sky gives data to l'equipe

mistermano

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Sky-joue-la-transparence/386574

team sky have given power data to the french

TinyExplosions

and the initial findings by their expert are that the findings are consistent with his profile so don't show anything particularly dodgy.

Bet it won't stop the naysayers from claiming that there's a stitch up somewhere though

ashleey

What if they only released the data that is within the range required?

TinyExplosions

ashleey wrote: »

What if they only released the data that is within the range required?

BOOM! I knew it...

What if that's all the data, and there's no doping going on?

ashleey

I'm only being 'devil's advocate' and predicting the backlash

godtabh

TinyExplosions wrote: »

and the initial findings by their expert are that the findings are consistent with his profile so don't show anything particularly dodgy.

Bet it won't stop the naysayers from claiming that there's a stitch up somewhere though

This is what I dont understand.

The following statement isnt in reference to any one current.

Lance and the boys dopped for a long time. As test progressed and lads got stupid the got found out. Thinks like EPO, cortisone, flood transfusions, steroids etc etc can be tested for. This and the biological passport would seem to me make it very difficult to dop and not get caught (the Giro affirmed that for me).

So if current races are racing and doping what are the doping with?

mistermano

http://journalvelo.com/breaking/google-translate-version-of-lequipe-article-on-froome-data/

the attention to detail team don't know what chris froomes VO2max is?

Lumen

mistermano wrote: »

the attention to detail team don't know what chris froomes VO2max is?

VO2max isn't a very useful measure in the age of power meters.

kfod

It's a good thing to release the data. It goes some way in helping to put across the message that they are clean. It won't remove all doubt from some peoples minds but at least it shows a willingness from Sky to interact with questions about performance.

Soarer

Froom is riding like a beast.

He deserves credit for getting himself into peak physical condition, and not to be compared to that cheating langer*.

* - Unless he's found to be doping. Then I reserve the right to jump sides of the fence and ridicule him from a height!

ThisRegard

If his blood is clean, it can only be genetic doping and micro biomechanics. Either that, or they've refined the motors that Cancellara uses to make them undetectable, nano technology has come a long way.

ratracer

I really hope SKY don't turn out to be dopers. Froome's performance on the tour so far has been magnificent as has Richie Porte's. I would like to think that he can beat Bertie comfortably and cleanly.

Completely O/T: - Why are Sky the only team not to use Skoda cars? I thought Skoda were the official vehicle provider to all the teams for the Tour?

ThisRegard

Jaguar are one of their sponsors and supply the cars to them. Win win, Sky gets free cars and probably money, Jaguar have their cars on tv all the time.

Skodas deal with the tour must not have been an exclusive one, i.e. only their cars were to be used.

godtabh

ThisRegard wrote: »

If his blood is clean, it can only be genetic doping and micro biomechanics.

What's that when its at home?

GT_TDI_150

ratracer wrote: »

I really hope SKY don't turn out to be dopers. Froome's performance on the tour so far has been magnificent as has Richie Porte's. I would like to think that he can beat Bertie comfortably and cleanly.

Completely O/T: - Why are Sky the only team not to use Skoda cars? I thought Skoda were the official vehicle provider to all the teams for the Tour?

Astana ( i think) use VWs

ThisRegard

godtabh wrote: »

What's that when its at home?

Dunno, but just you try disprove it.

TinyExplosions

godtabh wrote: »

This is what I dont understand.

The following statement isnt in reference to any one current.

Lance and the boys dopped for a long time. As test progressed and lads got stupid the got found out. Thinks like EPO, cortisone, flood transfusions, steroids etc etc can be tested for. This and the biological passport would seem to me make it very difficult to dop and not get caught (the Giro affirmed that for me).

So if current races are racing and doping what are the doping with?

Could be many things.. for example the (laughable) Haematocrit ''safe' level of 50% back in the day meant that Lance etc could freely use (undetectable at the time) EPO to boost themselves up to that point.

It could be that there is something similar going on today. If there was something fishy going on, it would need to be done early enough that all the blood values taken are consistent, so you could be micro dosing with something and get away with it.

Also, I think it's hard (though not impossible) to have transfusions etc, and if smart get away with it -though RobFowl's probably the best to talk about this kinda stuff -I'm not a doctor, nor do I play on on boards.ie!

TinyExplosions

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Astana ( i think) use VWs

RadioShack used Nissans, and a few other teams used different things -think Skoda are main car sponsor, but if teams want to get separate ones, they can.

GT_TDI_150

TinyExplosions wrote: »

RadioShack used Nissans, and a few other teams used different things -think Skoda are main car sponsor, but if teams want to get separate ones, they can.

Just saw movistar have volvo's

AstraMonti

They released data AFTER 2011 (on the vuelta).. when Froome has turned the game. How about releasing the 2010 data.. and we can see the % of improvement. Just sayin..

If we have the best clean climber, TTer, and generaly cyclist of all times, these data are not even enough for a laugh. If after what the sport has been through they want us to believe that such performances are real and a nobody becomes somebody to win a grand tour, then we need to see what size of crap he took yesterday and analyze that too.

gordongekko

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Astana ( i think) use VWs

im sure I saw Volvo cars behind movistar riders yesterday

gordongekko

Is it true the results proved froome is half Cheetah half Eagle?

dedocdude

Think Saxo use BMW

didn't think we were allowed to discuss Team S*y in this manner on boards? usually brings bold and capital letters from the authorities --

Cork24

Why not do a blood test on a Cyclist once a Month for a year before the TOF ?

i bet if any cyclist that is found with drugs in their system would only get a 6 month ban, Not a Life time ban like Lance.

TinyExplosions

Cork24 wrote: »

Why not do a blood test on a Cyclist once a Month for a year before the TOF ?

i bet if any cyclist that is found with drugs in their system would only get a 6 month ban, Not a Life time ban like Lance.

Basically because there's so many cyclists it's not practical to do so -the whereabouts system means that everyone has to be available (and tell WADA their location) for an hour a day, and you can be tested during that hour (blood or urine or both afaik)

GT_TDI_150

dedocdude wrote: »

Think Saxo use BMW

didn't think we were allowed to discuss Team S*y in this manner on boards? usually brings bold and capital letters from the authorities --

The mods dont like Jaguars?! :eek:

snollup

I don't fully understand this tbh.

First off, I'm very much warming to CF. He has cycled like a beast and has been quite gracious in interviews.

However, regarding the release of data. Just because they release data taken over a prolonged period of time, is it not within reason that if someone was doping over this period of time would that data not be constant?

I don't think CF is actually doping (or at least I hope not) but I just don't fully understand the point in this release of data?

Could someone explain for me.

Lumen

snollup wrote: »

Could someone explain for me.

It it turns out he pedalled up Ventoux or wherever at 400W rather than 500W then the performance will seem more credible.

leftism

Lumen wrote: »

VO2max isn't a very useful measure in the age of power meters.

There are extremely useful (i would argue essential) variables which can only be measured by collecting VO2 data. An example would be quantifying fuel utilization at specific power outputs via RER. A power meter cannot tell you how much fat oxidation is contributing to a 300W sustained effort. Neither can an SRM tell you what the rider's metabolic efficiency is at a given power output. These variables are extremely important for any endurance athlete.

In either case, i think it's a bit far fetched to believe that Chris Froome's VO2max has never been measured!

Regarding the L'Equipe article, there is not a single piece of useful information which would swing my or anyone else's opinion in one direction or another. Grappe's main argument is that "his power dulls normally" over a sustained effort. That is the most meaningless statement ever! The most doped up cyclist on the planet will exhibit fatigue related power reductions during a sustained near-maximal effort. But a 60W power decline from 540W is very different to a 60W decline from 400W. Without an initial frame of reference, this statement is worse than completely useless.

What i learned from that article is that Brailsford, who up until now was very protective of all Sky's data, willingly handed over Froome's data to the FDJ team physiologist. Grappe then stated that the data looks normal without providing a single piece of evidence to corroborate his theory. It is hardly a convincing argument and falls well short of what i would describe as rigorous scientific analysis.

I'm not arguing one way or the other about the legitimacy of Froome's performances. What i will argue is that when team Sky was formed, they proclaimed themselves a new generation of pro cycling team, where transparency and morals would never be sacrificed in the name of performance. They have not backed that message up in any way. I'm sure Brailsford will argue that this article proves Sky are walking the walk, but closer inspection would suggest this is nothing more than a PR stunt.

mistermano

snollup wrote: »

I don't think CF is actually doping (or at least I hope not) but I just don't fully understand the point in this release of data?

Could someone explain for me.

PR

Soarer

gordongekko wrote: »

Is it true the results proved froome is half Cheetah half Eagle?

Half man, half bear, half pig.

leftism

snollup wrote: »

However, regarding the release of data. Just because they release data taken over a prolonged period of time.....

Just to be clear, no data has been released. Brailsford handed over a power profile from Ax3 Domaine to a scientist on a rival team under the strict instructions that no data be presented to the public and (presumably) that the scientist make a public statement about how everything looks legit.

To summarise; Brailsford is now ok with rival teams having a gander at Froome's numbers, but those numbers are far too complicated for us mere mortals to even contemplate. Any attempts at unraveling the mysteries of power data might result in our heads exploding... :rolleyes:

Lumen

leftism wrote: »

There are extremely useful (i would argue essential) variables which can only be measured by collecting VO2 data...i think it's a bit far fetched to believe that Chris Froome's VO2max has never been measured!

Sure, but you're not actually disagreeing with my point that VO2Max isn't particularly useful.

leftism

No, i don't disagree with that.

leftism

I do think its BS that it has never been measured though.

lennymc

What do we want? Data from races.
When do we want it? That doesn't matter cos as soon as we have it we will disregard it.

I can understand where Brailsford was coming from when he asked the journalists what he could do to prove they weren't doping.

Lumen

From the translated version:

"SECOND OBSERVATION: A AEROBIC POTENTIAL OUT OF JOINT
The extremely high maximal aerobic power (effort of 5 minutes) confirms that it has an unusual aerobic potential, which requires it to have a close limits VO2max (which has never been measured in the laboratory by his team) scientific physiological known. The exceptional power that is able to develop during maximum effort five minutes gives him a certain reserve compared to other runners. This goes in the direction of acceleration that is capable of performing in the final climbs. Canbe estimated that, compared to its main rivals, it has a margin of 20 watts more power. It is this line that can be found for example between himself and his main rivals in the climbs and Ax 3 Domaines du Ventoux."

I think it's referring to lactate tolerance/AWC.

This is consistent with values of other Sky riders. There's a tweet somewhere from 2012 in which Geraint Thomas (and one other ride, Stannard?) hit 580W for 5 minutes on a static trainer, which is off the charts AFAIK.

edit: found it, it was GT and Jez Coates in Sep 2011.

https://twitter.com/GeraintThomas86/status/116811786166079488

@GeraintThomas86
Just done my 5minute power efforts on the turbo with Jez. Had him by 3w, 580 pretty happy with that...

Morrisseeee

Lets assume he's clean so.........lets analyze his performances, his extraordinary climbing prowess, his acceleration on steep gradients, his TT ability, his recovery. Basically he's a bit of a superman on the bike.

Given the fact that he's above-board, his team are above-board so......... the Q is what makes him perform at such a high level above everyone else. If you look at the other GC contenders, there's a minute or two between them but Chris is over 4 mins above all of them.

Laurens ten Dam is on Strava so he's a good guide as to what Chris is doing.
Eg: last 15km of Ventoux, ten Dam does it in 48min46min (VAM=1596) whereas Chris did it in 47min11sec (VAM=1640).
So, not a huge difference, but he did put in that acceleration, he did look like he was going to perform like that, whereas ten Dam and the others looked all out, at the limit of their ability.
If we look at AX 3 Domaines, ten Dam did a 1720 VAM for 7.7km @ 8% whereas Chris finished 1min16sec ahead of him.

Lets talk about Chris the human being, the superhuman cyclist and what makes him what he is, the super performer (dawg) !

TinyExplosions

I think this is a perfect example of the sort of reasons Sky aren't releasing data to the public.

They've given over info to a credible professional who has the experience and knowledge to interpret the data, he has done so and says he sees nothing suspicious with this info.

Instead of this thread being all "hey, that's great, some of our questions are answered and we can lower the suspicion", all we have is "this is not enough, I want to see the info too so I can pretend to understand it", or "it could still show that he's been doping for the period of the data" etc etc.

Brailsford, and Froome cannot win, or convince people that nothing untoward is happening, so why the fuck would they hand over a potential competitive advantage to the the jackals who'll ignore it regardless. (fine, they said they'd be transparent, but I suspect they've realised that that's not enough and they'll never satisfy everyone, so they're circling the wagons)

irishmotorist

There's been lots of comment about Froome on the Ventoux. I didn't see it live and only saw the highlights on the TV, but was his performance not consistent with a good climber? He upped his cadence to a huge number (by my eye) and put a dent into whoever he was with (Quintana at one stage?) and then eased back to a more sustainable pace. Look at him on the podium - he's made of matchsticks.

I would have been interested to see his figures from time trials. The fact that he can put so much power out on his own over that period is more worthy of comment and scrutiny, IMO.

Basically, looking at him, I'd expect him to be good in the hills. Somebody has to be the best and go faster than the others. Dan Martin attacked and then finished ahead of the bunch when he won his stage. Does that mean that he should be assumed guilty of underhand tactics and just disbelieved by a large portion of spectators?

Hermy

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I think this is a perfect example of the sort of reasons Sky aren't releasing data to the public.

If anything, it's the manner in which they do things that bothers me.
Like when they got rid of Yates or how they handled the Linders thing.
I know they're on a hiding to nothing because of cycling's dirty past but surely they could be a bit more media savvy for their own sake.

grodge

godtabh wrote: »

What's that when its at home?

Gene Doping defined for the first time in the 2003
IOC List of Prohibited Substances and Methods:
Section II Prohibited Methods – C. Gene Doping
“Gene or cell doping is defined as the nontherapeutic use of genes, genetic elements and
/or cells that have the capacity to enhance
athletic performance”

You can remove parts of genes, parts of cells, change their structure to benefit muscle growth, recovery, power etc.

Its basically SuperDoping

http://list.wada-ama.org/list/m3-gene-doping/

Cork24

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Basically because there's so many cyclists it's not practical to do so -the whereabouts system means that everyone has to be available (and tell WADA their location) for an hour a day, and you can be tested during that hour (blood or urine or both afaik)

Not Every one, just the top 15 Riders or top 10

TinyExplosions

Hermy wrote: »

If anything, it's the manner in which they do things that bothers me.
Like when they got rid of Yates or how they handled the Linders thing.
I know they're on a hiding to nothing because of cycling's dirty past but surely they could be a bit more media savvy for their own sake.

Yup, but that's easy for us to say. They definitely made mistakes with some of the backroom staff (both in hiring and firing), but it could well be that they can't come out and say they fired x due to their past, simply because it could open them up to all kinds of legal woes. It's all just lose lose

TinyExplosions

Cork24 wrote: »

Not Every one, just the top 15 Riders or top 10

Top 15 in the world at that point? Top 15 in the previous years Tour? top 15 in the previous years ProTour stats?

How do you calculate that? If you go on predictions, Cadel, Schleck etc would be tested and they're nowhere near the top this year

IM0

OP wrote:

sky gives data to l'equipe

but they havent though have they, l'equipe just reported it

leftism

Lumen wrote: »

"SECOND OBSERVATION: A AEROBIC POTENTIAL OUT OF JOINT
The extremely high maximal aerobic power (effort of 5 minutes) confirms that it has an unusual aerobic potential, which requires it to have a close limits VO2max (which has never been measured in the laboratory by his team) scientific physiological known. The exceptional power that is able to develop during maximum effort five minutes gives him a certain reserve compared to other runners. This goes in the direction of acceleration that is capable of performing in the final climbs. Canbe estimated that, compared to its main rivals, it has a margin of 20 watts more power. It is this line that can be found for example between himself and his main rivals in the climbs and Ax 3 Domaines du Ventoux."

Again, no data presented. He refers to an estimation made by Canbe that might as well have been written on the back of a fag box.

Bottom line: a scientist that makes a statement or theory without providing any evidence to support it, is not a very good scientist. If a student had written that article and i was correcting it, there would be comments like "report data or reference previously published data" scrawled all over it.

Brailsford recently made a comment about "psudeo-scientists" a few weeks back when justifying why Sky don't release any of their data. The irony is that this article is one of the best examples of psuedo-science i've read in quite a while.

Edit: I'm not suggesting Fred Grappe is a psuedo-scientist; to the contrary, he is highly regarded in the sport science community. His interpretations of Froome's data may well be valid, but he should not expect readers to simply take his word for it. To do so is bad science.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Lumen

@leftism, the problem is that science happens in the open, and Sky don't want the data in the open, they want it protected.

Non-disclosure agreements make for bad science.

leftism

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I think this is a perfect example of the sort of reasons Sky aren't releasing data to the public.

They've given over info to a credible professional who has the experience and knowledge to interpret the data, he has done so and says he sees nothing suspicious with this info.

Good science:
I am a scientist. My credentials are irrelevant. Here is the data and this is my interpretation of that data based on sound principles and reference to previously published work. If you can provide a more appropriate rationale based on the current evidence and literature, feel free to do so.

Bad science:
I am a scientist who is highly regarded in the international community. I am not presenting any data but i do expect you to accept my interpretations because of who i am.

It must be nice to place absolute faith in people based on who they are. Unfortunately i would be professionally negligent if i did the same...

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Instead of this thread being all "hey, that's great, some of our questions are answered and we can lower the suspicion", all we have is "this is not enough, I want to see the info too so I can pretend to understand it", or "it could still show that he's been doping for the period of the data" etc etc

Brailsford, and Froome cannot win, or convince people that nothing untoward is happening, so why the **** would they hand over a potential competitive advantage to the the jackals who'll ignore it regardless. (fine, they said they'd be transparent, but I suspect they've realised that that's not enough and they'll never satisfy everyone, so they're circling the wagons)

You talk about skepticism like it is some sort of mental affliction that is destroying the sport of cycling. The reality is that without skepticism and constant scrutiny of results over the last 25 years, cycling would still be in the dark ages. Did doping controls expose Armstrong? No! It was the work of skeptics who despite constant abuse and threats of legal proceedings, refused to blindly accept unnatural results.

leftism

Lumen wrote: »

@leftism, the problem is that science happens in the open, and Sky don't want the data in the open, they want it protected.

Then the fantastical statements about "transparency" which accompanied Team Sky when they were introduced to the world were extremely misjudged.

You cannot make statements like that, do the exact opposite and then complain when people question you on it...

Plus, the argument (which Sean Kelly just used) that they need to protect this data from rival teams is now null and void, since they handed Froome's power data over to a physiologist employed by a rival team.