Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
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?

lol, imagine that, Sky and Froome doing the most logical thing in the world.
this whole exercise is a joke on so many levels.
how any honest scientist (regardless of the discipline) can see this unfold without raising an eyebrow or two is beyond me.

btw, wasn't the 2007-2015 comparison going to be a major part of the peerreviewed article?
havent seen that mentioned on the last two pages or so.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

@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?

Know it? No. Could deduced it? Yes, most likely based on their knowledge of the sport and data from other pros and semi-pros. But that doesn't negate the fact that very few, if any, have ever had access to an actual Tour winner, in the year of their win no less, and the data will be extremely interesting to all in the field. Just look at the discussion it's already created.

They may have had access to Froome's Tour data, I wouldn't have thought so though, but it would make it more useful. There is however the problem that there's no way they could take measurements during the Tour, they would have to rely on data recorded while he was on his bike and that is extremely uncontrolled. It would be very nice to see, but likely to cause more problems with the, already limited it seems, analysis.

@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?

Yes, a paper that has pretty much been rubbished since publication due to what has come out since. I know people will point out that many believe the same thing is going on with Froome, but it hasn't been proven. Also, even if we include the Armstrong/Coyle work this is n=2 and is still highly relevant.

It is perhaps better to consider this a case study (based on what I THINK will be published, I haven't seen anything so can't actually know).

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

...
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?

lol, imagine that, Sky and Froome doing the most logical thing in the world.
this whole exercise is a joke on so many levels.
how any honest scientist (regardless of the discipline) can see this unfold without raising an eyebrow or two is beyond me.

btw, wasn't the 2007-2015 comparison going to be a major part of the peerreviewed article?
havent seen that mentioned on the last two pages or so.

My memory agrees with you, but it's hazy at best. It was mentioned on twitter wasn't it?

 

[sniper]

Speaking with Cyclingnews, Swart said the full report will answer some of the criticisms levied at the initial publication, including the missing efficiency data noted by Dr. Andrew Coggan.

"[Coggan] made a comment about efficiency data, which is a valid point," Swart told Cyclingnews. "It doesn't really fit with an initial report. That's the data we will publish in a peer-reviewed scientific article. It was premature to ask for that. It's self-evident there is a lot more data that we collected and that we can't publish all of it immediately. Because then no scientific journal would want to publish it because it's in the public domain already."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swa...cal-testing-more-data-to-be-released-in-2016/

and indeed, the 2007 data were going to be in there as well.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

@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?

Know it? No. Could deduced it? Yes, most likely based on their knowledge of the sport and data from other pros and semi-pros. But that doesn't negate the fact that very few, if any, have ever had access to an actual Tour winner, in the year of their win no less, and the data will be extremely interesting to all in the field. Just look at the discussion it's already created.

They may have had access to Froome's Tour data, I wouldn't have thought so though, but it would make it more useful. There is however the problem that there's no way they could take measurements during the Tour, they would have to rely on data recorded while he was on his bike and that is extremely uncontrolled. It would be very nice to see, but likely to cause more problems with the, already limited it seems, analysis.

@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?

Yes, a paper that has pretty much been rubbished since publication due to what has come out since. I know people will point out that many believe the same thing is going on with Froome, but it hasn't been proven. Also, even if we include the Armstrong/Coyle work this is n=2 and is still highly relevant.

It is perhaps better to consider this a case study (based on what I THINK will be published, I haven't seen anything so can't actually know).

but was the interest in the Coyle study not (just) the numbers but how a change (based on previous numbers) in the numbers came about? And despite flaws in methodology (self reporting weight etc) did Coyle not at least 'own' the longitudinal data?

Swart (I believe) has just got numbers from a given day?

 

[sniper]

could be that the 2007-2015 comparison is going to be in a different paper.
It's not clear from this twitter convo:

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7. Dez. 2015

@maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler @DrMarkBurnley we've been asked by the scientists who collected that data whether we can publish it jointly.
0 Retweets 1 Gefällt mir

Mark Burnley
‏@DrMarkBurnley

@JeroenSwart @maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler and there we have it - scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

could be that the 2007-2015 comparison is going to be in a different paper.
It's not clear from this twitter convo:

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7. Dez. 2015

@maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler @DrMarkBurnley we've been asked by the scientists who collected that data whether we can publish it jointly.
0 Retweets 1 Gefällt mir

Mark Burnley
‏@DrMarkBurnley

@JeroenSwart @maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler and there we have it - scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish.

yeah...I am imagining a fudge....along the lines of..if we take the 2007 at face value (and why shouldn't we) then we can say that the transformation is due to weight loss...as has already been trailered

so n=2 indeed

 

[djpbaltimore]

I think most people are interested in how the 2007 data will be analyzed, but at this point I would rather wait to see what is written than speculate beforehand. Probably many others feel the same way. Hoping it happens soon, but academia does not typically operate in a manner that could be mistaken for rapid.

 

[Benotti69]

Most people are just waiting for more hilarity.

 

[sniper]

Re:

I think most people are interested in how the 2007 data will be analyzed, but at this point I would rather wait to see what is written than speculate beforehand. Probably many others feel the same way. Hoping it happens soon, but academia does not typically operate in a manner that could be mistaken for rapid.

you're going too fast here.
It still has to be established whether this exercise has had anything to do with academia at all.

basically what benotti says.

 

[djpbaltimore]

If it is not part of academia, your whole publish or perish argument falls apart completely. Care to rethink?

Seems like you posted just to try to start an argument.

 

[Rob27172]

Re:

@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.

The data may not belong to froome but how did they get the data in the first place
I cannot for one second believe that sky do not have their hands all over this and their lawyers carefully orchestrating exactly what is going to be allowed and by whom
And if you think otherwise I am afraid that you probably believe no scientist in the world is ever influenced by big business.

 

[sniper]

Re:

If it is not part of academia, your whole publish or perish argument falls apart completely. Care to rethink?

that only shows that you didn't grasp my argument in the first place.
deja vu.

 

[djpbaltimore]

@rob27172 Of course outside influences can play a role. I just don't see the leverage sky would have in this situation, especially as the study is supposedly done entirely at the behest of froome. Maybe their agreement is more byzantine than we have been led to believe and there are strings attached somehow. But from what I have gathered, the data is swart's to do as he sees fit.

@sniper. Do explain what you really meant then. And why you think this doesn't involve academia.

 

[sniper]

Re:

@rob27172 Of course outside influences can play a role. I just don't see the leverage sky would have in this situation, especially as the study is supposedly done entirely at the behest of froome. Maybe their agreement is more byzantine than we have been led to believe and there are strings attached somehow. But from what I have gathered, the data is swart's to do as he sees fit.

@sniper. Do explain what you really meant then. And why you think this doesn't involve academia.

considering the 'henao' paper that was promised but never came, everything seems possible in this case as well.
we have to wait and see.
for how long?
i,ll give it another six months, a year max. if we havent seen anything by then, i think the conclusion is inescapable that this was PR only, not academics.

my P or P argument was that i dont understans why they need so much time to get the manuscript ready for submission? it feeds my scepticism.
but i,ll join you on the fence for now

 

[Kicker661]

Re: Re:

my P or P argument was that i dont understans why they need so much time to get the manuscript ready for submission? it feeds my scepticism.
but i,ll join you on the fence for now

Problem is with this stuff is they are targeting a paid athlete so surely they need to tread carefully?

I'm not sure what data you guys want to see but for me it gets pretty alienesque when you factor in i am untrained. I have seen numbers put on here of only a few percent but the increase is WAY higher than that.

I don't have blood tests done now (only at the start) so i can't say what it all looks like but comparing watts to before and after, i wondered why i even bothered before LOL.

 

[djpbaltimore]

@sniper. Fair enough. If this thing hasn't been submitted by the end of 2016, that would be a red flag for me. A delay can be suspicious (henao case obviously), but based on my experience, I don't think we have reached that stage yet. Collaborative writing can be a lengthy process. Every author has to sign off on all of the conclusions and data. Sometimes that goes quickly, sometimes not.

 

[sniper]

Tucker on the issue back in December:

We can all see the moon on a clear night. It's getting around the back to the dark side of the moon that is the challenge, and a piece in Esquire, rather than in a peer-reviewed journal, runs the risk of having a very large dark side. And so my read of it will be to examine what is not being disclosed, and why?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/what-to-expect-from-chris-froomes-physiological-test-data/

 

[sniper]

the other thing is this:

it's ok to 'popularize' science.
but if you do that, afaict the order of events is traditionally this: first you publish the real science, then a 'popular' version of it. I could be wrong, but in the field i'm acquainted with that's how it usually works. And it makes sense.

swart and the gsk guys do it other way round, which, imo, is dubious from a scientific pov.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

Tucker on the issue back in December:

We can all see the moon on a clear night. It's getting around the back to the dark side of the moon that is the challenge, and a piece in Esquire, rather than in a peer-reviewed journal, runs the risk of having a very large dark side. And so my read of it will be to examine what is not being disclosed, and why?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/what-to-expect-from-chris-froomes-physiological-test-data/

I like the last paragraph in the comments under that article and agree with it:-
"I'll settle for the poor sod to be able to ride up an Alp in July without getting covered in piss"

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Tucker on the issue back in December:

We can all see the moon on a clear night. It's getting around the back to the dark side of the moon that is the challenge, and a piece in Esquire, rather than in a peer-reviewed journal, runs the risk of having a very large dark side. And so my read of it will be to examine what is not being disclosed, and why?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/what-to-expect-from-chris-froomes-physiological-test-data/

I like the last paragraph in the comments under that article and agree with it:-
"I'll settle for the poor sod to be able to ride up an Alp in July without getting covered in piss"

allegedly

 

[harryh]

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 29 min29 minuuttia sitten
Those getting impatient on social media platforms regarding the peer reviewed manuscript of @chrisfroome test data. Relax, it's on track.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 28 min28 minuuttia sitten
There are definitely some interesting and novel findings which I'm sure will provide a lot of interesting debate. @chrisfroome @GSK_HPL

 

[sniper]

Swart flirting with the Clinic, say it aint so.
The impatient one should be Swart himself though. It is a chance for him to set the record straight.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 29 min29 minuuttia sitten
Those getting impatient on social media platforms regarding the peer reviewed manuscript of @chrisfroome test data. Relax, it's on track.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 28 min28 minuuttia sitten
There are definitely some interesting and novel findings which I'm sure will provide a lot of interesting debate. @chrisfroome @GSK_HPL

yup......donkeys really can become racehorses

important empirical caveat...donkeys (who subsequentley race for sky) can become racehorses

 

[vedrafjord]

I heard now that G is targeting the Tour, Froome has decided to put on weight and stick it to Wiggins by winning Paris Roubaix...

...at least that was my first thought when I read this http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/12/widnes-vikings-rugby-super-league-2016