issoisso wrote:
Sky claim the data doesn't have his VO2Max because they've never bothered to measure it. Yet again they show that 'attention to detail', 'marginal gains', etc etc is all bullshit, they haven't even measured a basic parameter of the athlete's performance.

CountArach wrote:
Apparently Grappe is the one looking at the data for L'Equipe and I'm willing to take his word here.

Un extra-terrestre? Certainement pas. Un obsessionnel du travail et du détail, oui certainement.

issoisso wrote:
Wait, I just read what you wrote. It's not bio passport, it's just power data, which is meaningless if it's only from after his incredible transformation. Also, it's not public, it's only released to L'Équipe.

Dizzle wrote:
Shame it's only the data from Vuelta 11 and onwards, would be more interesting to see his data from before.

kumazan wrote:


Vaughters disagrees.

issoisso wrote:


No he doesn't

You're misunderstanding the word 'basic'. Vaughters uses a more advanced test of ability. VO2max is, like I said, a basic parameter

Vaughters tests VO2max as well. But only as one of many tests after the rider is on the team. He just doesn't use it as the be-all, end-all of performance to sign rider.

It's another parameter along with many others that's tested afterwards.

kumazan wrote:


I hope you're willing to take his word on Armstrong as well.

https://fr.rec.spo...-armstrong

I love this bit (on Lance):



Sounds familiar.

kumazan wrote:


That's not what he says here:

@corkintheocean @SSbike @inrng No. We measure a lot of parameters in evaluating talent, but vo2 max isn't one.

— Jonathan Vaughters (@Vaughters) July 18, 2013

Spilak23 wrote:
Arguably the two biggest gc talents of that generation haven't improved since 2005: Lovkvist and Dekker

mb2612 wrote:
So, Froome's been pretty dominant this year, but the riders he is beating all seem to be either:
a) Past their peak
b) notyet at their peak
or c) not a top rider.

So I started thinking whether Froome is being made to look better because his competition just isn't up to the mark. looking at ages I figure that riders are at their peak between 26 and 29, so anyone born between 1986 and 1983. Now look at the cqranking page: https://www.cqrank...gRider.asp
4 of the top 5 this year were born in 84 or 85 which supports this argument, 44 out of the top 100 were also born between 1983 and 1986.

If we go back 4 years, to 2009, then the peak age for riders should be 1982 to 1979 and we have three of the top five in this age bracket, so this has some validity. If we go back further riders get older, however I feel that this is because doping meant old riders hung around longer.

But now lets look at GC riders born in 1986-1983, these are Froome's competition:

CQ Ranking	Change	Nationality	Name	Team	Age	Points
1	-11		FROOME Chris	SKY	20/05/1985	1969
3	-7		NIBALI Vincenzo	AST	14/11/1984	1669
5	-66		PORTE Richie	SKY	30/01/1985	1321
10	-12		COSTA Rui Alberto Faria	MOV	05/10/1986	977
14	-45		MARTIN Daniel	GRS	20/08/1986	868
16	-155		SPILAK Simon	KAT	23/06/1986	860
17	-56		MOLLEMA Bauke	BLA	26/11/1986	851
20	-180		SANTAMBROGIO Mauro	VIN	07/10/1984	810
32	-48		KREUZIGER Roman	TST	06/05/1986	604
50	-141		MORENO BAZAN Javier	MOV	18/07/1984	453
54	-149		INTXAUSTI ELORRIAGA Beñat	MOV	20/03/1986	443
55	-212		FRANK Mathias	BMC	09/12/1986	433
60	-61		FUGLSANG Jakob	AST	22/03/1985	414
70	-214		BOUET Maxime	ALM	03/11/1986	372
72	-112		BAKELANTS Jan	RLT	14/02/1986	355
76	-44		VAN DEN BROECK Jurgen	LTB	01/02/1983	341
83	-556		SEELDRAEYERS Kevin	AST	12/09/1986	323
85	-91		MACHADO Tiago Jose Pinto	RLT	18/10/1985	318
86	-205		NAVARRO GARCIA Daniel	COF	08/07/1983	317
89	-128		ANTON HERNANDEZ Igor	EUS	02/03/1983	308
97	-86		ROLLAND Pierre	EUC	10/10/1986	297
98	-379		GAUDIN Damien	EUC	20/08/1986	296

That's the best cycling has to offer, and bar the top two none have ever threated to win a GT. So what happened, where are the great riders of this generation? I guess if you look down the list you can spot Anton hovering at the bottom, crashes have really ruined his hopes. Then there are Schleck and Gesink, again crashes, and for Schleck other things, means they will never reach the heights the promised.

This is why Froome is dominant. Not because of some secret doping or training. It's because his rivals have all crashed out of top level cycling.

mb2612 wrote:
2) My argument would be that Nibali is a step below where Gesink, Anton, Schleck promised to be. Until this Giro Nibali had never been a great climber.

mb2612 wrote:
2) My argument would be that Nibali is a step below where Gesink, Anton, Schleck promised to be. Until this Giro Nibali had never been a great climber.