- 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
- HKR 2 min 15 sec ago
Chapeau to Chris Boardman. The Telegraph and Daily Mail agenda is a travesty. I really hope all cyclists ignore these publications just as the...
- miekwidnes 52 min 41 sec ago
That's nothing - I did a 10,000 mile ride once in only a few hours...
- Mr Hoopdriver 1 hour 6 min ago
Does anybody else feel like crying sometimes
- Clem Fandango 2 hours 5 min ago
Bloody cyclists eh?
- ktache 4 hours 27 min ago
Well at least you can make sure that the bikes are still there by glancing up.
- john_smith 4 hours 58 min ago
How much would a MotoGP bike cost? Presumably quite a lot too.
- LookAhead 6 hours 18 min ago
How many times now has Strava announced that they're finally going to do something about the integrity of the leaderboards, but then actually done...
- Kronsteen 7 hours 27 min ago
Charlie State there: "Well, I suppose the arguement is though, that... oh yeah, there isn't really an arguement is there".
- Zazz53 10 hours 47 min ago
Changed to SRAM AXS (Force and Rival) about 5 years ago. When it works it is great but I have had 2 rear mechs, one front mech and a spider power...
- David9694 12 hours 28 min ago
I think he's a good example of why the parkcos have become so widespread among landowners operating car parks. I don't much care for the way in...
Add new comment
114 comments
I hope this puts the French Press back in their box. It won't silence the hard core conspiracy theorists because they'll just claim the data is fabricated but it might help marginalise them.
Qui est la dope maintenant Jalabert?
PR masterstroke by SKY...
The real question that will take time to surface is where is the data from Quintana, Nibali, Contador, Van Garderen?
Their teams must be thinking really, really hard about this, because they cannot ignore demands for data without falling under suspicion. SKY have gone full gas, are they going chase?
Interesting that Greg LeMond has previously commented that Froome's leaked data isn't beyond the realms of credibility.
wow.
now we have two sets of data. I wonder which one is closer to the truth? The data from Team Sky should have more credibility... but then 'they would say that' etc.
Now, would all those with the pitchforks and tar over the data issue please explain how we move on from here, and [edit - use performance data to] prove cheating or fair play?
I wonder what iamrobo and DaddyElvis think about this new data...
(Crickets)
Indeed, just what I was thinking.. Then I realised, they'll be along soon enough with a cynical rebuttal
Kerrison releases the snap-shot of data of his choosing, states Froome's weight and error-correction to reduce the power ratio to more acceptable levels, and guides the conclusion. Other riders then release their data, showing higher power output yet can't beat Froome on the road! Something fishy going on!
What is going on that is 'fishy'? Could you elaborate? Would you care to back that up with some proof instead of insinuating foul play? ..
..Or would you rather just sit on the sofa casting aspersions as you watch somebody else slog their guts out to try and achieve their goals?
Ah, thought so.
So you doubt the credibility of the data because it is from Sky. Please just tell us what data you would like and then we can end this debate. Unless no data will satisfy you as it is always tainted at source. In which case, what is your VO2max? Please post your data here so we can test if you are a credible commentator like Jalabert.
Have you actually looked into what he's said? Other riders have released data, and it doesn't line up with what Sky are saying for Froome. Either all the other riders have dodgy readings, or Froome's estimated w/kg is out:
https://www.strava.com/segments/1624487?filter=overall
http://sportsscientists.com/2015/07/great-power-great-responsibility-les...
Yep, he seems to be saying that the difference in the way Team Sky and Stages derate the power for the effect of non-round chainrings and a very small weight uncertainty * would account for the discrepancy.
* He doesn't discuss weight loss during the tour or variations during a stage, but then again we don't know when the weight used for the calculation was taken.
Ah, so you're saying that the fan-boys are unnecessarily crowing about data deliberately provided without a cross-reference and context to obfuscate matters?! That does surprise me.
and in some cases despite a higher w/kg were slower.
If we look at just Gesink as he has all his data on Strava we see
Froome - 5.79/kg
Gesink - 5.93/kg
he was about 90secs slower on the climb. Gesink is reported to be 70kg or so, Froome 67kg or so. Gesink's average for the ride were
Speed 21.8km/h
HR 179bpm
Watts 409W
VAM 1,602.8
Cadence 86
All I would say is compare that to Froome's and try and explain how Froome was significantly quicker ? Drafting ? different wind ?
The difference is weight, how many believe Froome is 68KG ? even at the start of the tour ? and of course if the weight is much lower that pushes up the W/KG ratio a lot.
But lets say he is 68kg , I ask those who are not querying Froome how he was much quicker ?
Why don't you read the article posted above for more ideas beyond the ones you've already mentioned why this might be (above and beyond the issue of power meter accuracy - read almost any review by Ray Maker on that).
Here's an idea. Maybe his mad pedalling style is more efficient, so maybe therefore he needs less power to go faster? No idea if this is true but clearly some peoples pedalling styles are more efficient than others - hell, you can test pedalling style efficiency yourself, even just by feeling how hard it is and looking at your computer to see difference in speed (not having a power meter it's how I ride!).
Err.. are you being serious?
Serious about what - higher cadence being more efficient or the way I ride?
When I start feeling that I'm pushing the pedals a little too much, I change down a gear and up my cadence - on almost every occasion this feels easier to pedal, and low and behold, when I next look at my computer I have gained speed. As a result, I now ride almost solely on my cadence (between 90 and 100 rpm).
I don't compete and just ride for enjoyment, but do like try and improve my times a little - this means there is no way I can justify a power meter and frankly want to enjoy my riding instead making every ride a training ride.
So riding by feel and cadence on the occasion I want to push myself a little works great.
Sorry I thought your comment was a joke
His power is measured in the crank. If you're more efficient at pedalling it means you can put more power into the crank which results in faster speed for less effort. Explaining that Froome could maintain higher power for longer due to his efficiency might be a better starting point, but that's not the point here
The only variables not covered by power are weight/rolling resistance, drivetrain efficiency and aerodynamics.
I do compete and I do have a power meter. And I find that if my cadence starts to drop too low (usually through inattention) when I downshift the power increases with a lower perceived effort.
Ah yes, the "high cadence" argument. Funny, but I can't help but feel I've heard that one before....
Where? Or about who?
Lance
Armstrong had a high cadence, but Ulrich was doped to the gills and couldn't have pedalled any slower. How you can suggest there might be a link high cadence and doping is just stupid - I ride with a high cadence ... does that mean I dope?
I bet you are a Daily Fail reader who get taken in by every '[insert food item here] linked to cancer' article!
I'm sorry, but just cause Armstrong had a high cadence does not mean high cadence is an excuse to hide doping. Your insinuation is just stupid.
Ulrich was doped to his eyeballs but he had a cadence which if any slower his legs wouldn't have been moving at all.
Everyone seems to think that because Armstrong doped, everything he did was wrong. Armstrong was a master of getting every little advantage, technological or riding style, and the vast majority of that was perfectly sensible science and entirely correct in it's approach. Clearly where they were completely wrong was in the use of PEDs and the way they attacked people who questioned them.
I can understand people comparing Sky to US Postal and Armstrong to Froome, as there is no doubt that there are similarities in approach, but whereas Armstrong answered critics by say 'I've never failed a test', Froome says 'I'm clean', and when anyone questions further, instead of threats and legal action that Armstrong and co employed, Froome and Sky just continue answering in a normally calm and well spoken manner. Would Armstrong have handed out all his data?
Are Sky clean ... in the words of Walsh, only they know, but there is no clear evidence otherwise, and until there is we should question, yes, but not go round making accusations and insinuations.
Are teams like US postal, Festina etc got doping programmes now, nope.
Are individuals doping, for sure but most of the cases found recently have been lesser riders. Is this because the top riders dare not do it and others trying to catch up ?
This is the problem with this entire 'debate' in microcosm: you don't know the weight of Gesink or Froome, but your entire post is based on their watts per Kg figures ! I agree that a degree of scepticism is a healthy thing, but this is picking arbitrary numbers to suit your argument.
For the record, I would like to think that Froome is clean, but would prefer to be convinced !
Regards,
Gordon
We do know weights or roughly what they are because the information is told. Again all this is a case for is for disclosure of this. Weight, Vo2 and stats. This is a data driven age, heck a data driven sport or otherwise Strava would not be popular.
As people have asked for, full openness solves a lot of this.
Basically its a rather good conspiracy theory....911 was the government, moon landings never happened, Kennedy was shot by a child accidentally from the grassy knoll.... If you allow ALL data to be viewed then why even bother racing, you already know the winner and that's then no fun at all.... There is a bio passport, doping controls, out of comp testing, now testing while on camp..... If Froome pissed in a bottle live on telly and they tested it someone would find a theory to say he dopes. Things have moved on since Lance Armstrong...its not a perfect world but its light years away from where it was.
Sadly the years of denials and court cases from Lance (note Sky hasn't sued anyone) have rather spoiled the wonder of athletic achievement for us. Like F1 changing its rules, removing doping has slowed the pack down, but that doesn't mean that exceptional individuals will stop coming forward and winning. Someone has to win after all.
So apropos of nothing; it was the anniversary of the Moon landing the other day. Lets all remember Buzz Aldrin's reaction when confronted with one of his more persistent "doubters." Endless demands for "proof" just get you a smack in the face after a while:
https://vine.co/v/M2iarDtMdbD
Pages