Froome's Data
Comments
-
Besides the tests being done in an 'independent' lab, the entire process could have been bought off by Sky. I mean, we've seen stuff like this before haven't we? Russians seem to have bought off accredited independent anti-doping labs so anything is possible.
Wasn't a Sky thing though - It was a Froome thing.
One and the same. You think there was no one from Sky there? The point still remains - in the most cynical world, the whole thing *could* have been manipulated. They made it look like a man landed on the moon, why not this?
Slim Boy Fat wrote:I hope the upshot is that Froome continues to release data (because it's interesting), but that he and his team spend not one more iota of time hoping to convince the unconvinceables. When Michelle Froome is accused of forging documents, when Swart is accused of bias (by virtue of being from the tiny continent of Africa), and when Richard Moore is accused of being English, there's really no point in engaging with them.
Absolutely. What many don't realise is that residents of the Clinic and the like get far more enjoyment from their suspicions and conspiracy theories than they get from any bike race. A world with totally clean cycling is a nightmare they never want to have to face.
There was no one from Sky there. I was told Sky had no involvement apart from a tiny bit of input before the who,e thing started - I was told this back a couple of months ago. this entire thing came from Froome & his people. The entire thing was handled only by Froome & his people.0 -
Seb Coe's had a couple of days off anyway.
But some of the Clinic comments leave me open mouthed. Froome could have a doping monitor device inserted in his bloodstream and he'd still be the devil.
It's funny, it was relatively calm in the clinic and on twitter for the first few hours (because 99% of us have little idea what the numbers might suggest. "does it mean he's clean?? please god no"), and then little by little they were reassured that it's still safe to throw out their lunatic ideas, and then it all went a little bit mental.
Yep. The figures came out and they thought it was all over, before they decided to ignore them and burn the witch. In fact the latter started as soon as one of the Twatters piped up. Phew!0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19755687#p19755687]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Fred Grappe says it's not enough and he wants longitudinal testing of various paremeters. Something like a biological passport. What's that? Oh.
Fred got over excited and jumped the gun. Swart pointed out to him yday that some of what he was looking for could be found in the report on the GSK website, and more would be in the paper to be published in a scientific journal0 -
I for one questioned Sky's performances over the last few years but i feel genuinely sorry for Froome now.
The fact that he has felt the need to release his data figures shows how much the rumours and conspiracy theories have got got to him. Unfortunately this is a direct result of the Armstrong era. I imagine that he could be followed around the clock, even by journalists and conspiracy theorists, but that would still not deter people from accusing him of being doped.
I fear that the peak of one of the sports best riders is going to be lost and overshadowed by these constant questions.
I do feel ashamed that i questioned him, as i now genuinely feel he is clean.0 -
-
I for one questioned Sky's performances over the last few years but i feel genuinely sorry for Froome now.
The fact that he has felt the need to release his data figures shows how much the rumours and conspiracy theories have got got to him. Unfortunately this is a direct result of the Armstrong era. I imagine that he could be followed around the clock, even by journalists and conspiracy theorists, but that would still not deter people from accusing him of being doped.
I fear that the peak of one of the sports best riders is going to be lost and overshadowed by these constant questions.
I do feel ashamed that i questioned him, as i now genuinely feel he is clean.
I don't think one should ever feel ashamed of questioning. It's important. I question him. But there's a way of going about it, and many have taken it into shameful territory. Doubt, question....but abuse, verbal, written, physical - well, that says more about the source than the subject0 -
There was nobody from Sky in the lab. Nobody from Sky read the article before publication. The only input from anyone at Sky was from Roger Palfreeman, who I spoke to on the phone regarding the blood tests. He didn't ask about the tests in the lab.
Dave Brailsford did ask and I said the results were in line with what you would expect from a Tour de France winner. Which I don't think surprised him too much, because he knew that Froome had won the Tour.0 -
Dave Brailsford did ask and I said the results were in line with what you would expect from a Tour de France winner. Which I don't think surprised him too much, because he knew that Froome had won the Tour.
0 -
Not in any way doubting the validity of the results.
What I find unbelievable is that there are no other test results between 2007 and now.
Even I have to do one of these tests each year. Doing one in 2 weeks in fact.
Lab testing is something you see pretty much all Pro riders doing around this time of year as they all gather again for their first training camps. It helps determine their fitness levels and zones for training. Or so I'm told.
And the only other thing that stands out is if he is basically as for now as he was in 2007, why wasn't he better back then? Less weight would certainly make you a better climber, but that's only one part of the puzzle. Again - not doubting the results, just wondering why.0 -
I thought they had put a lot of it down to him getting the bilharzia under control.Not in any way doubting the validity of the results.
What I find unbelievable is that there are no other test results between 2007 and now.
Even I have to do one of these tests each year. Doing one in 2 weeks in fact.
Lab testing is something you see pretty much all Pro riders doing around this time of year as they all gather again for their first training camps. It helps determine their fitness levels and zones for training. Or so I'm told.
And the only other thing that stands out is if he is basically as for now as he was in 2007, why wasn't he better back then? Less weight would certainly make you a better climber, but that's only one part of the puzzle. Again - not doubting the results, just wondering why.0 -
Not in any way doubting the validity of the results.
What I find unbelievable is that there are no other test results between 2007 and now.
Even I have to do one of these tests each year. Doing one in 2 weeks in fact.
Lab testing is something you see pretty much all Pro riders doing around this time of year as they all gather again for their first training camps. It helps determine their fitness levels and zones for training. Or so I'm told.
And the only other thing that stands out is if he is basically as for now as he was in 2007, why wasn't he better back then? Less weight would certainly make you a better climber, but that's only one part of the puzzle. Again - not doubting the results, just wondering why.
He time trials well, but you could put a lot of that down to focussing on TT and getting a good set up. Aside from that and climbing he doesn't feature in much else so reduce his w/kg and I'm not sure where else you expect him to feature? not going to see him hitting out on the cobbles like G or wiggins0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19755387#p19755387]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:
I don't think it would tell you much. It might flag up suspicions, but you can just watch the races for that. Athletes don't adhere to a single template, particularly for outliers. (Have a read of David Epstein's The Sports Gene to find out how diverse they are)Would it not be too much to just ask that all pro cyclists are required to be tested this way annually - I mean they are the most elite athletes in their field and it seems odd that this just isn't a standard thing?
This
Also, along comes a cyclist who, like Cav, absolutely needs the drive of competition to produce the goods. And the thing is that this is the case for many athletes. Which is why you cannot replicate (no matter what that fool Tucker claims) the conditions of a race in their entirety in a lab. In those cases, what does what would be fairly mediocre test results for a pro, tell you? And if that rider has won races, what cost the assumptions that would be made by all the fools around, that his mediocre numbers must mean he's a cheat?
You couldn't say he does this in a lab but this in a race so must be clean or doping but you could have them to say 20min tests every quarter or something and if they have ridiculous gains then that could be used as a reason to further look at their blood bio passport and perhaps target them for extra testing
You could get round it quite easily by simply not trying when juiced.
You would then surely get found out in a race........his test results show him only doing 5.8w/kg but then in a race drops guys who are doing 6w/kg0 -
Indulge a sport science nerd for a minute here:
Just one thing that I picked up from reading through the GSK info which highlights how fraught it is to compare between different tests was the use of a Computrainer in the recent assessment (is there any info I have missed about the initial Swiss 2007 fitness assessment?). I used an identical turbo for my final year project and my supervisor had conducted a study (Earnest et al., 2005) comparing the performance of this equipment in laboratory conditions against the "gold standard" cycle ergometer.
In their study, the turbo used by GSK underestimated power at respiratory compensation threshold power output (read: Threshold/FTP etc.) and at max power by 16% and 15% respectively (***OMG! It's a conspiracy***). This study was conducted at significantly lower power outputs (as you would expect).
I would be interested to know if the recorded stage power from Table 1 of the GSKHPL document (linked by TailWindHome on page 3) was a Stages power meter on Froome's bike or an output from the turbo's software, as they are very similar to the set outputs on the turbo.
I think you would agree that a potential ~15% difference in equipment performance would prohibit longitudinal conclusions between tests. It certainly doesn't mean that the new data set isn't useful and interesting in isolation (The Computrainer is still an excellent piece of kit); I was particularly interested in the power output that he is able to produce before the onset of blood lactate accumulation (around 380 W by majority of methods - page 10 of the GSKHPL doc). This would be some indication of how Froome is able to sustain his efforts post-attack in a way that some of their top GC guys (Valverde, Purito and Contador) often don't seem to be able to do; anecdotally they race in a more stop-start fashion. Froome's big TdF summit finish gains have come from being able to "recover" at a higher power output post-attack than his rivals (if Froome is able to ride at 375 W post attack but in order to re-establish the same physiological state his rivals must ride at a lower W/kg), and an efficient sub-maximal physiology (hence the delay in lactate accumulation) would facilitate this.
An incredibly interesting set of data, but anyone taking the two tests and comparing the two without real caution is almost certainly overstating their case (and in my opinion would indicate pre-conceived ideas have clouded any conclusions drawn - which we already know is the case on both sides of the argument).
Jeez, I need to get out more!0 -
Not in any way doubting the validity of the results.
What I find unbelievable is that there are no other test results between 2007 and now.
Even I have to do one of these tests each year. Doing one in 2 weeks in fact.
Lab testing is something you see pretty much all Pro riders doing around this time of year as they all gather again for their first training camps. It helps determine their fitness levels and zones for training. Or so I'm told.
What kind of testing are you doing? VO2Max or some sort of FTP test? I'm sure they do FTP tests regularly to give power zones for their training, but I would not be at all surprised if VO2Max tests are done rarely these days, since of what possible benefit is it? The number is a curio which doesn't assist with day to day training at all.0 -
Not in any way doubting the validity of the results.
What I find unbelievable is that there are no other test results between 2007 and now.
Even I have to do one of these tests each year. Doing one in 2 weeks in fact.
Lab testing is something you see pretty much all Pro riders doing around this time of year as they all gather again for their first training camps. It helps determine their fitness levels and zones for training. Or so I'm told.
What kind of testing are you doing? VO2Max or some sort of FTP test? I'm sure they do FTP tests regularly to give power zones for their training, but I would not be at all surprised if VO2Max tests are done rarely these days, since of what possible benefit is it? The number is a curio which doesn't assist with day to day training at all.
You can learn quite a lot of interesting stuff about how an athletes physiology responds to different stresses from a test that ramps through (almost) all the different intensities. I agree that the "magic" VO2 number is of little significance.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19755387#p19755387]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:
I don't think it would tell you much. It might flag up suspicions, but you can just watch the races for that. Athletes don't adhere to a single template, particularly for outliers. (Have a read of David Epstein's The Sports Gene to find out how diverse they are)Would it not be too much to just ask that all pro cyclists are required to be tested this way annually - I mean they are the most elite athletes in their field and it seems odd that this just isn't a standard thing?
This
Also, along comes a cyclist who, like Cav, absolutely needs the drive of competition to produce the goods. And the thing is that this is the case for many athletes. Which is why you cannot replicate (no matter what that fool Tucker claims) the conditions of a race in their entirety in a lab. In those cases, what does what would be fairly mediocre test results for a pro, tell you? And if that rider has won races, what cost the assumptions that would be made by all the fools around, that his mediocre numbers must mean he's a cheat?
You couldn't say he does this in a lab but this in a race so must be clean or doping but you could have them to say 20min tests every quarter or something and if they have ridiculous gains then that could be used as a reason to further look at their blood bio passport and perhaps target them for extra testing
You could get round it quite easily by simply not trying when juiced.
You would then surely get found out in a race........his test results show him only doing 5.8w/kg but then in a race drops guys who are doing 6w/kg
If you're bashing suspicion in race performance the testing would be pointless"Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
I'd be very surprised if Barloworld did any. They could barely afford to pay their staff.Not in any way doubting the validity of the results.
What I find unbelievable is that there are no other test results between 2007 and now.
Anything else would have been done by BC/Sky. I'm sure there will be some, but Froome's not exactly been a frequent visitor to Manchester, so I don't know how rigorous it would have been. Also BC/Sky have been reluctant to release anything about anyone (probably because they correctly realise that those that need convincing have no intention of being convinced)Twitter: @RichN950 -
I'd be very surprised if Barloworld did any. They could barely afford to pay their staff.Not in any way doubting the validity of the results.
What I find unbelievable is that there are no other test results between 2007 and now.
Anything else would have been done by BC/Sky. I'm sure there will be some, but Froome's not exactly been a frequent visitor to Manchester, so I don't know how rigorous it would have been. Also BC/Sky have been reluctant to release anything about anyone (probably because they correctly realise that those that need convincing have no intention of being convinced)
Of course he's done tests (that's not aimed at you, Rich, btw). Sky have never denied he's done tests with them. It's his VO2 max they say they haven't tested in a lab. They knew from tests on him that he could put out the power, and it was the fact he was so rubbishly inconsistent on the road that had them giving up on him by the time the 2011 Vuelta came around.
People are just making up stuff now0 -
Richard, will you be releasing your data for the 98 Commonwealth Games in your podcasts about Trainer Road?There was nobody from Sky in the lab. Nobody from Sky read the article before publication. The only input from anyone at Sky was from Roger Palfreeman, who I spoke to on the phone regarding the blood tests. He didn't ask about the tests in the lab.
Dave Brailsford did ask and I said the results were in line with what you would expect from a Tour de France winner. Which I don't think surprised him too much, because he knew that Froome had won the Tour.
I don't think we can fully trust TR if you don't.
Some point to weight differences, but can we trust them. Some say you have put on weight since 98, but I just see a large face.
But with your pedigree, if you don't win questions will be asked. Ross Tucker has already written a report about what we should expect (and it's not good for you)Twitter: @RichN950 -
This from Richard Moore in the Scotsman today
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/cycling/inside-the-lab-with-chris-froome-1-39677370 -
Just for the hell of it:
He then ate too little and bonked on the Alpe. But he then came 14th in the TT three days later. That's clearly a first year pro with a lot of potential.
Great photo tbf0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19756146#p19756146]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:This from Richard Moore in the Scotsman today
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/cycling/inside-the-lab-with-chris-froome-1-3967737
Beat me to it.
Got it all comedy, seriousness and a Henry Rollins quoteFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I know people get the hump and think doubters are just bitter people but the fact is that our sport is tied with doping in the general public's eyes. On tv and radio, jokes are frequently made about cycling and doping. I think this is the norm and thinking that cycling not doped is a bit mad and it's only forums like this where people still are believing in clean cycling. It's an artifice and a show. We just see what is given to us. It's all about winning so a sponsor can make money. It's not about fair play and doing the right thing, it's about the money.
I like the racing but thinking they dope doesn't effect my enjoyment. It does when a team dominates too much and now seeing riders have off days is a bit more normal. If juniors and lower division Teams dope then it's a no brainer. We just got to join the rest of society and admit it's a fact of life. They are there to win and that's their job.
Sky/News Corporation is an expert at promoting an image and a brand in the public eye so and have used all kind of methods to scare the bee Jesus out the most powerful people in the world. So, lets be honest at least here.
Sure Froomey would have been prepped and tested to give out the correct result on that test. Sorry“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein
"You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
-Jacques Anquetil0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19756146#p19756146]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:This from Richard Moore in the Scotsman today
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/cycling/inside-the-lab-with-chris-froome-1-3967737
Beat me to it.
Got it all comedy, seriousness and a Henry Rollins quote
It's very good. Cracking final line pay-off0 -
I know people get the hump and think doubters are just bitter people but the fact is that our sport is tied with doping in the general public's eyes. On tv and radio, jokes are frequently made about cycling and doping. I think this is the norm and thinking that cycling not doped is a bit mad and it's only forums like this where people still are believing in clean cycling. It's an artifice and a show. We just see what is given to us. It's all about winning so a sponsor can make money. It's not about fair play and doing the right thing, it's about the money.
I like the racing but thinking they dope doesn't effect my enjoyment. It does when a team dominates too much and now seeing riders have off days is a bit more normal. If juniors and lower division Teams dope then it's a no brainer. We just got to join the rest of society and admit it's a fact of life. They are there to win and that's their job.
Sky/News Corporation is an expert at promoting an image and a brand in the public eye so and have used all kind of methods to scare the bee Jesus out the most powerful people in the world. So, lets be honest at least here.
Sure Froomey would have been prepped and tested to give out the correct result on that test. Sorry
A helpful link for you...
http://tinyurl.com/qx9oyx90 -
I know people get the hump and think doubters are just bitter people but the fact is that our sport is tied with doping in the general public's eyes. On tv and radio, jokes are frequently made about cycling and doping. I think this is the norm and thinking that cycling not doped is a bit mad and it's only forums like this where people still are believing in clean cycling. It's an artifice and a show. We just see what is given to us. It's all about winning so a sponsor can make money. It's not about fair play and doing the right thing, it's about the money.
I like the racing but thinking they dope doesn't effect my enjoyment. It does when a team dominates too much and now seeing riders have off days is a bit more normal. If juniors and lower division Teams dope then it's a no brainer. We just got to join the rest of society and admit it's a fact of life. They are there to win and that's their job.
Sky/News Corporation is an expert at promoting an image and a brand in the public eye so and have used all kind of methods to scare the bee Jesus out the most powerful people in the world. So, lets be honest at least here.
Sure Froomey would have been prepped and tested to give out the correct result on that test. Sorry
No one here is saying that doping has been eradicated, but it appears to have been reduced to the point that clean riders can be competitive which is, in my opinion, at the leading edge of all sports on this matter.0 -
Sometimes its as if you like talking about cycling more than talking about dopingIt was tedious during the tour and it's still tedious now. 0 -
I know people get the hump and think doubters are just bitter people but the fact is that our sport is tied with doping in the general public's eyes.
So to tackle those points
I don't think doubters are bitter, I just think they are cynics and therefore subject to lazy thinking
The fact that cycling is tied to doping does not stand up to any logical test that says most cyclists dope. We all know our history and no one says doping didn't happen in the fairly recent past. But the incredible focus that has brought, and yes the inevitable tie between cycling and doping make it far more likely that there are only a minority that still dope, not the otherway round.On tv and radio, jokes are frequently made about cycling and doping. I think this is the norm and thinking that cycling not doped is a bit mad and it's only forums like this where people still are believing in clean cycling.
Basing any conclusion on what "the general public" think, or what is portrayed on TV is NEVER a sound approach. The fact that the more informed people on this forum have a different view from the ill-informed public is expected, and not a reason to doubt cyclists.
The general public are notoriously ignorant and ill-informed. Just look at the number of them that buy the UKIP bullshit! Or even worse the number that actually buy the Daily Mail!.We just see what is given to us. It's all about winning so a sponsor can make money. It's not about fair play and doing the right thing, it's about the money.
Yes it is about the money, absolutely. And you you think the sponsors involved in today's cycling think it's worth the massive negative impact to their brand that a doping scandal would bring? We are far more sensitive to fould play nowadays, and the anti doping controls far more likely to catch people. Not doping as such, but the recent scandal at VW has cost them 20% of sales.
You may say "but what about Russian athletics, wasn't that too big to fall?" But that is absolutely NOT about the money. That is a different paradigm, that is about selling success to the Russian people. And those Russian people probably don't believe a word of the scandal. So while the rest of the world gnash teeth and wring their hands, the people the fraud was directed at are much less impacted.Sky/News Corporation is an expert at promoting an image and a brand in the public eye so and have used all kind of methods to scare the bee Jesus out the most powerful people in the world. So, lets be honest at least here.
And as such would feel the negative brand impact more than most. The fact that they are so all controlling is for me more convincing of non-doping than doping. We know that they got into bed with BC/Sky at least partially to try and escape some of the News International hate that is very prevalent. Having spent a reasonable chunk of cash, and an enormous amount of pr on a feel good sponsorship. And then let Team Sky do something with the potential to give a massive backlash to exactly the people they were trying to influence would be madness.
And yes, I think News International are thorough enough, and nasty enough to make damn sure that the likes of Wiggins & Froome stay clean.
That is a more honest analysis than yours.0 -
Swart tearing Vayer a new one on Twitter.
Which is pointless as it's what he feeds off.
Jeroen Swart @JeroenSwart · 2m2 minutes ago
@festinaboy @Doefnix @Scienceofsport I'm amazed u have been given much air time based on how little credibility there is in your statements.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
