Froome Braces for Doping questions

[raptor-22]

Everyones trying to get a story out of doping to draw attention t themselves

[camelman]

Ag tog. Just enjoy the show for what it is. There is no skin of your backs whether they dope or not. It's for them to be clean or not to be caught.

Sit back, grab a beer and enjoy the show. Or just watch Bold and the Beautiful or 7de Laan, it's on att more or less the same time if you feel you are being deceived or if your feelings are getting hurt.

I for one really did not give a s**t whether LA, MP or JU doped or not, that's their legacy to live with. The racing was amazing to watch and I for one enjoyed watching it.

All the same now. The racing is amazing to watch, just enjoy it and stop all this speculating about doping. You guys are just ruining the spectacle for yourself and everyone else.

[Patchelicious]

So when Froome won stage 10 based on his performance he was branded a doper. It was called "painful to watch", "out of this world". He beat Quintana by 1:08.

 

Today Quintana beat him by 1:20.

 

So either those same people need to now call Quintana a doper, or admit that their original speculation was a bit premature or admit that it's a crap method speculating in the first place.

[raptor-22]

So when Froome won stage 10 based on his performance he was branded a doper. It was called "painful to watch", "out of this world". He beat Quintana by 1:08.

 

Today Quintana beat him by 1:20.

 

So either those same people need to now call Quintana a doper, or admit that their original speculation was a bit premature or admit that it's a crap method speculating in the first place.

 

 

Its much easier to divorce crap ideas and pretend they were never owned or at worst claim the idea/opinion is out of context. Id like to see the weasel Sallet backtrack once he reveals his assumptions and far off the mark they are.

[Pure Savage]

So when Froome won stage 10 based on his performance he was branded a doper. It was called "painful to watch", "out of this world". He beat Quintana by 1:08.

 

Today Quintana beat him by 1:20.

 

So either those same people need to now call Quintana a doper, or admit that their original speculation was a bit premature or admit that it's a crap method speculating in the first place.

It's because Quintana "danced" on the pedals, that's why he did so well! If you have that flair you obviously don't need dope.

[Thor Buttox]

Guys, I'll say it before, and I'll say it again, but comparing dope to Colombian dancing powder (aka Spanish Fly) is impossible. Only Movistar are doping. Clearly.

['Dale]

Ag tog. Just enjoy the show for what it is. There is no skin of your backs whether they dope or not. It's for them to be clean or not to be caught.

Sit back, grab a beer and enjoy the show. Or just watch Bold and the Beautiful or 7de Laan, it's on att more or less the same time if you feel you are being deceived or if your feelings are getting hurt.

I for one really did not give a s**t whether LA, MP or JU doped or not, that's their legacy to live with. The racing was amazing to watch and I for one enjoyed watching it.

All the same now. The racing is amazing to watch, just enjoy it and stop all this speculating about doping. You guys are just ruining the spectacle for yourself and everyone else.

Nice perspective.

 

Let the beleaguered UCI do their job, yes.

Let each racer take charge of his own destiny, yes.

[javadude]

Sorry, once bitten twice shy. They are ALL guilty until proven innocent. The lying cheating cockroaches masquerading as sportsmen that came before them have assured this. They will all need to go to extraordinary lengths to prove their innocence. If it means surgically embedding a Go Pro into their eye socket and we record their every private moment then so be it.

 

If these guys) want my(and your) eyeballs to pay for their homes in Monaco, then they are going to have to earn my trust, and that doesn't come cheap.

[SAGecko]

Sorry, once bitten twice shy. They are ALL guilty until proven innocent.

You seem quite vehement.

 

I take it you don't watch any cycling on TV then? The Tour (Froome and Team Sky are obviously guilty), The Epic (Kulhavy the dirty doper, and that lying, cheating Sauser), The UCI DH stuff (Greg Minnaar! Don't get me started. The swine!)

 

What a crap world you live in. I hope you don't mind if I don't join you.

[raptor-22]

Forgive his bitterness. He is in Sydney

[Andrew Steer]

So when Froome won stage 10 based on his performance he was branded a doper. It was called "painful to watch", "out of this world". He beat Quintana by 1:08.

 

Today Quintana beat him by 1:20.

 

So either those same people need to now call Quintana a doper, or admit that their original speculation was a bit premature or admit that it's a crap method speculating in the first place.

 

I'll eat my hat the day all the anonymous mud-slingers actually come back and try defend their baseless claims...

 

[EddieV]

Whether Froome is or isn't doping we wouldn't know, but for Sky to make a statement like this:

 

from this article: http://insightdatascience.com/blog/vammer_on_tour_de_france.html

Sky claims 6% error due to the chain rings ..

 

"In response to public pressure, and perhaps more so to show how wrong Sallet was in his calculation, Team Sky today announced that Froome averaged 414 W on the final climb. They estimate his mass to be 67.5 kg, leading to a 6.13 W/kg. They also claim that their chain rings hamper the measurement of power by 6%, and give 5.78 W/kg to account for this."

 

Surely if your chain ring hampers measurement, that is, your power output is actually more because your chain ring resistance eats away at your power going onto the tar, they should increase the riders power output calculation by 6%, not deduct it?   

 

Taking 6.13W/kg + 6% to 6.49 W/kg, not 5.78W/kg.

 

Now 6.49W/kg becomes a real number.

 

Your chain ring can't make you use less wattage for the same amount of work, unless it has a motor in it?

 

Please correct me if I am wrong in my train of thought.

[raptor-22]

I think you need to think in terms of efficiency

[SAGecko]

Forgive his bitterness. He is in Sydney

 

Perhaps he could take himself out of Sydney for long enough to explain the bitterness.

 

...Trying to do two things at once leads to all sorts of misunderstandings 

[Barend de Arend]

Whether Froome is or isn't doping we wouldn't know, but for Sky to make a statement like this:

 

from this article: http://insightdatascience.com/blog/vammer_on_tour_de_france.html

Sky claims 6% error due to the chain rings ..

 

"In response to public pressure, and perhaps more so to show how wrong Sallet was in his calculation, Team Sky today announced that Froome averaged 414 W on the final climb. They estimate his mass to be 67.5 kg, leading to a 6.13 W/kg. They also claim that their chain rings hamper the measurement of power by 6%, and give 5.78 W/kg to account for this."

 

Surely if your chain ring hampers measurement, that is, your power output is actually more because your chain ring resistance eats away at your power going onto the tar, they should increase the riders power output calculation by 6%, not deduct it?   

 

Taking 6.13W/kg + 6% to 6.49 W/kg, not 5.78W/kg.

 

Now 6.49W/kg becomes a real number.

 

Your chain ring can't make you use less wattage for the same amount of work, unless it has a motor in it?

 

Please correct me if I am wrong in my train of thought.

 

All power meters upstream from the chainrings (spider, axle, crankarm, pedal, shoe) potentially inflate the power measurement.

 

So if the real power is 100 watts, the computer will show and record 105 watts.

 

Power meters downstream from the chainrings (hub, chain) don't suffer from the problem presented here.  Power meters on the chain might have a different problem with non-round rings due to the chain movement.

 

Power meters measure torque (deformation) and speed (axle speed, cadence), and calculate power from that.  They assume constant speed in a short amount of time (1 second, one revolution, ...)  With non-round rings the axle speed varies.

 

Axle speed always varies, but the difference is minor on round rings and major on non-round rings.

 

There is always an error, but the range of speed changes depend on inertia, so the error will be different at low speeds on a climb than high speeds on the flat.  That's why the error is stated as +- 4%, and not fixed definitely 4%.

 

Sky may have done tests to get the error down pat.  They may tested with Froome's cadence and power output, and so they may have settled on 6%.

 

Stages (the power meter currently uses) even lists the error on their web page.

 

Hub based power meters (Powertap) aren't influenced by changes in pedal revolution speed.  They might have a similar problem on a wet road where the wheel constantly slips, though.  This is much less common, so it's less of an issue.

 

All upstream power meters have this problem.  Some try to ignore it.

 

To remove this error, upstream power meters must record speed and torque multiple times per pedal revolution.  This is possible, but adds complexity.  It also adds hardware if the pedal revolution is measured using reed switches.

 

The power meter must then either average the speed, and send that once per second, or you need a head unit that records more than once per second or revolution.  Right now, only SRM head unit has an option of recording more than once per second.

[EddieV]

Sky may have done tests to get the error down pat.  They may tested with Froome's cadence and power output, and so they may have settled on 6%.

 

 

My question would be:

Valmer's data driven calculation was 412W (6.06 W/kg) , and Sky's 414W ( 6.13 W/kg), why not just stay with that, as it would be reasonable, why does Sky deduct another 6% to make it seem less. I agree with the article .... 

 

"Team Sky likely gave the 5.78 W/kg value to lower Froome's number so that it makes him seem as pedestrian as possible, when in fact the 6.06 W/kg is more consistent with the values provided by other riders."

 

 

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" ......