Cycling: As already announced during this year's tour, Chris Froome has now published his performance data from this season. Shortly thereafter, experts, analysts and trainers speak up - some criticize missing values, others cheer the step of the tour winner. Marketing coup or ultimate transparency? We've looked at the data and come to the conclusion – it's probably a bit of both.
A lot was written during the tour this year - about Chris Froome, about his sometimes almost inhuman performance and about doping allegations from spectators and experts (yes, also from us). The inglorious highlight was certainly when a spectator threw a urine cup at the 30-year-old during the 14th stage and accused him of doping. In the following press conference, Froome commented on the allegations and promised to publish his performance data in the course of the year. The Brit has now done that.
The men's magazine Esquire has now published this data, about which teams and drivers usually wrap the cloak of silence. Immediately after his tour victory, Froome underwent an extensive test in a London performance laboratory in August. At that time, his weight was given as 69,9 kg – almost 3 kg more than at the beginning of the tour. This is why there are also two different values for weight-dependent data. In addition, in the article we also get the performance data of the Brit from 2007, i.e. from the beginning of his career.
From 2007 to 2015: Froome, the born tour winner?
The VO2 max value of the two-time tour winner is certainly of the greatest importance - to put it simply, this value describes the maximum oxygen capacity of the blood and is therefore also given in ml/kg/min. At the beginning of his career, i.e. in 2007, Froome had a VO2 max of 80,2 - in the laboratory tests in 2015 the 30-year-old reached a value of 84,6, during the tour it was even 88,2 due to the lower weight. For comparison: A well-trained hobby athlete has a VO2 max value of approx. 60. However, experts emphasize again and again that the maximum oxygen capacity is mainly influenced by disposition and genetics and can only be trained to a limited extent. So the data from 2007 shows that Froome was born with a very good background for endurance sports.
Another interesting value is the weight-related performance of the two-time Tour winner. In the laboratory test in 2015, Froome had a maximum value of 525W and in the endurance test of 20-40 minutes he came up with an unbelievable 419 watts. This corresponds to an average specific power of 5,98W per kilo, or 6,25W per kilo during the tour. The Sky professional already had the power in his legs in 2007, as the data at that time prove: At 540 watts, the peak value 8 years ago was even higher - the average power of 420 watts corresponded to that of today.
Froome's performance data at a glance
But what do we do with this data now? First of all, they underline that Chris Froome is an excellent endurance athlete with almost perfect physical conditions - well, strictly speaking, this data would not have been needed for this realization, as every cycling fan has probably noticed in recent years. However, the values become really interesting when you compare them with those of 2007: It shows that the performance gain since then has been completely within the limits and within a normal range for a professional athlete. In addition, the excellent genetic prerequisites of the Brit become clear.
Of course, this push by Froome and his team is not proof for or against doping. Of course, one could also criticize that one or the other not entirely unimportant value is missing - for example the maximum heart rate or any lactate values. Such as the renowned French sports scientist Frédéric Grappe, who also works for the FDJ team, among other things. The values left "no conclusions about the overall picture" closed, Grappe complained. In order to dispel the allegations, additional data and a detailed performance profile are necessary, the expert continues to rant.
Experts criticize published values
Grappe certainly hits the mark with parts of his criticism, and Froome and his team should certainly ask themselves why these sometimes essential values are missing from the report. On the other hand, even then there would be doubters and critics who would stick to their allegations or assumptions. Sky boss Dave Brailsford also alluded to this when he said in a press conference shortly before the figures were published: “You can't convince every single skeptic, it's just not possible. But you can try – it certainly doesn’t hurt.” He sees no reason why these values should not be published, but he does not see them as a panacea either: "It's not the ultimate solution."
The Team Sky boss is certainly right with one statement: cycling can only benefit from the publication of such data, as it ensures – at least in part – the transparency that is so often demanded by all sides. However, in this one, quite special case, of course, Froome and his team also benefit: You can adorn yourself with the feathers of having dared this courageous step and present yourself as a pioneer for more transparency. Therefore: Yes, the publication of Froome's performance data is certainly also a marketing coup for him and his team, but also one that ensures more transparency in cycling.
Constructive criticism like that of Frédéric Grappe is therefore important and necessary, but experts, trainers, drivers, the press and fans would certainly do well not to ruin this initiative. Rather, you should see it as a first step and maybe also an example that hopefully other professionals and teams will follow in the future.
Leave a Comment