To be fair to Sky, they have done pretty well going into detail when providing information. Just wish we saw it from other riders as well.
How have they dont a good job? By calling everyone else with scientific credentials or knowledge "pseudo-scientist"? Or by trying to tell us this oval chain ring is so efficient it accounts for a 90 second gap on a climb.
wogsrus wrote:
Another element we are not talking about is Strava itself, where Gesink, Yates etc power estimates came from. It doesn't exactly produce accurate power measurements.
Also, wrote a blog, very relevant to the whole piss throwing and punching incidents. Check it out, and read the comments below the article if you need further clarification.
When you upload your ride to Strava it gives you a watts estimate which will be incorrect but when you upload having used a power meter like Gesink, Yates have done then Stava takes the power estimate of the power meter and doesn't use its own estimate, thus meaning Genisnk's and Yates files from that day are correct. Which means they apparently have put out more W/KG than Froome.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
cio93 wrote:
Wait. Isn't "overestimating a power output by 6%" practically the same as "increasing your performance by 6%"?
If so, I'm very interested who uses those chainrings because they're basically riding a separate race then.
If not, I'm just tired.
Overestimating power output isn't increasing performance at all it just means you are getting incorrect readings due to the shape of the rings, there is no diffrenece in actual performance. The the overestimation means it gives you a higher reading than what the power file will say so you need to subtract x% to gain an accurate reading. With Quarq for instance it's around 2% and with stages (which is what Sky use) it's between 4-5%. Now what I find confusing is that Kerrison and Sky are subtracting 6% from Frrome's power file to come to his W/p kg, Stages have stated its 4-5% and other independent users also say this is correct so Sky have got this wrong.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
Another interesting thing is Froome's apprent weight gain, in 2013 at the Tour Froome himself said he weighed in at 66 kgs yet they claim this year at the Tour he weighs 67.5 kgs, did Froome really gain 1.5 kgs in the time between? That's alot of weight for a GC contender to gain. Also what I don't understand is Brailsford saying on several occasions they don't weigh riders but yet he knows the power numbers, you can't ever get correct numbers if you don't take a riders weight into calculation. For a team that prides itself on attention to detail they come up short on details
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
On a likely underestimate of Froome's power (addresses lots of the points you raise Strydz) by Sky see another excellent piece by Tucker https://sportsscie...er-speeds/
Particularly comparing to others who we have data for on that climb Tucker's numbers make a lot more sense. Again note his restating that numbers alone and in isolation don't prove anything (unless he were riding at something crazy like 6.7W/Kg which he isn't) but taking a broader view gives a better picture.
Edited by ianrussell on 22-07-2015 08:39
To be fair to Sky, they have done pretty well going into detail when providing information. Just wish we saw it from other riders as well.
How have they dont a good job? By calling everyone else with scientific credentials or knowledge "pseudo-scientist"? Or by trying to tell us this oval chain ring is so efficient it accounts for a 90 second gap on a climb.
Good probably wasn't the best way to describe it. Maybe, comparably against other top teams they have given more information is a better phrase.
Particularly comparing to others who we have data for on that climb Tucker's numbers make a lot more sense. Again note his restating that numbers alone and in isolation don't prove anything but taking a broader view gives a better picture.
Tucker is very good at weighing up all the sides of the story. Once again, a very well balanced piece of writing.
Some of the things being posted here at the moment are going somewhat above my head. I haven't read that much about the numbers, so I'm not going to comment on their meaning.
Still, Sky cultivates their image as being the by far most anal team when it comes to taking a "scientific" approach to cycling. If they really are as thourough as they want to be percieved as, then there is no way they would allow for such margins of error as we see here.
I am not a fan of Sky, mostly because of what I see as overly-scientific cycling, but also because they appear to be hypocritical crocks of shit with their marginal gains.
"We've designed a streamlined helmet perfectly suited for the exact number of hairs on each riders head. We've also developed a fusion-based razer that not only removes hairs from the riders legs, but also streamlines the remaining follicles for minimum drag.
But our riders weight? What do I look like? The oracle of delphi?"
Strydz wrote:
Another interesting thing is Froome's apprent weight gain, in 2013 at the Tour Froome himself said he weighed in at 66 kgs yet they claim this year at the Tour he weighs 67.5 kgs, did Froome really gain 1.5 kgs in the time between? That's alot of weight for a GC contender to gain.
It's only a marginal weight gain.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
Strydz wrote:
Another interesting thing is Froome's apprent weight gain, in 2013 at the Tour Froome himself said he weighed in at 66 kgs yet they claim this year at the Tour he weighs 67.5 kgs, did Froome really gain 1.5 kgs in the time between? That's alot of weight for a GC contender to gain.
It's only a marginal weight gain.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
Strydz wrote:
Another interesting thing is Froome's apprent weight gain, in 2013 at the Tour Froome himself said he weighed in at 66 kgs yet they claim this year at the Tour he weighs 67.5 kgs, did Froome really gain 1.5 kgs in the time between? That's alot of weight for a GC contender to gain.
It's only a marginal weight gain.
He went a long time injured last year as well, or he might just been a bit lazy this winter. Not to mention there has been two tdf's with cobbles in a row, a kilo might be a marginal difference, not that i find this one very likely.
New York Knicks - Bardiani CFS - AG2R - Millwall FC - Le Havre AC
The coverage of the Tour de France has been hilariously one-sided, inaccurate, biased and ridiculous in the British press so far, but I think this article in The Times today takes the biscuit:
Tour de Force
Chris Froome deserves our admiration. Doubters must produce evidence, or desist.
It is hard not to view with amusement the disbelief in France that an Englishman is winning the Tour de France. However, the hostility and suspicion with which Chris Froome and Team Sky are being viewed is far from funny. The host broadcaster of the Tour, France 2, confronted Sir Dave Brailsford on air with the uninformed suspicions of a French physiologist, allegations it illustrated with a picture of Lance Armstrong. The implication was clear: Armstrong was too good to be true, ergo so is Froome.
This is unedifying, unsporting and unfair. Professional cycling may never shake off the toxic legacy of Armstrong, but Froome insists that he is clean, and there is no proof that he is not. The only 'evidence' thus far is his excellence. Nonetheless, he is being tainted by association, presumed guilty until proven innocent. Froome and Sky have few tools with which to fight back other than flat, consistent denial. In the circumstances, it was right that they released sensitive technical data about Froome's performance, which appeared to back up their assertions.
It may be that the hostility of France's journalists is attributable to the fact that they missed the Armstrong story unfolding in their own back yard. Instead, it was the dogged work of a British journalist, David Walsh, that exposed him as a fraud. After many years following Froome's career and questionining his success, Walsh says he has found no evidence that he is doping and is 'inclined to believe' his denials. Froome himself has been admirably measured in his response and dogged in his denial of wrongdoing. Unless and until there is evidence to the contrary, we too are inclined to believe him. If he is lying, the truth will, one day, out.
If the French find it difficult to countenance an Englishman winning 'their' race, perhaps the solution is to relocate it. Tour d'Allemagne, anyone?
Just to highlight a few particularly hilarious bits:
Froome insists that he is clean, and there is no proof that he is not. The only 'evidence' thus far is his excellence.
Well of course there is no proof that he is not, there was no proof that Armstrong was not clean at this point in his career, but article, instead of looking into the evidence (rapid transformation, Leinders etc) just says there is no evidence at all, and works on a 'well if he says it's true, it must be true' basis, great journalism that.
sensitive technical data
So sensitive that other riders publish it on Strava, available for viewing by the general public...
It may be that the hostility of France's journalists is attributable to the fact that they missed the Armstrong story unfolding in their own back yard.
Never once does the British press seek an explanation as to why French journalists are so suspicious, other than dismissing it as racism.
Instead, it was the dogged work of a British journalist, David Walsh, that exposed him as a fraud.
All hail David Walsh, Britannia rules the waves!
After many years following Froome's career and questionining his success
Lol good one, Walsh definitely spent many years questioning Froome
Froome himself has been admirably measured in his response and dogged in his denial of wrongdoing.
Yay Go Froome! Isn't he just a splendid chap!
If he is lying, the truth will, one day, out.
Some sense at last
If the French find it difficult to countenance an Englishman winning 'their' race, perhaps the solution is to relocate it. Tour d'Allemagne, anyone?
Idea: Let's finish the article off with a pointless racist remark. Good idea anyone?
Brings us back to the subtitle:
Chris Froome deserves our admiration. Doubters must produce evidence, or desist.
The doubters are producing the evidence, it is just ignored. What evidence do Sky have on their side? Nutella? Osymetric chain rings? We say he's clean therefore he is?
God I hate the press in this country... Someone needs to humanely (or not actually, I wouldn't mind) dispose of Rupert Murdoch, and fast.
Come on Stromeon. Aside from the article's dodgy xenophobic angle at the end, it does basically make the point that there isnt any evidence of foul play.
Isnt Walsh's backing good enough?
So if Sky are doping, then are you saying the other teams aren't? If they are, why arent they getting targeted, abused, etc?
As fans of the sport, you're doing yourselves no favours by this constant stream of nonsense. It's all driven by other agendas anyway, from reading this forum - "I hate Brailsford....", "I hate Sky's tactics....", "I don't like Froome's wife.....", "I hate Murdoch......".
As for the armchair biosciences, Brailsford isnt gonna come out and say "That's it! Joe Bloggs from Pcmdaily forum has busted us! We're gonna pull out."
Watch the sport and leave the investigating to the right people, if they're cheating they'll get caught or we'll just never know, and you can go back to watching sport without this mass hysteria.
Oh dear lord that is some top shelf bullshit! Maybe when they are talking about Walsh questioning Froome's performance they are referring to Walsh saying he didn't like Froome getting a TUE before Romandie in 2014, outside of that I can't really remember Walsh saying Boo about Froome. Walsh got his man in Armstrong and has basically given up critical thinking from what I can see, fair enough I guess but using his word as Gospel when it comes to Sky doesn't stack up.
I always love the absolute 100% needle hanging out of the arm evidence argument people require when they want to believe, unless you are running a completely amateurish doping program you are always going to be in front of the testers, all people can do is put together the little pieces that come out. The Froome story just doesn't make any sense from his miracle constantly changing story concerning Bilharzia so his weight, numbers and so on. Even the Australian coverage has jumped on the bandwagon so its not just the British press
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
Dee-Jay wrote:
Come on Stromeon. Aside from the article's dodgy xenophobic angle at the end, it does basically make the point that there isnt any evidence of foul play.
Isnt Walsh's backing good enough?
So if Sky are doping, then are you saying the other teams aren't? If they are, why arent they getting targeted, abused, etc?
As fans of the sport, you're doing yourselves no favours by this constant stream of nonsense. It's all driven by other agendas anyway, from reading this forum - "I hate Brailsford....", "I hate Sky's tactics....", "I don't like Froome's wife.....", "I hate Murdoch......".
As for the armchair biosciences, Brailsford isnt gonna come out and say "That's it! Joe Bloggs from Pcmdaily forum has busted us! We're gonna pull out."
Watch the sport and leave the investigating to the right people, if they're cheating they'll get caught or we'll just never know, and you can go back to watching sport without this mass hysteria.
I don't think to many are suggesting that the other teams are clean, I agree the focus on Sky can be over the top but when you are dominating the biggest race in the world with a rider who literally came from nowhere to being one of the dominant GT riders of his generation then why can't people ask questions? Also as fans of the sport people have every right to ask questions, I do constantly but I also still enjoy the sport. People shouldn't cheat s why not call it out when things look to good to be true
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
On the subject of nationalism, and Froome in particular(I'm British by the way), it only goes so far with me anyway but is undeniably one factor in how many of us identify with riders and therefore develop favourites.
Froome is often said to present what he thinks people want to see and that would also be my reading in the limited interviews I've seen - no-one seems to have any idea who he really is...
Anyway I seem to remember him being vocal about the African links way back and now being a sponsor convenient Brit seems...well, convenient and again not genuine, even if it's understandable from Sky and therefore Froome. Highlights from that interview below pertaining to this for what it's worth:
"Froome has one of the most unique backgrounds in the European peloton. Born in Kenya, he moved with his family to South Africa as a teen-ager. In 2008, he changed his nationality to British.
VeloNews: A little bit about your background, are your parents both from Africa?
Chris Froome: My mother was born in Kenya and my father was born in the UK, but they both spent most of their lives in Kenya. My father’s now moved down to Johannesburg and my mother passed away in 2008."
Digressing a bit as it's neither hate (more mild dislike) nor doping (except alluding to underlying personality) but he's primarily not likable to me because there's nothing I perceive to be genuine about his presentation. There is nothing wrong with being African or even, like me, British(!) but changing to suit the circumstances seems like another manifestation of something that just doesn't sit right with me.
Also note the last question of the interview:
"VN: Are you staying with Sky?
CF: I would like to stay. Sky has said they would like to keep me, but we haven’t come to an agreement just of yet."
If conclusions are based on guesswork then they are not scientific, so I think 'pseudo scientist' was a fairly accurate description. We don't have any scientific evidence of doping in Team Sky. There's nothing that's happened that can only be explained by doping.
We do have some pretty hefty circumstantial evidence. It's a professional sport so the riders have the motive and the means to cheat. It's a reasonable expectation that everyone will do whatever they can to improve their performance without being caught breaking the rules. We also know that it's possible to cheat and not get caught, so we know there's nothing we can do to rule it out as a possibility. Unless there's a reason to doubt it, I think it's safe to assume they're cheating.
I just have this nagging suspicion that perhaps Sky aren't doping. Too much of their story adds up.
Was there room for significant improvement in rider training methods? Absolutely. Sports science and understanding of training methods have improved hugely in recent years.
Is it possible that riders like Froome are training harder than other top riders? Of course. Do we know any riders who optimise 100% of their time? There's always room for improvement. It's no stretch to think that riders who have doped might have concentrated on doping rather than training.
Can technical improvements produce significant gains? They have done in the past, and things like oval chain rings are pretty simple science really.
Do Sky have the resources to achieve success through legitimate means? Definitely. It would be very strange if we weren't seeing success.
Are any of Team Sky's actions inconsistent with them being legitimate? No. They have business reasons for not being entirely transparent, and I think also legal reasons why they can't refuse to employ someone unless a doping connection is proven. They have been relatively successful but nothing extraordinary.
Can their performances be explained by legitimate means? Yes. Even small advantages produce significant differences when applied to lengthy endurance activities like road cycling. For the current TDF, it seems to be the other top riders performing badly rather than Froome performing exceptionally.
Is anyone in a position to judge any of this accurately? Unfortunately not.
Also, I don't see that it's in the interest of Sky to cheat if there is any chance of being caught, as it would be a major problem for the whole Sky corporation. Given how integral their corporate operations are there is no way for Sky to distance themselves from the team were there any problems, so there will be huge pressure from the sponsor (and the sponsor is well-known for being able to exert pressure) to maintain a 100% clean image. Given the history of cycling, I don't see anyone having any confidence that doping would remain a secret if it took place. It's a tiny community, someone inevitably finds out. This doesn't mean the riders aren't cheating, but I just can't see it happening at a team level. I don't think it would be worth it for them, or even necessary. Various people with experience of doping seem to think that it's possible to win clean now, any maybe even before. If it is possible to succeed and be clean then Sky and their resources are the obvious candidates for being the team to do so.
For what its worth, I think both Froome and Thomas come across as some of the nicer guys in the peloton. They seem polite, calm and friendly, so I can't fault them on attitude. I'm not so much a fan of Porte, he seems to take too much delight in the misfortune of others for my taste, but as long as he doesn't win anything he'll still be amusing. I don't like the fact that Dave Brailsford is heavily influenced by business methods, but he is one of the few people talking sense about doping.
I'm happy to object to Sky's commercialism and ultra-corporate policies, that's a big enough problem for anyone, but I don't see a reason to hate them above and beyond anyoe else for anything doping-related.
Rubbish. Do you really think the other teams would be so behind in technology and training methods to allow such a domination by Sky. Especially Astana and Tinkoff as I can assure you they don't have less finances than Sky. You can't just come out of nowhere at 27 and become the best cyclist in the world. And this is what Froome did. Escape from mediocrity by a way that's too suspicious. Moreover he had to go through abl blood illness and suddenly like with a magic stick without very little recovery he became a superhuman. And when asked about this he just claims he's clean and does nothing to support his claim. Does it look familiar with an American 10 years ago? And what does the UCI do? They fight doping ofc, but only when it's about guys like Kreuziger-helpers of Froome's opponents. UCI is just like FIFA corrupt as heck.
dark_x2012 wrote:
Rubbish. Do you really think the other teams would be so behind in technology and training methods to allow such a domination by Sky.
Yes. You don't need to be far behind for it to show. It's not just about money, it's about the time and effort spent studying, and that just hasn't taken place until very recently. Professional sports, especially those that have been operating for a long time with the same rules/equipment, and expecially those with relatively niche communities and little money (comparatively speaking), have long been observed to be slow to adapt to new advances. I have no problem believing that teams like Astana and Tinkoff are behind in their training and technology when even football teams with budgets that are orders of magnitude larger than cycling teams are still using poor methods. Particularly when those cycling teams contain and/or are run by proven dopers.
You can't just come out of nowhere at 27 and become the best cyclist in the world. And this is what Froome did.
No, it isn't. Froome went from achieving average results in 2007, to being good enough to attract the attention of Sky in 2008, to winning the odd stage in 2009, to working as a domestique at Sky in 2010, to being a good domestique in 2011, to being the top domestique in 2012, to winning the TDF in 2013. His improvements took place over 6 years and coincided with a) moving to a team with better training, b) using better equipment, c) reaching physical peak age, and d) to the best of our knowledge, gradually recovering from a parasitic illness. There are at least 4 good reasons to expect to see improvements in Froome over that time period. Results aren't a great indicator to go by, since riders don't get great individual results when they're working as a domestique.
Does it look familiar with an American 10 years ago?
No, not particularly. Froome comes across as a nice guy whereas Armstrong spectacularly didn't. Armstrong was a sprinter who suddenly did superhuman solo climbing feats, whereas Froome is a climber who climbs a little bit better than others on some days while being supported by a team of good climbers. Also, Froome seems to be making an effort to be more open. I agree that neither Froome nor Armstrong have proved they are clean, but since it's not actually possible to prove that you are clean they also share that with everyone else.
what does the UCI do? They fight doping ofc, but only when it's about guys like Kreuziger-helpers of Froome's opponents. UCI is just like FIFA corrupt as heck.
The UCI being inept/corrupt is a separate matter. I agree that it's possible that the UCI is covering up a huge doping scheme at Sky, because I'm sure that cycling becoming more popular in the UK is great for the sport and for bringing money to the UCI. But it's also possible that a corrupt UCI is going after Kreuziger because he dopes and not going after Sky riders because they don't.
