L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a España, Tour Down Under and more

L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby warthog1 » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:14 pm

Sad that they've felt the need to do it but there you go :(
I am under no illusion that it will stop the speculation on here though.
Edit as confirmed by the conspiracy theorists if you read on :roll:

Guardian article

Team Sky releases Chris Froome's data in bid to combat doping claims

Winning the Tour is one thing, but convincing a sceptical sector of the cycling media and public that it is being done ethically is proving harder for Team Sky. That challenge has prompted Dave Brailsford to make another attempt to prove his team are above board by providing the newspaper l'Equipe with all the climbing data Chris Froome has produced in the last two years: 18 ascensions dating back to the Vuelta a Espana in 2011, when the Kenyan-born Briton made his big breakthrough.

L'Equipe, which is owned by the Tour's parent company, Groupe Amaury, had the data examined by their in-house physiologist, Dr Fred Grappe, who has worked with the Francaise des Jeux team since 2000, and was the French Cycling Federation's scientific adviser from 1998 to 2008. None of the data was made public in the newspaper, under agreement with Sky, but Grappe concluded that Froome's performances were humanly possible without doping.

"His performances are coherent," ran the paper's headline, a complete contrast to the previous day's splash in Le Monde over a piece by the former Festina trainer Antoine Vayer – Froome and Sky's most persistent critic in the last two weeks – in which Vayer said that Froome was as fast as Lance Armstrong and Marco Pantani up Mont Ventoux, although "he must have used more watts of power to win the stage".

Grappe pointed out several key indicators. He noted that the drop in Froome's power profile was consistent over intense efforts between 20 and 60 minutes – the point being that there should always be a drop-off in power output as the body struggles with the effort. Froome's drop-off is about 60 watts, as against an average of 50 watts for most of the riders Grappe has studied.

Grappe's method is based on estimated Record Power Profile (PPR), which is essentially the maximum power an individual can sustain over a set period. "Froome's PPR over two years shows no fundamental anomaly," he wrote. "In two years, his profile has not changed." He also notes that Froome's weight has barely varied over the two years, being around 68 kilos, with variations of less than 900 grams.

Team Sky have never measured Froome's VO2Max – his maximal level of oxygen intake during exercise – but Grappe concludes that this must be "close to currently known physiological limits … You can estimate that compared to his main rivals, he has a margin of 20 watts more power. This is the margin, for example, that we see between him and his main rivals at Ax Trois Domaines and the Ventoux."

Sky also released data regarding the drug tests that Froome has undergone recently, revealing to l'Equipe that he has been tested 19 times in this Tour – 13 blood and/or urine tests, and six biological passport profiles – while during this season he has been tested 29 times, 23 times in competition, six times out of competition.

As any close follower of cycling knows, drug test figures are meaningless in proving a rider's probity, but what they do show is that Froome and his team are being closely monitored, even if they are keeping essential figures to themselves.
Last edited by warthog1 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

by BNA » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:42 pm

BNA
 

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby philip » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:42 pm

So... what about before 2011... before his contract was about to expire and before Dr Leinders? From what I've read about the badzilla story it doesn't really add up. I'd like a good explanation for the "transformation".
User avatar
philip
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Lane Cove, Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby philip » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:53 pm

philip wrote:From what I've read about the badzilla story

by the way this post on slowtwitch forums is what I read which raises some questions. Maybe sogood could chime if he can validate or question what's being said there.
User avatar
philip
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Lane Cove, Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby AndrewBurns » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:09 pm

So sky have never measured his VO2Max? Does this sound weird to anyone? And the fact that it 'must be close to currently known physiological limits' sounds a bit fishy :S
Image
AndrewBurns
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:36 pm

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby fitz » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:12 pm

Jesus (or any deity/unspecified relative of said deity) wept. Undisclosed data analysed and "validated" by a l'Equipe sponsored physiologist.
Can I have some of these?
User avatar
fitz
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby jcjordan » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:21 pm

AndrewBurns wrote:So sky have never measured his VO2Max? Does this sound weird to anyone? And the fact that it 'must be close to currently known physiological limits' sounds a bit fishy :S

Not really considering that with Sky's focus on power than testing for maximum function threshold values would provide more relevant information.



Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby trailgumby » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:36 pm

Given the symbiotic relationship between L'Equipe newspaper, race organiser Aumory and the team(s), the outcome of that review was entirely predictable.

If Brailsford is serious about dealing with the innuendo and suspicion, he needs to pass the data to someone who's snout is not in the feeding trough. And it needs to be several years' worth, or whatever the reviewer demands in order to satisfy themselves.

Until then, this is just a self-serving PR stunt. Anyone expecting the truth to come out of such an exercise is naive at best.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10445
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby im_no_pro » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:36 pm

trailgumby wrote:Given the symbiotic relationship between L'Equipe newspaper, race organiser Aumory and the team(s), the outcome of that review was entirely predictable.

If Brailsford is serious about dealing with the innuendo and suspicion, he needs to pass the data to someone who's snout is not in the feeding trough. And it needs to be several years' worth, or whatever the reviewer demands in order to satisfy themselves.

Until then, this is just a self-serving PR stunt. Anyone expecting the truth to come out of such an exercise is naive at best.



My thoughts exactly. May as well let the fox count the chickens before closing up the coop for the night...
master6 wrote: Moderators are like Club Handicappers; I often think they are wrong, but I dont want the job.
User avatar
im_no_pro
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 5734
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Geelong

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:27 am

WT?
Did Froome crack on that last climb?
They are saying he hunger flatted. Surely it was just the PEDs wearing off.
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby biker jk » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:02 am

The release of Froome's power data from the past few years is a pure public relations exercise by Sky and certainly doesn't dispel allegations that Froome is doping. The most glaring problem is that the data preceding the Vuelta in August 2011 wasn't released so Grappe couldn't actually examine the key question of whether Froome has been transformed as a rider and whether this was likely due to doping. I also note that Grappe said the following about Armstrong back in 2005:

"In an in depth interview with L'Equipe, Grappe said that Armstrong's results have come through hard work and not hard drugs, despite the climate of suspicion that still surrounds cycling (especially in France) at the moment.

He then commented on the accusations that have been made against Lance Armstrong regarding 'impossible' power outputs. "Certain people say silly things. When we are told that a rider is not able to put out 420 - 430 Watts in a time trial, that is false. Not so long ago, one of the riders with whom I was involved climbed Mont Faron at a power of 400 Watts for 20 minutes, and he is far from being Armstrong. Consequently, I am not astonished that Armstrong or others can produce 460 or 470 Watts on a mountain. It is not impossible."

In addition, a cadence of 80-90 rpm to produce this power on climbs is also not impossible, according to Grappe. "It is the result of many days of hard work. With what has happened in the past 10 years, many riders are using bigger gear ratios. Some have lost the suppleness, i.e. they are not able to utilise higher pedalling frequencies...a high pedalling frequency makes it possible to relieve the muscles," said Grappe who expressed his annoyance of people's poor analysis of the data."
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2981
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: L

Postby trailgumby » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:42 am

warthog1 wrote:WT?
Did Froome crack on that last climb?
They are saying he hunger flatted. Surely it was just the PEDs wearing off.

You need to read a bit more deeply about what doping does, and doesn't do. Tyler Hamilton's "The Secret Race" is a good place to start.

Watching some of the vids from the Armstrong era (when we know all the "heads of state" were on the juice) might also be educational. You still need to do everything else right to get a result.

Right now you have an opinion - and that's fine - but the comment above strikes me as sounding like coming from someone desperate to avoid letting the facts get in the way of a good story. We've seen this story before. Only the names are different this time.

The comfort I take from this is that truth can't be suppressed forever, it has a life of its own - whatever the truth might turn out to be.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10445
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: L

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:57 am

trailgumby wrote:
warthog1 wrote:WT?
Did Froome crack on that last climb?
They are saying he hunger flatted. Surely it was just the PEDs wearing off.

You need to read a bit more deeply about what doping does, and doesn't do. Tyler Hamilton's "The Secret Race" is a good place to start.

Watching some of the vids from the Armstrong era (when we know all the "heads of state" were on the juice) might also be educational. You still need to do everything else right to get a result.

Right now you have an opinion - and that's fine - but the comment above strikes me as sounding like coming from someone desperate to avoid letting the facts get in the way of a good story. We've seen this story before. Only the names are different this time.

The comfort I take from this is that truth can't be suppressed forever, it has a life of its own - whatever the truth might turn out to be.


Perhaps you need to understand when someone is taking the piss.

The comment above is from some one who is desperate to try and enjoy the tour de france without constant doping speculation when there is no evidence

Froome, as it stands in the eyes of the self appointed doping experts :roll: is guilty until proven innocent :x
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: L

Postby biker jk » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:15 am

warthog1 wrote:
trailgumby wrote:
warthog1 wrote:WT?
Did Froome crack on that last climb?
They are saying he hunger flatted. Surely it was just the PEDs wearing off.

You need to read a bit more deeply about what doping does, and doesn't do. Tyler Hamilton's "The Secret Race" is a good place to start.

Watching some of the vids from the Armstrong era (when we know all the "heads of state" were on the juice) might also be educational. You still need to do everything else right to get a result.

Right now you have an opinion - and that's fine - but the comment above strikes me as sounding like coming from someone desperate to avoid letting the facts get in the way of a good story. We've seen this story before. Only the names are different this time.

The comfort I take from this is that truth can't be suppressed forever, it has a life of its own - whatever the truth might turn out to be.


Perhaps you need to understand when someone is taking the piss.

The comment above is from some one who is desperate to try and enjoy the tour de france without constant doping speculation when there is no evidence

Froome as it stands in the eyes of may of the self appointed doping experts :roll: is guilty until proven innocent :x


Alien-like performances on AX-3, Ventoux and the ITT are indeed evidence of PEDs You chose to ignore it. Froome who was a nobody prior to the Vuelta in August 2011 now is at the limits of human performance!

"The extremely high maximal aerobic power (efforts of five minutes) confirms that he has an extraordinary high aerobic potential, which means he has a V02 max (this has never been measured in the laboratory by his team) close to the limits of known physiological science." Grappe.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2981
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: L

Postby trailgumby » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:22 am

warthog1 wrote:
trailgumby wrote:
warthog1 wrote:WT?
Did Froome crack on that last climb?
They are saying he hunger flatted. Surely it was just the PEDs wearing off.

You need to read a bit more deeply about what doping does, and doesn't do. Tyler Hamilton's "The Secret Race" is a good place to start.

Watching some of the vids from the Armstrong era (when we know all the "heads of state" were on the juice) might also be educational. You still need to do everything else right to get a result.

Right now you have an opinion - and that's fine - but the comment above strikes me as sounding like coming from someone desperate to avoid letting the facts get in the way of a good story. We've seen this story before. Only the names are different this time.

The comfort I take from this is that truth can't be suppressed forever, it has a life of its own - whatever the truth might turn out to be.


Perhaps you need to understand when someone is taking the piss.

The comment above is from some one who is desperate to try and enjoy the tour de france without constant doping speculation when there is no evidence

Froome as it stands in the eyes of may of the self appointed doping experts :roll: is guilty until proven innocent :x

NO evidence? Really?

I agree nothing conclusive - yet. But more than enough to suggest all is not well and scrutiny - a lot of it - is in order.

In view of the really obvious questions hanging over the performance of the leader and his team, "trying" to enjoy Le Tour takes more effort to suspend disbelief than I'm willing to expend.
Last edited by trailgumby on Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10445
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:28 am

philip wrote:
philip wrote:From what I've read about the badzilla story

by the way this post on slowtwitch forums is what I read which raises some questions. Maybe sogood could chime if he can validate or question what's being said there.

I think on this we should accept that Froome did have schistosomiasis, a very common disease there in Africa. Whilst the standard treatment is a one day therapy, but like all infectious conditions, the treatment may or may not be able to completely eradicate the parasite in all. So unless more private medical data is released, I think his protracted course is plausible and some of the minor contradictions are not points on which to get suspicious about. There's plausible deniability given he is an economic major, a bike rider, not a medical expert. I further note that in his Wiki entry that he was repeatedly afflicted by this condition since childhood. No source reference.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:43 am

I think that Team Sky/Froome should be commended on releasing this data so quickly. It's a good start in transparency. No harm in taking the PR for a spin as this is the problem in our sport - Confidence.

But I agree with others that there's a clear conflict of interest in their choice channeling through L'Equipe. Further, the statement "Froome's performances were humanly possible without doping" is pretty meaningless. In health and disease, anything is possible, but for a question of probability. Froome could very well be a genetic marvel who just happened to have peaked physiologically and people need to be get confident of whatever probability of that happening. Unfortunately, pro-cycling has seriously deflated that confidence over the last 100 year.

Let's hope that Team Sky will continue to improve on their transparency and rebuild the confidence of in this sport. Suspicion and objective analyses are good and is consistent with good scientific practice. It is also the correct path to permit the rebuilding of confidence. Time will tell.

I too find it hard to believe that Team Sky/Froome or associates have not carried out a VO2max test on Froome. Given their self-described scientific approach and marginal gain philosophy, how could they not know all the physiological parameters of their star riders? Again, not impossible but they need to explain.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby Marty Moose » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:00 am

I think just riding the tour is hard enough let alone all this bashing of sky and Froome from the foreign media. If he does not win some of the blame could bee attributed to media pressure from the French.If a French rider was winning there would be none of this. Lance has turned is all into cynics. The more of this "he's on drugs" rubbish the harder for him to win.

I don't think Sky need to release any of his data its private and he's a professional sportsman. We need to trust the system if we don't there is no sport.Get of his back and enjoy the race.

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2
Marty Moose
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: W.A

Re: L

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:16 am

Marty Moose wrote:We need to trust the system if we don't there is no sport.Get of his back and enjoy the race.

Trust is earned and the last 100 years of pro-cycling has given us followers little to trust. The scepticism is normal. No scepticism at this stage is blind.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby jcjordan » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:46 am

sogood wrote:
Marty Moose wrote:We need to trust the system if we don't there is no sport.Get of his back and enjoy the race.

Trust is earned and the last 100 years of pro-cycling has given us followers little to trust. The scepticism is normal. No scepticism at this stage is blind.


We have been murdering and stealing for even longer so using your argument we should all be punished for that as well.

Froome has done all that he can can so far to prove that he is doing this clean and until proven otherwise I will accept that he is clean.



Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: L

Postby biker jk » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:12 am

jcjordan wrote:
sogood wrote:
Marty Moose wrote:We need to trust the system if we don't there is no sport.Get of his back and enjoy the race.

Trust is earned and the last 100 years of pro-cycling has given us followers little to trust. The scepticism is normal. No scepticism at this stage is blind.


We have been murdering and stealing for even longer so using your argument we should all be punished for that as well.

Froome has done all that he can can so far to prove that he is doing this clean and until proven otherwise I will accept that he is clean.



Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta


Not quite a fair analogy. The criminal population is a tiny percentage but around 90% the TdF winners of the past 25 years were doping. Hence it is logical to maintain are healthy scepticism about riders coming from nowhere and dominating the TdF. I don't believe Sky has done all they can to dispel this scepticism. They could release Froome's pre-2011 power data as well as his biological passport. Transparency is needed but we are not seeing it. Just public relations in response.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2981
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: L

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:07 pm

jcjordan wrote:We have been murdering and stealing for even longer so using your argument we should all be punished for that as well...
Froome has done all that he can can so far to prove that he is doing this clean and until proven otherwise I will accept that he is clean.

Thank you! So more reason to not trust any human but to seek more data and transparency. Froome/Team Sky has done better than LA in their release of data when faced with questions. But there's still a long way to go. Their millions in contract money should be justified.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby MarkG » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:11 pm

Do you do any racing or tt events sogood ?
Proudly "a hater of academics with helmet cams"
User avatar
MarkG
 
Posts: 2147
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:02 pm
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: L

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:21 pm

MarkG wrote:Do you do any racing or tt events sogood ?

As previously commented, I have done crit and road. But racing no longer suit my present risk profile and time schedule.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: L

Postby trailgumby » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:13 pm

Marty Moose wrote:We need to trust the system if we don't there is no sport.

"Need" - really? :wink:
Are you *really* sure that's what you meant to say?

Because if it is, what it says is this: you're telling us we need to trust something that is at this time so very obviously suspect, because looking too closely for the truth might have unpalatable consequences.

That, my friend, is what fools and fantasists do and it never ends well. Rather, it pays back with compound interest.

My view? The facts are what they are, and the consequences will be what they will be. At least, once known, I can then decide on an appropriate response. Choosing to ignore facts robs me of that opportunity.

My response this year has been to not watch the race.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10445
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby Marty Moose » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:50 pm

trailgumby wrote:
Marty Moose wrote:We need to trust the system if we don't there is no sport.

"Need" - really? :wink:
Are you *really* sure that's what you meant to say?

Because if it is, what it says is this: you're telling us we need to trust something that is at this time so very obviously suspect, because looking too closely for the truth might have unpalatable consequences.

That, my friend, is what fools and fantasists do and it never ends well. Rather, it pays back with compound interest.

My view? The facts are what they are, and the consequences will be what they will be. At least, once known, I can then decide on an appropriate response. Choosing to ignore facts robs me of that opportunity.

My response this year has been to not watch the race.


The facts ATM is that he is clean. Unless there is a Psychopathic type cover up as per Lance, I'm happy to see the facts as they are and enjoy the race.
What I struggle with is known drug cheats in the race at all, cheat should equal a lifetime ban.
I'm happy to be optimistic enough that we have learned from this last public disgrace that was LA. Time will tell and its a shame people like you who obviously love Bikes are unable to watch the race at all its still a great spectical.

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2
Marty Moose
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: W.A

Next

Return to International and National Tours and Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers