Froome data released

[Calvin27]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/cycling/44694122

Wowza interesting stuff there!

[g-boaf]

In discussion here:

http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 2#p1453902

It is extremely interesting especially for us mere mortals to see just how much the riders eat and what they eat.

[Calvin27]

And here i was thinking it would be in the diet thread lol.

[RobertL]

16 minutes at 600W.

[g-boaf]

16 minutes at 600W.

From the reading of the other documents, I think that is 16 seconds at 600w. Other documents have wording like:

Duration: 26min | 26' at 375w.

These documents are brilliant for everyone to read, for all of us if we are doing very large rides and trying to do them quickly, seeing how the pros fuel up for those rides, even during the rides. I think it goes without saying that these guys are at an incredible level, irrespective of the allegations swirling around Froome himself. Even without that, what they can do is pretty amazing.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

16 minutes at 600W.

16 seconds.

The data is no more or less interesting or revealing than power estimates from ascent rates. The power data has an accuracy caveat note - artificially inflated by up to 6% due to the non-circular chain rings.

That people think this stuff is novel or revealing is exactly what Sky want.

[macca33]

16 minutes at 600W.

16 seconds.

The data is no more or less interesting or revealing than power estimates from ascent rates. The power data has an accuracy caveat note - artificially inflated by up to 6% due to the non-circular chain rings.

That people think this stuff is novel or revealing is exactly what Sky want.

Agreed - all smoke and mirrors...

[MichaelB]

Per what Alex said - designed as a PR exercise that would have been planned ages ago and tries to show the "see, we are transparent" stuff.

Then again, is it really true ?

I'd be happier if they showed his full profile that includes, power, speed, HR, route details etc (i.e a full and unadulterated strava trace or similar) rather than a fuelling plan that doesn't really say anything new or unexpected.

[g-boaf]

Per what Alex said - designed as a PR exercise that would have been planned ages ago and tries to show the "see, we are transparent" stuff.

Then again, is it really true ?

I'd be happier if they showed his full profile that includes, power, speed, HR, route details etc (i.e a full and unadulterated strava trace or similar) rather than a fuelling plan that doesn't really say anything new or unexpected.

How can you even trust a strava feed, given that we have "Digital EPO" and the like. Strava traces can be modified too and don't really tell you anything of substance.

I just don't follow pro cycling - simple as that. Really, this controversy is golden for pro cycling isn't it? It gets media attention and gets everyone talking about pro cycling.

[MichaelB]

How can you even trust a strava feed, given that we have "Digital EPO" and the like. Strava traces can be modified too and don't really tell you anything of substance.

I just don't follow pro cycling - simple as that.

True, but at least it would be more than just crap on a whiteboard.

[biker jk]

How can you even trust a strava feed, given that we have "Digital EPO" and the like. Strava traces can be modified too and don't really tell you anything of substance.

I just don't follow pro cycling - simple as that.

True, but at least it would be more than just crap on a whiteboard.

It was largely a marketing exercise for SIS products, provided free of charge by the BBC, and a nice diversion away from Sky being asked to publish the science from the Froome decision.

[AUbicycles]

Anyone else get the feeling that releasing (promoting) this data has become counter-productive for Team Sky and their credibility?

They are trying too hard to convince everyone but on their own terms and avoiding releasing the data that matters.

A simplistic view is... if it is so hard to show Froome was clean and multiple arguments tackling different aspects are nevessary... maybe it wasn’t quiet as honest as is claimed.



There was doubt in the UCI and WADA releases (and excuses why they couldn’t properly test)... they are saying he can’t be charged but are not saying he was unquestionably clean.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Well it's more an ad for supplements than it was about transparency.

As for "the data that matters", what exactly would that be?
IMO there is no data Froome (or any rider) can release that would demonstrate they are not doping. We can only prove someone is doping (via test results, other evidence, admission).

Data that would be helpful in this particular case would be held by anti-doping. e.g. stats on salbutamol AAVs.

[AUbicycles]

The UCI has published a response to criticism in the form of a short FAQ. A bit more info and a perspective of the UCI with a bit of biff with WADA (about delays).

Again, no real answers for people like me searching for these including details of why Froomes results magically increased on one day. Main thing is saying they have taken on the input from WADA and complied with processes... so stop pointing fingers at them. Missing would be a sign they want to improve and show more transparency.

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/respons ... ng-froome/

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I don't think WADA could afford to continue the battle. Sky's budget exceeds WADA's. Consider WADA is keeping an eye on every Olympic sport + others. I guess they figure spending all their resources on one hard-fought legal battle is not a wise use of their resources.

[trailgumby]

I don't think WADA could afford to continue the battle. Sky's budget exceeds WADA's. Consider WADA is keeping an eye on every Olympic sport + others. I guess they figure spending all their resources on one hard-fought legal battle is not a wise use of their resources.

^^^ This.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

UCI already spent US$250,000 in legal costs on Froome's case. That's 1% of their annual budget on preliminary legal costs for one rider's case.

Who knows what WADA's costs were but presumably something similar and their annual budget is less than the UCI's.

They just don't have the financial muscle to back up the doping rules.

And the case wasn’t cheap even if it was closed without moving forward. There are no details about how much Froome might have lavished on his defense, but Lappartient said the UCI spent about $250,000 on legal costs preparing the Froome case.

https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/tour-d ... ase_471571