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.
114 thoughts on “Team Sky release Chris Froome’s data in bid to prove he’s clean”
Cycling nerds, geeks and
Cycling nerds, geeks and trainspotters, start your engines, your opportunity to froth is at hand….
crikey wrote:Cycling nerds,
And if the stats don’t match what you want them to prove, despite you being completely out of your depth at GCSE Science, just misquote them until they do.
And if you can’t even be arsed doing that, just wait for some bitter former Dungeons and Dragons playing internutter off twitter do the groundwork for you and just paraphrase that to your hearts content.
“his VAM – a measure of
“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.”
I’m sure people will never stop, but this says a lot.
I don’t get this ‘but nobody
I don’t get this ‘but nobody has ever put out x watts for x time before so it can’t be right’ attitude. Nobody had run a 4 minute mile back in 1954, but then somebody went and did it. Surely that’s how sport works, somebody is breaking a record all the time. I mean, have Froome’s numbers been that ridiculously anomalous?
“Froome produced an average
“Froome produced an average power output of 414 wats per kilogram”
“the entire climb would be closer to 390 watts per kilogram”
No need to fuel the doubters even more with typos like that 😉 I assume those figures are just Watts, not W/Kg?
MTBHuw wrote:”Froome produced
Was thinking exactly the same thing. Lets face it the villagers with flaming torches and pitchforks do not need any encouragement.
SevenHills wrote:Was thinking
No need for that. The Frenchies aren’t ALL upset about us Brits winning the tour for a 3rd time :”( Or that we staged the ‘Grandest Grand Depart’. And it were reight Grand to!
MTBHuw wrote:”Froome produced
…you misunderstand…the 414 whats is the number of times Chris Froome’s performance is questioned per KG over the course of a climb
“Froome produced an average
“Froome produced an average power output of 414 wats per kilogram” I don’t know – that doesn’t look natural… That’s over 100x my sustainable power to weight ratio. 😉
If I can get my VAM over 1000
If I can get my VAM over 1000 on a 5km hill I am over the moon….. (it happened once) so nearly twice as quick – nae bother ….
Quote:Brailsford said:
Ok then, get ride of race radios, power meters and heart rate monitors….most of Sky’s riders have been trained to race by numbers, they wouldn’t know what to do without them
Gkam84 wrote:Quote:Brailsford
Ok then, get ride of race radios, power meters and heart rate monitors….most of Sky’s riders have been trained to race by numbers, they wouldn’t know what to do without them
I doubt Geraint Thomas used any numbers to get up from yesterday’s crash, get back on his bike and still retain his position in the GC? 😉
MTBHuw wrote:
I doubt Geraint
I wouldn’t be so sure, G may have thought his ‘number’ was up! 8}
Gkam84 wrote:Quote:Brailsford
Ok then, get ride of race radios, power meters and heart rate monitors….most of Sky’s riders have been trained to race by numbers, they wouldn’t know what to do without them
The point is they’re trained by numbers, but Froome has admitted that despite the Froome looking at stems meme, he doesn’t tend to look at his PM much during racing, but goes off feel. These guys are fine tuned to know what threshold etc feels like – the numbers are there to be analysed afterwards. If you spent a race looking at your numbers, you’d last two minutes.
YorkshireMike wrote:The point
This is a really good point. I’ve started training with power, and it’s been a revelation. Now I can feel when I’m pushing a wee bit too hard or a wee bit too soft. Even draft from a passing car can change the apparent power.
But in a race, what it means is that I realize ahead of time when I am running out of matches. Doing a criterium the other day, I saw I was pulling over 500 watts coming out of the corners and knew that I’d have a choice, stay in the lead group or save myself. I decided to stay up front and exploded spectacularly, but I knew it was coming.
Gkam84 wrote:Ok then, get
Perhaps that’s what happened with Geraint Thomas yesterday, maybe Barguil didn’t actually knock him off his line but instead dislodged his earpiece and power meter causing him to just completely forget how to ride a bike?
Gkam84 wrote:Quote:Brailsford
Ok then, get ride of race radios, power meters and heart rate monitors….most of Sky’s riders have been trained to race by numbers, they wouldn’t know what to do without them
My god, that’s their secret…you’ve cracked it…they win everything, and I mean every single ever race ever, using power meters, radios, and HRMs….take them away from Sky and the playing field will be level because none of the other teams have access to such technology…..oh, hang on a minute….
…looked pretty much like racing to me when Froome kicked off at 6.5km to go the other day, and when he refused to let Quintana beat him to the line on the runway….and when Sky put the knife in when they the peloton split the other day…
farrell wrote:crikey
I agree, but Sky surely know that releasing some numbers is a better option than keeping schtum. It won’t stop the twitter haters and attention seekers but at least it may undermine the stupidity shown by some so-called journalists.
How many other teams will follow suit?
What rubbish! Really disappointing Keith, I thought you would know better.
For anyone interested in the data then Michael Hutchinson has taken a look at it for CW:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/racing/tour-de-france/what-can-we-learn-from-chris-froomes-power-data-183677
Hmmm… fighting belief with
Hmmm… fighting belief with logic will never work. Next thing will be an offer of the the power data transmitted live to L’equipe… then there will be cries that ” the power meter was doctored!”
I know I’m not there in the race but I do sometimes get the impression from watching that a fair bit of sky’s dominance is phsychological. Once the other GC boys are thinking “jeeze, froome looks on form and they have the best coaches and all the other stuff” then they are f**ked. Self fulfilling prophecy then kicks in, sitting behind the strong man hoping you can stay with him is never going to win the race is it?Meanwhile Froome & co. “know” they did everything right and just boss it. Hope the next set of mountain stages are a bit more competitive…
P3t3 wrote:Hmmm… fighting
One of the many things I like about Quintana is that he seldom looks at all bothered by anything – and I have a suspicion he knows he can put more pressure on Froome in the next few days… maybe not enough but you never know, would love to see it.
I can’t wait for the mountains to come back, especially stage 18 and the Lacets de Montvernier… watching the whole peloton go up there should be an interesting spectacle !
fukawitribe wrote:
One of the
me and my son are both fascinated by Quintana – he’s the best young rider, but he looks about 80!
I’m glad that Sky have put these numbers out, I don’t know if anyone really knows what they mean in such a narrow context, but it’s a bit rich having scoundrels like Jalabert casting doubt on Froome. Matt Rendell’s doorstepping of him was a masterpiece of gentle inquisition – there were hardly any answers, which said so much. When you see Froome looking mildly irked, you know he’s steaming inside …
It remains to be seen if other teams release similar data, and what would it really add to anyone’s understanding if they do? The best place for this kind of data is part of the bio-passport, as Brailsford suggested. Just knowing that someone out x watts on a particular climb on a particular day tells you very little, whereas a long-term record of progress and cycles will be much more likely to indicate suspicious jumps …
Ultimately though, as others have said, the criticisms are not coming from a logical position, so Sky are on a hiding to nothing trying to answer on an evidence based position ….
I think a lot of Froome’s
I think a lot of Froome’s dominance has been from the others not being where they want to be. Contador has not been up to his usual standard and maybe he’s answered whether you can win the Giro and the Tour in the same year?
Quintana hasn’t looked far off froome tbh. And Nibali, well he’s been poor.
I wonder what iamrobo and
I wonder what iamrobo and DaddyElvis think about this new data…
(Crickets)
bikeboy76 wrote:I wonder what
Indeed, just what I was thinking.. Then I realised, they’ll be along soon enough with a cynical rebuttal
bikeboy76 wrote:I wonder what
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!
daddyELVIS wrote:bikeboy76
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!— bikeboy76
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.
daddyELVIS wrote:Kerrison
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.
bikeboy76 wrote:daddyELVIS
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-less-power-greater-speeds/
olic wrote:bikeboy76
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.
olic wrote:bikeboy76 wrote:
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.
daddyELVIS wrote:bikeboy76
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!— bikeboy76
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 ?
ianrobo wrote:I ask those who
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).
ianrobo wrote:daddyELVIS
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!— daddyELVIS
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 ?— bikeboy76
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!).
joules1975 wrote:ianrobo
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!— ianrobo
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 ?— daddyELVIS
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!).— bikeboy76
Err.. are you being serious?
olic wrote:joules1975
Err.. are you being serious?— joules1975
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.
joules1975 wrote:olic
Err.. are you being serious?— olic
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.— joules1975
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.
joules1975 wrote:olic
Err.. are you being serious?— olic
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.— joules1975
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.
joules1975 wrote:
Here’s an
Ah yes, the “high cadence” argument. Funny, but I can’t help but feel I’ve heard that one before….
Paul J wrote:joules1975
Where? Or about who?
farrell wrote:Paul J
Where? Or about who?— joules1975
Lance
ianrobo wrote:farrell
Where? Or about who?— Paul J
Lance— joules1975
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!
Paul J wrote:joules1975
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.
joules1975 wrote:Are Sky
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 ?
ianrobo wrote:daddyELVIS
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!— daddyELVIS
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 ?— bikeboy76
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
legendary27 wrote:ianrobo
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!— ianrobo
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 ?— daddyELVIS
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— bikeboy76
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
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.
agentvialli wrote:Basically
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
ianrobo wrote:We do know
I agree completely on full disclosure. That would remove all of the debate, as you suggest. From a viewing perspective, it would also make it a lot more interesting (though that may only be for the geeks – I include myself in that bracket, incidentally). I like the idea of watching the contenders on a hard climb with power, heart rate and the like displayed real time.
Regards,
Gordon
legendary27 wrote:I like the
That’s a terrible, terrible idea.
It would pretty nullify most attempts at attacking and breaking away.
Interesting that Greg LeMond
Interesting that Greg LeMond has previously commented that Froome’s leaked data isn’t beyond the realms of credibility.
PR masterstroke by SKY…
The
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?
wow.
now we have two sets of
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?
Qui est la dope maintenant
Qui est la dope maintenant Jalabert?
I hope this puts the French
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.
You can’t fake VAM. Any of
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.
brackley88 wrote:You can’t
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.
Simon E wrote:brackley88
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.
He is doping.
He is doping.
Can’t break him on the road
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.
I’m not impressed with the
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.
Play the ball not the man.
Play the ball not the man.
Indeed it can be, Froome
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.
ianrobo wrote:
What the Dr
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.
There’s plenty of
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!
It’s the story that will
It’s the story that will never go away, it’s the true legacy of Mr. Armstrong.
I do wonder why they even
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 😉
LarryDavidJr wrote:I do
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.
but Larry, as Beaufort says
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 …
ianrobo wrote:but Larry, as
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…
Meanwhile, in France, a bike
Meanwhile, in France, a bike race is about to begin.
You are under no obligation to watch it…
yes I have mentioned before
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
I realise that w/kg is the
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.
notfastenough wrote:That
This – and even then the conclusion seems fairly ambivalent and even giving Sky the benefit of the doubt.
The only way to compare power
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.
Quick question – If 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.
Must be Mad wrote:Quick
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.
Must be Mad wrote:Quick
If Froome crumbles then the mentalists will just conclude that Sky lost their stash.
One phrase come to
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/
ColT wrote:One phrase come to
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.
if that is to me then I never
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.
I’m going to have to send out
I’m going to have to send out or more beer and nachos if this “debate” goes on much longer. 8>
I am pleased to see that
I am pleased to see that releasing the data (as requested) has cleared this issue right up.
[/surprised face]
If the leader was French
If the leader was French there wouldn’t be a story. Lets just cut our losses and next year just let Pinot get a 30 minute lead on the 1st stage, but even then he’ll probably cock it up with a bike change or not liking his socks colour coordination with his shorts.
I am more interested in Astana’s ‘unbelievable’ domination in the Giro and their abysmal performance in the tour. Why is that hmmm?
Amazing how the individuals doing more for the fight against doping are the ones being hammered. #howtodestroyyoursport.
Simmo72 wrote:
I am more
Are you sure ? I would go back through forums and other things from the time and see no one believes Landa (who is going to Sky it appears) was real …
BTW Sky are dominating just as much now
ianrobo wrote:Simmo72
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
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’m also concerned that a
I’m also concerned that a team such as Astana with a clear history of doping (5 positives across the teams in 2014) A UCI and Italian investigation and DS thats a former convicted doper NEVER had this level of scrutiny last year and NO questions are leveled at them this year when they fail to delivery anything of note in this years tour…. Its all a side show driven by a few loud voices in the media and a couple of former (Positive doped riders) professional riders working for French TV. All very tardy TBH.
how great would that be
how great would that be Gordon ? It is the way I think the sport has to go but I would then ban race radio …..
Already we have seen with this tour innovations with on time speed etc that gives us the viewers and commentators a lot more info. Cycling is a sport that needs all the data like F1, there is no real difference.
ianrobo wrote:how great would
Agreed – that would make it so much better. I also love it how in F1 they let you hear some of the team radio chats, that would be a brilliant addition to cycling too.
Unbelievable – only in this
Unbelievable – only in this country do we go out of the way to try and destroy something that we are actually good at…. X(
Quote:Cycling is a sport that
No, it really doesn’t.
Every year, every tour someone comes up with a wonderful idea to ‘make it better’; it’s actually fine as it is thanks, stop trying to change it, and just watch it.
crikey wrote:Quote:Cycling is
It would be nicer to have all the time gaps available (at least to the broadcasters). And the coverage to be better. On bike cameras live for example would be cool, or at least available quickly for replays.
crikey wrote:Quote:Cycling is
nope it is not fine, people want more info, people want red button access to multi cam’s why not follow just the yellow jersey if you want ?
the technology is there and it will come in, luddites better get used to it.
As to that, I found this
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/2015-power-analysis-tour-de-france-week-1
So two sky riders are releasing their data to TP for analysis so why not every Sky rider ? It will come … for every team …
Note it says data shared with athlete consent not team ..
It’s fine for those of us who
It’s fine for those of us who have been watching for the last 30 years or so, it’s fine for those of us who have a clue about what’s actually going on, it’s fine for those of us who know what racing is all about.
Don’t turn it into a computer game, thanks.
crikey wrote:It’s fine for
the sport has got much larger than that, I started to watch in 95 or so just before Lance and the coverage is basically the same. Even the introduction of speed per rider seems so simple this TDF. It will happen whether you like or not. They have to sell to TV and you need the cash to run the teams.
crikey wrote:It’s fine for
Hilarious ! What a load of nonsense. Handily though, I have been watching for the last 30 years, have a clue what is actually going on and know what racing is all about, so I am equally well-qualified in this regard. That said, I am not sufficiently up my own backside to think that that is what matters when offering an opinion on the state of competitive cycling currently.
I love the idea that by periodically displaying more information on riders’ physiology real-time, we suddenly confuse everyone as to what is going on in the race. Do you really think people are that stupid ?
Are you still coming to terms with all of the bright colours that televisions display these days ? Was it better in shades of grey ?
Regards,
Gordon
…and it would appear that
…and it would appear that more information would only give people even more to argue about even though they struggle with understanding the basics…
Mmmm, and if was run by
Mmmm, and if was run by people who think like you we’ll be having 30 second uphill sprints to decide the polka dot jersey and the yellow jersey will be awarded to the rider with the largest watts per kg measurement.
Dig into the data as much as you want, you’re completely missing the point of pro cycle sport, in fact of cycle sport in general.
Take away the human element, reduce it to numbers on a screen and see it die.
not taking away the human
not taking away the human element, in fact it helps people to see what humans can do. No one seriously thinks putting HR and watts on the screen, but we have speed now, why not cadence ?
We now have a website to show positions and speed of riders on the course, so that can be put on the screen. At one time int he ITV coverage i had to watch Phil could not even say where some of the riders between 1st and chasing group were, that is mad.
Why not live on the bike feeds ?
Full stats only made available after the race, many riders do it now anyway.
Detecting doping by
Detecting doping by performance is doomed to throw out the baby with the bathwater – there’s just too much overlap between what doping can do and what can be achieved by doping free planning, training, strategy and mental focus.
Now if Froome would publicly just say “no” to marginally legal marginal gain cortico-steroids I would be happy. The old king was a doper, the new a hypochondriac, and there is only a slippery slope between the two.
ch wrote:Now if Froome would
What a load of bollocks. Froome may be a hypochondriac, as are a lot of the riders, but the fact is what they are taking is legal under UCI and WADA rules. And if you think Froome’s the only one taking approved substances, then you really don;t understand the history of doping. All of them are at it, so therefore it’s a level, legal, playing field.
What Armstrong et al took was not legal. It’s just wrong to imply because someone is taking something legally that they’re as bad as someone who deliberately broke the rules.
If you disagree with the substances available for them legally, then you should probably take that issue up with Messrs Pound and Cookson rather than spend your life insinuating the riders are all dopers. Or some are and others aren’t.
Just a thought on technology
Just a thought on technology being added to the tv screen. I was out last night with a group of 7 other lads just for a short spin when someone brought it up. All 8 of us said defo no.
Not many people are interested in cadence, HR etc etc. As one lad said “whats wrong with the motorbike camera pointing at the speedo to see how fast they are going”.
Like thousands of others i watch cycling for the cycling not for gimmicky things stuck onto the tv screen.
At the moment cycling is losing money with sponsors pulling out and whole teams disappearing yet some on here want more money spent on gadgets and gimmicks which obviously dont grow on trees, so where does that money come from. The teams wont pay for it and the cost of fitting every rider with cameras and all sorts of electrical gizmo’s is not cheap. TV wont pay for it either as Eurosport gets the feeds from the local broadcaster who i’m pretty damn sure wont pay for it either.
stumps wrote:Like thousands
I agree. I like to see the speed at times, if only to think “how the hell can they go that fast?!” but firmly believe that the idea that more data means more enjoyment or interest is a fallacy.
There are frequent mentions of Formula 1, as if it’s something to emulate, but I find that pointless and even disingenuous. F1 is driven by an industry with huge amounts of money where small differences are significant. I also think it lets people think that giving spectators access to numbers is an important part of the sport; I don’t think it is. Why do we watch it? We want to see personalities, head to head racing and do-or-die efforts, riders turning themselves out to win, to retain a jersey or position. It gives these things value.
Cycling is a tough sport that is about suffering. Why do so many watch on the climbs or at the finish? Because they witness the effort and suffering etched on the riders faces. It changes their perception of the sport and the riders. I’m not interested in a rider’s HRM or power output on a climb, I want to know what he thinks afterwards, what he experienced and how he felt. There are too few interviews and quotes, too little insight.
Perhaps in this age of everything being on social media we are missing the poetry of the reporter, the ability (or maybe the opportunity) to tell stories. I’m listening to the Cycling Podcast a lot during this Tour, reading less, both paper & online, and listening more. Voices and stories, rather than numbers.
There is a growing sense of a new “peloton a deux vitesses” but now it’s not doping but money. Rich teams snap up the strongest riders as domestiques. They have big, swanky buses, the best facilities, frequent trips to Mount Teide etc. Sky’s 30 (!) vehicles have been hogging the hotel car parks at the Tour. It makes for a wider gulf between the top few and the rest and fewer chances for the ‘minnow’ team riders to shine. Races become more predictable. It becomes harder for the other teams to attract new sponsors, not just because the cost of being competitive is beyond them but they also get far less exposure and interest.
Europcar dropped down to ProConti for 2015 and has just 10 days to find a replacement sponsor or Bernadeau will have to let his riders go. His budget: €5 million. Sky’s 2013 spending was €26.7 million, it will be more this year.
I think Marc Madiot made some legitimate points about this last week:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/marc-madiot/marc-madiot-blog-motorhome-go-home
Simon E wrote:[
There are
What and cycling is not ?
We have basically factory teams – Cannondale, Trek, Giant
Sky and marginal gains where small differences are significant
Tech is developed and used by the teams (though as with disc brakes it works it way up as well)
There is no real difference, as people say money rules and look at the top of the TDF and notice the large teams there. I wonder what Movistar’s budget is for example ?
the difference for me is that unlike other sports I don;t follow a team or a rider but I love watching how the guys do the things I can not. So I would love to see the proper gradient that they are climbing at the time you see them for example.
soon this will be available online and the TV coverage will follow
stumps that is where Velon
stumps that is where Velon come in, they are providing the on bike pics and of course go pro is being mentioned all the time …
also you said teams are struggling and yet you want to keep to the same status quo, the same coverage where the commentators have no idea where riders are on the road ?
ianrobo wrote:stumps that is
Going by this site we can choose 594 riders but i’m sure there are more. So every rider and every bike has to be equipped with transponders, every bike / rider has to be equipped with go pro or similar, so who cover this cost ? As my point was team’s are folding due to lack of cash and sponsors pulling out yet you want them to spend more of what they dont have. The spare bike Contador had the other day didn’t have a transponder and thats one of the richest teams. So i say again where does the money come from. Carlton Kirby said the other day they didn’t have enough transponders on the motor bikes to cover every group on the mountain and thats for the worlds biggest race.
Also with 200 riders in the race how do you go about choosing whose data to see on the screen and how would it be displayed so that the tv screen actually shows the riders themselves rather than stupid images of cadence. hr etc. The smaller teams are not going to buy into it if the only info the viewer gets is for the GT contenders are they ?
Not knowing where riders are adds to the excitement of the race in my opinion as you just dont know how your favourite rider / team are doing until they cross the line.
One of the best pieces of action was from many years ago when Delgado was climbing towards the finish trying to put time into Roche and no one knew where Roche was until he appeared out of the low cloud closing rapidly on Delgado. The commentator nearly wet themselves and i, as a young kid, was jumping up and down screaming at the tv for Roche to catch him. That is cycling and that is priceless, not boring, mind numbing digital read outs on the screen.
I think we need to be
I think we need to be cautious about comparing cycling to F1 given that interest in F1 is dwindling.
vonhelmet wrote:I think we
Yeah it is, but I think that is mostly due to the processional nature of the sport. F1 as a sport bores me but I love the tech and the interactive television coverage where I can choose who to follow and listen to.
Correction re. vehicle
Correction re. vehicle numbers. Sky normally have 11 at races, there are 14 at this Tour including the RVs.
The figure of 30, apparently from L’Equipe, is likely the total number of vehicles available to the team. Source: Sky’s Jaguar mechanic Martin Ayres (@teamsky_jaguar), interviewed in https://audioboom.com/boos/3395940-kilometre-0-on-the-buses
F1 is possibly the worst
F1 is possibly the worst example; they need to provide something for people to look at because the racing is so dull. What other race would begin by putting the fastest people at the front of the grid and then expecting a spectacle?
Gordon, go for a lie down fella!
Always amuses me that F1 is
Always amuses me that F1 is provided as the shining example to aspire to. Its actually gone backwards in terms of information presented to viewers in recent years, and the way it treats its fans is woeful.
We saw ‘live’ gradient numbers for individual riders during the Giro, and that worked well I thought.
Heart rates and power numbers? Seems a bit abstract to me.
Would love to listen in to some team radios… but the other teams would listen in to, which would ruin the tactical aspect.
One think I would like, is much better mapping to see where they are riding (those ‘3d’ fly by graphics are just useless)
Apart from that, just enjoy the racing. Cycling is a wonderful sport, and could do so much better if the media were a little more [u]responsible[/u] about yelling ‘doper’ whenever a rider wins a race.
Climb graphics like the ones
Climb graphics like the ones veloviewer do would be good.
Does anyone out their think
Does anyone out their think if Sky had a Frenchman in their team ,who was leading the TDF ,or was at least capable under the Team Sky banner ,of winning the tour ,would the media castigate him for winning .Dont think so .Do you ?..
Would Sky consider taking on a Pinot ,or any worthy French rider to nurchur and win the Tour to give the French their first win in a long long time ,it would be a feather in Sky’s cap I’m sure of that .How good would that be .For France and Team Sky .
Last year there was talk of
Last year there was talk of Sky picking up a French rider with a view to getting a French Tour winner for the first time in however long. At the time Pinot’s name was mentioned, but Bardet could be a good shout. The French may not be happy about one of theirs going to Sky now, though, so the moment may have passed.