evidence suggests a doping prevalence in elite sports of 14-39% (de Hon 2015) with only 1-2% of cheats caught per year by anti-doping testing." This is hugely leading, and the abstract of the paper cited (a review) makes clear that there are few studies to work with and there is massive variance between sports.
5) Swart doesn't take a longitudinal look at Froome's blood test data, only a single test the day after the physiological testing. - This is quite pernicious. Swart's mandate wasn't to provide a review of Froome's blood data. The blood test taken the day after the physio test was solely to control that Froome didn't rock up with abnormal blood values on the day. He didn't, end of story.
Puchowitz fails to control for possible feedback mechanisms that have weight as their prime cause, leading him to assume a linear relationship between weight and results. Performance defined as a measure of W/Kg is falsely equated with performance as defined by placings in races or time gaps in a race. Performance in terms of race placing is assumed to be at maximum effort, and with the aim of highest placing, regardless of race specific context such as role in team, efforts made to close down etc.
This isn't science. It's a few calculations on the back of a napkin, dressed up with some scientific terminology.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
They can gain a significant advantage if they are blood doping throughout a Grand Tour, particularly in the second half of a race. A clean rider's haematocrit levels should normally decrease during the course of a long stage race. If a blood doper can stabilize or even increase their haematocrit levels, particularly before criticical stages, they will have a significant advantage over clean riders.
Haematocrit is too much of a blunt instrument to be of any use, which is why no one really talks about it in anti-doping any more. My understanding is the concept of it "must decrease" over a GT isn't really true either
Haematocrit is an fundamental aspect of the biological passport:The haematological module tests for certain markers in the body that identify the enhancement of oxygen transport. The specific markers the module tests for include haematocrit, haemoglobin, red blood cell count, percentage of reticulocytes, reticulocytes count, mean corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular haemoglobin, mean red cell distribution width, and immature reticulocyte fraction.
To say that no one really talks about just wrong. Anti-doping scientists make reference to it all the time.
I didn't say that haematocrit 'must' decrease. I said it 'should'. This is well established.0 -
Correct. I was also full of whiskey so my sarcasm wasn't working.(I suspect given the time of Rich's pot, he may have been imitating one of our temporary visitors)
Hopefully that's the case, or he needs to get Ashbeck on speed dial for the account hack defenceTwitter: @RichN950 -
3) "Froome’s TT performance should have not improved or worsened with the weight loss if it was the dominant factor." - The decontextualisation here is extreme, and the assumptions made are never stated, let alone mitigated or accounted for. E.g. assumption that all TTs were ridden at max effort (as a DS, if your non-protected domestique did that, you'd be livid). Another assumption is that TT performance isn't related to other performance factors in a race: e.g. if you're otherwise struggling to hang in, or if you're dishing out the hurt to everyone else.
He was a non-protected domestique going into the 2011 Vuelta, yet that didn't stop him coming 2nd on the Stage 10 TT, ahead of Wiggins. Froome simply wasn't good enough to produce outstanding TT results prior to the 2011 Vuelta. To think that he was holding back due to his DS's orders is nonsensical. He could have earned a better contract and more leadership opportunities on the basis of strong TT results alone. No rider would forfeit these things just because their DS might get angry with them.5) Swart doesn't take a longitudinal look at Froome's blood test data, only a single test the day after the physiological testing. - This is quite pernicious. Swart's mandate wasn't to provide a review of Froome's blood data. The blood test taken the day after the physio test was solely to control that Froome didn't rock up with abnormal blood values on the day. He didn't, end of story.
He shouldn't state that weight loss was the dominant mechanism for Froome's transformation without evaluating Froome's biological passport (or rely on someone's else expert opinion). To do so just ignores the elephant in the room i.e. was blood doping another mechanism behind Froome's transformation? This is why Swart's hypothesis is completely removed from reality and therefore flawed.0 -
They can gain a significant advantage if they are blood doping throughout a Grand Tour, particularly in the second half of a race. A clean rider's haematocrit levels should normally decrease during the course of a long stage race. If a blood doper can stabilize or even increase their haematocrit levels, particularly before criticical stages, they will have a significant advantage over clean riders.
Haematocrit is too much of a blunt instrument to be of any use, which is why no one really talks about it in anti-doping any more. My understanding is the concept of it "must decrease" over a GT isn't really true either
Haematocrit is an fundamental aspect of the biological passport:The haematological module tests for certain markers in the body that identify the enhancement of oxygen transport. The specific markers the module tests for include haematocrit, haemoglobin, red blood cell count, percentage of reticulocytes, reticulocytes count, mean corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular haemoglobin, mean red cell distribution width, and immature reticulocyte fraction.
To say that no one really talks about just wrong. Anti-doping scientists make reference to it all the time.
I didn't say that haematocrit 'must' decrease. I said it 'should'. This is well established.
And yet you've still fundamentally misunderstood my hypothesis.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
3) "Froome’s TT performance should have not improved or worsened with the weight loss if it was the dominant factor." - The decontextualisation here is extreme, and the assumptions made are never stated, let alone mitigated or accounted for. E.g. assumption that all TTs were ridden at max effort (as a DS, if your non-protected domestique did that, you'd be livid). Another assumption is that TT performance isn't related to other performance factors in a race: e.g. if you're otherwise struggling to hang in, or if you're dishing out the hurt to everyone else.
He was a non-protected domestique going into the 2011 Vuelta, yet that didn't stop him coming 2nd on the Stage 10 TT, ahead of Wiggins. Froome simply wasn't good enough to produce outstanding TT results prior to the 2011 Vuelta. To think that he was holding back due to his DS's orders is nonsensical. He could have earned a better contract and more leadership opportunities on the basis of strong TT results alone. No rider would forfeit these things just because their DS might get angry with them.5) Swart doesn't take a longitudinal look at Froome's blood test data, only a single test the day after the physiological testing. - This is quite pernicious. Swart's mandate wasn't to provide a review of Froome's blood data. The blood test taken the day after the physio test was solely to control that Froome didn't rock up with abnormal blood values on the day. He didn't, end of story.
He shouldn't state that weight loss was the dominant mechanism for Froome's transformation without evaluating Froome's biological passport (or rely on someone's else expert opinion). To do so just ignores the elephant in the room i.e. was blood doping another mechanism behind Froome's transformation? This is why Swart's hypothesis is completely removed from reality and therefore flawed.
And you're reading far too much into an off the cuff remark in the Esquire article. You're setting up a straw man based on it. Just like veloclinic. Nobody, to my knowledge, has seriously argued that weight loss alone explains better results. Swart has also stated this, repeatedly.
In 2011 Vuelta he knew he was on the verge of losing his contract. That's a fairly large incentive to ride more for yourself than for your team, isn't it? We see plenty of riders have a "shop-window" performance in such circumstances.
But again, you're equating performance in terms of results with performance as a physiological measurement. That's not scientific in any shape or form.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
And yet you've still fundamentally misunderstood my hypothesis.
I think we're looking at it from different angles. I agree with your comparison of naturally high and low haematocrits. I was looking at the bolded sentence in isolation, in the context of a Grand Tour.0 -
And you're reading far too much into an off the cuff remark in the Esquire article. You're setting up a straw man based on it. Just like veloclinic. Nobody, to my knowledge, has seriously argued that weight loss alone explains better results. Swart has also stated this, repeatedly.
In 2011 Vuelta he knew he was on the verge of losing his contract. That's a fairly large incentive to ride more for yourself than for your team, isn't it? We see plenty of riders have a "shop-window" performance in such circumstances.
But again, you're equating performance in terms of results with performance as a physiological measurement. That's not scientific in any shape or form.
Swart:"The engine was there all along," said Swart. "He just lost the fat."
Firstly, it wasn't an off cuff remark made in the course of an impromptu TV interview. It's a direct quote from a magazine article. Swart would have had ample time to think about what he wanted to say. It's not my fault that he came up with such a laughable statement.
If that isn't Swart's hyposthesis, what is it exactly? Are you referring to Swart's comments made during the recent podcast with Tucker?0 -
5) Swart doesn't take a longitudinal look at Froome's blood test data, only a single test the day after the physiological testing. - This is quite pernicious. Swart's mandate wasn't to provide a review of Froome's blood data. The blood test taken the day after the physio test was solely to control that Froome didn't rock up with abnormal blood values on the day. He didn't, end of story.
He shouldn't state that weight loss was the dominant mechanism for Froome's transformation without evaluating Froome's biological passport (or rely on someone's else expert opinion). To do so just ignores the elephant in the room i.e. was blood doping another mechanism behind Froome's transformation? This is why Swart's hypothesis is completely removed from reality and therefore flawed.
Somebody else does look at the bio passport - I believe they're known as WADA
But I assume they aren't expert enough for you?0 -
Somebody else does look at the bio passport - I believe they're known as WADA
But I assume they aren't expert enough for you?
They're known as the UCI.0 -
Somebody else does look at the bio passport - I believe they're known as WADA
But I assume they aren't expert enough for you?
They're known as the UCI.
Ha ha ha - best post of all time, you have won the internet with that one - now be a good lad, put your tinfoil hat back on and return your brain cell back to the rightful owner !!!0 -
-
And you're reading far too much into an off the cuff remark in the Esquire article. You're setting up a straw man based on it. Just like veloclinic. Nobody, to my knowledge, has seriously argued that weight loss alone explains better results. Swart has also stated this, repeatedly.
In 2011 Vuelta he knew he was on the verge of losing his contract. That's a fairly large incentive to ride more for yourself than for your team, isn't it? We see plenty of riders have a "shop-window" performance in such circumstances.
But again, you're equating performance in terms of results with performance as a physiological measurement. That's not scientific in any shape or form.
Swart:"The engine was there all along," said Swart. "He just lost the fat."
Firstly, it wasn't an off cuff remark made in the course of an impromptu TV interview. It's a direct quote from a magazine article. Swart would have had ample time to think about what he wanted to say. It's not my fault that he came up with such a laughable statement.
If that isn't Swart's hyposthesis, what is it exactly? Are you referring to Swart's comments made during the recent podcast with Tucker?
You're deliberately investing that remark with far more significance than it deserves, and you know it. As does veloclinic. You're intent on destroying a straw man, not on understanding my critique of veloclinic.
For the record, veloclinic's critique is based on All other things being equal.
For us to accept that this is a valid hypothesis, the following need to be true:
Froome has made no development as a rider in the time frame - neither in terms of race craft (e.g. peloton positioning) nor improvement in condition (other than weight).
Froome was racing each climb in order to gain the highest GC placing possible for himself
Froome was the leader of the team, and had domestiques to shield him from the wind throughout the race
Froome was racing each TT to gain highest possible position for himself
Froome has always ridden with the same efficiency of effort that he uses now (i.e. has the knowledge to calculate when to spend effort and when to hold back to provide the optimal climbing/TTing time)
Froome's equipment has always been of the same standard, and calibrated to him with the same level of quality
Froome's ability to output his power to maximum efficiency is independent of the variance in race strategy and timing of efforts required between being the fastest climber and being a slower climber.
Well what a surprise. Veloclinic has demolished the strawman. None of the assumptions above are even mentioned, let alone quantified or mitigated. He's not comparing apples with apples, he's not even comparing apples and pears, he's comparing apples and musical instruments.
The fact that most of these factors are self-evident to even the most casual of cycling fans demonstrates the pernicious agenda Veloclinic's article contains.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
-
He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro, which shows considerable ability in TTs. In his last TT in 2011 prior to the Vuelta he had come 9th at the Tour de Suisse against a much stronger field (who were all peaking for the Tour).
He was a non-protected domestique going into the 2011 Vuelta, yet that didn't stop him coming 2nd on the Stage 10 TT, ahead of Wiggins. Froome simply wasn't good enough to produce outstanding TT results prior to the 2011 Vuelta. To think that he was holding back due to his DS's orders is nonsensical. He could have earned a better contract and more leadership opportunities on the basis of strong TT results alone. No rider would forfeit these things just because their DS might get angry with them.
In 2011 he had been getting dedicated coaching from Bobby Julich, who's one of the best TT coaches around. He was bound to improve.
Edit:
Also with regard to veloclinic, he writes "Froome’s TT results in grand tours also increased by a large level change 33, 16, 34, 32, 138, and 39th prior to 2011 Vuelta and 2, 11, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1st etc from 2011 Vuelta on"
That etc is interesting. It obscures three results: 10, 63, 39. Why miss them out? Because they inconveniently ruin the pattern and invite us to ask about context?Twitter: @RichN950
