Captain's analysis of Garmin blood data

[skidmark]

Is that supposed to vouch for me believing the credebility of an anonymous blogger on the internet, and you think those who think Sky don't dope are gullible, oh the irony.

I mean, why don't you read his stuff? Or stop complaining about his credentials. It's noted that he has not produced credentials, and as someone who has neither really looked at his blog (I'm not into the presentation format) or really knows about the science of doping, I don't feel qualified to comment. So I haven't. I suggest you do the same, lest you fall victim to the same thing you're complaining about, namely trying to get people to listen to you when they have no reason to do so (you have not addressed the actual points in the blog, nor have you said anything other than to note that the blogger isn't a scientist).

Your point is taken, and doesn't need to be repeated.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

More facts: Brad's retics at his breakthrough GT were down 17% from baseline and down 30% compared to previous GTs and his Hb spiked in the 3rd week. Suspicious?

 

[Willy_Voet]

I am not a hematologist, but I'm in a position to make a judgement about data like this. If you want my credentials, PM me.

Anything captianbag1 says about Millar's TdF score is meaningless. You can't draw any conclusions about a single point in one "group" by making a comparison to another group of 7 or 8 data points..

He had two data points from the Giro. They happen to connect going up. That means nothing if you look at internal testing which jumps around a bit. (connect 7 and 8 and you have something suspicious, connect 8 with 9 or 10 and it looks "normal").

Plotting points with connected lines is misleading. Connecting 2 points and drawing a conclusion is crappy science.

Here is a scatterplot of the 3 riders' blood values. Guess who is the least suspicious?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

More facts: Brad's retics at his breakthrough GT were down 17% from baseline and down 30% compared to previous GTs and his Hb spiked in the 3rd week. Suspicious?

Wiggins Hb spiked 3rd week of 2009 Giro, Tdf, and Ryder's Hb spiked 3rd week of this year's Giro.

I asked JV about this in his thread a month ago. Graphs n all.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The Ancient Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere. No-one has has really thought it's flat since.

And the Theory of Relativity was thought up by a patent examiner, not a teacher.

Do you ever bother to check your 'facts'?

Ever? More like always. I make mistakes, but don't bang on about being a scientist or having a PhD.

In 1900, Einstein was awarded the Zurich Polytechnic teaching diploma.

 

[del1962]

I mean, why don't you read his stuff? Or stop complaining about his credentials. It's noted that he has not produced credentials, and as someone who has neither really looked at his blog (I'm not into the presentation format) or really knows about the science of doping, I don't feel qualified to comment. So I haven't. I suggest you do the same, lest you fall victim to the same thing you're complaining about, namely trying to get people to listen to you when they have no reason to do so (you have not addressed the actual points in the blog, nor have you said anything other than to note that the blogger isn't a scientist).

Your point is taken, and doesn't need to be repeated.

I like you don't know the science of doping, but if people want to use this as evidence that ppl are doping, then they really need to show us that the guy is credible. If Hejedal values were so out would we not see someone like Ashenden making comments on it rather than an anonymous blogger, just a thought.

 

[the omertà hurts]

Look at that blog. It's poorly presented and even more poorly argued by an anonymous person. Yet you beleive it because it fits your prejudices. Look at blogs by proper (named) scientists, such as the Science in Sport guys to see how proper scientists present their work. It's just nonsense.

It's just crap written by someone who seems to have no idea what he's talking about.

Would that be the same Science Of Sport guys who tweeted Captain y'day?

"I want to invite you to put that bio-passport analysis you do into an article or that I would host on my site.If you are interested.Links back to yours,full credit.I think you do an amazing job with it."

 

[luckyboy]

My main complaint is that none of the graphs he puts up have any dates, apart from pointing out when each GT is.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

My main complaint is that none of the graphs he puts up have any dates, apart from pointing out when each GT is.

Like my graphs:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1035947&postcount=1226

 

[luckyboy]

Those Wiggins ones have been around for ages.

The Basso graph just has 1-38 along the bottom. Would've been nice to know the dates in the offseason without trawling through the Mapei centre.

Also I noticed someone mention those old messy CSC graphs before somewhere. Started separating them earlier, might be interesting to take a look at.

 

[rata de sentina]

For me the captains CV is not the main issue anyone with a scientific background in biology could have a go at this stuff. The issue is the method of making an argument. If someone posted that stuff in here they would be laughed off. Ramblings have their place as a means of communication but not much use in this context. Some people think the clinic is like a pack of wild dogs making up stuff but I like to think we have some standards. If people are going to use lab data they need to do it in a coherent way.

 

[hrotha]

Again, JV appears to take the Captain seriously. Seriously enough to send him Hesjedal's values, for example, and to discuss with him some details about his analysis (https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/259432887890358272).

I don't take his analysis as gospel, but I don't like this elitist "serious science in suits" crap where the Captain can't do his thing and still be taken seriously. Look at the data, question his analysis, but not his shtick. The shtick is hilarious.

 

[rata de sentina]

I don't take his analysis as gospel, but I don't like this elitist "serious science in suits" crap where the Captain can't do his thing and still be taken seriously. Look at the data, question his analysis, but not his shtick. The shtick is hilarious.

The "shtick" is stupid. Scientific arguments are complicated enough without this sort of affectation. I agree his qualifications aren't the issue if what he has to say makes some sense. Problem is it's hard work to follow and to know if it's worth the trouble.

 

[zigmeister]

Probably more than us? Maybe you can ask him!

It conforms to the general idea most people have, from years of reading expert analysis. If you have a problem with his analysis, perhaps you could focus on the actual points he presents instead of the fact he wasn't wearing a suit?

Edit: I don't really read what he says either, look at the graphs.

Nobody with any credibility would post anonymously in this manner on some crappy blog.

Can't take anything seroius this person writes.

Peer review has its merits, but not in this manner.

I take Mark Zuckerberg serious although he wears a hoodie. Doesn't mean he didnt steal the idea for Facebook from someone else.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Nobody with any credibility would post anonymously in this manner on some crappy blog.

There are 7billion people in the world. Whilst it's not probable, it is most certainly possible.

Read his twitter feed or some of his other blog posts.

If you're ESL it will be difficult, granted, but his knowledge is cycling-centric and his reasoning works.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I am not a hematologist, but I'm in a position to make a judgement about data like this. If you want my credentials, PM me.

Anything captianbag1 says about Millar's TdF score is meaningless. You can't draw any conclusions about a single point in one "group" by making a comparison to another group of 7 or 8 data points..

He had two data points from the Giro. They happen to connect going up. That means nothing if you look at internal testing which jumps around a bit. (connect 7 and 8 and you have something suspicious, connect 8 with 9 or 10 and it looks "normal").

Plotting points with connected lines is misleading. Connecting 2 points and drawing a conclusion is crappy science.

Here is a scatterplot of the 3 riders' blood values. Guess who is the least suspicious?

This post seems to have gone unnoticed. I agree. While data speaks for itself, here it is stuttering and mumbling.

Its also hard without specific dates

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This post seems to have gone unnoticed. I agree. While data speaks for itself, here it is stuttering and mumbling.

Its also hard without specific dates

That graph stutters and mumbles. As you'd expect when compressing 3 dimensions of data into 2 dimensions.

This graph:

has 2 lines:
RED = CV
BLUE = DM

Plasma expansion happens within 3 days of 90minutes / day intense exercise. Over a season of 6 hours/day training and racing, you expect a steady decline of Hgb.

Red line trend shows this.

Static or inclined Hgb trends are not normal. Blue line (sans trend line) show this.

 

[Willy_Voet]

Static or inclined Hgb trends are not normal.

Bull****.

Once again, you have 1 (one) data point from the TdF for DM. What's worse, you do not have a blue line, you have a blue "connect the dots".

If you'd like to talk numbers, I'm willing to measure up. PM me and let's compare.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

That graph stutters and mumbles. As you'd expect when compressing 3 dimensions of data into 2 dimensions.

This graph:

has 2 lines:
RED = CV
BLUE = DM

Plasma expansion happens within 3 days of 90minutes / day intense exercise. Over a season of 6 hours/day training and racing, you expect a steady decline of Hgb.

Red line trend shows this.

Static or inclined Hgb trends are not normal. Blue line (sans trend line) show this.

Well that helps more, for sure. Defiantly more detailed than captainbag's excel graphs.

The red trendline is what is expected if their training/intensity was consistent for 10 months. But that is not the case over a racing season, with peaks, recoveries, altitude, etc:

I'm assuming the 'offseason' is general fitness, before a stint of more intense training at altitude. We see adaptation to altitude, and then the culmination of intense work through the rest of altitude and training camp. DM can be explained by an early arrival/dismissal from altitude camp, with some recovery between the two. Speculation of course. A more plausible explanation is usual team camp doping; I'm not sure what a whithdrawl of blood would look like, but it may look like DMs little dip (doubt it though, too insignficant imho).

Then we see the early racing season, where riders are training generally and get more specific intense. Follow the expect pattern of plasma expansion with more intense work. CVV takes some recovery before the Giro, as he's in it for the long haul. DM wants to be ready for the 1st stage TTT, and his goals peter out. Riding in a grand tour is intense, but I'm assuming/specualting that DM's different goals and efforts from CVV are represnted in their trends as the race goes on. I don't think that DM's .5 rise are indicative of big scale doping. TDF is hard to conclude with only 1 point. And thats just looking at your graph

If I am wrong, please point it out. I have been trying to learn

We would all do better with more data. The few points leave a lot of leeway for the riders to explain themselves with this and that.

My opinion is that, as evidenced by LA, doping is more obvious than what we see here. Its possible or likely sure. But the wiggle room in the analytical process is there for a reason; be it lack of data, individual biology, and things science doesn't know yet.

 

[luckyboy]

If you'd like to talk numbers, I'm willing to measure up. PM me and let's compare.

why do you want people to pm you rather than just post about it?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

...apparently Ashenden disagree with his assessment

Do you have a link to Ashenden's assessment? Would be an interesting read.

 

[Willy_Voet]

why do you want people to pm you rather than just post about it?

Because I'm not willing to mix personal interests (cycling) and professional experience (biotech) in a public forum with a bunch of anonymous posters. The history of cyclingnews.com shows that mixing private and professional life has its hazards.

Would you post your work address?

I develop biological assays, I review papers on assay development, I publish papers on analytical methods, bioassays and detection methods. Posting credentials publicly (degree, institution, papers published) is somewhat haughty.

Torben Pottgiesser's paper that provides the validation for the Biopassport shows (in Figure 2, Subject #16) a case very similar to what Dear Wiggo has claimed is "not natural" for David Millar. If you look at a single data point (#10 in this case), you can easily draw the wrong conclusion.

To be clear, I am not claiming DM as clean. I am stating that interpreting these numbers by drawing lines between them, looking at the last data point or two and saying this indicates doping, is foolish.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Bull****.

Once again, you have 1 (one) data point from the TdF for DM. What's worse, you do not have a blue line, you have a blue "connect the dots".

If you'd like to talk numbers, I'm willing to measure up. PM me and let's compare.

So plasma expansion is a myth?

I am not looking at 1 data point, I am looking at the overall trend, from start of dataset (offseason = lowest Hgb) to end of dataset (mid-GT = highest Hgb).

If you have the raw data, I would welcome it, the graphs are miniscule and detail is difficult to confirm precisely.

In the wsj version, Joe Lindsey even paints the final retic value from DM on the wrong friggin' line.

You confessed above not being a hematologist - so why are you getting so uppity about a very obvious analysis?

If you are a statistician or similar, why use such a craptastic graph type, clumping 3 rider's values one on top of the other, seriously? Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

To be clear, I am not claiming DM as clean. I am stating that interpreting these numbers by drawing lines between them, looking at the last data point or two and saying this indicates doping, is foolish.

Good, because I certainly did not do that, and neither did CaptainBag.

There's 2 possibilities:
1. the ABP is enough to determine dodginess, in which case we should be able to look at the data and determine its dodginess without additional explanation - so far we have "Ryder was sick" and "Everyone at the Giro tested high". Now we're adding, "not enough data".
2. the ABP readings are too open to interpretation or "explanation", in which case:
a) the ABP is worse than useless and
b) releasing values is disingenuous at best

 

[Dear Wiggo]

People are not static - they are dynamic. Methods and protocols are continuously refined. It's not a surprise to me that the week 3 bump in Ryder's 2012 Hgb is less than the corresponding 3rd week bump in 2009 Wiggins Giro and TdF.

Wiggins does not want to release his 2012 blood values because they're either
1. too static OR
2. too up and down.

and essentially, they will be scrutinised.