How good is Chris Froome?

milemuncher1

DeVlaeminck wrote:

We are talking reasonably fine margins at the top level, it's not like going from being dropped on the club run to winning on Ventoux, if we are going to argue that a rider can't take a step up without being guilty we may as well pack up watching. I'm not a fan of Sky or of Froome but he's come from an unconventional cycling background, he must have had talent to break through.

But it’s the difference between doing something remarkable, and it being too good to be true. I really can’t remember ever seeing an athlete doing something ‘remarkable’ and the performance not being ‘artificially enhanced’. Think Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, the Spanish World Cup winning football team ( recently), and numerous other dubious performances. It’s the duck test. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......... Without going full bore tin hat, it would only take some strategic clandestine ‘hand shakes / pay offs’ and the performance is ‘legit’. Sooner or later, someone in the chain will squeal, it’s inevitable. The sooner it happens, the better.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

Well, the difference between Yates and Froome is that Yates has already been banned for Salbutamol.

Terbutaline

#throwingshade

RichN95.

Milemuncher1 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

We are talking reasonably fine margins at the top level, it's not like going from being dropped on the club run to winning on Ventoux, if we are going to argue that a rider can't take a step up without being guilty we may as well pack up watching. I'm not a fan of Sky or of Froome but he's come from an unconventional cycling background, he must have had talent to break through.

But it’s the difference between doing something remarkable, and it being too good to be true. I really can’t remember ever seeing an athlete doing something ‘remarkable’ and the performance not being ‘artificially enhanced’. Think Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, the Spanish World Cup winning football team ( recently), and numerous other dubious performances. It’s the duck test. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......... Without going full bore tin hat, it would only take some strategic clandestine ‘hand shakes / pay offs’ and the performance is ‘legit’. Sooner or later, someone in the chain will squeal, it’s inevitable. The sooner it happens, the better.

But without doping there will still be extraordinary outlier performances. Jesse Owens setting four world records in 45 minutes, Jim Laker taking 19 wickets, Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game, Rod Laver's Grand Slam, Dettori's Ascot seven etc, etc.

The 'duck test' is meaningless. It essentially says that you think something is so therefore it is. One man's duck is another man's rabbit.

norvernrob

RichN95 wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

We are talking reasonably fine margins at the top level, it's not like going from being dropped on the club run to winning on Ventoux, if we are going to argue that a rider can't take a step up without being guilty we may as well pack up watching. I'm not a fan of Sky or of Froome but he's come from an unconventional cycling background, he must have had talent to break through.

But it’s the difference between doing something remarkable, and it being too good to be true. I really can’t remember ever seeing an athlete doing something ‘remarkable’ and the performance not being ‘artificially enhanced’. Think Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, the Spanish World Cup winning football team ( recently), and numerous other dubious performances. It’s the duck test. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......... Without going full bore tin hat, it would only take some strategic clandestine ‘hand shakes / pay offs’ and the performance is ‘legit’. Sooner or later, someone in the chain will squeal, it’s inevitable. The sooner it happens, the better.

But without doping there will still be extraordinary outlier performances. Jesse Owens setting four world records in 45 minutes, Jim Laker taking 19 wickets, Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game, Rod Laver's Grand Slam, Dettori's Ascot seven etc, etc.

The 'duck test' is meaningless. It essentially says that you think something is so therefore it is.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain exactly how fully clean cycling would look, because then we’d easily be able to pick out the doped performances wouldn’t we? Yet nobody ever enlightens us with the knowledge they seemingly possess.

‘If it quacks like a duck’ - meaning if someone wins and looks good doing it, they’re a cheat? Come on, that’s lame.

onyourright

I’ve never heard a good reason for doped racing and clean racing to look any different. One is measurably slower but not to the point that it’s discernible on television.

In both cases, some riders recover better than others, some riders suffer spectacular collapses, some fade away slowly, some use higher cadence than others when they attack, some stay in the saddle while others stand, the riders have good days and bad days to degrees varying with their physiology, mental strength, team support, age, etc., etc.

Always one rider will be better than the others, and it seems that quite often the number-one is distinctly better for a few years. In chess, where doping basically doesn’t work, Magnus Carlsen has been more dominant than Froome for longer than Froome. Behind Carlsen – a long way behind – the rest of the top ten has churned and changed since 2010. Why should athletic endeavour be greatly different?

RichN95.

Ultimately was what Froome did on stage 19 really much different to what Thomas De Gendt did on the Mortirolo and Stelvio in 2012?

milemuncher1

RichN95 wrote:

Ultimately was what Froome did on stage 19 really much different to what Thomas De Gendt did on the Mortirolo and Stelvio in 2012?

Not until you look at the data. In 2012 the data was limited, in comparison. The data from Froome’s Ride looks suspect. I have no doubt he’s good, the team helped him with their sacrificial rides, but then there’s still a few percentage points, that take some explaining. It may just be down to some ‘mad skillz’ But he’s in a discipline that is so badly tainted, it makes it hard to take it seriously.

r0bh

Milemuncher1 wrote:

The data from Froome’s Ride looks suspect.

Please expand on this; what exactly do you think is suspect?

RichN95.

Milemuncher1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Ultimately was what Froome did on stage 19 really much different to what Thomas De Gendt did on the Mortirolo and Stelvio in 2012?

Not until you look at the data. In 2012 the data was limited, in comparison. The data from Froome’s Ride looks suspect. I have no doubt he’s good, the team helped him with their sacrificial rides, but then there’s still a few percentage points, that take some explaining. It may just be down to some ‘mad skillz’ But he’s in a discipline that is so badly tainted, it makes it hard to take it seriously.

What data looks suspect? And now something is excluded from suspicion if there is no data?

milemuncher1

RichN95 wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Ultimately was what Froome did on stage 19 really much different to what Thomas De Gendt did on the Mortirolo and Stelvio in 2012?

Not until you look at the data. In 2012 the data was limited, in comparison. The data from Froome’s Ride looks suspect. I have no doubt he’s good, the team helped him with their sacrificial rides, but then there’s still a few percentage points, that take some explaining. It may just be down to some ‘mad skillz’ But he’s in a discipline that is so badly tainted, it makes it hard to take it seriously.

What data looks suspect? And now something is excluded from suspicion if there is no data?

The KiloJoule metric takes some believing, maybe it’s gen, I wasn’t with him, I can’t say for sure, it’s just that in comparison to the other ( available ) data, it looks crazy. That’s the key, comparative data. And yes, no data, it didn’t happen.

RichN95.

What on earth are you on about?

blazing_saddles

Milemuncher1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Ultimately was what Froome did on stage 19 really much different to what Thomas De Gendt did on the Mortirolo and Stelvio in 2012?

Not until you look at the data. In 2012 the data was limited, in comparison. The data from Froome’s Ride looks suspect. I have no doubt he’s good, the team helped him with their sacrificial rides, but then there’s still a few percentage points, that take some explaining. It may just be down to some ‘mad skillz’ But he’s in a discipline that is so badly tainted, it makes it hard to take it seriously.

What data looks suspect? And now something is excluded from suspicion if there is no data?

The KiloJoule metric takes some believing, maybe it’s gen, I wasn’t with him, I can’t say for sure, it’s just that in comparison to the other ( available ) data, it looks crazy. That’s the key, comparative data. And yes, no data, it didn’t happen.

Have you have seen data, other than that which Velon has released?

https://www.velon.cc/en/news/2018/05/wh ... lia-number

If you have, I think it hasn't been picked up on most folk's radar. Surprising, since it's crazy. So, a link would be very much appreciated.

Mad_Malx

Oh bugger, Milemuncher's found the prorace forum.

mididoctors

RichN95 wrote:

Ultimately was what Froome did on stage 19 really much different to what Thomas De Gendt did on the Mortirolo and Stelvio in 2012?

that was awesome

webboo

Milemuncher1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Milemuncher1 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Ultimately was what Froome did on stage 19 really much different to what Thomas De Gendt did on the Mortirolo and Stelvio in 2012?

Not until you look at the data. In 2012 the data was limited, in comparison. The data from Froome’s Ride looks suspect. I have no doubt he’s good, the team helped him with their sacrificial rides, but then there’s still a few percentage points, that take some explaining. It may just be down to some ‘mad skillz’ But he’s in a discipline that is so badly tainted, it makes it hard to take it seriously.

What data looks suspect? And now something is excluded from suspicion if there is no data?

The KiloJoule metric takes some believing, maybe it’s gen, I wasn’t with him, I can’t say for sure, it’s just that in comparison to the other ( available ) data, it looks crazy. That’s the key, comparative data. And yes, no data, it didn’t happen.

A kilojoule is a calorie. So what is it you are saying, he didn’t use enough or he used too many.

bobmcstuff

/\ and where did that come from, as it's not in the velon article.

milemuncher1

Mad_Malx wrote:

Oh bugger, Milemuncher's found the prorace forum.

Nope, just no, nooooooo no no.

pblakeney

Mad_Malx wrote:

Oh bugger, Milemuncher's found the prorace forum.

Indeed.

milemuncher1

RichN95 wrote:

What on earth are you on about?

The power he held for the time he held it ( Kilojoules ) is astonishing. If it’s not down to crack, it’s a motor IMO.

shirley_basso

Isn't a watt a measure of power over time? A joule is just a measure of energy.

You're clearly chatting more nonsense about stuff you evidently don't understand.

The power output isnt that high (already discussed) and a motor is so unrealistic you have to be well down the lower end of the iq spectrum to even consider it a) to even work and b) to get away with it.

Basically the reason he crushed the opposition on that stage is frankly due to 2 factors 1) they weren't that good and 2) the only meaningful opponent faffed about waiting for another freeloader who couldnt keep up.

webboo

Milemuncher1 wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Oh bugger, Milemuncher's found the prorace forum.

Nope, just no, nooooooo no no.

Just got to be the centre of attention. What’s your therapist got to say about that.

onyourright

A motor would require an army of accomplices at World Tour level. If that is happening anywhere, it isn’t at Team Sky. Let’s be serious.

(I think you have to be a bit mad to think it’s happening anywhere in top racing, although I don’t rule out the possibility that it happened years ago, before the public and the UCI started agitating about this emotive topic.)

A kilojoule is a unit of energy, e.g. work done. If you know average power output for a period of time – as we do for Froome although the transmitted Velon data from Sky’s power meter, via unknown processes, is hardly something to bank on or present in court – then you can calculate work done.

Velon says Froome averaged 397 W for 663 seconds. That’s 263 kJ if you insist, although putting it that way tells us nothing new.

Maybe half of the pro peloton can do 263 kJ of work in 663 seconds, i.e. sustain 397 W for that time. This alone tells us nothing.

You mentioned “a few percentage points, that take some explaining”. So what would Froome’s power output have to have been to not require some explaining? You’ve got the figures so share them.

drhaggis

RichN95 wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

Well, the difference between Yates and Froome is that Yates has already been banned for Salbutamol.

Terbutaline

I stand corrected, thank you!

Vino'sGhost

Heres a cynical view

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other- ... 14204.html

shirley_basso

Been posted. Utter garbage.

onyourright

That’s actually from another writer on another year, although they all sound much the same.

cougie

Milemuncher1 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

We are talking reasonably fine margins at the top level, it's not like going from being dropped on the club run to winning on Ventoux, if we are going to argue that a rider can't take a step up without being guilty we may as well pack up watching. I'm not a fan of Sky or of Froome but he's come from an unconventional cycling background, he must have had talent to break through.

But it’s the difference between doing something remarkable, and it being too good to be true. I really can’t remember ever seeing an athlete doing something ‘remarkable’ and the performance not being ‘artificially enhanced’. Think Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, the Spanish World Cup winning football team ( recently), and numerous other dubious performances. It’s the duck test. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......... Without going full bore tin hat, it would only take some strategic clandestine ‘hand shakes / pay offs’ and the performance is ‘legit’. Sooner or later, someone in the chain will squeal, it’s inevitable. The sooner it happens, the better.

You have to be a parody account surely ?

So this chain with Sky and Froome. How far back does it go. Have they just decided that multiple Olympic victories were great and all but now it's time to break out the dope for Froome?

How many riders have been through the mill with Brailsford ? There have been high profile fallings out but where is the information on doping ? Oh it doesn't exist.

And kilojoule data in Froome. You're a clown. Please go away and talk about stuff you know about. Like multiple Strava recordings and avoiding any mentions of hills.

Vino'sGhost

Shirley Basso wrote:

Been posted. Utter garbage.

You dont like his balanced view?

shirley_basso

I'd say day to day I don't really care about doping as I find watching the tour not that exciting as generally I prefer the classics type stages - lots of all out action from the gun rather than a wait for the last few k of a climb. I'm fully 'on the kool-aid' and don't believe sky are doping and re:Froome I really don't think he is a doper and my memory isn't good enough to remember any remarkable stages do don't really mind either way. However, If I find out that the giro stage was doped, I guess I'd be pretty disappointed. All things considered in my view he's not.

Pross

Oops, someone has read some made up term on Twitter or The Clinic and decided to regurgitate it here with a clue what it means (which is precisely nothing!).