Q&A: The Froome Debate

A:

He’s a Kenyan-born British cyclist who emerged in 2011 when he finished second in the Vuelta A Espana. A year later he was instrumental in helping Bradley Wiggins become the first British rider to win the Tour and in 2013 he won the Tour himself. He crashed out of last year’s race but looks set to make it Tour title number two tomorrow. He’s got a very unusual but distinctive high-cadence pedalling style and position on the bike, leading some to question how someone so skinny can produce so much power.

Q:

What is the fuss about?

A:

The fuss stems from the manner in which he demolished everyone in the field on the 10th stage of the race to La Pierre Saint Martin. There, he put a lead of minute over Nairo Quintana (Movistar) and almost three minutes over Alberto Contador (Tinkoff Saxo). He’s resisted attack after attack and has looked untouchable since then – as have his team. That stage 10 performance has sparked an onslaught of criticism and conspiracy theories.

Q:

He released power data to assuage some fears, what is this?

A:

Under intense media pressure to prove the performance was believable, Sky strenuously denied any wrongdoing and in an effort to quell speculation they released some of Chris Froome’s ‘numbers’.

These ‘numbers’ illustrated, amongst other things, how fast he climbed that final ramp to the finish on stage 10. One such parameter was Froome’s VAM which measures his climbing speed in metres per hour. The biggest values ever seen were from Armstrong, whose numbers were in excess of 1800 Vm/h. Froome’s VAM was 1602.

Power output is another parameter, expressed in a neat formula known as the power-to-weight ratio.

For example if a cyclist produces a maximum minute power of 400 watts in a section of road for a period of time and weighs 70 kilos, the power to weight ratio [P/Kg] is expressed as: P/Kg = 400/70 = 5.7 watts per kilo of body weight. The disgraced doctor who helped dope Lance Armstrong maintained 6.7 watts per kilo was enough to win the Tour. One French physiologist claimed Froome’s power to weight ratio was over 7.0 last week.

Sky have denied this is the case and it’s worth pointing out there are numerous factors which affect this number, such as weight, which usually declines as the Tour progresses.

Sky also added that the numbers Froome produced were nothing out of the ordinary for him.

Q:

Team principal Dave Brailsford said he’s open to the idea of a power passport, what’s this?

A:

This is related to the above point. Expressing the data on its own is useless. It must be done in relation to previous rides whereby unusual spikes can be questioned. Cycling already uses a biological passport system which works because it flags dramatic changes in blood values. A power version of the bio-passport is something that could work. Respected journalist Paul Kimmage was asked during the week what his thoughts on this were. His reply? “I haven’t a clue about power passports.” David Walsh gave a similar rebuttal. Clearly, there’s a bit of thinking to do on this one yet.

Q:

More data wasn’t revealed, why?

A:

This is the most worrying aspect of the whole saga. The most successful teams are rightly protective of their data because in the right hands it provides the blueprint for their success.

Team Sky’s Athlete Performance Head Tim Kerrisson said the way they apply and use data gives them “a competitive advantage” and he’s right. That’s why they win. The less successful teams would no doubt be very interested in seeing their data and could use that to inform their own training programMEs, to try and emulate the winning formula of Sky.

But why not inform the journalists and drug-testing bodies? Just once? Revealing every detail about a Tour winner and his team is a small price to pay for a cleaner sport. Or even a sport that isn’t saddled with so much suspicion every time a superb performance occurs?

Q:

Is the criticism justified?

A:

Yes and no. Yes because Sky can do more and they’ve a duty to do more but they choose not to. But it can also be argued that much of the criticism has been rather baseless. Sky riders have been punched, insulted, booed and taunted for almost two weeks now. Nobody deserves that treatment.

Q:

Do others get the same scrutiny?

A:

No. Can anyone name the four riders that trail Froome in second through fifth? Would they be in the same position as him if they were in yellow? This is Armstrong’s legacy.

Q:

Innocent or guilty?

A:

Froome deserves the benefit of the doubt and he shouldn’t have to be forced to prove a negative by showing the almost fatally suspicious world of cycling journalism and opinion he is not doping. Irrespective of what you might think of it, we already have an anti-doping system of testing and other surveillance measures to detect doping. That system is not perfect. No doping policy and prevention system ever will be. But that fact is not the fault of the riders, and they shouldn’t be made to suffer additional indignities and attacks on their character because of it.