Oh, good grief. I myself have been funded by many NIH grants, and I can assure everyone that the process of selecting recipients is not at all like the process by which Froome/Cound selected Swart. I only wish that the process of receiving a grant was as easy as the process by which Swart was chosen to do this study.
Also, while the study as actually published in a scientific journal will certainly be written up as just an objective characterization of certain physiological parameters of a TDF champion, the original rationale for the study was to alleviate doubts about Froome’s cleanliness. That is abundantly clear from the statements made by Froome/Sky prior to the study. It’s beyond argument that the only reason the study was performed at all was because of all the criticism Froome received, particularly during last year’s Tour.
Just to make my own position clear, I’m not accusing Swart of fraud or incompetence. I think he performed the study fairly well, and assuming the final report is accepted, I expect the science to be reasonably sound. The real problem, IMO, is that while Swart or Moore probably shouldn’t have made the statement that it was just weight loss, in fact that statement is probably fairly accurate. If the earlier report on his weight is correct (though it is inconsistent with Froome's own statements about his weight during that period), and if his absolute power did not drop significantly, then he did experience a very large increase in power/weight.
I think the reason Swart subsequently backed off from or qualified that statement is partly because, as a scientist, he knows that there are probably multiple factors involved, that one single factor is unlikely to be 100% responsible for Froome's improvement. Fair enough. But weight loss is also more consistent with doping than is an explanation involving other factors, so emphasizing it tends to add more suspicion to Froome than is the case if there are other factors. There are PEDs that help riders lose weight. There aren’t PEDs that help riders become team leaders (except, of course, indirectly through performance enhancement).
The bottom line is that Froome underwent a major change in performance and results. The greater the number of factors such as being team leader, changes in training, etc., one can name as possibly contributing to this change, the less need there is for suggesting doping as the major reason. The very fact that someone would search for these factors indicates a presumption of cleanliness. The question implicitly being asked is, assuming he didn't dope, how can we explain the change in his performance? That's a fair question, but a complete scientific analysis would also ask the question, assuming he did dope, how can we explain the change?
If the original purpose of the study was to address doping allegations, how can you not ask the latter question? Froome/Cound's approach was not to ask this question. It was to show that Froome was clean, IOW, they were presupposing the answer they wanted--the antithesis of science. A scientist should go into this study with an open mind about whether doping occurred or not. I'm not saying Swart could have conducted the study any differently if he had approached it in that manner, but he certainly could have broadened his discussion and interpretations to include this issue. If he was unwilling to do this, then his approach shouldn't be considered scientific. Quite frankly, if I were a reviewer of the paper, and there was no discussion of the possibility of doping, I would flag it. Maybe there will be, but I doubt it.
Alex Simmons/RST said:
There's a difference between being motivated and performance under psychological pressure.
I would say there are different potential sources for motivation, and psychological pressure is certainly one of them. I was contrasting that in-the-moment motivation with a different kind that might result from a situation preceding the competition, such as wearing the jersey.
At elite level that tends to dissipate somewhat, as riders need an intrinsically high level of motivation to train and race as much as they do.
Agreed, that was part of my point originally.
But if e.g. a rider is wearing the leader's jersey then they may well be motivated to ride harder to defend it than if they were not. Or if they have a chance to claim the jersey, then that may also motivate them to ride harder than they might otherwise do.
If this actually happens, I would say these riders are not putting out their best in other situations, and management/trainers should certainly be trying to find out why and working with them to address this problem.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram