Re:
There is only one outcome. We already know Froome isn't a great talent. It's just not possible.
observer said:
There is only one outcome. We already know Froome isn't a great talent. It's just not possible.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re: Re:
I don't disagree with you on Froome but what would be credible testing/numbers for you? Without anything pre Vuelta 2011 then any numbers we get now are a little pointless but better than having nothing at all surely? I'm assuming the only thing that will satisfy most of us now is a positive test which isn't going to happen anytime soon
the sceptic said:
I don't disagree with you on Froome but what would be credible testing/numbers for you? Without anything pre Vuelta 2011 then any numbers we get now are a little pointless but better than having nothing at all surely? I'm assuming the only thing that will satisfy most of us now is a positive test which isn't going to happen anytime soon
Re: Re:
It's completely pointless. Misinformation is not better than nothing, it's far worse.
StryderHells said:
It's completely pointless. Misinformation is not better than nothing, it's far worse.
Re: Re:
These 2 do not go together. Your mind is not open if you believe Froome is a doper. He is a doper and this article will be another whitewash so Froome can say i showed you my data, but he wont have.
observer said:
These 2 do not go together. Your mind is not open if you believe Froome is a doper. He is a doper and this article will be another whitewash so Froome can say i showed you my data, but he wont have.
Re: Re:
Not sure about that, misinformation might fool the British media and the Sky faithful but if the numbers are that far of the mark then people who know what they are looking at can make some noise about itred_flanders said:
Re: Re:
Would they publish the 2007 data if it showed he isn't a great talent?the sceptic said:
Re: Re:
Total hyperbolic nonsense. No one is claiming that peer review is a perfect system, but your analysis is just as wrong. Peer review is the most valuable tool in Science. As for the timing, I have never heard of a paper being published in such a short time period as you are expecting this work to be published. Reviewers often get upwards of 4 weeks to make their comments and writing/ revision can take just as long or longer depending on the number of authors and organizations involved. And with some journals, the paper may be accepted and sit 'in press' for months before the actual edition is published. Unless you have experienced the process firsthand, there are many things that you will fail to take into account that plays into the delay. Overall, you can't put a timetable on publishing in peer review journals.
Hopefully it will be in an open access journal, but the pay wall is exactly why mainstream reporting of the data is important. And skeptics will be able to access the paper as easily as believers.
Dear Wiggo said:
Total hyperbolic nonsense. No one is claiming that peer review is a perfect system, but your analysis is just as wrong. Peer review is the most valuable tool in Science. As for the timing, I have never heard of a paper being published in such a short time period as you are expecting this work to be published. Reviewers often get upwards of 4 weeks to make their comments and writing/ revision can take just as long or longer depending on the number of authors and organizations involved. And with some journals, the paper may be accepted and sit 'in press' for months before the actual edition is published. Unless you have experienced the process firsthand, there are many things that you will fail to take into account that plays into the delay. Overall, you can't put a timetable on publishing in peer review journals.
Hopefully it will be in an open access journal, but the pay wall is exactly why mainstream reporting of the data is important. And skeptics will be able to access the paper as easily as believers.
Re: Re:
If you refuted anything I said, your claim for hyperbole would have some merit.
There was absolutely no necessity to publish this "data" in a journal whatsoever. Journal publishing serves no purpose other than to attempt to lend it some credibility.
I am sorry you do not see the parallel between this and the Coyle study. I think even blind Freddy can.
It's obvious you either have some skin in the publishing game, or are desperate to cling to your unwarranted theory. Your bias permeates your post.
It's smoke and mirrors on the part of Sky to publish anything about this clearly doped rider.
As a reminder to you and anyone else wondering what the Coyle study says, this is the final part of the final paragraph on Armstrong:
It is remarkable that at age 25 yr this individual developed advanced cancer, requiring surgeries and chemotherapy, yet these events did not appear to impede his physiological maturation and athletic achievements. Clearly, this champion embodies a phenomenon of both genetic natural selection and the extreme to which the human can adapt to endurance training performed for a decade or more in a person who is truly inspired.
The Froome version looks the same:
It is remarkable that at age 25 yr this individual developed bilharzia, requiring praziquantel, yet these events did not appear to impede his physiological maturation and athletic achievements. Clearly, this champion embodies a phenomenon of both genetic natural selection and the extreme to which the human can adapt to endurance training performed for a decade or more in a person who is truly inspired.
Unbiased research coupled with complete transparency is the most valuable tool in science, not peer review.
djpbaltimore said:
If you refuted anything I said, your claim for hyperbole would have some merit.
There was absolutely no necessity to publish this "data" in a journal whatsoever. Journal publishing serves no purpose other than to attempt to lend it some credibility.
I am sorry you do not see the parallel between this and the Coyle study. I think even blind Freddy can.
It's obvious you either have some skin in the publishing game, or are desperate to cling to your unwarranted theory. Your bias permeates your post.
It's smoke and mirrors on the part of Sky to publish anything about this clearly doped rider.
As a reminder to you and anyone else wondering what the Coyle study says, this is the final part of the final paragraph on Armstrong:
It is remarkable that at age 25 yr this individual developed advanced cancer, requiring surgeries and chemotherapy, yet these events did not appear to impede his physiological maturation and athletic achievements. Clearly, this champion embodies a phenomenon of both genetic natural selection and the extreme to which the human can adapt to endurance training performed for a decade or more in a person who is truly inspired.
The Froome version looks the same:
It is remarkable that at age 25 yr this individual developed bilharzia, requiring praziquantel, yet these events did not appear to impede his physiological maturation and athletic achievements. Clearly, this champion embodies a phenomenon of both genetic natural selection and the extreme to which the human can adapt to endurance training performed for a decade or more in a person who is truly inspired.
Unbiased research coupled with complete transparency is the most valuable tool in science, not peer review.
Re: Re:
If you had some evidence to back up your hyperbolic claim, I would have plenty to refute, DW
It's clear that you have no idea how publishing works or the value of Peer review. Who is the best to judge bias if not your scientific peers?
Source for the Froome quote please?
Dear Wiggo said:
If you had some evidence to back up your hyperbolic claim, I would have plenty to refute, DW
It's clear that you have no idea how publishing works or the value of Peer review. Who is the best to judge bias if not your scientific peers?
Source for the Froome quote please?
Re: Re:
Uh. I have no idea how publishing works? Don't be stupid.
Just stop for a second, and look where you are reading and responding. In the Clinic. In the thread talking about Froome. No, I am not an idiot. No, I am not talking about publishing and the review process in general.
I am specifically talking about the publishing of this trivial sputum of data from a doped rider.
Here's a quick google of peer review's failure to be reliable:
Here's the main problem I have with the publishing of this data set in particular:
Do try stop clinging to your theory so tightly and perhaps try to consider what I am saying before pressing the [You're wrong I'm right I'm so much smarter than you coz I know the publishing process and you don't nyah nyah] button again?
djpbaltimore said:
Uh. I have no idea how publishing works? Don't be stupid.
Just stop for a second, and look where you are reading and responding. In the Clinic. In the thread talking about Froome. No, I am not an idiot. No, I am not talking about publishing and the review process in general.
I am specifically talking about the publishing of this trivial sputum of data from a doped rider.
Here's a quick google of peer review's failure to be reliable:
Here's the main problem I have with the publishing of this data set in particular:
Do try stop clinging to your theory so tightly and perhaps try to consider what I am saying before pressing the [You're wrong I'm right I'm so much smarter than you coz I know the publishing process and you don't nyah nyah] button again?
Re: Re:
It's my best estimate for how they are going to explain some hack domestique went from zero to hero.
As I said above, I look forward to reading what they release, but do not think they are going to have a valid explanation for the evolution of Froome as a rider.
djpbaltimore said:
It's my best estimate for how they are going to explain some hack domestique went from zero to hero.
As I said above, I look forward to reading what they release, but do not think they are going to have a valid explanation for the evolution of Froome as a rider.
Peer review is flawed for sure, my favorite example is the Wakefield/Lancet fraudulent paper.
It is still, however, the best method out there.
It is still, however, the best method out there.
Re:
You know I am talking specifically about this Froome "study" yeah? And lamenting the use of publishing and peer review yadda yadda being applied to this specific person. Just as Coyle did with Armstrong.
In an attempt to justify the validity of the rider in question.
It. Is. Stupid.
Catwhoorg said:
You know I am talking specifically about this Froome "study" yeah? And lamenting the use of publishing and peer review yadda yadda being applied to this specific person. Just as Coyle did with Armstrong.
In an attempt to justify the validity of the rider in question.
It. Is. Stupid.
Re:
The best method surely is the Monty Python witch method.
Peasants: We have found a doper! (A doper! a doper!)
Burn him burn him!
Peasant 1: We have found a doper, may we burn him?
(cheers)
Vladimir: How do you know he is a doper?
P2: He looks like one!
There we go, problem solved! No need to wait for any that peer reviewed stuff because the jury's already spoken. Burn them all! The whole sport!
Peasant 1: Now that cycling's gone what can we watch?
Vladimir: Athletics? I hear the Russians are rather good.
P2: Athletics!
Catwhoorg said:
The best method surely is the Monty Python witch method.
Peasants: We have found a doper! (A doper! a doper!)
Burn him burn him!
Peasant 1: We have found a doper, may we burn him?
(cheers)
Vladimir: How do you know he is a doper?
P2: He looks like one!
There we go, problem solved! No need to wait for any that peer reviewed stuff because the jury's already spoken. Burn them all! The whole sport!
Peasant 1: Now that cycling's gone what can we watch?
Vladimir: Athletics? I hear the Russians are rather good.
P2: Athletics!
Re: Re:
if we want to discuss athletics in terms of froome-style transformations then I think Cram just about nails it here...
"New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."
Savant12 said:
if we want to discuss athletics in terms of froome-style transformations then I think Cram just about nails it here...
"New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."
thehog
BANNED
Re: Re:
Peer review has its place, its important. The point here and we all have to wait until the report(s) are released, is that peer review is used endlessly in the food/diet industry. Most of the research is commissioned and paid for by product manufactures. For example there are many peer reviewed reports on sweetener aspartame and that it does not cause any ill health to humans and that it is safer than sugar. There are also many counter research that aspartame can cause cancer and other diseases with long term use.
Another example were the number of “market analyst” reports written between 2000-2008 which were peer reviewed by esteemed education institutions stating all was well in the economy, unit it wasn’t.
Here with the Froome reports, the study was commissioned by Froome himself (assuming Sky are not involved) and that he paid GSK, Swart etc. for their services. Similar to the food industry with their studies. Whilst there may not be doctoring of the results the “terms of reference” are set at the beginning – i.e. not do a Vo2 max test and estimate the oxygen intake value instead via power readings (this is an example rather than what has actually occurred).
Peer review does help as the person who reviews should reference where they see potential deficiencies in the testing and conclusions, it just depends who they “select” to do that “peer review” – i.e. If Tim Kerrison peer reviews the results then it’s not worth that paper it’s written on. Alternately if Ross Tucker was selected then it will be a useful report.
The term peer review in itself does not mean “watertight” – it’s just means someone else looked at the report, it really comes down if that review was done responsibly.
I actually want to read it because I’d like to see how they plan to explain the 2011 September jump in performance without the Walsh overdub, the data and associated explanation will be most interesting.
Dear Wiggo said:
Peer review has its place, its important. The point here and we all have to wait until the report(s) are released, is that peer review is used endlessly in the food/diet industry. Most of the research is commissioned and paid for by product manufactures. For example there are many peer reviewed reports on sweetener aspartame and that it does not cause any ill health to humans and that it is safer than sugar. There are also many counter research that aspartame can cause cancer and other diseases with long term use.
Another example were the number of “market analyst” reports written between 2000-2008 which were peer reviewed by esteemed education institutions stating all was well in the economy, unit it wasn’t.
Here with the Froome reports, the study was commissioned by Froome himself (assuming Sky are not involved) and that he paid GSK, Swart etc. for their services. Similar to the food industry with their studies. Whilst there may not be doctoring of the results the “terms of reference” are set at the beginning – i.e. not do a Vo2 max test and estimate the oxygen intake value instead via power readings (this is an example rather than what has actually occurred).
Peer review does help as the person who reviews should reference where they see potential deficiencies in the testing and conclusions, it just depends who they “select” to do that “peer review” – i.e. If Tim Kerrison peer reviews the results then it’s not worth that paper it’s written on. Alternately if Ross Tucker was selected then it will be a useful report.
The term peer review in itself does not mean “watertight” – it’s just means someone else looked at the report, it really comes down if that review was done responsibly.
I actually want to read it because I’d like to see how they plan to explain the 2011 September jump in performance without the Walsh overdub, the data and associated explanation will be most interesting.
I find it most humourous that they cite the 2007 data, and the post-2011 Vuelta data, ignoring all the stuff in between...
Re: Re:
Firstly, I have person experience of the peer review system, being a published scientist (though not sport's scientist), and agree with the above statements for a full blown article.
But is that what we are actually talking about? I am not au fait with the scope of the tests Froome has undertaken (and the Scope of Work would be interesting to know, frankly, because also feeds into the legitimacy of the data). Nor do I know the degree of detailed analysis being commissioned. But a set of personal data wouldn't be published in a journal without being put into a wider context anyway, because individual results don't constitute very much of interest to the wider science even if Froome were a freak of nature. Might make a 'research letters' section or something, which has a lot less lead time.
But that isn't what I understood this to be all about…I understood this to be some kind of testing of Froome to demonstrate his physiological performance capabilities and refute criticism received in the Tour.
Assuming what we are looking at is an analysis of Froome's data, then, for the scientists involved, this is basically a consultancy project…they will be commissioned to review and comment upon data collected. I really don't see how analysing one guys dataset on the basis of expert judgement and established benchmarks and making bland statements about what it indicates…honestly, I'm guessing, but I'd reckon it'd take less than a week. Perhaps significantly less. Let's be generous and say two weeks though, including their superior signing off on it, to make sure their are no hostages to fortune. (As a medical comparison, I was part of a 'population well-being' assessment recently, involving a week of monitoring, a full day of tests, MRI scans, thyroid/liver you name it functioning test, lots and lots of bloodwork, heart, VO max etc….and I got my results and basic analysis back via my doctor as part of the deal of my contributing my time within four weeks…there were 10,000 people in that research project so a shed-load of other data to handle and QA/QC along with mine)
If Sky were really committed to transparency, what they would release would be the analyses undertaken (i.e. the reports of the scientists) with the raw data appended to it. It doesn't need to be peer-reviewed before doing this. If they didn't want to release it to the general public for fear of all manner of imbeciles without knowledge getting involved, they could make it available to any legitimate sports science institution for a free 'peer review' or to inform their research.
As things stand, all I believe we'll be getting is a (rather tame) journalist's interpretation of two (or is it three?) reports - I'm not clear whether these are separate and independent (i.e. a triangulation of three different reports from three totally independent people), or three different parts of the tests being studied by three different specialists…whatever comes out in a peer reviewed journal I strongly suspect will be a much wider paper about physiology and not 'Mr Froome's detailed test results for your delectation'.
I must say I would be interested to know whether or not the people commissioned had all specific identifiers from the dataset removed to make sure there was no bias…that's what would have happened in my field for this kind of short consultancy project…and we weren't even studying people. As I said, the scope of work would be interesting too…if they aren't being commissioned to comment on something, they won't comment on it, but we won't necessarily know that they haven't been asked to look at it, and omission from scope can very easily be assumed to mean 'omission because of nothing interesting to say' unless someone asks the right questions about why there are gaps, or a lack of emphasis on one topic or another...
djpbaltimore said:
Firstly, I have person experience of the peer review system, being a published scientist (though not sport's scientist), and agree with the above statements for a full blown article.
But is that what we are actually talking about? I am not au fait with the scope of the tests Froome has undertaken (and the Scope of Work would be interesting to know, frankly, because also feeds into the legitimacy of the data). Nor do I know the degree of detailed analysis being commissioned. But a set of personal data wouldn't be published in a journal without being put into a wider context anyway, because individual results don't constitute very much of interest to the wider science even if Froome were a freak of nature. Might make a 'research letters' section or something, which has a lot less lead time.
But that isn't what I understood this to be all about…I understood this to be some kind of testing of Froome to demonstrate his physiological performance capabilities and refute criticism received in the Tour.
Assuming what we are looking at is an analysis of Froome's data, then, for the scientists involved, this is basically a consultancy project…they will be commissioned to review and comment upon data collected. I really don't see how analysing one guys dataset on the basis of expert judgement and established benchmarks and making bland statements about what it indicates…honestly, I'm guessing, but I'd reckon it'd take less than a week. Perhaps significantly less. Let's be generous and say two weeks though, including their superior signing off on it, to make sure their are no hostages to fortune. (As a medical comparison, I was part of a 'population well-being' assessment recently, involving a week of monitoring, a full day of tests, MRI scans, thyroid/liver you name it functioning test, lots and lots of bloodwork, heart, VO max etc….and I got my results and basic analysis back via my doctor as part of the deal of my contributing my time within four weeks…there were 10,000 people in that research project so a shed-load of other data to handle and QA/QC along with mine)
If Sky were really committed to transparency, what they would release would be the analyses undertaken (i.e. the reports of the scientists) with the raw data appended to it. It doesn't need to be peer-reviewed before doing this. If they didn't want to release it to the general public for fear of all manner of imbeciles without knowledge getting involved, they could make it available to any legitimate sports science institution for a free 'peer review' or to inform their research.
As things stand, all I believe we'll be getting is a (rather tame) journalist's interpretation of two (or is it three?) reports - I'm not clear whether these are separate and independent (i.e. a triangulation of three different reports from three totally independent people), or three different parts of the tests being studied by three different specialists…whatever comes out in a peer reviewed journal I strongly suspect will be a much wider paper about physiology and not 'Mr Froome's detailed test results for your delectation'.
I must say I would be interested to know whether or not the people commissioned had all specific identifiers from the dataset removed to make sure there was no bias…that's what would have happened in my field for this kind of short consultancy project…and we weren't even studying people. As I said, the scope of work would be interesting too…if they aren't being commissioned to comment on something, they won't comment on it, but we won't necessarily know that they haven't been asked to look at it, and omission from scope can very easily be assumed to mean 'omission because of nothing interesting to say' unless someone asks the right questions about why there are gaps, or a lack of emphasis on one topic or another...
Re: Re:
they won't have conducted the 2007 work themselves, by definition, and so the brief, i can imagine, can only be...'can the rider who produced those figures now produce these figures'. The answer will of course be yes and I would imagine will be explained by 'efficiency gains' but mostly weight loss...i would imagine they would restrict scope to climbing so as to bypass trick questions about his TTing ability. The 'peer' reviewed bit will be the recent work which they will have conducted themselves..i.e. the environment will have been controlled...so yes interesting to see the spin on the 2007 data...if the data could be simply released without Richard Moore it would have been done post Vuelta 2011...or at any point between then and now everytime somebody smelt the rotten fish...
Electress said:
they won't have conducted the 2007 work themselves, by definition, and so the brief, i can imagine, can only be...'can the rider who produced those figures now produce these figures'. The answer will of course be yes and I would imagine will be explained by 'efficiency gains' but mostly weight loss...i would imagine they would restrict scope to climbing so as to bypass trick questions about his TTing ability. The 'peer' reviewed bit will be the recent work which they will have conducted themselves..i.e. the environment will have been controlled...so yes interesting to see the spin on the 2007 data...if the data could be simply released without Richard Moore it would have been done post Vuelta 2011...or at any point between then and now everytime somebody smelt the rotten fish...
Re: Re:
What you said was the whole point of my response (i.e. that peer review is complete BS). Peer review works for the vast majority of situations.
The article you cited is interesting, but the author's solution that a single editor can replace peer reviewers is pretty ridiculous and creates even more potential for bias and abuse of the system. Often times, the editor is not even a full time position, held by established scientists on a part time basis. And no one would have the broad background (or time) to assess the merits of all papers submitted to most journals. The article does highlight the flaws that I alluded to when I noted that peer review is an imperfect system. Of note, the number one flaw was that the whole process is too SLOW... which was my main point.
Electress makes great points about peer review, including how this Froome case study may be a type of study that could be fast-tracked compared to a typical paper. This is definitely possible. But sometimes there are additional bureaucratic hurdles to clear when dealing with non-academic organizations like Glaxo. I ran into this particular problem headlong with a compound I studied that was donated by a Pharmaceutical company. Bottlenecks can sometimes pop up in unpredictable spots.
Catwhoorg brings up an interesting example about Wakefield/ Lancet. His actual paper was pretty non-committal and cleared peer review because it didn't make unsupported, incendiary claims about autism. But his non- peer reviewed comments to the media after its publication are what really fanned the flames of the 'autism is caused by vaccines' craze. He also hid conflicts of interest that, if disclosed, would've led to the paper being rejected. Not to mention all the scientific misconduct that was later discovered.
thehog is also right that passing peer review is not equivalent to being anointed as the gospel truth. Publication really is just the first step in peer review. It is like the gatekeeper to the arena of scientific discourse. For that reason, there is usually data sharing agreements associated with publishing (the degree of sharing depends on the journal). With regards to Froome, this should mean that the raw data files should be accessible to all those that wish to independently analyze them. Sadly, this is another area of abuse, as people often refuse to share or erect enormous barriers of red tape to prevent competitors from being able to see the data.
Dear Wiggo said:
What you said was the whole point of my response (i.e. that peer review is complete BS). Peer review works for the vast majority of situations.
The article you cited is interesting, but the author's solution that a single editor can replace peer reviewers is pretty ridiculous and creates even more potential for bias and abuse of the system. Often times, the editor is not even a full time position, held by established scientists on a part time basis. And no one would have the broad background (or time) to assess the merits of all papers submitted to most journals. The article does highlight the flaws that I alluded to when I noted that peer review is an imperfect system. Of note, the number one flaw was that the whole process is too SLOW... which was my main point.
Electress makes great points about peer review, including how this Froome case study may be a type of study that could be fast-tracked compared to a typical paper. This is definitely possible. But sometimes there are additional bureaucratic hurdles to clear when dealing with non-academic organizations like Glaxo. I ran into this particular problem headlong with a compound I studied that was donated by a Pharmaceutical company. Bottlenecks can sometimes pop up in unpredictable spots.
Catwhoorg brings up an interesting example about Wakefield/ Lancet. His actual paper was pretty non-committal and cleared peer review because it didn't make unsupported, incendiary claims about autism. But his non- peer reviewed comments to the media after its publication are what really fanned the flames of the 'autism is caused by vaccines' craze. He also hid conflicts of interest that, if disclosed, would've led to the paper being rejected. Not to mention all the scientific misconduct that was later discovered.
thehog is also right that passing peer review is not equivalent to being anointed as the gospel truth. Publication really is just the first step in peer review. It is like the gatekeeper to the arena of scientific discourse. For that reason, there is usually data sharing agreements associated with publishing (the degree of sharing depends on the journal). With regards to Froome, this should mean that the raw data files should be accessible to all those that wish to independently analyze them. Sadly, this is another area of abuse, as people often refuse to share or erect enormous barriers of red tape to prevent competitors from being able to see the data.
Just a thought
may be it is the Peer Review itself that's keeping the data from us.
The data/analysis as submitted may be so shoddy/suspicious
that the reviewers are obliged to keep sending it back to the authors
for correction/clarification.
Can happen
may be it is the Peer Review itself that's keeping the data from us.
The data/analysis as submitted may be so shoddy/suspicious
that the reviewers are obliged to keep sending it back to the authors
for correction/clarification.
Can happen
thehog
BANNED
Re:
Most universities worth a grain of salt have their own peer review procedures for research and studies. Because they rely so heavily on funding they do like to “appear” that the research and subsequent peer review process is water tight.
Studies which are done outside of the academic arena are more open to poor standards. They run to their own rules.
Every time I read the phrase “Recent studies have shown....” or “A new study on xyz has shown...” my eyes roll over.
Froome's study is within the world of private enterprise thus the standards may come into question.
djpbaltimore said:
Most universities worth a grain of salt have their own peer review procedures for research and studies. Because they rely so heavily on funding they do like to “appear” that the research and subsequent peer review process is water tight.
Studies which are done outside of the academic arena are more open to poor standards. They run to their own rules.
Every time I read the phrase “Recent studies have shown....” or “A new study on xyz has shown...” my eyes roll over.
Froome's study is within the world of private enterprise thus the standards may come into question.
Re: Re:
obviously not a buyer of ladies mosturising creams hog
I don't think that the interesting bit (2007) could be peer reviewed as it is in effect a review of old lab figures, a review in itself..???
....and for the recent tests then the biggest variable in that study is Froome himself...not the methodology or testing procedures (which is presumably what the 'peers' will focus on)...so...would the subject of the study, Froome himself, be in any way biased as to what the outcome might be??
thehog said:
obviously not a buyer of ladies mosturising creams hog
I don't think that the interesting bit (2007) could be peer reviewed as it is in effect a review of old lab figures, a review in itself..???
....and for the recent tests then the biggest variable in that study is Froome himself...not the methodology or testing procedures (which is presumably what the 'peers' will focus on)...so...would the subject of the study, Froome himself, be in any way biased as to what the outcome might be??
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 986
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Started by Logic-is-your-friend
- Replies: 752
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram