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 Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:26 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.

No, it won't.

Or put it this way. Say the data was released.
In what way would it prove a rider wasn't doping?
It what way would it prove he was?
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

by BNA » Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:40 pm

BNA
 

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby biker jk » Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:40 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
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.

No, it won't.

Or put it this way. Say the data was released.
In what way would it prove a rider wasn't doping?
It what way would it prove he was?


In the same way that USADA found Armstrong's biological passport suggested there was a one in a million chance he was riding clean at the 2009 TdF. Let's see Froome's power data and biological passport for the past 3-4 years.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:16 pm

You don't need to see his power data or passport... The passport is seen by experts already and if they was any obvious issue we would have long since heard about it after it had been leaked to L'equipe.
His power data is his property... He has already released it to an expert, whether you believe in the integrity of the that expert bears little relevance. If it was my property I certainly wouldn't release it to a world full of Internet experts ... Because like Alex says, it doesn't prove or disprove doping, it is just more curiosity fodder for the forums.
Saying that he may well release it... But unless you know his exact weight, bike weight etc on that day then it is not all that accurate... Unless you have ALL his power files for the last few years maybe.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14405
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:24 pm

There's a big difference between data measuring what a rider did performance wise (e.g. power) and data that's indicative of what doping a rider may have been using, which is hemotological or investigative in nature.

Power tells us what a rider did, not why.
If you cannot answer the question: "what power = doping?" then how does it help?

And if a rider doesn't exceed a certain arbitrary power level, does that mean they are not doping?

Power data as a dopeometer is a red herring.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: L

Postby biker jk » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:44 pm

toolonglegs wrote:You don't need to see his power data or passport... The passport is seen by experts already and if they was any obvious issue we would have long since heard about it after it had been leaked to L'equipe.
His power data is his property... He has already released it to an expert, whether you believe in the integrity of the that expert bears little relevance. If it was my property I certainly wouldn't release it to a world full of Internet experts ... Because like Alex says, it doesn't prove or disprove doping, it is just more curiosity fodder for the forums.
Saying that he may well release it... But unless you know his exact weight, bike weight etc on that day then it is not all that accurate... Unless you have ALL his power files for the last few years maybe.


First of all Armstrong's suspect biological passport was not flagged by the expert panel. This suggests the system is broken and testing for PEDs needs to be taken away from the UCI. I have no faith in the UCI testing procedures. Second (and this is in response to Alex as well), I note that at last year's TdF Wiggins said that Sky were riding at 450W on the climbs and for a rider to launch a successful attack would require sustaining 500W for 20 minutes which could only be achieved by doping. So there are red flags for power numbers on climbs which can be used to indicate the strong possibility of doping and used in conjunction with the biological passport (examined by Ashenden for example) we could obtain some clarity around Froome's performance.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby warthog1 » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:44 pm

Alex stop being objective and factual. It's out of character with the rest of the thread. :P
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby jcjordan » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:55 pm

biker jk wrote:
toolonglegs wrote:You don't need to see his power data or passport... The passport is seen by experts already and if they was any obvious issue we would have long since heard about it after it had been leaked to L'equipe.
His power data is his property... He has already released it to an expert, whether you believe in the integrity of the that expert bears little relevance. If it was my property I certainly wouldn't release it to a world full of Internet experts ... Because like Alex says, it doesn't prove or disprove doping, it is just more curiosity fodder for the forums.
Saying that he may well release it... But unless you know his exact weight, bike weight etc on that day then it is not all that accurate... Unless you have ALL his power files for the last few years maybe.


First of all Armstrong's suspect biological passport was not flagged by the expert panel. This suggests the system is broken and testing for PEDs needs to be taken away from the UCI. I have no faith in the UCI testing procedures. Second (and this is in response to Alex as well), I note that at last year's TdF Wiggins said that Sky were riding at 450W on the climbs and for a rider to launch a successful attack would require sustaining 500W for 20 minutes which could only be achieved by doping. So there are red flags for power numbers on climbs which can be used to indicate the strong possibility of doping and used in conjunction with the biological passport (examined by Ashenden for example) we could obtain some clarity around Froome's performance.


I think you will find Wiggo was being a bit flippant.

500W would be very different for different riders based on there weight and at what point it was in the race.

I am with Alex I can't even how power to weight can be used as a indicator of doping.

That being said once you add it to the bio passport data you should start to see improvement in the targeting of both testing and investigations.

So for Armstrong no being picked up I think this has more to do with the infancy of the program than any failing of the system.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: L

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:17 pm

biker jk wrote:...testing for PEDs needs to be taken away from the UCI. I have no faith in the UCI testing procedures.

Can't say a word agin this, if you want transparency...
biker jk wrote:Second (and this is in response to Alex as well), I note that at last year's TdF Wiggins said that Sky were riding at 450W on the climbs and for a rider to launch a successful attack would require sustaining 500W for 20 minutes which could only be achieved by doping. So there are red flags for power numbers on climbs which can be used to indicate the strong possibility of doping and used in conjunction with the biological passport (examined by Ashenden for example) we could obtain some clarity around Froome's performance.

Ummm, no offence to Sir Braddles but I'm not sure I'd be seeking him out for an expert opinion on anything beyond surviving looking at 6 black and blue bums for thousands of km. :wink:
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25873
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: L

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:30 pm

I thought WADA and the AFDL tested at various TDF's... Not the UCI.
Also as Wiggo was on oval chain rings last year his quoted power readings can not be compared to someone using round rings.
Still fail to see how anyone here is going to see something a panel of experts are not seeing.
Froome shouldn't have to release anything unless everyone has to...
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14405
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby jcjordan » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:36 pm

toolonglegs wrote:I thought WADA and the AFDL tested at various TDF's... Not the UCI.
Also as Wiggo was on oval chain rings last year his quoted power readings can not be compared to someone using round rings.
Still fail to see how anyone here is going to see something a panel of experts are not seeing.
Froome should have to release anything unless everyone has to...


Ok off topic but I keep hearing that opalised rings give different power readings but my experience did not show this.

I use rotar ring on a P2M and did a climb multiple times and compared power reading against time and found them to be well within the 1% calibration error factor.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: L

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:38 pm

jcjordan wrote:
toolonglegs wrote:I thought WADA and the AFDL tested at various TDF's... Not the UCI.
Also as Wiggo was on oval chain rings last year his quoted power readings can not be compared to someone using round rings.
Still fail to see how anyone here is going to see something a panel of experts are not seeing.
Froome should have to release anything unless everyone has to...


Ok off topic but I keep hearing that opalised rings give different power readings but my experience did not show this.

I use rotar ring on a P2M and did a climb multiple times and compared power reading against time and found them to be well within the 1% calibration error factor.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta


Alex can answer this better than me ... I remember him mentioning that there is no way they can be comparable.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14405
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Re: L

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:50 pm

toolonglegs wrote:
jcjordan wrote:
toolonglegs wrote:I thought WADA and the AFDL tested at various TDF's... Not the UCI.
Also as Wiggo was on oval chain rings last year his quoted power readings can not be compared to someone using round rings.
Still fail to see how anyone here is going to see something a panel of experts are not seeing.
Froome should have to release anything unless everyone has to...


Ok off topic but I keep hearing that opalised rings give different power readings but my experience did not show this.

I use rotar ring on a P2M and did a climb multiple times and compared power reading against time and found them to be well within the 1% calibration error factor.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta


Alex can answer this better than me ... I remember him mentioning that there is no way they can be comparable.


It depends on how the power meter samples crank rotational speed.

P2M haven't told us how they sample rotational speed, but it may be plausible they are less prone to artificial inflation of power numbers compared with crank based power meters that sample rotational speed once per revolution. All we know is they use accelerometers to determine crank rotational speed and not reed switches, but that doesn't tell us whether P2M actually samples rotational speed with greater frequency than say an SRM or a Quarq.

Non-round rings cause crank meters to over report power as the peak torque values are over sampled and "dead spots" are under sampled. If I had to put a rough estimate of how much the effect is, I'd say it'd be in the vicinity of a few percent.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: L

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:58 pm

biker jk wrote:
toolonglegs wrote:You don't need to see his power data or passport... The passport is seen by experts already and if they was any obvious issue we would have long since heard about it after it had been leaked to L'equipe.
His power data is his property... He has already released it to an expert, whether you believe in the integrity of the that expert bears little relevance. If it was my property I certainly wouldn't release it to a world full of Internet experts ... Because like Alex says, it doesn't prove or disprove doping, it is just more curiosity fodder for the forums.
Saying that he may well release it... But unless you know his exact weight, bike weight etc on that day then it is not all that accurate... Unless you have ALL his power files for the last few years maybe.


First of all Armstrong's suspect biological passport was not flagged by the expert panel. This suggests the system is broken and testing for PEDs needs to be taken away from the UCI. I have no faith in the UCI testing procedures. Second (and this is in response to Alex as well), I note that at last year's TdF Wiggins said that Sky were riding at 450W on the climbs and for a rider to launch a successful attack would require sustaining 500W for 20 minutes which could only be achieved by doping. So there are red flags for power numbers on climbs which can be used to indicate the strong possibility of doping and used in conjunction with the biological passport (examined by Ashenden for example) we could obtain some clarity around Froome's performance.


I'm not saying we shouldn't seek a better system for anti-doping control. All I'm saying is that power data won't help. We don't need power data to know who finished first, or climbed the fastest, and perhaps should be the target of more frequent testing.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: L

Postby vander » Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:11 pm

toolonglegs wrote:I thought WADA and the AFDL tested at various TDF's... Not the UCI.
Also as Wiggo was on oval chain rings last year his quoted power readings can not be compared to someone using round rings.
Still fail to see how anyone here is going to see something a panel of experts are not seeing.
Froome shouldn't have to release anything unless everyone has to...


Yes people will pick up things. Firstly the "panel of experts" often dont even see the files only if it is flagged by the system. Secondly they only get very specific points. They did look at Armstrongs numbers from his biopassport, and at the time they said they were OK, however it was incomplete missing some key data points. When looked at as a whole it became a lot more clear that he was doping.

The biopassport is poor at picking whether people are doping, however what it does is helps to control how much they can dope, not too dissimilar from the 50% HCT rule but more individual and more sensitive.

Power data will never be proof that someone is doping. However it can provide some indication or help to highlight some suspect performances. Looking past numbers from times when we know the people were doping we can get an idea of what is achievable naturally and what is "not normal". While "not normal" doesnt imply doping it is an indication. All I can say is getting times up a few climbs close to the all time best times (including the dopers) is "not normal".

I agree that transparency will only be a good thing. Giving out a few climbs in the last few years post his transformation to an analyst with a clouded past (I know that the facade is they did not choose him but I dont believe that to be the case) to me is doing the opposite to what they wanted, its a cheap PR stunt, which they seem good at.

@alex the number that I heard thrown around was 20-30W at around 400W so 5ish% dont know if this was based on anything or an arbitrary number.
Image
vander
 
Posts: 1211
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:35 am
Location: North Strathfield, NSW

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby jcjordan » Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:09 am

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
toolonglegs wrote:
jcjordan wrote:[quote="toolonglegs"]I thought WADA and the AFDL tested at various TDF's... Not the UCI.
Also as Wiggo was on oval chain rings last year his quoted power readings can not be compared to someone using round rings.
Still fail to see how anyone here is going to see something a panel of experts are not seeing.
Froome should have to release anything unless everyone has to...


Ok off topic but I keep hearing that opalised rings give different power readings but my experience did not show this.

I use rotar ring on a P2M and did a climb multiple times and compared power reading against time and found them to be well within the 1% calibration error factor.

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta


Alex can answer this better than me ... I remember him mentioning that there is no way they can be comparable.


It depends on how the power meter samples crank rotational speed.

P2M haven't told us how they sample rotational speed, but it may be plausible they are less prone to artificial inflation of power numbers compared with crank based power meters that sample rotational speed once per revolution. All we know is they use accelerometers to determine crank rotational speed and not reed switches, but that doesn't tell us whether P2M actually samples rotational speed with greater frequency than say an SRM or a Quarq.

Non-round rings cause crank meters to over report power as the peak torque values are over sampled and "dead spots" are under sampled. If I had to put a rough estimate of how much the effect is, I'd say it'd be in the vicinity of a few percent.[/quote]

Thanks Alex

Based on DC Rainmakers review the sample rate is 50hz. I am not technically knowledgeable to determine if that is good or bad against the competitors.



Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: L

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:57 pm

jcjordan wrote:Based on DC Rainmakers review the sample rate is 50hz. I am not technically knowledgeable to determine if that is good or bad against the competitors.

Power2Max did not clarify whether they are sampling rotational speed at 50Hz, or just torque at 50Hz. There's quite a difference between those measurements and how it affects readings when using non-round rings.

For reference, an SRM samples torque at 200Hz and rotational speed once per crank revolution.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: L"Equipe analyses Froome's data

Postby jcjordan » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:59 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
jcjordan wrote:Based on DC Rainmakers review the sample rate is 50hz. I am not technically knowledgeable to determine if that is good or bad against the competitors.

Power2Max did not clarify whether they are sampling rotational speed at 50Hz, or just torque at 50Hz. There's quite a difference between those measurements and how it affects readings when using non-round rings.

For reference, an SRM samples torque at 200Hz and rotational speed once per crank revolution.


Thanks

Sent from my GT-I9305T using Tapatalk 4 Beta
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

Previous

Return to International and National Tours and Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

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

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit