Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[harryh]

https://twitter.com/MatthewFurber/status/704316288403955712?lang=fi

 

[sniper]

Re:

https://twitter.com/MatthewFurber/status/704316288403955712?lang=fi

It's a bit odd they need that much time to get a manuscript ready for peer-review.
They had this wonderful 15-paged report ready in September, shortly after the tests.
https://www.gskhpl.com/dyn/_assets/_pdfs/chris-froome-bodycompaerophys.pdf

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

https://twitter.com/MatthewFurber/status/704316288403955712?lang=fi

It's a bit odd they need that much time to get a manuscript ready for peer-review.
They had this wonderful 15-paged report ready in September, shortly after the tests.
https://www.gskhpl.com/dyn/_assets/_pdfs/chris-froome-bodycompaerophys.pdf

It had to be bound in leather with gold trimmings on the binder. That takes time the princesses of Monaco insisted.

 

[peloton]

Re:

Stay out of the water Chris!!

“We were jumping into waterfalls, swimming in the river and laying on the grass...."

Seriously, why the fook risk this in one of SAs riskier bilharzia provinces/district:

http://www.nmc.gov.za/Docs/Bilharzia.pdf

It may be that they are high enough up to negate any risk but still, as we say in Scotland, 'it widnae be me'!

Simple, pretty much zero testing in SA, esp. in the off season where usually the most doping happens

 

[LaFlorecita]

Why would they need over half a year to peer review some documents and data?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Why would they need over half a year to peer review some documents and data?

If it was quicker then acedemia would have less and shorter funding periods It always took me 6 months to hand in a dissertation, generally late.

Nevertheless, I'm sure it hasn't taken some time to get the Lausanne data correct

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

Why would they need over half a year to peer review some documents and data?

It is a massive undertaking given the enormous talent and the unbelievable numbers provided by the greatest clean rider of all time.

 

[veganrob]

Re:

Why would they need over half a year to peer review some documents and data?

It's a pretty big piece of wool they need to knit to pull over every ones eyes

 

[TourOfSardinia]

For a peer review journal 6 month is not abnormal - some times the reviewers actually object
to parts of the text and ask for changes or even more substantial work.
There is even the risk of outright rejection on the basis of paucity of scientific method.

 

[thehog]

Re:

For a peer review journal 6 month is not abnormal - some times the reviewers actually object
to parts of the text and ask for changes or even more substantial work.
There is even the risk of outright rejection on the basis of paucity of scientific method.

Will they test for the fabric of a sandshoe?

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

For a peer review journal 6 month is not abnormal - some times the reviewers actually object
to parts of the text and ask for changes or even more substantial work.
There is even the risk of outright rejection on the basis of paucity of scientific method.

I'm slightly confused here...perhaps ignorance of the scientific procedure is to blame

what is to review?

They did what is presumably established physiological testing of a human athlete...the likes of which must have been done (hundreds of) thousands of times....what is 'new' here that needs such reviewing?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

For a peer review journal 6 month is not abnormal - some times the reviewers actually object
to parts of the text and ask for changes or even more substantial work.
There is even the risk of outright rejection on the basis of paucity of scientific method.

I'm slightly confused here...perhaps ignorance of the scientific procedure is to blame

what is to review?

They did what is presumably established physiological testing of a human athlete...the likes of which must have been done (hundreds of) thousands of times....what is 'new' here that needs such reviewing?

this indeed.

also note thatjeroen swart has plenty of experience with producing a reviewable manuscript.
and the gsk guys had a data report ready almost directly after the tests. the report was all over the internet.

this should be an easy exercise, and one that would normally receive priority, since froome is hihgprofile.
i,m calling big bs on this time frame.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

For a peer review journal 6 month is not abnormal - some times the reviewers actually object
to parts of the text and ask for changes or even more substantial work.
There is even the risk of outright rejection on the basis of paucity of scientific method.

I'm slightly confused here...perhaps ignorance of the scientific procedure is to blame

what is to review?

They did what is presumably established physiological testing of a human athlete...the likes of which must have been done (hundreds of) thousands of times....what is 'new' here that needs such reviewing?

Well I'm not a scientist either, but I have read that the intention is to publish this as a scientific paper. The piece in the lads' mag was a taster. Scientific journals with their reputation on the line require that other scientists who were not originally involved go through the methodology and details so as to review the contents and find them credible before the journals will publish it. So the peer review is a review by the peers or equals of the original authors and they do say it takes time to get this done.

I suppose it is new because though testing must have been done often, the results or conclusions have presumably not made it in this proposed form and with this particular subject into a scientific journal. By all means tell me if I am wrong!

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

For a peer review journal 6 month is not abnormal - some times the reviewers actually object
to parts of the text and ask for changes or even more substantial work.
There is even the risk of outright rejection on the basis of paucity of scientific method.

I'm slightly confused here...perhaps ignorance of the scientific procedure is to blame

what is to review?

They did what is presumably established physiological testing of a human athlete...the likes of which must have been done (hundreds of) thousands of times....what is 'new' here that needs such reviewing?

Well I'm not a scientist either, but I have read that the intention is to publish this as a scientific paper. The piece in the lads' mag was a taster. Scientific journals with their reputation on the line require that other scientists who were not originally involved go through the methodology and details so as to review the contents and find them credible before the journals will publish it. So the peer review is a review by the peers or equals of the original authors and they do say it takes time to get this done.

I suppose it is new because though testing must have been done often, the results or conclusions have presumably not made it in this proposed form and with this particular subject into a scientific journal. By all means tell me if I am wrong!

you,re not necessarily wrong, but can u tell us what happened to the henao paper, and why we should have more faith this time round.

 

[wrinklyvet]

@Sniper - sorry, but I don't have any info and you should not confuse or identify me with insiders.

 

[sniper]

Re:

@Sniper - sorry, but I don't have any info and you should not confuse or identify me with insiders.

sure, but you agree that the delay in the henao study raises an eyebrowe or two?
i seem to remember similar promises were made back when hayles did a 50 plusser.
some study was supposed to be in production, with the help of a uci committee that included yorck "Freiburg" schumacher.. but of course nothing ever came out. And hayles was exononerated.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

@Sniper - sorry, but I don't have any info and you should not confuse or identify me with insiders.

sure, but you agree that the delay in the henao study raises an eyebrowe or two?
i seem to remember similar promises were made back when hayles did a 50 plusser.
some study was supposed to be in production, with the help of a uci committee that included yorck "Freiburg" schumacher.. but of course nothing ever came out. And hayles was exononerated.

I agree we might have expected to hear more about the henao study. I haven't heard anything since this: http://cyclingtips.com/2015/06/university-of-sheffield-says-it-is-still-working-on-henao-biological-passport-study-publication-drawing-closer/
Others may know?

 

[veganrob]

I don't understand how they can compare data from two tests given years apart from two different labs and testers. There is nothing consistent about it at all and I thought that is one requirement from a scientific view point to draw conclusions.

 

[gillan1969]

I don't understand how they can compare data from two tests given years apart from two different labs and testers. There is nothing consistent about it at all and I thought that is one requirement from a scientific view point to draw conclusions.

they can't really...and..ell especially since the original methodology would not have included the initial test...after all it was only 'uncovered' by the Cound...

so with no protocol or methodological innovations, I'm struggling to see what 'peers' will actually be 'reviewing'.....

if its 'presentation' then perhaps its being sent malcolm tucker

 

[vedrafjord]

Re: Re:

For a peer review journal 6 month is not abnormal - some times the reviewers actually object
to parts of the text and ask for changes or even more substantial work.
There is even the risk of outright rejection on the basis of paucity of scientific method.

I'm slightly confused here...perhaps ignorance of the scientific procedure is to blame

what is to review?

They did what is presumably established physiological testing of a human athlete...the likes of which must have been done (hundreds of) thousands of times....what is 'new' here that needs such reviewing?

this indeed.

also note thatjeroen swart has plenty of experience with producing a reviewable manuscript.
and the gsk guys had a data report ready almost directly after the tests. the report was all over the internet.

this should be an easy exercise, and one that would normally receive priority, since froome is hihgprofile.
i,m calling big bs on this time frame.

I am a scientist, and a six month delay is absolutely typical. It's one of the reasons there's a push towards preprints and post-publication review with sites like Arxiv. Figure of around 9 months for society journals is mentioned here http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf

The for-profit, closed access journals are an absolute price-gouging racket racket on a level that would make Pat McQuaid or Sepp Blatter blush. Here's a good summary from a guy who lobbies heavily for getting bio/medical papers available to all as soon as possible http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=694 - he says average wait for his papers is 6-9 months.

 

[sniper]

...
I am a scientist, and a six month delay is absolutely typical. It's one of the reasons there's a push towards preprints and post-publication review with sites like Arxiv. Figure of around 9 months for society journals is mentioned here http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf

The for-profit, closed access journals are an absolute price-gouging racket racket on a level that would make Pat McQuaid or Sepp Blatter blush. Here's a good summary from a guy who lobbies heavily for getting bio/medical papers available to all as soon as possible http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=694 - he says average wait for his papers is 6-9 months.

i agree, once the paper is in review you can get all sorts of delays.
but my point was that the paper hasn't even been submitted yet, at least that's how I understood Matt Furber's tweet.

Furber: manuscript has been been drafted. Should be in peer review within the next couple of months..

sure, one could stretch the meaning of that tweet and take it to mean that they've submitted it, and it's now waiting for review.
but if ihe meant submitted, why not say submitted.
to me this sounds like it's not been submitted yet, which, given the reasons I mentioned in my previous post, would be odd.

 

[sniper]

on a side, Furber's conflict of interest still adorns his twitter profile:
"National Trainer @ukantidoping".

Goes to show how much of a joke the field of sports science has become.
Not a sign of any kind of external control. Don't have to answer to anybody.

Even Swart admitted he wouldn't have tested Froome if he'd worked for UCI in any capacity.

 

[harryh]

Re:

I think "National Trainer" is his job for UKAD, which means that he

"sit on the education team within UKAD. Role requires outreach delivery to athletes, coaches and support staff (elite and development) on the principles of clean sport and anti-doping. Helping to protect the spirit of sport."

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/matt-furber-45a51829'

Obviously I'm missing something 'cause can't see connections to UCI.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Obviously I'm missing something 'cause can't see connections to UCI.

iinm, Froome is policed by two bodies: UCI/CADF and BC/UKAD.
Swart working for UCI, or Furber for UKAD, same deal.

 

[djpbaltimore]

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 Vedrafjord's points.