- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Chris Froome celebrates winning the 2013 Tour de France (picture copyright Simon Wilkinson:SWpix.com)Team Sky release Chris Froome's data in bid to prove he's clean
Team Sky have taken the opportunity of today’s second rest day of the Tour de France to release Chris Froome’s performance data from last Tuesday’s Stage 10 of the race in an attempt to refute insinuations that Chris Froome is cheating.
Since his victory at La Pierre St Martin last week Froome, who leads the race by 3 minutes 10 seconds as it heads into the Alps tomorrow, has faced calls to demonstrate that his victory in the Pyrenees was achieved clean.
The disclosure of the data by the team’s head of performance Tim Kerrison at the invitation of team principal Sir Dave Brailsford is designed to do just that.
– UCI should embed anti-doping experts within teams, says Brailsford
On Sunday evening, Brailsford appeared on the France Télévisions show Stade 2 to discuss Froome’s performance. Viewers saw a video featuring doctor of physiology Pierre Saller who claimed that the riders power output was 7.04 watts per kilogram, which he described as an “abnormally high level.”
The Team Sky supremo described that figure as “wildly wrong” and today Kerrison said that the true figure was 5.78 watts per kilogram, reports the Guardian.
Brailsford said: ““We’re here to race and racing’s a human endeavour. It’s not a set of numbers on a spreadsheet, it’s not a power meter. It’s about racing.
“There’s a human aspect to it. That’s why we all love bike racing. And we’re going to go out and try to win this bike race.”
Given the ‘marginal gains’ philosophy that Brailsford employed to great success while performance director of British Cycling, his downplaying of the role of performance data may surprise some, although in a road race there are many more variables in play than in the controlled atmosphere of a velodrome, say.
He added: “I’m sure if Chris feels that he can attack and he could go and leave everybody behind, it would be a travesty, I think, if he had any doubt in his mind thinking: ‘Oh, I better not’. And he knows he won’t.
“That’s what we should do: continue to race in a clean and pure fashion.”
Referring to his appearance on Stade 2 on Sunday evening and the video featuring Dr Sallet, Brailsford said: “I wasn’t aware of it. It did take me a bit by surprise.
“I asked Tim to present a bit of data today to put to bed some of the numbers that they came up with, because they were wildly wrong.
“I do think in this day and age in the sport of cycling people do have to be responsible.
“If you are going to present something on television, to a nation, then you do have an obligation to get your facts right. It was a bit disappointing.
“What France 2 did, putting out that headline – 7 watts per kilo, a picture of Lance Armstrong and a picture of [Jan] Ullrich - that was so wildly wrong on so many levels that we thought we should just correct that and give the concrete facts and give the evidence so hopefully people could judge for themselves.”
Kerrison said that during that final 15.3 kilometre climb last Tuesday, Froome produced an average power output of 414 wats for the full climb and his VAM – a measure of metres climbed per hour – was 1,602, well below the levels of around 1,800 produced by Lance Armstrong and Marco Pantani a decade and a half ago.
He added that since Froome uses an asymmetric chain ring, the power output figure needs to be adjusted to compensate for that, and the correct average figure for the entire climb would be closer to 390 watts.
Froome himself remains sceptical that it will silence all the doubters.
“I’m not sure if numbers are going to fix everything,” he said, “but certainly I feel as a team and myself, we’re definitely trying to be as open and transparent as possible.
“We’ve been asked more questions than any other team. I’ve been asked more questions than any other GC contender. I’d like to think we’re answering those questions.
“I really am focused on the racing side of things. I’ve worked too long to let anything throw me off. That’s all just happening on the side,” he added.
Racing resumes tomorrow with a 171 kilometre stage from Digne-les-Bains to Pra Loup.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Runtilyoudrop 2 sec ago
Does this mean they will answer my emails and give my money back?
- OldRidgeback 7 min 45 sec ago
Yes, it's something I notice a lot when I'm cycling in traffic or riding my motorbike in traffic. I pass a lot of vehicle with drivers obviously...
- BBB 3 hours 18 min ago
Inhumane system that now will be getting even worse.
- Bungle_52 6 hours 42 min ago
In case anyone missed it in yesterdays blog here are the two pevious articles. The second one contains the testimony from the driver....
- David9694 6 hours 51 min ago
The old role was appointed at the Mayor's pleasure; is in addition to the permanent staff of the Combined Authority. I'm not sure if Adam was an...
- WillPage 8 hours 17 min ago
Nothing says "welcoming environment" like uniformed thugs, umm I mean "security patrols " roaming the area.
- Destroyer666 10 hours 17 min ago
Pretty clearly stated several times in the text that the issue was not related just to his son. And besides, everybody watching the races could see...
- Rendel Harris 10 hours 33 min ago
All Fizik and Selle Italia saddles (though not all their other products) are made in Italy I believe, and their 3D printed models definitely are.
- chrisonabike 10 hours 58 min ago
If you're not on the road with a car, I bet its driver is much less likely to swerve into your space *. Because you're not "in the way"! (Any...
- mdavidford 11 hours 15 min ago
The problem with this argument, though, is that it's just not true....
Add new comment
114 comments
Yep, saw that, Certainly the fans of the sport were very vocal on the blogs but its not getting the media frenzy as this. Is it the tour or is it sky or is it certain journalists carrying a grudge?
Astana are performing badly, very badly considering the rest of their season. I'm not talking their team leader. Same can be said for Katusha. Here's a theory, both teams with a dodgy background, has their secret potions become less secret? Spare a few individuals I have little time for either of these teams and their backgrounds.
This has all come about by King othe Dopers Jalabert,spouting garbage on his French radio station,if Froome was French he would be enrolled in the Legion of Honour,Jalabert needs to shut his mouth and recall his doping days!
I am pleased to see that releasing the data (as requested) has cleared this issue right up.
[/surprised face]
I'm going to have to send out or more beer and nachos if this "debate" goes on much longer.
if that is to me then I never said high cadence is a result of doping. Doping whether low or high cadence just helps you to sustain an effort greater and longer.
One phrase come to mind:
You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.
Just out of interest, this came out earlier:
http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/2015-tour-de-france-stage-13/
and someone who is very tainted by doping and allegations ...
Eventually all teams will be forced to do this by pressure and that's good. Going back to a point about NQ and what happens if he wins and Froome slides ... we shall see, plenty of questions about NQ and his disappearance to Columbia and occasional appearances here. Same applies to him as Froome.
Quick question - If Froome looses form and crumbles in the Alps, and Quintana goes on to win, will we be reflecting back on the media attacks and spotlight Froome has had to deal with? Could this taint the tour, or is it all fair in love & war?
Just asking as Froome looked really out of sorts in the press conference yesterday.
Sky would have been expecting the media attacks - not the cup of urine - but certainly the level of doubt and questions are not at all a surprise for them. They would have prepared accordingly. If they thought Froome was mentally weak enough for him to be effected to an extent it would hinder his performance they would have done things differently.
If Froome crumbles then the mentalists will just conclude that Sky lost their stash.
The only way to compare power outputs for different riders is to have them riding on identical equipment i.e. using the same power meter calibrated on the same day in the same way, same tyre pressures, weight the bikes so that both bike and rider weigh the same, use the same clothing, same shoe brand, helmet etc. and have them ride on the same day in identical weather and road conditions.
In other words unless you take into account all the variables, trying to compare one rider against another and come up with a meaningful answer is logically always going to have a variance of some degree, making a true and meaningful comparison somewhat pointless unless variables can be defined and measured.
If I dwelled too much on the what ifs, I would question what I saw in terms of performances in athletics, in tennis, in weight lifting, in horse racing and a load of other sports where doping and substance abuse have been prevalent.
The only one comment on here that really rings true is that this form of debate and all that it brings is Armstrong's real and lasting legacy.
I for one will him or the real or not so real suspicions spoil my enjoyment of the sport of cycling in terms of watching it and more importantly taking part.
I realise that w/kg is the 'bottom line' number is this debate, but it isn't the only one.
Accuracy of the power meter
The particular physiology and muscular makeup of a given rider - power meters provide a power figure for the entire revolution of the pedal, but the application of power by the legs is much more nuanced than that
The particular physiology and muscular makeup of a given rider and how they interact differently with oval chainrings (e.g. I might get more benefit from them than you)
drafting
And this assumes that all bikes are 6.8kg, with no clever differences that may help with climbing (not including motors!), same tyre pressures, same aerodynamics for both rider and bike etc etc.
Or, to put it another way, everyone is taking the power recorded by the rider's body, and firstly ignoring any margin for error or inconsistency between power meter brands, then secondly jumping straight to the resulting speed/time as if there is nothing else in between. That sportssctientist article makes a woeful number of assumptions.
This - and even then the conclusion seems fairly ambivalent and even giving Sky the benefit of the doubt.
yes I have mentioned before all the variables and sportscience I am sure you know is Ross Tucker who is one of pseudoscientists DB rails against.
Ross is very sceptical and remember he claims some of Froome's figures are at the top of what is possible.
You have picked for me the number one person to go for in these articles, he does not have history unlike Vayer and Ferrari and not from a cycling background.
he said for example
Ross Tucker @Scienceofsport · 17 hrs17 hours ago Boulder, CO
Woke up in parallel universe where you can climb faster than riders producing more power than you, even when they're more sheltered in group
Meanwhile, in France, a bike race is about to begin.
You are under no obligation to watch it...
but Larry, as Beaufort says directly above you it is about what Armstrong did and I would say Indurain.
With Froome for me it is different, I simply can not understand how on less or same power as others he is that much better ...
Ian - serious suggestion, not sniping, but please go read the article linked above (sport science or whatever), think about the variables you yourself mentioned, the various error bars in all the measurements, the closeness of the results and what the W/kg actually implies and then think really, really carefully if there's an issue...
I do wonder why they even entertain trying to prove they aren't doing something if, in fact, they aren't actually doing it.
Perhaps it's a sportsman/woman thing but, in his shoes, I'd be refusing any sort of call for proof or evidence that I didn't have to give and using it as a mental tool against the closest rivals. "I don't have to prove anything to anyone, I'm simply faster than you right now".
The more your opponents get annoyed and wound up by it, the more likely they are to make mistakes
It's not Sky's opponents that have an issue - in fact theres an article on the BBC where TJ and Quintana are defending Froome.
Its the public and a number of commentators they are trying to placate. In my opinion, given the disgraceful history of the sport, people have every right to question them. And to Sky's credit they seem to accept that.
It's the story that will never go away, it's the true legacy of Mr. Armstrong.
There's plenty of uncertainties in various areas, but the one sure thing doesn't seem to have been picked up?
The 7.04 watts per kilogram from French TV was presented as Froome's predicted MAP (effectively the highest average power he could achieve during the last minute of a ramp test) while Sky's 5.78 watts per kilogram is given as the actual measured power during a specific climb on a specific day.
It would certainly be surprising if Froome could do a lengthy climb averaging MAP!
Indeed it can be, Froome rides at a much lower gear than most to keep up the cadence but the power/weight ratio is the one that counts.
Look. if we take the figures at face value as presented by Sky there is an undeniable fact he does less power per KG than others but is significantly faster. That has not been explained.
Even Dr Hutch says
"The data Kerrison presented for the full climb certainly appears to pass the plausibility test – it adds up with what we saw on the day. The problem is that it’s almost impossible to jump from there to any realistic physiological data."
What the Dr Hutch article does not do is to answer the basic question, how can you do less power but be quicker ?
Whether it is the higher cadence or maybe the Pinarello bikes are better than the others for climbing, that is the unanswered question from yesterday. Actually I believe this question is NOT answered by doping.
It's pretty obvious Ianrobo
As others have said, the differences in equipment, particularly power meter readings and variances in how and where they measure mean you can't state one rider put out less or more power. As Brailsford said, numbers in isolation don't mean a great deal, they don't even take into account wind resistance / who's drafting whom and when/ conditions experienced by each rider - it was a race with breakaways where tactics were employed, not a ramp test in a lab with riders in identical conditions.
Clearly this won't satisfy you as a cynic - and because you can't prove a negative, you'll always find something to doubt. Not a lot much more to say, TBH.
Play the ball not the man.
I'm not impressed with the sportsscientists post. The chap looks as though he's well qualified, but his argument is based on assumptions and speculation.
Whatever the truth, he doesn't get us any closer to it.
Can't break him on the road try and break his mind it's been a simple sporting tactic for years. Irony is its the press not his fellow riders.
If the video is relatively accurate Lauren Tam Dam finished 9th on the stage 1.53' behind froome his data is on strava. His Vam was 1564 in a time of 1.00.31 the maths isn't that hard. yes he's exceptional but not other worldly or anywhere near.
He is doping.
You can't fake VAM. Any of us can calculate it from what we see on TV. It's easy. Just need to know how far they have left on an ascent, and a stop watch. Simples.
You can't estimate power with great accuracy, there are too many other factors such as drafting, wind direction, rolling resistance of the road surface, water bottles etc, that impact the accuracy.
So well done Sky for being so open.
And bad job French TV for lazy journalism and poor science.
So are you saying none of these matter?
- wind direction
- rider on a good/bad day
- is the rider at peak form or not?
- context: a short stage race vs the final (decisive?) climb of a GT
- solo or in a group
- repeated out-of-the-saddle attacks vs seated steady effort
- if you are comparing different events can you be sure to start & stop the clock in the same place?
It's almost as unreliable as Strava.
No-one would argue that David Millar wasn't an immensely athletic rider but in his final event as a pro he could only manage 21st in the 2014 Bec Hill Climb. Part-time pro Jack Pullar and 19 amateur club riders rode faster. No sensible person would suggest that therefore these 20 people would make a pro or even climb an Alpine pass quicker than DM.
I love data and hard facts but it is useless without CONTEXT.
Not for the purposes of calculating VAM, which is just the number of meters climbed per hour. The point being made is that the conspiracy theorists will claim that Sky have doctored the performance figures before releasing them, and whilst it'd be hard to disprove this for the power figures, the VAM figures can be easily verified if you know how high the hill is how long it took to climb.
Pages