Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 820 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
As I mentioned before, this is likely a back burner issue for the scientists involved. Sitting on data for this long is not strange at all. Especially for a study of this type. It is not like you are going to be scooped by another lab.

ITA with Vedrafyrd's points.
lol, you think they're just giving it a rest?
They were (and still are being) pressed by social media to publish with peer-review. The 'missing' Henao study adds to that pressure.
So their cred, and Froome's cred, is on the line. Therefore this would normally have been a priority job. Your suggestion that they're now prioritizing other stuff, as nobody else will scoop the Froome data anyway, is not realistic.

At best it goes to show that it was a cheap PR stunt. At worst it suggest they never had any reliable set of data to work with in the first place, and we're in for another 'Henao'.

ITA with Vedrafyrd's points.
I-what?
Anyway, Furber's tweet suggests nothing has been submitted yet.
 
Feb 24, 2015
241
0
0
Or maybe it hasn't been submitted yet because they are still interviewing to get the right "panel" of sympathetic scientists to come up with the right answers to the fairy story that this will be
 
@rob27172. The data doesn't belong to froome, so it can only be published by the scientists who collected it.

@sniper. ITA = I totally agree. To be frank, what you think is realistic is often disconnected from reality when talking about anything related to science. Figured out what dialysis is yet? Or the difference between a kidney infection and kidney failure?

Academia means having diverse responsibilities with a finite time to do them. You need to prioritize and responsibilities to your university often take precedence.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
...
@sniper. ITA = I totally agree. To be frank, what you think is realistic is often disconnected from reality when talking about anything related to science. Figured out what dialysis is yet? Or the difference between a kidney infection and kidney failure?
protesting after you've been shown a red card is not gonna erase the red card.
or ask irondan to reopen the lemond thread if you need me to explain to you the difference between a bladder and a kidney. :rolleyes: it's off topic here.

Academia means having diverse responsibilities with a finite time to do them. You need to prioritize and responsibilities to your university often take precedence.
Universities want you to publish. Publish. Publish. In high-end journals, preferably. This would be such an opportunity, provided they have valid data of course. I agree with Vedrafjord as well, assuming they have submitted something. I took Furber's tweet to suggest that they haven't yet submitted anything. But I could be wrong. As I said, it's a bit of an ambiguous tweet.
Anyway, considering 'Henao', a bit of skepsis seems warranted here don't you think.
Fool me once, shame on you.
 
All publications are not created equal. Universities want grant money a whole lot more than publictions. The froome study is a limited scope project and won't help in that regard. And if you have a teaching schedule, you can't drop everything and write because 'social media' wants you too. Delays in publication due to prior peer reviews may also mean that their lab is prioritizing papers that have already been submitted. Bird in the hand....

@sniper. Deflect all you want, but the fact you couldn't answer 'yes' to either question speaks volumes about your lack of credibility on these topics.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

no grant money without publications, duh.

give the bladder=/kidney thing a rest already, or take it up with the OED :rolleyes:
 
King Boonen said:
gillan1969 said:
so for the academics...is measuring somebodies physiology 'research' worthy of being peer reviewed?

If yes...seems strange

If no...what then are they 'researching' that needs peer reviewed?
All published research should require peer review.
I get that...but is measuring somebody's physiology research?

or a job of work?
 
gillan1969 said:
King Boonen said:
gillan1969 said:
so for the academics...is measuring somebodies physiology 'research' worthy of being peer reviewed?

If yes...seems strange

If no...what then are they 'researching' that needs peer reviewed?
All published research should require peer review.
I get that...but is measuring somebody's physiology research?

or a job of work?
Clearly it can be either or both.

in this case it is to be published as research - as a scientific paper. Some aspect of it is presumably intended to add to human knowledge. Therefore, for a scientific journal, it has to be authenticated as accurate by peer review. Any amount of protesting otherwise will not change that. The boffins have told you that's how they work. Why take an opposite view?
 
wrinklyvet said:
gillan1969 said:
King Boonen said:
gillan1969 said:
so for the academics...is measuring somebodies physiology 'research' worthy of being peer reviewed?

If yes...seems strange

If no...what then are they 'researching' that needs peer reviewed?
All published research should require peer review.
I get that...but is measuring somebody's physiology research?

or a job of work?
Clearly it can be either or both.

in this case it is to be published as research - as a scientific paper. Some aspect of it is presumably intended to add to human knowledge. Therefore, for a scientific journal, it has to be authenticated as accurate by peer review. Any amount of protesting otherwise will not change that. The boffins have told you that's how they work. Why take an opposite view?
So you don't know either ;)
 
gillan1969 said:
wrinklyvet said:
gillan1969 said:
King Boonen said:
gillan1969 said:
so for the academics...is measuring somebodies physiology 'research' worthy of being peer reviewed?

If yes...seems strange

If no...what then are they 'researching' that needs peer reviewed?
All published research should require peer review.
I get that...but is measuring somebody's physiology research?

or a job of work?
Clearly it can be either or both.

in this case it is to be published as research - as a scientific paper. Some aspect of it is presumably intended to add to human knowledge. Therefore, for a scientific journal, it has to be authenticated as accurate by peer review. Any amount of protesting otherwise will not change that. The boffins have told you that's how they work. Why take an opposite view?
So you don't know either ;)
I accept this information as genuine. You needn't if you don't want to. if you go through the whole of your existence believing nothing is genuine you will soon lose your sense of direction.

Try this explanation, "In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication." That could apply to a scientific paper or any other kind of scholarly work.
 
gillan1969 said:
wrinklyvet said:
gillan1969 said:
King Boonen said:
gillan1969 said:
so for the academics...is measuring somebodies physiology 'research' worthy of being peer reviewed?

If yes...seems strange

If no...what then are they 'researching' that needs peer reviewed?
All published research should require peer review.
I get that...but is measuring somebody's physiology research?

or a job of work?
Clearly it can be either or both.

in this case it is to be published as research - as a scientific paper. Some aspect of it is presumably intended to add to human knowledge. Therefore, for a scientific journal, it has to be authenticated as accurate by peer review. Any amount of protesting otherwise will not change that. The boffins have told you that's how they work. Why take an opposite view?
So you don't know either ;)
I may have misunderstood you on the question of work or not. I meant to say plainly that it is capable of being a job (i.e. work), or research, or both of those. Are you asking in Froome's case? I expect it was not regarded as a hobby and it was intended as research, so it was both.

But like I say, it can be either or both (depending on the circumstances) and if the information is processed so as to inform others of things they may not know, surely that is research, not just a job, even though it may have been somebody's job to take measurements etc. if you are just being amusing then good for you but I give up right now!
 
[/quote]

I get that...but is measuring somebody's physiology research?

or a job of work?[/quote]
Clearly it can be either or both.

in this case it is to be published as research - as a scientific paper. Some aspect of it is presumably intended to add to human knowledge. Therefore, for a scientific journal, it has to be authenticated as accurate by peer review. Any amount of protesting otherwise will not change that. The boffins have told you that's how they work. Why take an opposite view?[/quote]

So you don't know either ;)[/quote]

I accept this information as genuine. You needn't if you don't want to. if you go through the whole of your existence believing nothing is genuine you will soon lose your sense of direction.

Try this explanation, "In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication." That could apply to a scientific paper or any other kind of scholarly work.[/quote]

sorry....to the bolded....so you 'genuinely' don't know either? :)

what "aspect" do you think it is?

I presume you are not disinterested and are of enquiring mind?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
wrinklyvet said:
...
I accept this information as genuine. You needn't if you don't want to. if you go through the whole of your existence believing nothing is genuine you will soon lose your sense of direction.
jeezus.
how does one go from "doubting if Froome's test results are worth a peer review" to "believing nothing is genuine"?
 
I get that...but is measuring somebody's physiology research?

or a job of work?[/quote]
Clearly it can be either or both.

in this case it is to be published as research - as a scientific paper. Some aspect of it is presumably intended to add to human knowledge. Therefore, for a scientific journal, it has to be authenticated as accurate by peer review. Any amount of protesting otherwise will not change that. The boffins have told you that's how they work. Why take an opposite view?[/quote]

So you don't know either ;)[/quote]

I accept this information as genuine. You needn't if you don't want to. if you go through the whole of your existence believing nothing is genuine you will soon lose your sense of direction.

Try this explanation, "In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication." That could apply to a scientific paper or any other kind of scholarly work.[/quote]

sorry....to the bolded....so you 'genuinely' don't know either? :)

what "aspect" do you think it is?

I presume you are not disinterested and are of enquiring mind?[/quote]

You haven't had an opportunity to see my second reply. I have an enquiring mind and have had for very many decades I now abandon attempts to discuss this with you.
 
sniper said:
wrinklyvet said:
...
I accept this information as genuine. You needn't if you don't want to. if you go through the whole of your existence believing nothing is genuine you will soon lose your sense of direction.
jeezus.
how does one go from "doubting if Froome's test results are worth a peer review" to "believing nothing is genuine"?
Hold it there tiger. He's not just doubting that. He thinks a scientific journal would not require one, or believes they should not (or something like that, not believing those on this thread who are clearly able to advise). But I don't want to go on - it's a pointless argument because it's clear this thing won't get published (except in the lad's mag already) without meeting the requirements set for it.
 
wrinkly

I am giving up on the quote thing perhaps swart can do a paper on it to help human, and specifically my, understanding of it :)

telling us Froome is fit enough to win the Tour is not research...as he has...eh...just won the tour

What is the 'new thing' Swart will try to tell us do you think?

I do consider it worthy of some speculation and not least because, as it will be based on the basic physiological data already published, then why the delays?
 
gillan1969 said:
King Boonen said:
gillan1969 said:
so for the academics...is measuring somebodies physiology 'research' worthy of being peer reviewed?

If yes...seems strange

If no...what then are they 'researching' that needs peer reviewed?
All published research should require peer review.
I get that...but is measuring somebody's physiology research?

or a job of work?
Well that's not what you asked, and I'm guessing pretty much no-one on this forum is really qualified to say, but I would think, if we take it all at face value and above board, that performance numbers of arguably the number 1 professional endurance athlete in the world will be of interest to many.

We also don't know what the actual paper will contain, so even someone who is qualified to make that call can't unless they have read it.
 
Re:

wrinklyvet said:
@gillan1969

Happy to confirm I don't know. Best to wait, as I expect nobody knows. It could be illuminating or it may be a damp squib. We aren't likely to know in advance. Cheers. Over and out.
It already is a damp squib. As stated above, a lot of fuss to demonstrate that the best cyclist in the world has a physiology that would befit the best cyclist the world.
 
@kingboonen Exactly. Terrific points.

@simoni. So what physiological parameters are required to be the best cyclist in the sport? This study will help answer that, so it is novel work. Most would say that it lacks impact, but it is still adding a small piece of knowledge that was not known before. That is the point of publication. Communicating new data to the scientific community. So it should be peer reviewed for that reason.
 
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
@kingboonen Exactly. Terrific points.

@simoni. So what physiological parameters are required to be the best cyclist in the sport? This study will help answer that, so it is novel work. Most would say that it lacks impact, but it is still adding a small piece of knowledge that was not known before. That is the point of publication. Communicating new data to the scientific community. So it should be peer reviewed for that reason.
could they not just have asked Ferrari? ;)

But, surely most physiologists know this, no?

As an aside, would it not have been more useful to take measurements during the Tour when he was the best cyclist in the world or do we expect this data to be included within final piece?
 
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
@kingboonen Exactly. Terrific points.

@simoni. So what physiological parameters are required to be the best cyclist in the sport? This study will help answer that, so it is novel work. Most would say that it lacks impact, but it is still adding a small piece of knowledge that was not known before. That is the point of publication. Communicating new data to the scientific community. So it should be peer reviewed for that reason.
besides..is that not what the Coyle/Armstrong paper already did?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS