Pseudo-science

[The Hitch]

Re:

To be fair the team leader explanation makes total sense. Big scientific points to whoever figured out that pattern.

He did poorly in all those races where he wasn't team leader throughout 2007- 2011.
Then in the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour de France he suddenly did really well because things were different. Now he wasn't the team leader.


Oh wait.

Good post Hitch.

Come to think of it Froome had opportunities to lead teams earlier in his career. Like his so hyped 2008 Tour de France performance when he was allowed to ride for himself and got an amazing 30th position on the final mountain stage which was one of the most impressive performances for a 22 year old in Tour de France history.

Sarcasm aside, he sucked as team leader in 2008 Tour de France and 2010 Giro and likely one or two other opportunities over the years when he failed to muster anything special.

Then when he finally had his transformation, it wasn't as a team leader but as a helper for wiggins.

Its such a flawed explanation, but hillariously, its precisely the type of thing Brailsford and the fan journos like Walsh and Moore dream up and since they don't have the mental capacity to exercise simple logic, actually try to sell as a plausible explanation.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Yes good post Hitch.

Fundamentally only those who don't want to see it as a PR stunt, don't see it is a a PR stunt. We have the same "inexplicable" transformation as shown by Wiggins. Of course it is only inexplicable if you rule out PEDs. Soon as you put those in the mix and the historical, majority acceptance of widespread usage of pharma aids, as a factual element of pro-cycling, the transformation is easily explained, and the disguising myths are seen as just smoke and mirrors every bit as much as practiced by monopolies and fraudsters throughout time..

Adam McKay was on the BBC program "This Week" on Thursday night talking about his film "The Big Short". It was a fascinating interview. The film is about a bunch of individuals who recognised that Credit Default Swaps and the "triple A" rating of so many obviously totally insecure loan bundles was just a con and the 2008 bursting of the bubble was going to happen. Too many people, particularly those regulatory bodies who should have been warning, just suspended all logical thought and went with the BS. His take on the psychology of those involved in the con was great. More interesting was his characterisation of that minority not taken in by the con and who actively spoke out against it. I laughed out loud during the program. His characterisation could have been summed up by Wiggos outburst "internet wank**s".

Apparently the Wall Street Journal complained about the characterisation of their orgainisation and individuals at the WSJ in the film. They complained it was trashing their reputation as competent analysists of all things financial. McKay went back to them with the testimony of their response to an incident when a couple of individuals came to them with the story that the credits, rather than being "triple A" were in fact worthless and this was a bubble that was going to bring the whole house down. Apparently the WSJ sent them away saying they were not going to print anything of the sort. The "internet wank**s" were dismissed as knowing nothing.

The "Pseudo Scientists", are not independent and not bringing proper disciplined rigour to their activities. Swart looks totally compromised in respect to prior links with Froome and the cycling scene, with various dopers getting popped at various time. The GSK guys should have taken a step back and asked "Why ?" And then once they had a proper answer to that question they could have offered the construct of analysis that contributed to that solution rather than act so as to provide a truss to a concocted PR exercise.

How about this as a scenario that sometime into the future Chris Boardman is going to come out, when it is entirely safe for him to do so, and say - "you know what - I did take EPO to win, but so what - everyone else was"? And he keeps his millions, he no longer has need of his BBC gig and can live out life entirely comfortably on his falsely accrued gains.

 

[thehog]

The Big Short example is a very good one. During the same era of the banking crisis there were also many 'scientific' financial reports produced by Havard MBAs and the like writing freelance. Many of them were purporting to how stable the economy or mortgage vehicle was etc. It's eerily similar to how today's sports science write reports; "The big engine was there all a long, he just lost the fat"..... "The current economic conditions indicate that now is a secure time to invest in sub prime mortgage products".

 

[Freddythefrog]

Andrew Neil asked McKay something along the lines of during your research did the "experts" in the ratings agencies and compliance or whoever received the ratings at the banks cling to the idea that they never knew sub-prime was dodgy ? The answer was great. McKay made the analogy that the bankers were like an overweight person getting on the scales every morning and seeing that he weighed 180 lbs and each day they gave the exact same reading. He knew he didn't weigh 180 lbs and knew the scales were broken but what they heck, he was not going to rush out and get the scales fixed any time soon. That could always wait.

How many "overweight" people have we got at the top of cycling ? After all Cookson employed Leinders, Sutton, Sciandri, de Jong, Julrich, Barry, Lance's drug courier Lillistone, even old hands like Keith Lambert now get a ride on the gravy train. Only a madman could look at that lot and not understand the scales are broken.

"We did due diligence ! "

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

How many "overweight" people have we got at the top of cycling ?

I don't think we can accuse Froome as being overweight today.
It's how he manages to get and stay thin that remains the question.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

To be fair the team leader explanation makes total sense. Big scientific points to whoever figured out that pattern.

He did poorly in all those races where he wasn't team leader throughout 2007- 2011.
Then in the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour de France he suddenly did really well because things were different. Now he wasn't the team leader.


Oh wait.

Good post Hitch.

Come to think of it Froome had opportunities to lead teams earlier in his career. Like his so hyped 2008 Tour de France performance when he was allowed to ride for himself and got an amazing 30th position on the final mountain stage which was one of the most impressive performances for a 22 year old in Tour de France history.

Sarcasm aside, he sucked as team leader in 2008 Tour de France and 2010 Giro and likely one or two other opportunities over the years when he failed to muster anything special.

Then when he finally had his transformation, it wasn't as a team leader but as a helper for wiggins.

Its such a flawed explanation, but hillariously, its precisely the type of thing Brailsford and the fan journos like Walsh and Moore dream up and since they don't have the mental capacity to exercise simple logic, actually try to sell as a plausible explanation.

Barloworld didn't even have enough faith in Froome to make him team leader there, it was Mauricio Soler, the one rider on Barloworld who actually made an impression in the mountains the year before. The focus then went to Augustyn when it was clear that he had some form and Soler crashed out.

Froome was just allowed to take a couple of opportunities, and still did nothing special, unless you call not getting dropped until Bourg d'Oisans special

 

[SouthDowns]

Re:

To be fair the team leader explanation makes total sense. Big scientific points to whoever figured out that pattern.

He did poorly in all those races where he wasn't team leader throughout 2007- 2011.
Then in the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour de France he suddenly did really well because things were different. Now he wasn't the team leader.


Oh wait.

That wasn't quite the explanation Moore reported that Froome gave on the podcast, that was more around the work he was doing in the early stages of races. Froome said he was the first man to be used on the flat whereas 2011 Vuelta and 2012 Tour he was saved for the climbs.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

To be fair the team leader explanation makes total sense. Big scientific points to whoever figured out that pattern.

He did poorly in all those races where he wasn't team leader throughout 2007- 2011.
Then in the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour de France he suddenly did really well because things were different. Now he wasn't the team leader.


Oh wait.

That wasn't quite the explanation Moore reported that Froome gave on the podcast, that was more around the work he was doing in the early stages of races. Froome said he was the first man to be used on the flat whereas 2011 Vuelta and 2012 Tour he was saved for the climbs.

quite...it's normal for tour teams to have a spread of riders across their tour roster...big burly one day specialists to take the wind on the flat stages for example...like Froome

 

[SouthDowns]

Re: Re:

To be fair the team leader explanation makes total sense. Big scientific points to whoever figured out that pattern.

He did poorly in all those races where he wasn't team leader throughout 2007- 2011.
Then in the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour de France he suddenly did really well because things were different. Now he wasn't the team leader.


Oh wait.

That wasn't quite the explanation Moore reported that Froome gave on the podcast, that was more around the work he was doing in the early stages of races. Froome said he was the first man to be used on the flat whereas 2011 Vuelta and 2012 Tour he was saved for the climbs.

quite...it's normal for tour teams to have a spread of riders across their tour roster...big burly one day specialists to take the wind on the flat stages for example...like Froome

In fairness his TT results in 2010 suggest he could do a more than adequate job in that role, don't you think?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

To be fair the team leader explanation makes total sense. Big scientific points to whoever figured out that pattern.

He did poorly in all those races where he wasn't team leader throughout 2007- 2011.
Then in the 2011 Vuelta and the 2012 Tour de France he suddenly did really well because things were different. Now he wasn't the team leader.


Oh wait.

That wasn't quite the explanation Moore reported that Froome gave on the podcast, that was more around the work he was doing in the early stages of races. Froome said he was the first man to be used on the flat whereas 2011 Vuelta and 2012 Tour he was saved for the climbs.

quite...it's normal for tour teams to have a spread of riders across their tour roster...big burly one day specialists to take the wind on the flat stages for example...like Froome

In fairness his TT results in 2010 suggest he could do a more than adequate job in that role, don't you think?

Potentially but without looking at the stages and working out when and why he should be chasing then not sure....you'd have to going some to use up that 'engine' on a flat stage/before mountains....and of course if you were...it would have been remarked upon along the lines of "bloomin 'eck he's strong...why are they using him up now, imagine he lost some weight etc etc"...a bit like Indurian in his days supporting delgado.....of course that's academic, the issue would be that cyclists that are 'adequate' at doing the 'first man to be used up role' tend not to become dominant GT riders unless they also used to be crap, are also on SKY and have lost lots of weight

 

[SouthDowns]

Maybe, I’m not so sure, just a skinny fella doing the job of a burley fella. Normally when Sky try to take control of a race like that the only remark is “Why are they doing that? They don’t have anyone who can win this thing!”

Without a power files from entire stages everyone is guessing.

But the point about working as a domestic would allow for the transformation to be much more gradual. If you really honestly think about it is it weird that he didn’t show in the Tour of Poland? A messy race for classics guys and sprinters? Where he went as a domestic? For a team that is remarkably trigger happy in chucking riders at the front for no good reason? And who had 2 riders in the top 10 and one just a smidge further back? I’m all for asking the tough questions but “Why was Froome low down in the 2011 tour of Poland” is as tough a question as “Why hasn’t Sagan won GC in the Tour de France?”

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Maybe, I’m not so sure, just a skinny fella doing the job of a burley fella. Normally when Sky try to take control of a race like that the only remark is “Why are they doing that? They don’t have anyone who can win this thing!”

Without a power files from entire stages everyone is guessing.

But the point about working as a domestic would allow for the transformation to be much more gradual. If you really honestly think about it is it weird that he didn’t show in the Tour of Poland? A messy race for classics guys and sprinters? Where he went as a domestic? For a team that is remarkably trigger happy in chucking riders at the front for no good reason? And who had 2 riders in the top 10 and one just a smidge further back? I’m all for asking the tough questions but “Why was Froome low down in the 2011 tour of Poland” is as tough a question as “Why hasn’t Sagan won GC in the Tour de France?”

well quite.....that happens in SKY..G (or is it T ) moves seamlessly from ghent to the high alps...

not normal

 

[SouthDowns]

Re: Re:

Maybe, I’m not so sure, just a skinny fella doing the job of a burley fella. Normally when Sky try to take control of a race like that the only remark is “Why are they doing that? They don’t have anyone who can win this thing!”

Without a power files from entire stages everyone is guessing.

But the point about working as a domestic would allow for the transformation to be much more gradual. If you really honestly think about it is it weird that he didn’t show in the Tour of Poland? A messy race for classics guys and sprinters? Where he went as a domestic? For a team that is remarkably trigger happy in chucking riders at the front for no good reason? And who had 2 riders in the top 10 and one just a smidge further back? I’m all for asking the tough questions but “Why was Froome low down in the 2011 tour of Poland” is as tough a question as “Why hasn’t Sagan won GC in the Tour de France?”

well quite.....that happens in SKY..G (or is it T ) moves seamlessly from ghent to the high alps...

not normal

Bizarre change of topic.

Ok, 3rd in Ghent and 15th in the Tour goes against the general trend of specialisation. So what?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Maybe, I’m not so sure, just a skinny fella doing the job of a burley fella. Normally when Sky try to take control of a race like that the only remark is “Why are they doing that? They don’t have anyone who can win this thing!”

Without a power files from entire stages everyone is guessing.

But the point about working as a domestic would allow for the transformation to be much more gradual. If you really honestly think about it is it weird that he didn’t show in the Tour of Poland? A messy race for classics guys and sprinters? Where he went as a domestic? For a team that is remarkably trigger happy in chucking riders at the front for no good reason? And who had 2 riders in the top 10 and one just a smidge further back? I’m all for asking the tough questions but “Why was Froome low down in the 2011 tour of Poland” is as tough a question as “Why hasn’t Sagan won GC in the Tour de France?”

well quite.....that happens in SKY..G (or is it T ) moves seamlessly from ghent to the high alps...

not normal

Bizarre change of topic.

Ok, 3rd in Ghent and 15th in the Tour goes against the general trend of specialisation. So what?

not really...just a skinny fella doing the job of a burley fella...only on SKY do they combine both...in the one rider (or indeed at least 4..stannard being an honourable exception...although when the hubris gets too great we may yet see a Hincapie moment )

 

[SouthDowns]

Re: Re:

Maybe, I’m not so sure, just a skinny fella doing the job of a burley fella. Normally when Sky try to take control of a race like that the only remark is “Why are they doing that? They don’t have anyone who can win this thing!”

Without a power files from entire stages everyone is guessing.

But the point about working as a domestic would allow for the transformation to be much more gradual. If you really honestly think about it is it weird that he didn’t show in the Tour of Poland? A messy race for classics guys and sprinters? Where he went as a domestic? For a team that is remarkably trigger happy in chucking riders at the front for no good reason? And who had 2 riders in the top 10 and one just a smidge further back? I’m all for asking the tough questions but “Why was Froome low down in the 2011 tour of Poland” is as tough a question as “Why hasn’t Sagan won GC in the Tour de France?”

well quite.....that happens in SKY..G (or is it T ) moves seamlessly from ghent to the high alps...

not normal

Bizarre change of topic.

Ok, 3rd in Ghent and 15th in the Tour goes against the general trend of specialisation. So what?

not really...just a skinny fella doing the job of a burley fella...only on SKY do they combine both...in the one rider (or indeed at least 4..stannard being an honourable exception...although when the hubris gets too great we may yet see a Hincapie moment )

If you have the power to TT well and can handle your bike you can do alright in the spring classics, it’s not like he’s winning sprint finishes against Kristoff or Boonen. And there have always been guys around who can TT and climb, wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow pre-epo.

What am I missing?

 

[sniper]

7mins on the use of altitude tents in 2009-ish by Aussie cyclists.
worth a watch as it gives a good impression of how the wheels of pseudo sports science are turning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JOuesHPbCg
"we all know altitude training works".
yes we do.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Maybe, I’m not so sure, just a skinny fella doing the job of a burley fella. Normally when Sky try to take control of a race like that the only remark is “Why are they doing that? They don’t have anyone who can win this thing!”

Without a power files from entire stages everyone is guessing.

But the point about working as a domestic would allow for the transformation to be much more gradual. If you really honestly think about it is it weird that he didn’t show in the Tour of Poland? A messy race for classics guys and sprinters? Where he went as a domestic? For a team that is remarkably trigger happy in chucking riders at the front for no good reason? And who had 2 riders in the top 10 and one just a smidge further back? I’m all for asking the tough questions but “Why was Froome low down in the 2011 tour of Poland” is as tough a question as “Why hasn’t Sagan won GC in the Tour de France?”

well quite.....that happens in SKY..G (or is it T ) moves seamlessly from ghent to the high alps...

not normal

Bizarre change of topic.

Ok, 3rd in Ghent and 15th in the Tour goes against the general trend of specialisation. So what?

not really...just a skinny fella doing the job of a burley fella...only on SKY do they combine both...in the one rider (or indeed at least 4..stannard being an honourable exception...although when the hubris gets too great we may yet see a Hincapie moment )

If you have the power to TT well and can handle your bike you can do alright in the spring classics, it’s not like he’s winning sprint finishes against Kristoff or Boonen. And there have always been guys around who can TT and climb, wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow pre-epo.

What am I missing?

I think G&T has his own thread and we have little science, psuedo or otherwise related to him, however, with regards our hapless hero...you simply can't hide an engine of a dominant GT winner in the pack.......c'est impossible...

 

[sniper]

Re:

Long time lurker, first time etc…

SouthDowns is hereby banned for being sockpuppet of previously banned user(s).

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Long time lurker, first time etc…

SouthDowns is hereby banned for being sockpuppet of previously banned user(s).

That's awkward

 

[sniper]

https://twitter.com/Jeukendrup/status/768417170778980352

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

https://twitter.com/Jeukendrup/status/768417170778980352

He's never met JTL

 

[sniper]

Amateur athletes, empty your pockets please:
https://twitter.com/Jeukendrup/status/769965767244873728

Reinventing the wheel:
https://twitter.com/Jeukendrup/status/769958504824246273

This one is good too, Jeukendrup retweeting Lawrence Spriet:
https://twitter.com/iocdipspnut/status/769960117223747589
In the late 70s through the 80s the good Canadian doctor Spriet was at the center of athlete experiments with blood doping. Thirty odd years later, he's an expert on the impact of Omega 3 on athletic performance

 

[badboygolf16v]

Wonder if Asker could tell that Rabo riders were receiving the tender ministrations of Geert Leinders when he was testing them?

 

[sniper]

Evidence of what? That Lawrence Spriet is a blood doping specialist and that he experimented with blood doping on athletes? Just google the guy.
Or let me help you out:
Buick, F., N. Gledhill, A. Froese, L. Spriet and E. Meyers 1978 “Double-blind study of
blood boosting in highly trained runners.”
Yes, that's 1978.
And it's just one of several similar studies in which he's been involved.

So, if there is anything in my post you would like to challenge why don't you just do it without the adhoms. (yes, that's a rethorical question )

Now back on topic.
Here's Lawrence doing some kind of gatorade commercial disguised as 'science':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W7iRaBpwtM
Now if you ask me that's *** disgusting coming from a guy who's also taking a more than decent salary from his university. No CoIs there whatsoever
True pseu...i mean sport science.
(And yes, Asker is a Gatorade guy, too)

It's because of facilitators and sell-outs like our friend Lawrence here that clean athletes don't stand a chance to compete in topsport, and havent' had a chance to compete for decades now.
The fact that you seem to have so much sympathy for all these facilitators, enablers and pseudoscientists tells me all i need to know about your own scientific and sportive integrity.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

!?!?

That video clip was actually quite interesting. Gatorade probably wanted some hard scientific facts to support its marketing and the good doctor was probably ecstatic that he was going to get his research insta-funded. You do know that businesses fund external research activities that they aren't equipped to undertake? Yes? For that you're going to smear Dr. Spriet as a facilitator, enabler, pseudo-scientist while accusing Dr. Coggan of having no integrity?

Check your head, sniper.

John Swanson