Sir Dave Brailsford says the UCI should pay for independent anti-doping experts to be embedded within leading teams to help prove that riders aren’t cheating.
The Team Sky principal’s comments, reported by BBC Sport, follow a weekend in which Tour de France race leader Chris Froome had urine thrown at him by a spectator who shouted out, “doper!”
Froome has had to field questions about whether he is riding clean throughout this year’s race, just as he did two years ago when he claimed the overall victory.
Speaking on the France Télévisions show Stade 2, Brailsford, who last week claimed Froome’s training data had been hacked by people trying prove he is doping, said: "It is not possible to prove a negative. I can't. But I can work with the UCI, independent experts."
He continued: "I understand people asking 'do we believe in Chris Froome?'
"How can we find a test where we say 'we are clean'? We have responsibility to be transparent.
"I would like the UCI to invest in individuals and put them into each team 24/7. That would prove we do nothing. I'm ready to do it.
"It is not fair what has been said. Chris is special. He has a special physiology. But he doesn't cheat."
Whether Brailsford’s suggestion is workable is open to question.
With 17 UCI WorldTour teams alone, it would certainly be expensive, perhaps prohibitively so for the UCI – if there were enough suitably qualified people to staff such an operation in the first place.
Moreover, with teams sometimes participating in three races concurrently and other riders elsewhere, for example on training camps, it would be impossible to keep tabs on everyone all the time.
Froome himself has pointed the finger at French ex-pros turned TV pundits Cedric Vasseur and Lauren Jalabert as helping fuel suspicions about him.
The latter’s insinuations were summarised by ITV 4 yesterday – although Jalabert wasn’t too keen to elaborate on them when pressed by Matt Rendell, as shown in this video posted to YouTube by a user named Michelle F.
62 thoughts on “UCI should embed anti-doping experts within teams, says Brailsford”
Well played ITV4, the Matt
Well played ITV4, the Matt Rendell video is a small step towards redressing the balance. I don’t know if Sky dope or not (I hope they don’t), so I will keep my mouth shut about it until proof either way is forthcoming……….. Something maybe Jalabert should’ve considered.
Jimbomitch wrote:Well played
I agree with everything you say. Except in my case, I’ll assume Sky isn’t doping until there is proof that they aren’t – its literally impossible to prove 100% they are not doping, only that they are (if they are). I couldn’t prove I wasn’t doping either – any test or study of any kind that showed I or Sky were not doping, would merely be seen as “not yet having found proof that I was doping”. What’s sad about this situation this year, is that the same people weren’t talking about riders being doped when French riders where packing the top 10 last year, even as Nibali rode away with the race. Suddenly the French are having a rotten tour (bad luck has played its part as well) and the grapes suddenly taste very sour…
I like the idea but as stated
I like the idea but as stated it isn’t going to be cheap. However how much is a clean sport worth ?
As Dave B has said though how
As Dave B has said though how do you prove a negative? The embedded official sounds good but is unworkable. And look, Sky embedded David Walsh, one of Lance’s greatest critics and what happened. The cynics just said he’d been bought off. A very sad state of affairs.
Matt Rendel made a great
Matt Rendel made a great point on the TdF podcast about having to buy into David Brailsford being bent if you are convinced that Froome is doping.
My tuppence worth is that Froome is a clean rider being unfairly tarnished by cyclings’ history.
I feel very uncomfortable with his anorexic appearance and the TUE for his asthma inhaler. But that is not evidence of doping.
I think it could be a good
I think it could be a good move – but presumably the teams would have to come up with the cash to pay for this service themselves.
Also, I don’t think this will change a great deal with those how have already tried and convicted Sky/Froome in their own minds. Any UCI official which does not concur with their world view will simply be useless/blind/rubbish/bribed etc.
All those who are not
All those who are not actually interested in cycling could usefully step away from this debate.
Discussing doping as if there is a good and evil divide gives license to idiots attacking innocent cyclists during the tour.
Quote:My tuppence worth is
My tuppence is that we simply don’t know.
And given the high degrees of doubt over the accusations, we should remember ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ .
At the moment we don’t have any creditable and compelling reason for singling out Sky or Froome for the treatment they have been receiving.
Maybe in 10 year time we might look back on 2015, and think to ourselves ‘how were we duped again?’ – BUT here is my point – I am prepared to be wrong.
I would rather be fair to due process (and give Sky/Froome the benefit of doubt over their accusers) and be proved wrong, than to single out Sky/Froome for abuse and then be proved right.
*IF* all this ends up in an enormous scandal, I have no interest in silly ‘I told you so’ willy waving. I’m just trying to enjoy the racing and think riders and teams should be treated fairly.
Must be Mad wrote:At the
Is the fact that they’re winning not enough for you?
vonhelmet wrote:Must be Mad
No, not really – 2nd place in the Tour is the second best rider in the world at this instant, 3rd place is the 3rd best rider in the world at this instant. I can’t see why such lofty heights should be any more questionable than best rider in the world at this instant. So no, winning isn’t a reason to single someone out. After all, in the past, there was only one person who won any particular doped TdF, yet we know there were likely 100+ riders in the race who were also doped – why focus only on one?
vonhelmet wrote:Is the fact
And there’s the rub. Why do those who believe whoever is winning must be doping bother to engage with the sport at all? How far down the finish-list do they have to go to be satisfied that someone is clean? Froome had a great day at La Pierre-St-Martin. But, hang on, Quintana still had a minute or more over most of the other GC favourites. So he must be doping too, right? With this logic, the tour is reduced to a celebration of the red-lantern alone. But, oh dear – that was (almost, bar one place) Alex Dowsett a few days back, and he held the hour record a month or so ago…
Someone has to win – assuming that the winner must be doping is madness.
pcristatus wrote:
Someone has
No we have to stop the winning. Stop all the winning. It’s done enough to tarnish this beautiful sport of ours.
vonhelmet wrote:Must be Mad
Much of the reason they’re winning is that their rivals lost time at key moments. Team tactics play as much a part as much as the execution at the end. Besides his stage win, much of Froome’s advantage comes as a result of a well-played first week, where other GC teams rode too conservatively. Besides, they’re not winning the team classification.
Haha! Just saw the video of
Haha! Just saw the video of Rendell with Jalabert. What a disingenuous, mealy mouthed specimen.
Reminds me of one of those videos you see on Youtube with a 4 year old child, face covered in chocolate. “Have you been eating chocolate?”….shakes head….”no”.
Quote:Is the fact that
Call me old fashioned 😉
They have won one stage. Mr Greipel has won three. Does that make him three times more suspicious?
Always seems a strange attitude – watch a race then complain when someone dares to win it. Or rather complain when the rider you don’t like wins it.
Rather than the UCI, the
Rather than the UCI, the french media should pay for it. They are the ones doing all the stirring
30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years, 30 years
Vous mangez trop de citrons
So the video was posted by
So the video was posted by ‘Michelle F’?
I really didn’t realise she took his name when they married.
Good to see TV commentator
Good to see TV commentator cyclists from the 90s, who refuse to talk about doping, confronted.
For Laurant Jalabert and
For Laurant Jalabert and Frederic Vasseur on Chris Frome read Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney on a non-existent Soviet threat to US submarines –
“They’re saying, ‘we can’t find evidence that they’re doing it the way that everyone thinks they’re doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don’t know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.’ Even though there was no evidence? Even though there was no evidence.”
It would help if all unrepentant dopers were prevented from any involvement in the sport in any capacity …
Video doesn’t seem to be
Video doesn’t seem to be there – taken down?
US Postal had journalists
US Postal had journalists embedded within the team on several occasions, none of whom saw anything suspicious. One of them was Daniel Coyle who later worked with Tyler Hamilton in writing The Secret Race and even he didn’t suspect anything so all I can see happening would be accusations that the UCI were in on it, they’d been bought off, misled…
It wouldn’t work, even if they could afford it.
Bit of a catch 22. If you don’t catch any dopers is that because:
the sport is clean
the testing procedures are so slack that they can be beaten
Even if it’s (a), you’re always going to have people who simply refuse to believe in anything but (b) simp!y because of the toxic past of the sport.
Brailsford wants embeds but
Brailsford wants embeds but wouldn’t let Paul Kimmage embed nor speak to Michael Barry. He talks a good game. A bit like ‘marginal gains’ but not knowing half the UCI rule book nor apparently measuring Froome’s weight or Vo2 max.
As for Jalabert, Lemond has just said similar, however I don’t expect ITV to doorstep him too quickly as it does’t fit the whole ‘Jealous French’ agenda that’s being used as a diversion, that plus Lemond is too big a target.
Still, who cares? Froome isn’t the only one climbing faster than known dopers of the past. Let’s just watch the racing.
Chasseur Patate
The first bit is not quite true, is it ? … or at least not according to Kimmage.
Which rules ?
Team Sky know Froomes weight anytime they want and if you want to understand why they don’t fixate over VO2max you might do worse than have a read of the FAQ from this years Tour.
http://www.teamsky.com/teamsky/features/article/7897#hpTky8ClVL8ubbRB.97
Really ? What ?
From whom is this agenda stemming ? I’ve heard plenty of it, although not from ITV, and plenty the other way. Prudhomme has been the voice of reason again over the last few days, and his views seem to have been echoed by many outside of the rabid media in a number of countries.
Clearly you care.
fukawitribe wrote:Chasseur
The first bit is not quite true, is it ? … or at least not according to Kimmage.
Which rules ?
Team Sky know Froomes weight anytime they want and if you want to understand why they don’t fixate over VO2max you might do worse than have a read of the FAQ from this years Tour.
http://www.teamsky.com/teamsky/features/article/7897#hpTky8ClVL8ubbRB.97
Really ? What ?
From whom is this agenda stemming ? I’ve heard plenty of it, although not from ITV, and plenty the other way. Prudhomme has been the voice of reason again over the last few days, and his views seem to have been echoed by many outside of the rabid media in a number of countries.
Clearly you care.— Chasseur Patate
Brailsford recently stated he doesn’t know Froome’s weight. They then didn’t know the standing rules on receiving assistance from other teams nor that they had to use the hotel rooms provided by race organisers during Grand Tours. All in the UCI rule book. You’d think with their attention to detail they’d know all that.
“If Froome really has such a natural motor, he’s the most remarkable cyclist of all time” Greg LeMond, in today’s Le Monde”
That’s no worse an ‘insinuation’ than what Jalabert said.
Chasseur Patate
Indeed, he didn’t know Froomes weight at the time he was asked by the press, that’s different from the team not measuring or knowing it.
It was the riders that were initially ignorant of the assistance rule – and not the only ones in that team or others – and the accommodation rules were unclear, hence the extremely recent amendment to article 2.2.010 of the UCI Regulations.
No indeed, interesting… and at odds with what he’s been saying all tour long on Eurosport (edit : and elsewhere it seems). I’ll have a read, thanks for the heads-up.
fukawitribe wrote:
Chasseur
No indeed, interesting… and at odds with what he’s been saying all tour long on Eurosport (edit : and elsewhere it seems). I’ll have a read, thanks for the heads-up.— Chasseur Patate
but Froome is not the first and not the last to be questioned.
From 2009 Vayer and Lemond on Contador
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-climbing-credibility-questioned/
“LeMond, in response, called on Contador to prove that he is physically capable of achieving these numbers without the use of performance-enhancing products, “assuming the validity of the calculations”.”
So this is anyone who looks like they are performing much better than the rest. This just confirms my call for all rider data to be released, like for example Thibault Pinot has done so a power profile can be built up.
Weight to released at the start of the tour, VO2 Max to be released. This does not give a competitive advantage if all are known to everyone. I would not want stats issues during a tour and then released at the end for the major climbs.
The UCI then to employ a top scientist who is independent to analyse the data and provide a report on it.
Chasseur Patate
I don’t know why people have fixated on this.
I was recently asked to give my exact weight recently and I didn’t have a clue, I had to nip to Boots and jump on the scales there and I’m not smashing through thousands and thousands of calories and sweating out litres of fluids every day.
I’d imagine that there is lot fluctuation in riders weights throughout the tour and it’s probably not the most important thing for Brailsford to know what the exact weight of 9 other men right this minute in the grand (tour) scheme of things.
If Brailsford had taken a swing and a miss at getting Froome’s weight exactly right to last gram the inter-nutters like Digger Forum and Vayer would have been all over it screaming that he was lying, why was he lying, what else is he lying about etc
Froome, with unquestionably
Froome, with unquestionably the strongest team in the race, has one comprehensive stage win and he’s a villain. It’s ludicrous.
Look at DB in that photo, his
Look at DB in that photo, his shiny head at a funny angle, his shifty eyes darting from side to side. He looks like a Bond villain. And Froome is so skinny he has those folds either side his mouth just like Armstrong/Voldemort. They must be up to something… how can he beat the dopers without doping, how can he dare to win? This is clear evidence, I am the arbiter, I AM THE INTERNET. Kill them with a thousand tweets and douce them in piss!
Quote:US Postal had
I’m not so sure about that. I re-read Daniel Coyle’s Lance book when all the USADA stuff as going on, and reading between the lines you can tell he was suspicous/uncomfortable about various things, especially Dr Ferrari.
I guess he couldn’t just come out with it for fear of never working in cycling again.
The speculation and
The speculation and assumption from the fans and critics doesn’t help. We are not investigative journalists with a good reputation (not the type recently highlighted – their comments and opinions carry zero weight) so we should not assume without any evidence or even questionable activity. Ask questions but keep the assumptions out of it.
There is zero evidence on Froome, there is nothing even to suggest there is anything suspicious or questionable going on.
A fellow poster stated that Froome looked anorexic which i see as someone raising doubts. Froome is 6 foot 1 and between 69 – 71kgs. He is a lean and spindly tdf rider. Wiggo once dropped to 69kgs. How Froome can be described as having an anorexic appearance is beyond my comprehension. Have you seen the shape of his thighs when he’s on the podium?
This is just more negative vibes without grounds which isn’t helpful and does the sport no good in my humble opinion.
Critchio wrote:A fellow
It could be, definitely, but if you look at the state of many of the riders on the tour they do look anorexic, do you remember the photos of Wiggins in the hotel room looking very emaciated towards the end of his winning tour?
I’d wager that quite a few of the riders are probably closer to death than they are to being in peak physical condition by the time they hit Paris such are the ravages of the tour. It’s only the sprinters that have been rolling in with the laughing gang are carrying any sort of timber by the time they reach the Champs. That’s why I don’t get why people are so in a tizzy about Brailsford knowing Froome’s exact weight on the tour at any given moment.
and just another (!) tilt on
and just another (!) tilt on the weight thing – is it DB who is going to be doing all the weighing and monitoring of all of his riders? Is that his role? I would imagine the DS Nicolas Portal would be more likely to be checking on all that, and the people collecting the information are probably the soigneurs. So why would DB have all that at his fingertips?
edster99 wrote:and just
DB was categorical that they do not look at weight and nor Vo2max, he is the boss FFS ….
No other team would ignore these two and yet the team of marginal gains does, amazing.
BTW this piece shows why if all data available, sensible rational analysis can be made – http://rouleur.cc/journal/performance/tour-de-france-2015-Robert-Gesink-power-output
come on Sky, Saxo, Astana etc what’s to be worried about ?
Sky have released data and it
Sky have released data and it does not make sense
the Inner Ring
@inrng
Froome on Col du Soudet to La Pierre St Martin
RPM avg 97
HR avg 158bpm, 174 max
5.78W/kg
via L’Equipe’s @a_thomas_commin at Sky press conf.
The query here is max HR, I thought Froome had a very low max HR ?
The query here is max HR, I
The query here is max HR, I thought Froome had a very low max HR ?[/quote]
Well at a Max of 174 it’s about 15 bpm lower than mine when I’m climbing a 10% grade.
I didn’t realise that Road CC had so many physiologists and medics sat around looking at the data.
SevenHills wrote:Well at a
are you a pro cyclist in the Tour ?
As you know power = speed and the lighter you are the better up an hill. These figures first go against his own stated max HR, go against the leaked files of 2013/2014 and the special condition he had.
In cycling because we can measure all this it is about the stats, after Sky are supposed to be the best technical and monitoring squad, this is vital for any team.
Otherwise why measure it ?
ianrobo wrote:SevenHills
are you a pro cyclist in the Tour ?
No.
Are you an expert at reviewing Physiological data?
Do you have all of the data?
Do you even know what you are talking about or do you just beleive in throwing enough shit about that some of it sticks?
Like Brailsford and others have said you can’t prove a negative but with all of the amateur armchair experts on this site it does appear that you can prove someone guilty with pretty much no evidence.
ianrobo wrote:Sky have
Oh FFS – first “his heart rate doesn’t change” scandal (which it did) now the “his heart rate is higher than the max” scandal… sheesh.
Max heart rate isn’t a hard limit, no matter what it sounds like and peaks can be very brief.. Froome was talking about his max being about 170 a few days ago so 174 really doesn’t ring alarm bells given the circumstances. The power profile idea is also something Brailsford has mentioned before, the last I heard was 5 days ago
That work for you ?
“But he said amateurs
“But he said amateurs analyzing power data was useless.”
But the people doing this are not amateurs FFS one is Dr Ferrari, is he an amateur ?
By the way it was Sky themselves who said Froome had a very low Max HR and now it is a miracle, it is higher … Max HR does not change that much. If you believe the leaked files to be true, and if you believe his max to be higher than 170 then he was at 85% or so of max up Ventoux on attacks, possible ?
You are aware that ‘maximum
You are aware that ‘maximum heart rate’ and ‘maximum heart rate measured on a climb’ are two different things aren’t you?
As above, amateur speculation, especially by cycling fans who tend not to be the brightest of people, is not helpful.
crikey wrote:You are aware
talking crap now, those commenting on this have damn slight more knowledge of it that you, I and others.
Why did Sky only release this one and very little data, why not the whole data file for the ride ?
you can not exceed your max HR regardless unless fitter. Can you really say a climb up Ventoux on the attack would produce a max HR of 15 less than this week ? Even allowing for fatigue etc is that possible ?
ianrobo wrote:crikey
talking crap now, those commenting on this have damn slight more knowledge of it that you, I and others.— crikey
No – crikey is right. It might be best to understand what the figures refer to before this goes around any more. As to ‘those commenting’ on this – i’ve only heard you so far.
ianrobo wrote:crikey
talking crap now, those commenting on this have damn slight more knowledge of it that you, I and others.
Why did Sky only release this one and very little data, why not the whole data file for the ride ?
you can not exceed your max HR regardless unless fitter. Can you really say a climb up Ventoux on the attack would produce a max HR of 15 less than this week ? Even allowing for fatigue etc is that possible ?— crikey
I’ve seen no end of rubbish around HR today on twitter.
Personal example, going to the pyrenees last year after 2 weeks off the bike. Day one it was 35C, I was poorly hydrated and I was climbing steadily at around threshold, talking to people with my HR sitting there at 202-203 BPM. My typical HRmax is around 210, so this was quite a shock, but it was simply to do with conditions and the amount of rest I had. At the end of that week I ascended the tourmalet around threshold and my HR sat around 190. A few hard days later I was going up Ventoux, producing the same power with my HR in the low 180s. Even sprinting right at the end of Ventoux I don’t think I would have hit 190, even though 10 days before I was 20 BPM higher. This was nothing unusual and I expect if you looked at any pro cyclist who shared their HR data you would see a similar pattern – as fatigue sets in over time HRmax will decrease. Fitness and HR is not a simple relationship either.
I’ve not seen any serious sports scientist questioning Froome’s HR data throughout this whole thing, it’s all been about the power. The people who have been pointing at his HR data as ‘unusual’ have been the same people who point at anything they consider suspect and scream ‘dope’. It’s these people who are the problem, and no matter what Sky do, they’re never going to be happy.
crikey wrote:You are aware
And max heart rate when cycling can be different from when running, swimming, climbing stairs, making sweet love under the stars…
So we have stats released
So we have stats released today that shows his max HR is higher than thought. That means he went up Ventoux at a low % of max on attacks. This is a debate that is crucial to cycling for any rider.
Horner got heavily criticised in the Vuelta
Contador as linked in 2009 etc
Froome is not the first nor the last to put under this.
plenty are on twitter, some
plenty are on twitter, some may write them off as amateurs or pseudo scientists but the only figures we have are what sky gave.
I mean they even gave us a w/kg measure when they say themselves they don’t measure weight …
Sky knew they would cause a debate and we are having it. Nearly every day these threads contain references to Froome and not started by the same old people either.
ianrobo wrote:plenty are on
They know the approximate weight, don’t be stupid.
They seem to be mostly articles that are then jumped on by people like you, or started by similar.
fukawitribe wrote:ianrobo
They know the approximate weight, don’t be stupid.
They seem to be mostly articles that are then jumped on by people like you, or started by similar.— ianrobo
but do those articles by Ferrari, Vayer or Tucker are any less valid ? Are you saying they are amateurs given who all three have worked with have been at the top of their profession, Festina, Lance and SA rugby ?
ianrobo wrote:fukawitribe
They know the approximate weight, don’t be stupid.
They seem to be mostly articles that are then jumped on by people like you, or started by similar.— fukawitribe
but do those articles by Ferrari, Vayer or Tucker are any less valid ? Are you saying they are amateurs given who all three have worked with have been at the top of their profession, Festina, Lance and SA rugby ?— ianrobo
I’m talking about the max HR data you took issue with today – stop changing the subject. The articles i’m referring to are the ‘these threads’ you mentioned, implying this website – I haven’t seen any on here by any of those people today. What are you talking about ?… you have any links you wish to share or just an appeal to the wisdom of general Twitterati ?
Let’s hope for a call for
Let’s hope for a call for open applications to be an embedded independent anti-doping expert.
atgni wrote:Let’s hope for a
yep DB has that one right and for that person to release data as needed to the public and pundits.
Max HR decreases with age and
Max HR decreases with age and fitness in the longer term, and in the shorter term with fatigue. A couple of weeks into a GT, max HR is going to be lower than when fresh, as is HR response to efforts.
You can’t really conclude much from Chris’ HR, except that he must have large heart stroke volume, and that he wasn’t fresh.
From his power figures though it’s clear he is able to put in the most amazing efforts, and even attacks mid-way through a huge effort. He is and must be, without a doubt, an absolute marvel of physiology. As Kimmage and Walsh have said, one of the most amazing road racing cyclists ever physically.
The question is whether he’s achieved that “clean” or not (which may be a subjective thing). We may simply never know for sure. He swears he is. There’s no evidence against him, other than that his performances make him competitive with other oxygen-vector doped athletes of the past. Different people take different things from that.
Max HR from 2013 just two
Max HR from 2013 just two years ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/24951818
Freakish Froome
Five-time Tour de France winner Miguel Indurain famously had a resting pulse of just 29 bpm, less than half that the average man, with a heart that could pump 50 litres of blood a minute (double that of the average amateur cyclist).
Froome is equally unusual. He has a maximum heart-rate of just 165 bpm – far lower than most inactive men, let alone the 200 bpm of many elite cyclists.
ianrobo wrote:Max HR from
..and Froome reckons his MHR is currently around 170 (No citation on the BBC article). So back to the point, tell us your logical and physiological reasoning as to how todays release of data including a maximal heart rate datum is anomalous ?
I said it raises questions,
I said it raises questions, and Sky knew this.
This only strengthens my case for a full release of every rider’s data so these can be tracked over time. A Power and HR profile for every rider.
Yes Froome is in the spotlight but that is because he releases partial data and yet we can see what Adam Yates, Gesnick and others did on the same ride with full data and information.
Would you not agree full data disclosure is needed from ALL riders ?
Of course different factors –
Oval rings
shielded or not
weather conditions
fatigue
etc but over a period these will even out
Would you not agree partial data is worse than none ?
ianrobo wrote:I said it
Why is the HR anomalous ?
You are Dave Brailsford and I claim my £ 500.
Demanding full disclosure of a GC leaders data in isolation might not be entirely fair, don’ t you think ?
I do agree, in line with what many have said.
No, I wouldn’t. Team Sky got badgered for data, Brailsford said words to the effect of “i’m not releasing full, raw data – we’ll maybe release a summary”, they then release it and no it’s “Oooooo – isn’t it awful ! They only released a summary !” from everyone. It’s data – if it’s not useful, ignore it; if it is; analyse it – don’t whinge about the amount without considering the context of it’s release and the data forthcoming from the other teams.
Oh yes, and back to the point – why is the HR data anomalous ?
I think partial understanding
I think partial understanding is even worse, especially when combined with confirmation bias…
crikey wrote:I think partial
Quite. If you can’t even get your head around the basics of heart rate then how on earth is it going to help you understand whether or not a rider is clean?
it is that because it goes
it is that because it goes against the released files and what was said before about his max HR being 165
Now see it seems we agree with full data disclosure you would see a pattern over the years.
I would like to see Quintana’a history for example and Contador’s before and after doping and then maybe we can learn from all of it.
The more data released the greater the ability to discuss and investigate. Pinot is the first rider we have full power profile for and that I think is fantastic and should be the model for every pro rider.
a viewpoint from Dr Hutch who
a viewpoint from Dr Hutch who as you know is widely respected
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/racing/tour-de-france/what-can-we-learn-from-chris-froomes-power-data-183677
He only talks about the power data here and this is generally within normal limits for a rider
ianrobo wrote:a viewpoint
Good – we can close this discussion then and agree that the data shows great numbers, but is hardly outstanding.