Le Tour 2015

[taylorsworkrate]

L’Equipe, who have always been leading voices against doping in cycling were sent Froomes perfomance data from 2011 to 2013 (just after his tour win) by Sky.

The expert L'Euipe used to analyse the data said it was entirely possible for Froome to have achieved his no's without doping.

The data covered the start of The 2011 Vuelta, just when he came good, out of the blue. Remember, he wasn't even going to ride that tour, and was on the brink of losing his contract. In 2010 he was disqualified from the Giro for holding on to a moto up a climb, such was his climbing prowess back then.

Release data from before. He started cycling in 2005, there will be historical data regarding his physical capabilities from a young age. The easiest way to prove innocence would be to release it. It makes no sense not to.

That's fair enough, but there would be a lot of people who would wilfully misinterpret the data regardless of what it said.

I don't think Froome is doing anything out of the ordinary really. He's just in much better form than his GC rivals.

No one has said anything about Quintana taking minutes out of Contador and Nibali yesterday

[aj2k77]

Quintana is your traditional climber for me. Tiny frame. Good background. Winning races and climbing like he does since he was 20. Winning the Junior Tour, podium at the age of 22/23. He is what I'd expect to see as a climber and a grand tour challenger. Shows some class from a young age, how it used to be.

If he was 28/29 and had never really done nothing and then blew people away I'd just laugh and wonder what he is on, don't get me wrong, I think 90% of them will be doing something, just some to a bigger degree than others as always and I'd consider Quintana to be at the lower end of the scale.

He sucks at TT's too. How most of the climbers always used to. Until EPO and Blood transfusions took over then we had ridiculous spectacles of skinny riders like Rasmussen finishing in the top 10 in TT's (see Froome also).

I agree too, that some people will see in to data what they want to see, but the majority won't. We nearly all want as clean a race as possible. We nearly all want to believe what we are seeing. We need healthy scepticism in cycling right now because it hasn't gone far enough in changing the way it has been run. DS's with doping pasts, why are they still in the game? Doctors with doping pasts too. They all should serve no part in the sports future.

If the data came out and looked legit I would be happy to believe that the guy is just a freak of nature an outlier and enjoy watching what can only then be described as incredible rides. For now, it bares to many parallels with the past for me.

[Dante Lavelli]

What is the data you are referring to?  Is it these biological passports that have been introduced?
Regardless, can these numbers - whatever they are - be improved over time as fitness and body shape adjust to rigorous training etc?

I don't want to believe you but your argument is well made.  My counter argument, which admittedly lacks the depth of knowledge that you've demonstrated, is that Brailsford's teams have excelled beyond just Team Sky and importantly at amateur level.  Surely with the potential fame and fortune on offer someone would have shopped him in by now.

[aj2k77]

What is the data you are referring to?  Is it these biological passports that have been introduced?
Regardless, can these numbers - whatever they are - be improved over time as fitness and body shape adjust to rigorous training etc?

I don't want to believe you but your argument is well made.  My counter argument, which admittedly lacks the depth of knowledge that you've demonstrated, is that Brailsford's teams have excelled beyond just Team Sky and importantly at amateur level.  Surely with the potential fame and fortune on offer someone would have shopped him in by now.

No, not biological passports. They just record a specific set of blood values at a given time.

I'm talking about V02 max levels, lactate thresholds, how efficient the body is at using the oxygen, data like that. They will be known about all riders. With some of them it is impossible to improve the levels to much of a degree once you are at the level a cyclist is. They are basically physical parameters to what you can humanly achieve.

For Froome to be doing what he is doing right now, he would need some insanely high parameters and they will have be known from a much younger age. His previous team will have known these as indeed would have Sky when they signed him.

If his old numbers were shown, and were relatable to what he is doing now it would end the debate of his legitimacy for any reasonable sceptic.

Brailsford has had great success. How it has been done will come out eventually it always has done. But there is only one other historical example of a team taking on, what you would consider at best very average grand tour riders, and turning them in to pedigree riders, later on in their careers, not juniors but mid to late 20's. They were US Postal as you know. And they used the excuse of working harder, targeting the tour and being more professional too.

I don't want to completely hijack this thread either and am happy to talk just about cycling if everyone wants me to shut the fuck up about doping.

Contador looked shagged yesterday and is finding out why only Pantani has done the double in the last 20 years. Nibali looks disinterested and the French guys have really fallen apart so far. Puts Nibalis win last year in to perspective, without the big 3.

[aj2k77]

L’Equipe, who have always been leading voices against doping in cycling were sent Froomes perfomance data from 2011 to 2013 (just after his tour win) by Sky.

The expert L'Euipe used to analyse the data said it was entirely possible for Froome to have achieved his no's without doping.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/feb01/feb09news.shtml

L'equipe's experts view on Armstrong. Not the most reliable expert really.

[taylorsworkrate]

What is the data you are referring to?  Is it these biological passports that have been introduced?
Regardless, can these numbers - whatever they are - be improved over time as fitness and body shape adjust to rigorous training etc?

I don't want to believe you but your argument is well made.  My counter argument, which admittedly lacks the depth of knowledge that you've demonstrated, is that Brailsford's teams have excelled beyond just Team Sky and importantly at amateur level.  Surely with the potential fame and fortune on offer someone would have shopped him in by now.

It's an interesting point you make about Brailsford.

Surely the suspicions over Froome would have to be extended to people like Chris Hoy, Mark Cavendish, Victoria Pendleton and Jason Kenny

[taylorsworkrate]

Quintana is your traditional climber for me. Tiny frame. Good background. Winning races and climbing like he does since he was 20. 

Vivian Richards wasn't your traditional batsman, but excelled in the art.

Surely it's worth pointing out here that Froome was raised in Kenya and South Africa, not turning professional until he was 22. Kenya and South Africa are hardly renowned for their road cycling, so perhaps in Froome's early career he was plagued by poor coaching, training methods, equipment etc. That and a lack of opportunity to showcase his potential to teams who would be able to help him progress

[paulcomben]

Cycling is dull, cyclists are duller and their arrogant takeover of our roads in their silly lurid Lycra is dullest.

[aj2k77]

Quintana is your traditional climber for me. Tiny frame. Good background. Winning races and climbing like he does since he was 20. 

Vivian Richards wasn't your traditional batsman, but excelled in the art.

Surely it's worth pointing out here that Froome was raised in Kenya and South Africa, not turning professional until he was 22. Kenya and South Africa are hardly renowned for their road cycling, so perhaps in Froome's early career he was plagued by poor coaching, training methods, equipment etc. That and a lack of opportunity to showcase his potential to teams who would be able to help him progress

Viv Richards didn't have to carry his massive frame up a steep huge mountain . He had to bludgeon balls to death. I'd compare him to a Tony Martin. Although cycling and cricket are completely incomparable.

I'm sure Froomes training in the early years was nothing like how he trains now, same would go for equiptment, scientific and nutritional knowledge etc but he moved to Europe in 2008 and was crap for 4 years solid. Something happened at the end of 2011. Something to take someone from being dropped and DQ'd in the Giro, to blowing the Vuelta apart. I'd love to know what. It wasn't curing some bullshit disease I'm sure of that, that's a smokescreen to muddy the waters.

[aj2k77]

An exciting stage in the making today. Let's see how close they can get to past winning times on the climb.

Pantani     1998    43m20 6.1 w/kgs 
Contador   2007    +48s    5.95
Armstrong 2004 + 2m 11  5.77
Armstrong 2002 + 2m 35  5.72
Vanandert 2011 + 3m 00   5.68

[aj2k77]

Thomas put in a fantastic ride today. Pulled for Froome an awful lot and finished in the select group of climbers.

I've read that the Froome group matched the time of Armstrong ala 2002 today.


Blurgh, that's wrong.

Froome group climbed the Plateau De Beille in 45.38. Faster than Armstrong 2002, slower than 2004.

[Dante Lavelli]

With some of them it is impossible to improve the levels to much of a degree once you are at the level a cyclist is. They are basically physical parameters to what you can humanly achieve.

There's a great book called Bounce which strongly demonstrates through numerous examples that DNA has a lot less to do with success than hard work, also Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.  Both books suggest that an individual can improve - they actually state that ones height/body type can actually change once put under enough stress - significantly once practicing hard enough and for a long enough duration.  Based on the books, what Froome has done is possible.

[JD]

Thomas put in a fantastic ride today. Pulled for Froome an awful lot and finished in the select group of climbers.

I've read that the Froome group matched the time of Armstrong ala 2002 today.


Blurgh, that's wrong.

Froome group climbed the Plateau De Beille in 45.38. Faster than Armstrong 2002, slower than 2004.

But it was all of them, so they have all improved, bikes, training and conditioning gets better and better.

It's like comparing marathon runners now to those of the past. If I had entered the first marathon in the Olympic Games on time alone I would have won the gold medal on the times I have run Marathons. This is due to better equipment, diet and conditioning. Technology is changing so quickly nowadays that any athlete has a great advantage over their predecessors, so comparisons are pointless in my opinion.   

[aj2k77]

Thomas put in a fantastic ride today. Pulled for Froome an awful lot and finished in the select group of climbers.

I've read that the Froome group matched the time of Armstrong ala 2002 today.


Blurgh, that's wrong.

Froome group climbed the Plateau De Beille in 45.38. Faster than Armstrong 2002, slower than 2004.

But it was all of them, so they have all improved, bikes, training and conditioning gets better and better.

It's like comparing marathon runners now to those of the past. If I had entered the first marathon in the Olympic Games on time alone I would have won the gold medal on the times I have run Marathons. This is due to better equipment, diet and conditioning. Technology is changing so quickly nowadays that any athlete has a great advantage over their predecessors, so comparisons are pointless in my opinion.   

There is a good article by a sports scientist on improvements from nutrition and technology that I will link to you later. Basically it's a red herring and we are no where near the point yet where natural performance will equal or surpass doped performance from 10 years ago, the incremental natural improvement is so low. There isn't a great advantage in technology, from the 80's yes, with carbon fibre equiptment etc but the 90's no. Technological change is cycling Is nowhere near as fast as you make out, it is limited, by the UCI. The hour record has actually regressed because of limits put on equiptment by them.

If these times were one offs or limited then there wouldn't be as many accusations, they aren't, they are the norm and together with a lot of other factors are building a picture much like under Armstrong that things aren't right as of now.

As for them all finishing in a group, that is neither here nor there. Contador is a known doper, Valverde is a known doper.

They all climbed the plateau de beille faster than Lance Armstrong, who by all accounts was half man half chemical trial, solely employing the best doping doctor in the world, with multi million dollar financial backing.

If performances and facts like yesterday do not raise your eyebrows then I can only conclude you do not want to even consider the possibility of this not being natural and will tow the SKY line no matter what.

http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/clean-performances-to-surpass-doped-performances/

Let us not forget, Brailsford has spent the past few years telling us that ''amateur'' readings of Power outputs of his riders we're quasi science and not accurate, a stab in the dark. The leaked video of Froome up Ventoux has shown him to be lying, the numbers so called 'amateurs' worked out were near exact to what they actually were. The denial of use of Ketone drinks, not illegal as of now btw. Riders suddenly having asthma, using inhalers. There is a much bigger picture of deception that is being painted right now. We would be fools to believe without scrutinising it.

Cycling OWES it to the fans to be transparent, they haven't done anything like what is needed to be trusted whole heartedly again, and trails of lies, secrecy, deception and controversial figures will not help. Honesty and openness will.

[aj2k77]

With some of them it is impossible to improve the levels to much of a degree once you are at the level a cyclist is. They are basically physical parameters to what you can humanly achieve.

There's a great book called Bounce which strongly demonstrates through numerous examples that DNA has a lot less to do with success than hard work, also Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.  Both books suggest that an individual can improve - they actually state that ones height/body type can actually change once put under enough stress - significantly once practicing hard enough and for a long enough duration.  Based on the books, what Froome has done is possible.

I'm not saying that training and practice can't improve, if that were the case there would be no point in racing, just look at the base set of numbers and award wins by that.

What I'm saying is that given the riders inherent traits, there are some performances that physiologically they won't be able to achieve. This is proven, it's not about top riders not training hard enough, being on their bikes 6 hours a day, it's about top riders, at their peak fitness, having ridden all their lives there will be a limit to what they can produce. Riders producing 6.5 w/kgs of power for an effort of over a certain time is now regarded as not being natural for example, no amount of nutrition, training, practice etc can change that.

Read in to relationships between Vo2 max, oxygen efficiency, lactate acid and anaerobic thresholds.

For Froome to be an outlier which you suggest, the required physiology he'd need would put him at, I've read a one in a few billion. Which is possible, I'd guess but then would come the question..... why couldn't he do it before? Almost superhuman, a one in a billion man, not producing anything until one Vuelta at the age of 26.

From memory, I can't recall a single rider, having shown nothing up to the age of 26 suddenly becoming a once in a generation machine. capable of climbing and TT'ing, they've all shown their talent from an early age as you'd expect.