L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

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

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:03 pm

Marty Moose wrote:
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.


Well said Marty, my feeling echo yours, including the lifetime ban. The sooner they bring that in the better.
It would appear many on the forum prefer the guilty until proven innocent scenario. A depressing and pessimistic view IMO.
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

by BNA » Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:11 pm

BNA
 

Re: L

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:11 pm

Marty Moose wrote:The facts ATM is that he is clean.

I think one needs to replace that "is" with any of the following,
- should be
- may be
There's no hard evidence for "is" here yet.
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: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:46 pm

sogood wrote:
Marty Moose wrote:The facts ATM is that he is clean.

I think one needs to replace that "is" with any of the following,
- should be
- may be
There's no hard evidence for "is" here yet.


Well yes there is. He has passed all the drug testing and bio passport controls.
That is all the evidence that is required.
No win situation for Sky.
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:57 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


sogood wrote: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.


Doesn;t surprise me at all. VO2max testing is so 1980s/90s.

If you are using power meter data intelligently, VO2max is neither relevant for performance assessment, nor of any practical value in guiding training. It's also far less reliable as an indicator of performance potential than is power output. IOW it's essentially redundant information.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:02 pm

You can say a lot about Rupert Murdoch and his political bias and meddling in politics for personal gain.
You can't normally fault his business sense though.
Why the hell he would choose to invest in cycling has me baffled though. Look at all the negative opinion received despite the team he has invested in leading cycling's biggest event.
Wouldn't be surprised if he took his money elsewhere. You can pass all the tests and controls but if you perform too well you are condemned without evidence by sections of the press and fans alike :(
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: L

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:04 pm

biker jk wrote: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!

Alien like? How do you know? Or are you being sucked in by all these crummy VAM to power estimates?

biker jk wrote:"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.

I would expect that any leading GC rider to possess such physiological characteristics. That's a big part of what makes them a leading GC rider.

I would be more startled to find a leading GC rider with ordinary aerobic potential.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: L

Postby trailgumby » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:15 pm

Marty Moose wrote:The facts ATM is that he is clean

Logic fail. Sorry.

That's a conclusion, not a fact.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 9925
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby jcjordan » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:28 pm

im_no_pro wrote:
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...


Considering L'Equipe past history of going after dopers I would not find there analysis all that conflicting

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: L

Postby biker jk » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:31 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
biker jk wrote: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!

Alien like? How do you know? Or are you being sucked in by all these crummy VAM to power estimates?

biker jk wrote:"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.

I would expect that any leading GC rider to possess such physiological characteristics. That's a big part of what makes them a leading GC rider.

I would be more startled to find a leading GC rider with ordinary aerobic potential.


Thanks Alex but I already know you're in the Coggan camp of no suspicious performance limits and having never spotted a doper ever. :roll: Did Coggan or yourself ever call out Armstrong as a doper based on his performances (or anything else for that matter)? You do know that Froome's just released power data differed little from these "crummy" power estimates?
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:06 pm

biker jk wrote: rubbish attacking Alex



You are way off the mark there mate. Alex has been very vocal on here with his anti doping stance.
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: L

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:36 pm

biker jk wrote:Thanks Alex but I already know you're in the Coggan camp of no suspicious performance limits and having never spotted a doper ever. :roll:

Unlike some, I make a distinction between what represents sound science and speculation/opinion. W/kg estimates in and of themselves are inadequate as a dopeometer, even if they are accurate.

biker jk wrote:Did Coggan or yourself ever call out Armstrong as a doper based on his performances (or anything else for that matter)?

I can't speak for Coggan, you'll have to ask him. IIRC correctly, he had voiced his doubts quite a long while back (as had Ed Coyle despite what's often misrepresented), but that'd be different to the questions of physiology and misuse of performance data as a dopeometer.

That doesn't mean I don't also have opinions.

Given the historical record of doping in the pro peloton over the past 30 years, any claim of doping against ANY pro bike rider on a podium in major Euro races had a better than 50% chance of being right through chance alone. Even Paul the Octopus could do pretty well at that game.

So I hardly think a claim about when one "picks a doper" has much meaning. And to be frank, I have no idea when I formed my opinion about Armstrong being a doper, I didn't make a diary note on the day I had such an epiphany. My apologies.

biker jk wrote:You do know that Froome's just released power data differed little from these "crummy" power estimates?

So you have the data to validate that. Great, do share.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: L

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:42 pm

warthog1 wrote:Well yes there is. He has passed all the drug testing and bio passport controls.
That is all the evidence that is required.

Indeed a logic fail. Passing existing dope testing just means the subject has passed the screen and the testing organization will not activate any penalties. Not a proof that the rider did not dope. This applies to all riders, not just any particular.
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: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: L

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:46 pm

warthog1 wrote:You can say a lot about Rupert Murdoch and his political bias and meddling in politics for personal gain.
You can't normally fault his business sense though.

Simple. Cycling is a booming sport. Business people invest in all bullish entities and retract with bears. In any case, Murdoch has been getting more senile in recent years. Your assumption here is shaky.
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: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: L

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:12 pm

sogood wrote:
warthog1 wrote:Well yes there is. He has passed all the drug testing and bio passport controls.
That is all the evidence that is required.

Indeed a logic fail. Passing existing dope testing just means the subject has passed the screen and the testing organization will not activate any penalties. Not a proof that the rider did not dope. This applies to all riders, not just any particular.

pleeease. He has passed all the required doping tests and has complied with the rules that are in place as far as the test results reveal. Somehow that doesn't help indicate he is clean. People request his power data that is provided for an independent assessor. Passes that. Nope still not clean. Loses time on a climb, proving he has limits, nope not clean.
Where is your evidence he is doping? You seem to consistently run that line with no evidence but somehow that is not a logic fail? :roll:

Guilty until proven innocent
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: L

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:16 pm

sogood wrote:
warthog1 wrote:You can say a lot about Rupert Murdoch and his political bias and meddling in politics for personal gain.
You can't normally fault his business sense though.

Simple. Cycling is a booming sport. Business people invest in all bullish entities and retract with bears. In any case, Murdoch has been getting more senile in recent years. Your assumption here is shaky.


Thanks for that comprehensive lesson my learned fellow forumite.
How does that apply to my point that the team he sponsors is receiving unfavourable opinion coverage with no evidence? How is negative coverage a good return on his investment?
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: L

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:00 pm

warthog1 wrote:pleeease. He has passed all the required doping tests and has complied with the rules that are in place as far as the test results reveal. Somehow that doesn't help indicate he is clean. People request his power data that is provided for an independent assessor. Passes that. Nope still not clean. Loses time on a climb, proving he has limits, nope not clean.
Where is your evidence he is doping? You seem to consistently run that line with no evidence but somehow that is not a logic fail? :roll:
Guilty until proven innocent

Never said he is guilty (apart from those who didn't read carefully before taking extreme positions), but that does not exclude the need to review his performance. Fact, dope screening is not perfect and like all tests, will always have holes. Only through diligent reviews can one improve.
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: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: L

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:00 pm

warthog1 wrote:Thanks for that comprehensive lesson my learned fellow forumite.
How does that apply to my point that the team he sponsors is receiving unfavourable opinion coverage with no evidence? How is negative coverage a good return on his investment?

There is no bad publicity in business!
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: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

PED speculation

Postby Nobody » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:23 pm

Image

It looks like the WH1 and sogood show.
Nobody
 
Posts: 6495
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:27 pm

Nobody wrote:Image

It looks like the WH1 and sogood show.


You helping to dig me out of the poo again? :lol:
Thanks :)

I can't seem to help wading in and then get stuck in the quicksand :roll:
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: PED speculation

Postby ldrcycles » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:35 pm

Nobody wrote:Image

It looks like the WH1 and sogood show.


I love that gif! :D
When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.
User avatar
ldrcycles
 
Posts: 5853
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: Kin Kin, Queensland

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby Philipthelam » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:52 pm

in other news .... http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/athl ... g-scandals

Wonder how many tests they have passed?
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: PED speculation

Postby sogood » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:09 pm

Nobody wrote:Image

Most original. 10/10! :mrgreen:
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: 16796
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby Chuck » Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:48 am

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.


That comment is well off the mark, L'Equipe have never been backwards in coming forwards with a doping story no matter how it might taint the race.

I believe you've shifted your stance a little since the Armstrong "vendetta" comment. Some on here who were crying "mob" and wouldn't believe until "real" evidence was produced against Armstrong have pitch forked up and are now leading the mob. Alex, at least, is attempting to set a more reasonable tone with his considered posts.
Image
FPR Ragamuffin
User avatar
Chuck
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Hiding in the bunch

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby hannos » Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:40 pm

If SKY / Froome have nothing to hide, then release the data publicly. From all the team. From the last several years.
That will prove beyond doubt he's either clean or dirty.

Maybe that contract SKY had people sign was actually to ensure no-one disclosed their doping practises...
2010 BMC SLC01
Image
User avatar
hannos
 
Posts: 4007
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:18 am
Location: Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:27 pm

hannos wrote:If SKY / Froome have nothing to hide, then release the data publicly. From all the team. From the last several years.
That will prove beyond doubt he's either clean or dirty.

Maybe that contract SKY had people sign was actually to ensure no-one disclosed their doping practises...


Quintana as well please... Colombia hasn't got a great record in doping, pretty slack controls... on a Spanish team with known "ex" dopers... where is the big out cry for his power files?.
What about Kittel?... would you trust someone who happily lets his blood be extracted... shine some funky light on it and inject it back in?
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

PreviousNext

Return to International and National Tours and Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist