All seen this? I don't know the implications, i've not studied it myself yet, but possibly fuel for the flames, or (hopefully) a nice bucket of water
Nothing will happen from that. They're all numbers from his dominating performances from Vuelta '11 until now. Sky are not worried about anything in that period as there's been no significant changes.
Those of us who've followed cycling for, 10, 15, 20 years have seen this same debate time and time again. And the answer has always been the same.
If we keep pushing the critical people away from the sport there's no way we'll ever see it clean. More people should be held accountable for what they've done incl. Directeur sportifs and the UCI.
And we're not being overly critical. We all agree a positive is needed to remove Froome from the sport. But not having tested positive certainly never meant a person didn't dope
Ybodonk wrote:
Iso or Aquarius can you explain the following for me.
I have been injured for 8 months (back thigh muscle completely teared apart), never recovered properly.
However last 2months I have been training a lot on the cross machine (the one where you kind of skiing). The highest avg Watt I have done was 287 for 16 minutes. Sometimes I make sprint intervals for 40 seconds of 400-500 watts 10 times with 1-1.30 break.
Whenever i try to go over to the bike, I cant an avg of just 200 watts for a couple of minutes ? Are there an explanation to this ? I mean im only using the legs in both cardio-machines, so why can i not convert the same power/energy into the bike ?
1) How accurate are the measurements on the different gears ? What's the margin of error ?
2) There are 3 basic types of muscular contractions (concentric, eccentric, isometric), and more than a dozen of muscles on each leg, so the fact that you "use your legs" doesn't mean the same power and the same kind of contractions. Then it depends on your level of ability to determine how much muscular fibres you can recruit to produce an effort. The more you recruit, the more power the muscle produces. And, contrary to a rather common belief, the fact that all fibres move during an effort (concentric or eccentric) doesn't mean they're all recruited, those that aren't are just moving alongside.
BritPCMFan wrote:
Its post Vuelta 11. Basically, all it proves to people on the dope-froome camp is that his been doping at the same level since then.
It doesn't prove that, but it's pretty worthless.
You'd wonder why they don't release all the numbers they have on him though.
You're mistaking proof for evidence. There's no proof Froome is doping, but there's a lot of evidence
Its circumstantial at best.
Obviously the pre Vuelta data is gonna just look bad as that when he either a) started doping b) treatment for the medical thing he had kicked in. That why they wont release it.
labete wrote:
Leinders is attending (i think?) the Ku Leuven faculty club 2013 though, some kind of 30th anniversary i think. So looks like he is (at least was) linked to the company. EDIT: Institute or University rather. Trying to read Google translated Dutch, missed the obvious.
BritPCMFan wrote:
Its post Vuelta 11. Basically, all it proves to people on the dope-froome camp is that his been doping at the same level since then.
It doesn't prove that, but it's pretty worthless.
You'd wonder why they don't release all the numbers they have on him though.
You're mistaking proof for evidence. There's no proof Froome is doping, but there's a lot of evidence
Its circumstantial at best.
Obviously the pre Vuelta data is gonna just look bad as that when he either a) started doping b) treatment for the medical thing he had kicked in. That why they wont release it.
That would be easy to fix if Sky had nothing to hide.
Supposedly he contracted Bilharzia in late 2010. Release blood values from before that and compare them to his values right now.
Easy as pie to prove him clean.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
CountArach wrote:
Apparently Grappe is the one looking at the data for L'Equipe and I'm willing to take his word here.
Well, I guess his conviction is that Froome is doped, but he can't and won't say it, at least for now.
What he's saying is that there's coherency in Froome's profile. Yes, Froome's been consistent since the Vuelta 2011, and yes, he's stronger on 12 minutes than on 30, stronger on 20 than on 60. That's coherent.
But it didn't take a scientist to figure that out...
And being doped or clean doesn't really affect that kind of coherence, so what's the story ?
He's also saying that's coherent because it remains, just like Armtrong, btw., within what's thought to be the limits of the human body.
What he's not saying though, is that unless you're some sort of ultimate human being, having talent plus hard training won't be enough to reach those limits. Marginal gains won't be sufficient either...
Let's use figures. VO2max, even though we don't know Froome's one, at least not from Sky. It's not the sole parameter, nor the most significant one, but it still says a lot about the potential, so it's the one I'll conveniently use.
The best cyclists ever had number around 90 (and were more or less clean). Some Nordic skiers reached almost 100, some animals (I believe dogs that run), reach 130 or 160, IIRC. A random person in the population is somewhere around 30 or 35.
Let's say a natural talent (aka the proper genes) will give you an extra bit there : 5+ points from the start and a better ability to improve it than your next one with the same training.
EPO only gave 8 to 12 % more. Training did all the rest of the difference.
Armstrong had, after training but more or less without dope, a VO2max of 78 or 79 (that's huge compared to any non pro rider, but that's barely Peraud's level). When he peaked his VO2 max was somewhere around 85.
Had he not trained at all, it'd still be 40 or something.
Froome's VO2 max is estimated to be somewhere between 85 and 90 these days. Now compare it to a figure like 35, and tell me how much is due to talent, how much is due to hard and proper training, and how much is due to dope ?
I can't tell, I don't know. But I believe the last one is not zero...
Just like it was with countless other riders who were later caught. Nobody's saying there's enough to ban him. But past experiences teaches us where he's heading.
BritPCMFan wrote:
Obviously the pre Vuelta data is gonna just look bad as that when he either a) started doping b) treatment for the medical thing he had kicked in. That why they wont release it.
See isso's post. He did ride a bicycle before his disease
Edited by Roo on 18-07-2013 20:29
Except that surely training (NO beforre you even jump on that bloody word, not sky wonderwork, just general training), improved diet (Something SKy do work one genuinely), and natural development as he aged(The most important) would mean that comparing the two values would be ineffective, you might see a trait, but without comparing his development curve (excluding central 'Bilharzia' years) to riders of a similar age and style would be difficult.
There are on riders other than Michele Merlo from the Barloword squad who were of a similar age, and Merlo went from Barlo, to a collection of other PCT teams, making him a poor comparison. I know the riders don't have to have started at Barlo to make a decent comparison, but in terms of making a direct comparison of how 2 riders developed having left that side and comparing data value changes it's difficult to produce results without reasonable validity.
To add more to the previous message, and in reply to other messages above.
The interesting question is "how did Froome get there ?" (at the level he's at).
It'd be easy to check if they released all datas, including datas prior to 2011.
How did some training workloads affect his blood parameters ? How much improvement did it provide to his performances ? How did bilharzia affect his blood parameters and power ? How did he react to training when he had bilharzia ? What did his blood passport look like after he cured his bilharzia ? Does that make sense compared to random people who got the same disease and cure ? How did training then affect his blood and performance capability ?
There seems to be something miraculous in his progression, but I guess that if Sky answered those questions above we'd all see the light.
labete wrote:
Leinders is attending (i think?) the Ku Leuven faculty club 2013 though, some kind of 30th anniversary i think. So looks like he is (at least was) linked to the company. EDIT: Institute or University rather. Trying to read Google translated Dutch, missed the obvious.
baggieboys32 wrote:
Except that surely training (NO beforre you even jump on that bloody word, not sky wonderwork, just general training), improved diet (Something SKy do work one genuinely), and natural development as he aged(The most important) would mean that comparing the two values would be ineffective, you might see a trait, but without comparing his development curve (excluding central 'Bilharzia' years) to riders of a similar age and style would be difficult.
Blood values aren't affected by any of that. Which is why if he's clean it's easy to prove he is.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Ybodonk wrote:
Iso or Aquarius can you explain the following for me.
I have been injured for 8 months (back thigh muscle completely teared apart), never recovered properly.
However last 2months I have been training a lot on the cross machine (the one where you kind of skiing). The highest avg Watt I have done was 287 for 16 minutes. Sometimes I make sprint intervals for 40 seconds of 400-500 watts 10 times with 1-1.30 break.
Whenever i try to go over to the bike, I cant an avg of just 200 watts for a couple of minutes ? Are there an explanation to this ? I mean im only using the legs in both cardio-machines, so why can i not convert the same power/energy into the bike ?
1) How accurate are the measurements on the different gears ? What's the margin of error ?
2) There are 3 basic types of muscular contractions (concentric, eccentric, isometric), and more than a dozen of muscles on each leg, so the fact that you "use your legs" doesn't mean the same power and the same kind of contractions. Then it depends on your level of ability to determine how much muscular fibres you can recruit to produce an effort. The more you recruit, the more power the muscle produces. And, contrary to a rather common belief, the fact that all fibres move during an effort (concentric or eccentric) doesn't mean they're all recruited, those that aren't are just moving alongside.
Well the only thing you give as data is age + weight. And Machines are provided by technogym.
I dont know these three terms you described (in english at least, gonna translate it later into danish)
i'm aware that blood values aren't affected, but his power output data from across the years would change, and actually you can improve V02, Red Blood Cell count etc naturally, through activities such as high altitude training and endurance work across a long period of time. His blood data would show up an obvious problem if he was "up to his eyeballs" but then again isn't that what the biological passport is for?
Now, assuming the UCi is clean (Hahahahaha) we'd have an obvious way of telling, as it is, i'm just trying to say that unless we see a sudden spike to a new height of plateau in Froomes values around August 2011, then blood data, bio passport etc wouldn't necessarily tell uis everything we need to know.
BritPCMFan wrote:
Its post Vuelta 11. Basically, all it proves to people on the dope-froome camp is that his been doping at the same level since then.
It doesn't prove that, but it's pretty worthless.
You'd wonder why they don't release all the numbers they have on him though.
You're mistaking proof for evidence. There's no proof Froome is doping, but there's a lot of evidence
Its circumstantial at best.
Obviously the pre Vuelta data is gonna just look bad as that when he either a) started doping b) treatment for the medical thing he had kicked in. That why they wont release it.
That would be easy to fix if Sky had nothing to hide.
Supposedly he contracted Bilharzia in late 2010. Release blood values from before that and compare them to his values right now.
Easy as pie to prove him clean.
I was under the impression that he had it since a kid and it was discovered late 2010. Presumably it took a while for treatment to cure it/recover to full potential.
CountArach wrote:
Apparently Grappe is the one looking at the data for L'Equipe and I'm willing to take his word here.
Well, I guess his conviction is that Froome is doped, but he can't and won't say it, at least for now.
What he's saying is that there's coherency in Froome's profile. Yes, Froome's been consistent since the Vuelta 2011, and yes, he's stronger on 12 minutes than on 30, stronger on 20 than on 60. That's coherent.
But it didn't take a scientist to figure that out...
And being doped or clean doesn't really affect that kind of coherence, so what's the story ?
He's also saying that's coherent because it remains, just like Armtrong, btw., within what's thought to be the limits of the human body.
What he's not saying though, is that unless you're some sort of ultimate human being, having talent plus hard training won't be enough to reach those limits. Marginal gains won't be sufficient either...
Let's use figures. VO2max, even though we don't know Froome's one, at least not from Sky. It's not the sole parameter, nor the most significant one, but it still says a lot about the potential, so it's the one I'll conveniently use.
The best cyclists ever had number around 90 (and were more or less clean). Some Nordic skiers reached almost 100, some animals (I believe dogs that run), reach 130 or 160, IIRC. A random person in the population is somewhere around 30 or 35.
Let's say a natural talent (aka the proper genes) will give you an extra bit there : 5+ points from the start and a better ability to improve it than your next one with the same training.
EPO only gave 8 to 12 % more. Training did all the rest of the difference.
Armstrong had, after training but more or less without dope, a VO2max of 78 or 79 (that's huge compared to any non pro rider, but that's barely Peraud's level). When he peaked his VO2 max was somewhere around 85.
Had he not trained at all, it'd still be 40 or something.
Froome's VO2 max is estimated to be somewhere between 85 and 90 these days. Now compare it to a figure like 35, and tell me how much is due to talent, how much is due to hard and proper training, and how much is due to dope ?
I can't tell, I don't know. But I believe the last one is not zero...
To add more to the previous message, and in reply to other messages above.
The interesting question is "how did Froome get there ?" (at the level he's at).
It'd be easy to check if they released all datas, including datas prior to 2011.
How did some training workloads affect his blood parameters ? How much improvement did it provide to his performances ? How did bilharzia affect his blood parameters and power ? How did he react to training when he had bilharzia ? What did his blood passport look like after he cured his bilharzia ? Does that make sense compared to random people who got the same disease and cure ? How did training then affect his blood and performance capability ?
There seems to be something miraculous in his progression, but I guess that if Sky answered those questions above we'd all see the light.
This and this ^^
Aquarious did say it all. So I just have to write "this ^"
One thing I would add to this. Do WADA, Anti-Doping agencies and UCI have the data (due to the BP) have these datas? If yes, then they know all the big changes in every parameter of Froome's potential right ?
If yes, why have we never ever heard of anyone questioning the big difference in data from 2010 to 2011 ?
Ybodonk wrote:
Well the only thing you give as data is age + weight. And Machines are provided by technogym.
I dont know these three terms you described (in english at least, gonna translate it later into danish)
Will this provide you enough to answer your question? I hope you can determine what kind of muscle contractions which is done.
The answer about the machines and their margin of errors were rather rhetorical, I couldn't tell their margin of error, I'm just pointing out that you can't really expect a 100 % accuracy.
Contractions ? If you use your muscles to remain still : isometric. If you move, eccentric and concentric. It's eccentric if you increase the length of the limb, and concentric if you reduce it. Most power in cycling is provided through the quadriceps, in an eccentric move (when the pedal reaches its lowest point, the leg is lengthened). But then again, between the two activities you do, I couldn't tell which or how many muscles you use, and the rest of the difference depends upon your ability to recruit a high percentage of fibres.
Sky will never release the pre vuelta 2011 data for Froome. To me, that would be the point where Sky would have to face a lot of questions (even though they already do). That data could prove either if Froome is clean or doped, and I've always said doped.
"Cycling is now the the world's cleanest sport." - Chris Froome
How about this study. The Bilharzia has more to this than anyone but a few will admit to allowing Froome to basically blood dope without his blood passport looking shady.
Increased CD4+ T cell-dependent anti-erythrocyte antibody levels following the onset of parasite egg production in Schistosoma mansoni infected mice.
fficial[/url]
