Log in:  

Register

The Froome Files, test data only thread

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

06 Jan 2017 15:28

So Rasmussen's hemaglobin dropped by 0.1 g/dL between the start of the Tour and the first rest day in 2005 and 2006.

does it mean that he used his "only" blood bag on the flat (don't recall a single climb above category 3) slog between Strasbourg and Lorient?
User avatar roundabout
Veteran
 
Posts: 12,876
Joined: 07 Jun 2010 11:43

06 Jan 2017 15:30

You're missing the point.

The data that is being used is coming from doped athletes, so the impact would be greater without blood doping.

what I am presenting is the values (est). that are required IF Froome is clean, not if he is doped. doped is easy, I could write that in a second. clean is harder to write, primarily because the data is so scant.

So again,

IF clean

Stage 10 - hb 15.3 (high)
Then the start must be - hb. circa 16.8 (very high)
and by the end of the tour somewhere around 14 - that is what the data we do have states. However we don't have this data for Froome. So what I'm saying is if clean there should be a decline, and a fairly rapid one. The fact it "normalised" back to 15.3 before the veulta, suggests that the starting point. This means Froome didn't lose a drop of mass in ten stages of racing.... Clean.
Last edited by Vayerism on 06 Jan 2017 15:36, edited 2 times in total.
Vayerism
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 06 Jan 2017 09:09

Re:

06 Jan 2017 15:30

roundabout wrote:So Rasmussen's hemaglobin dropped by 0.1 g/dL between the start of the Tour and the first rest day in 2005 and 2006.

does it mean that he used his "only" blood bag on the flat (don't recall a single climb above category 3) slog between Strasbourg and Lorient?


Depends when the rest day is...
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,289
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re:

06 Jan 2017 15:41

Vayerism wrote:You're missing the point.

The data that is being used is coming from doped athletes, so the impact would be greater without blood doping.

what I am presenting is the values (est). that are required IF Froome is clean, not if he is doped. doped is easy, I could right that in a second. clean is harder to write, primarily because the data is so scant.

So again,

IF clean

Stage 10 - hb 15.3 (high)
Then the start must be - hb. circa 16.8 (very high)
and by the end of the tour somewhere around 14 - that is what the data we do have states. However we don't have this data for Froome. So what I'm saying is if clean there should be a decline, and a fairly rapid one. The fact it "normalised" back to 15.3 before the veulta, suggests that the starting point. This means Froome didn't lose a drop of mass in ten stages of racing.... Clean.


You need to quote people so they know who you are talking to, I'm guessing my post re: 2007 CSC? I'm not missing the point, I'm making the point that even trying to estimate clean changes over the Tour from that data is going to be massively dodgy.

You can say that in general changes will be greater for clean athletes compared to doped ones, but you can't then make estimates and apply them to single athletes as the error is going to be too big to draw any meaningful conclusion from.

What we can do is look at Froome's values in relation to others that are available, and we see that, if the 1-point/week decrease is accepted, Froome's starting TDF samples would be high, even compared to CSC over the season:
"From December 12th 2006 to November 30th 2007, 374 blood samples and 287 urine samples from 28 elite male cyclists from the Danish cycling team, Team CSC, were obtained."
Image
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

06 Jan 2017 15:51

KB

You'll struggle to find a post where I state my presentation of this data is anything other than interesting, because it is, well, I think it is. I've also not claimed a high level of accuracy, sticking "est" next to everything that is estimated or worse "Circa". I stated in my last point that the data for clean athletes was scant. however we have enough to make broadly informed predictions/estimations.

It's more a thought exercise than anything else. Taking the blood values we have, putting in what we know to be true about the impact of grand tour on an athlete's body and predicting, the values we don't have, from there and then assessing whether or not, that is credible/possible/likely or not.

You've already said comparing the blood values of doped athletes to clean ones is stupid, and I tend to agree.
Vayerism
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 06 Jan 2017 09:09

Re:

06 Jan 2017 16:01

Vayerism wrote:KB

You'll struggle to find a post where I state my presentation of this data is anything other than interesting, because it is, well, I think it is. I've also not claimed a high level of accuracy, sticking "est" next to everything that is estimated or worse "Circa". I stated in my last point that the data for clean athletes was scant. however we have enough to make broadly informed predictions/estimations.

It's more a thought exercise than anything else. Taking the blood values we have, putting in what we know to be true about the impact of grand tour on an athlete's body and predicting, the values we don't have, from there and then assessing whether or not, that is credible/possible/likely or not.

You've already said comparing the blood values of doped athletes to clean ones is stupid, and I tend to agree.


That's fair enough, I would just say that if you are going to include numbers, such as 16.8, you should probably include some kind of error (although this is admittedly hard to do).

I didn't say stupid I don't think, difficult sure but not stupid. The issue with clean vs doped is we generally don't know which is which. I do think it's informative to compare data with data, such as the CSC data Sniper linked to the data we have for Froome, and your, and others, estimates for the start of the TdF as it shows that his values were either very high or he has a very low decline rate. Neither is proof of doping but they are certainly things that would make you sit up and take notice.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

08 Jan 2017 14:50

I'm not comfortable enough with my physiology knowledge to really contribute to this discussion. But as a statistician I'd like to add a general remark.

Vayerism wrote: I've also not claimed a high level of accuracy, sticking "est" next to everything that is estimated or worse "Circa".
That's fair enough and I've also not seen any disingenuous claims from you about accuracy elsewhere. But still it's a bit misleading. And I'm not trying to school you because I'm sure you're perfectly aware of this. But when estimates from data are discussed in public I think it's worthwhile to remind us all of some general characteristics from time to time.

If we consider simple straighforward statements like the following:
Vayerism wrote:1 point per week is fairly typical for a GT, see Horner, Rasmussen or Hamilton (in reference to why its three bags/tour). Though it varies obviously. It can also be 10-12% with the majority in the first week, as you wouldn't expect it to continue to drop on a continual standard line.
So it stands to reason, though without the actual figure nothing more than that. That if Froome is at 15.3 a week and a half in you can add 1.5 to the figure giving 16.8 at the start of the tour.
We have a measured value (15.3) and a rough estimate for a rate of change ("1 point per week is fairly typical for a GT"). So we start with the measured value and add the product of number of days and rate of change to get an estimate for the initial value (16.8). So this is really as easy as it gets to compute a point-estimate. But don't forget that all of these involved quantities have some level of uncertainty attached to them (even the number of days, think about it). Especially the estimate for the rate is obtained in a way that its error bars must be huge.
Now if we mix these quantities together the way we do it, the uncertainty level of the result goes through the roof! And that's not just an academic subtlety with no meaning in the "real world". Failing to consider it in the appropriate way can hurt your reasoning badly (and might get you fired as a quantitative professional ;)).

By reporting numbers like 16.8 (without additional information) you implicitly state that you can control your results plus/minus 0.1, which most certainly you don't. And even if you add "(est)" or "circa" to it, this is still the impression that most people will take away. Nobody who reads this will sit in front of the monitor saying to himself something like: "This value could probably also be 16.2." We just don't.
And if we then go on to interpret the result by comparing it to other numbers and making statements like "X is bigger then Y" or "X is abnormally big" it gets even more crucial. Comparisons like these necessarily have to take the level of uncertainty into account that you're operation on. Otherwise they're probably meaningless.
Could you distinguish 16.8 from 16.7 or 16.9? Unlikely. What about 16.6 or 17.0? Can your method based on few data, many assumptions and simple calculations reliably distinguish 16.8 from 16.4? I don't know. Would it be necessary to have this precision in your analysis to make any statements at all? Your call.

Error estimates like these are admittedly very difficult and sometimes even infeasible. But the uncertainty levels in play can approach the interesting orders of magnitude (that are relevant for comparisons and conclusions) awfully fast when you're playing around with data like this. Just keep this in the back of your head.
User avatar Tom the Engine
Junior Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 03 Aug 2016 21:46

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

15 Jan 2017 18:57

EPO & heartrate;

Image
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,289
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

16 Jan 2017 17:21

thehog wrote:EPO & heartrate;

Image

That is incredible. it took 2 years of slogging for me to drop my resting heart rate from 76 to 60. Now i understand the desire to dope.
IndianCyclist
Member
 
Posts: 1,689
Joined: 12 Nov 2010 12:26
Location: Bangalore, India

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

16 Jan 2017 17:42

IndianCyclist wrote:
thehog wrote:EPO & heartrate;

Image

That is incredible. it took 2 years of slogging for me to drop my resting heart rate from 76 to 60. Now i understand the desire to dope.


It's a logical step. Makes complete sense if you're trying to win a GT. Even microdosing EPO is very effective.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,289
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

16 Jan 2017 20:07

It would help if verified sources were provided along with quotes.
User avatar Alex Simmons/RST
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,072
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 23:47
Location: Australia

Re: The Froome Files, test data only thread

16 Jan 2017 20:31

Here come the fun wreckers ;)
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,289
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

17 Jan 2017 14:58

So, I am left to assume that the source for that quote will not be forthcoming? Or more context at the very least?
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,807
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

17 Jan 2017 15:07

Some basic internet skills (i.e. 2 second google with quotes for exact phrase matching) yields this: http://www.rajeun.net/bicycle.html

Don't care for this argument; enough threads have been ruined here lately by this tit for tat between posters.
V3R1T4S
Junior Member
 
Posts: 91
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 22:14

17 Jan 2017 15:14

Asking for a source is not tit for tat, it's fundamental to any discussion.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

17 Jan 2017 15:16

Thank you, VERITAS. I appreciate it.

Interesting that it is written as first person although it is a story about someone else. That is a red flag for me. This should've been included for context in the original quote.
djpbaltimore
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,807
Joined: 09 Jun 2014 13:41
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re:

17 Jan 2017 15:43

djpbaltimore wrote:Thank you, VERITAS. I appreciate it.

Interesting that it is written as first person although it is a story about someone else. That is a red flag for me. This should've been included for context in the original quote.


You'd be hard pushed to find a decent study on athletes taking EPO and the responses on the human body. Most of that is on Leinders, Ferrari and Fuentes hard drives etc.

This was a decent, anecdotal account, it wasn't trying to be a scientific study by its own self-admission. So probably stop it with the 'red flag' business, that it kinda stupid for the type of detail it contains.


This article was submitted by Animal, anonimous, in early September of 1999. It has been edited to make it readable, without changing Animal's folkloric language. This article is for educational purposes only and does not provide any medical advice.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,289
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

17 Jan 2017 15:54

thehog wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:Thank you, VERITAS. I appreciate it.

Interesting that it is written as first person although it is a story about someone else. That is a red flag for me. This should've been included for context in the original quote.


You'd be hard pushed to find a decent study on athletes taking EPO and the responses on the human body. Most of that is on Leinders, Ferrari and Fuentes hard drives etc.

This was a decent, anecdotal account, it wasn't trying to be a scientific study by its own self-admission. So probably stop it with the 'red flag' business, that it kinda stupid for the type of detail it contains.


This article was submitted by Animal, anonimous, in early September of 1999. It has been edited to make it readable, without changing Animal's folkloric language. This article is for educational purposes only and does not provide any medical advice.


"Who wrote this" was of course the question any reader would have in their mind. Simple to post or link the source with the original post. Unless your goal is to be cryptic, obscure, provocative and to stir up the board.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,645
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

17 Jan 2017 15:56

red_flanders wrote:
thehog wrote:
djpbaltimore wrote:Thank you, VERITAS. I appreciate it.

Interesting that it is written as first person although it is a story about someone else. That is a red flag for me. This should've been included for context in the original quote.


You'd be hard pushed to find a decent study on athletes taking EPO and the responses on the human body. Most of that is on Leinders, Ferrari and Fuentes hard drives etc.

This was a decent, anecdotal account, it wasn't trying to be a scientific study by its own self-admission. So probably stop it with the 'red flag' business, that it kinda stupid for the type of detail it contains.


This article was submitted by Animal, anonimous, in early September of 1999. It has been edited to make it readable, without changing Animal's folkloric language. This article is for educational purposes only and does not provide any medical advice.


"Who wrote this" was of course the question any reader would have in their mind. Simple to post or link the source with the original post. Unless your goal is to be cryptic, obscure, provocative and to stir up the board.

Simples.


Or you know what you are posting is worthless and you're trying to make people think it isn't.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

17 Jan 2017 16:04

He's anonymous, therefore he has no credibility :rolleyes:
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,505
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avoriaz, Google [Bot], Norks74, Yahoo [Bot] and 22 guests

Back to top