Pseudo-science

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

good points 42x16ss.

and I think that Swarts 2015 work on Froome should for those reasons indeed be viewed mildly/positively.

However, while Swart has probably done a methodologically sound job on Froome 2015, I do think he, and the field as a whole, should strive for much much more. The goal of Swart, and of sports science as a whole, cannot be to continue producing insignificant test results.
Then, the irony of Swart's 2015 test results on Froome is that they will become truly relevant for the field only once we know the kind of drugs Froome has been on. Only then can we draw some useful conclusions from it, e.g. in terms of what impact a combination of AICAR with microdosed EPO can have on VO2max.
Even in the absence of reliable 2007 data: his realtime road performances from the prevuelta'11 period give us enough of an impression so as to allow for informed speculation.

Actually we won't. It still would not be possible to legitimately parse out the specific impact of doping substances/methods from all the other factors.

On a side, other work by Swart seems more questionable in terms of why doping/peds aren't at all mentioned as a possible variable.
For instance, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Lamberts/publication/23683240_Changes_in_heart_rate_recovery_after_high-intensity_training_in_well-trained_cyclists/links/0c9605200f925314c7000000.pdf
In such a study, the topic of PEDs and their possible impact on the results should at least be touched upon.

Why? It's not like it was a study on pro riders.

Keep in mind that the proportion of such science conducted on elite/pro level cyclists isn't large. Test subjects are often not selected from the pro ranks but from healthy population samples of sub-elite cyclists.

e.g. here's a study examining the effect of removing some blood on O2 uptake kinetics and exercise tolerance, and also makes direct comparison with impacts of RhEPO injection as per earlier research.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2005.032805/full
Subjects were healthy non elites (just like the study you linked earlier), as were the subjects in two referenced studies that examined impact of RhEPO injection.

So there is "real science" that does consider the effect of doping (in this case EPO) and compares it to other interventions.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

(BTW, one name you don't appear to have mentioned is Ashenden....don't the vast majority of his peer-reviewed papers deal with doping?)

i mentioned him earlier on as one bright example.
admittedly, there are probably much more bright examples that I haven't heard of (had no time yet to go through the links provided by Alex Simmons for instance).
But I think it's fair to stick to my point that (large) segments of the field suffer from a lack of acknowledgement of PEDs as a crucial variable in performance.

To be sure, I have no trouble admitting the field at present is probably doing as much as it can in light of its current specific scientific mandate and the way funding is allotted.
The point i think for me is that this mandate should be reconsidered/reformulated, and the study of PEDs (a. detection; b. impact on performance) should be prioritized, if only by explicitly acknowledging the necessity of more research in that area. A paradigm change usually doesnt happen in a fortnight.

And funding or a lack thereof is not an excuse for any science to just accept its flaws without any further contemplation. Physiological tests on athletes of whom we don't know if they doped should certainly continue (there's no alternative at present), but the resulting studies should at least include some sort of contemplation on the topic of doping, and preferably formulate new goals for future research on that matter.

You conflate the conduct of science with research funding priorities. Addressing the latter is not so much a question of science but rather of sufficient anti-doping political will.

 

[sniper]

very fair point.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I dont have much of a problem with forum members throwing around the terms 'bad science' and 'pseudoscience', but I do when Team owners, DS, riders and others in the sport who do it to shoot down doping accusations.

The incorrect use of such terminology by anyone in the "debate" is unhelpful.

I guess most sports scientists work with athletes to increase the performance with the use of PEDs. The tests they do either are to indicate how much to dope or how effective the doping is.

Sports scientists? Perhaps you mean some dodgy doctors? Doctors <> scientists.

I do imagine that scientists who have performed science with elite doper athlete subjects have been either unaware of the fact, not interested in the fact, or didn't care because for the nature of the science being performed, it wasn't a relevant variable. And yep, perhaps there have been some scientists involved too. Only have to look at state sanctioned examples in history.

The majority of sports scientists I've come across involved in elite sport (not a large number admittedly) wouldn't have had anything to do with such nefarious activity. But I can't possibly know the scope of such things, and nor really can anyone else.

How would you know? I never see ads for doping, do you? Elite sport is all about doping, so scientists must get their hands 'dirty' directly or indiretly.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

On a side, other work by Swart seems more questionable in terms of why doping/peds aren't at all mentioned as a possible variable.
For instance, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Lamberts/publication/23683240_Changes_in_heart_rate_recovery_after_high-intensity_training_in_well-trained_cyclists/links/0c9605200f925314c7000000.pdf
In such a study, the topic of PEDs and their possible impact on the results should at least be touched upon.

Why? It's not like it was a study on pro riders.

Keep in mind that the proportion of such science conducted on elite/pro level cyclists isn't large. Test subjects are often not selected from the pro ranks but from healthy population samples of sub-elite cyclists.

e.g. here's a study examining the effect of removing some blood on O2 uptake kinetics and exercise tolerance, and also makes direct comparison with impacts of RhEPO injection as per earlier research.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2005.032805/full
Subjects were healthy non elites (just like the study you linked earlier), as were the subjects in two referenced studies that examined impact of RhEPO injection.

So there is "real science" that does consider the effect of doping (in this case EPO) and compares it to other interventions.

The bolded is a key point. The study only required a minimum of 3 years of cycling experience and more that 6 hours per week. The study linked in the OP also along the same lines.

And to attribute the paper to Dr. Swart is probably overstating things. Lamberts is the first author and corresponding author. Convention would give him the majority of the credit for the study.

 

[Davesta]

I’m a long-time lurker here, but generally don’t have time to write posts & enter into discussions. But, it’s Christmas, so this gives me a good alternative to doing work!
So I figured I’d add a few of my thoughts into the discussion…

Firstly, I think it’s important to note that in the field of Sport Science, there are many different subjects or lines of investigation. There are large bodies of work investigating, for example, the role of sport & exercise in health & obesity, biomechanics, specific biochemistry topics or Sport Psychology.

However, the discussion here seems to be focussing on the study of elite athletes or studies examining the effects of specific interventions on performance.
The study of elite athletes forms a very small part of the overall Sport & Exercise Science literature, and is, for the most part, performed by way of descriptive investigation – that is, to simply describe or measure certain aspects of an elite athlete. The recent data on Chris Froome is perhaps an example of this - disregarding the discussion that followed (on here & on twitter etc) and the 2007 data, the 2015 test was aimed simply at “describing” Froome’s physiology.
It feels to me that intervention studies are being discussed here in the same breath as descriptive studies on elite athletes (I may be mis-interpreting). But it is important to note that the vast majority of these intervention studies are performed using amateur athletes, or untrained subjects. Very often they use undergraduate students as subjects.

None of this is necessarily to invalidate any of the points already made in this thread, but I think it’s important to:
1) Highlight exactly which branch of Sport Science we’re discussing here, simply to not tar all Sport Scientists with the same brush. There are lots and lots of Sport Scientists who quite rightly don’t discuss doping, because doping simply has no bearing on their subject of investigation (into the role of exercise in treating diabetes, for example). An unnecessary point to make, perhaps, but one I feel worth highlighting.
2) Separate the discussion of descriptive studies on elite athletes from the discussion of intervention studies performed using non-elite athletes or untrained individuals as subjects. Because (as I think all would agree) doping is undoubtedly more prevalent among elite athletes than it is among amateur or untrained subjects. Alcohol abuse, on the other hand…!


In terms of the OP’s points – looking first at intervention studies…

There is a certain “unspoken acceptance” within the field of Sport Science, and particularly within the branch of Sport Science that deals with intervention studies, that almost all variables cannot be fully controlled. Sport Science experiments are performed on people. And people are very hard (impossible?) to control! Most studies will attempt to control for certain variables, but there is a general acceptance that clearly not all variables can be controlled.
For example, a study may look at the effect of a supplement on TT performance, and does so by performing two Time Trials 4 weeks apart. The study may ensure that the conditions of both of those time trials are the same – at the same time of day, on the same equipment, using the same protocol, requesting that the same diet is followed for 24hrs prior, that no caffeine or alcohol is consumed in the 24hrs prior etc etc. However, there are obviously 4 weeks in between these two tests where each subject can do pretty much anything they like – they could overtrain, they could recover from overtraining (if they were overtraining before), they could change their bike position, they could pick up a minor injury, they could recover from a prior injury, they could improve their diet, they could take other supplements, they could reduce their stress levels etc etc. The list is huge. Indeed, they could also take PEDs.

Any of these changes, which cannot be controlled, could significantly affect the performance in the second TT test, and appear to be due to the supplement that the study is investigating, resulting in a false-positive result. And this is why studies are generally considered to be of better quality if the number of subjects is large – because it dilutes the effect of many of these uncontrollable variables.
Many of these uncontrollable variables will be neither recorded in the data, nor noted in the discussion in the study, because there are so many possible variables as to render the task unmanageable.
This is the reason why doping is so often NOT considered to be a relevant data or discussion point – because there is a general unwritten acceptance that lots of stuff hasn’t been tightly controlled for.

All of that is to say – let’s again not tar all of Sport Science with the same brush. As Alex RST points out – not dealing with doping in a particular study does not necessarily render it bad science or pseudoscience.

That being said however, there are certainly a large number of instances where Sport Science demonstrates a startling disconnect from the real world of performance and competition (see the writings of Steve Magness for an interesting examination of this).
And I agree with the OP that in certain cases, and in certain intervention studies, to not acknowledge the possibility of doping as a factor (either by recording self-reported measures in the data or by adding it to the discussion) is to reduce the quality & potential application of the science undertaken, and to do a disservice to the topic at hand.
There are some intervention studies performed using elite or high-level amateur athletes. These should absolutely acknowledge the possibility of doping as a factor.


Regarding descriptive studies of elite athletes…

I have less to add here, other than to point out that if a study is simply “describing” an athlete’s physiology, then it’s often because the remit of the study doesn’t extend beyond that “descriptive” element. It’s important to realise that the remit of most individual scientific studies is indeed very narrow. To include a discussion of doping is no more relevant than to include a discussion of nutrition, or of physiotherapy treatments, or specific training programs.
Again, let’s not tar all descriptive studies with the same brush. A discussion of doping simply isn’t relevant or necessary in a lot of descriptive studies, and its exclusion does not necessarily render it bad science or pseudoscience.

However, that being said, if any particular study is attempting to branch out beyond that narrow remit, then I once again agree that to ignore the possibility of doping is to reduce the quality of that discussion.

I wonder though, if there are any legal reasons as to why this may happen as part of the publishing process – would journals be reticent (or simply refuse) to publish a paper that discusses doping of one or a number of athletes, even in an objective manner? Would there be grounds for libel if, for example, the upcoming study on Froome were to contain a lengthy but objective & considered discussion on the possibility of him doping, and the type of doping that would result in his test results?

 

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re: Re:

Has any study been done with athletes actually administered PEDs? Would that be legal from a medical POV, IOW administering drugs to subjects outside of their intended use?

That way you could compare to their allegedly clean data set and see the affect PEDs have on performance. This doesn't even have to be professional athletes to give a sense of the impact. All we have now are times up mountains and conjecture on % increase in performance.

last year there were two TV programs (one french, one from the BBC) where the effects of EPO were investigated.
ironic, innit, journalists doing the work that sports scientists should be doing.

Mind you, it’s also a bit ironic that the BBC, widely believed to be the main cheerleader of the “Brits don’t dope” and “Frome and Wiggins are sporting gods” faction, broadcast this programme......how were they allowed to do that by the Sky/BC Illuminati ????
By the way, all the sports scientists who aren’t “on the take” appear to spend their time posting on here……..


{Incidentally, that Alanis Morrisette song Ironic……………….none of the examples she gives are actually irony at all – they’re all just bad luck ! }

 

[gillan1969]

I’m a long-time lurker here, but generally don’t have time to write posts & enter into discussions. But, it’s Christmas, so this gives me a good alternative to doing work!
So I figured I’d add a few of my thoughts into the discussion…

Firstly, I think it’s important to note that in the field of Sport Science, there are many different subjects or lines of investigation. There are large bodies of work investigating, for example, the role of sport & exercise in health & obesity, biomechanics, specific biochemistry topics or Sport Psychology.

However, the discussion here seems to be focussing on the study of elite athletes or studies examining the effects of specific interventions on performance.
The study of elite athletes forms a very small part of the overall Sport & Exercise Science literature, and is, for the most part, performed by way of descriptive investigation – that is, to simply describe or measure certain aspects of an elite athlete. The recent data on Chris Froome is perhaps an example of this - disregarding the discussion that followed (on here & on twitter etc) and the 2007 data, the 2015 test was aimed simply at “describing” Froome’s physiology.
It feels to me that intervention studies are being discussed here in the same breath as descriptive studies on elite athletes (I may be mis-interpreting). But it is important to note that the vast majority of these intervention studies are performed using amateur athletes, or untrained subjects. Very often they use undergraduate students as subjects.

None of this is necessarily to invalidate any of the points already made in this thread, but I think it’s important to:
1) Highlight exactly which branch of Sport Science we’re discussing here, simply to not tar all Sport Scientists with the same brush. There are lots and lots of Sport Scientists who quite rightly don’t discuss doping, because doping simply has no bearing on their subject of investigation (into the role of exercise in treating diabetes, for example). An unnecessary point to make, perhaps, but one I feel worth highlighting.
2) Separate the discussion of descriptive studies on elite athletes from the discussion of intervention studies performed using non-elite athletes or untrained individuals as subjects. Because (as I think all would agree) doping is undoubtedly more prevalent among elite athletes than it is among amateur or untrained subjects. Alcohol abuse, on the other hand…!


In terms of the OP’s points – looking first at intervention studies…

There is a certain “unspoken acceptance” within the field of Sport Science, and particularly within the branch of Sport Science that deals with intervention studies, that almost all variables cannot be fully controlled. Sport Science experiments are performed on people. And people are very hard (impossible?) to control! Most studies will attempt to control for certain variables, but there is a general acceptance that clearly not all variables can be controlled.
For example, a study may look at the effect of a supplement on TT performance, and does so by performing two Time Trials 4 weeks apart. The study may ensure that the conditions of both of those time trials are the same – at the same time of day, on the same equipment, using the same protocol, requesting that the same diet is followed for 24hrs prior, that no caffeine or alcohol is consumed in the 24hrs prior etc etc. However, there are obviously 4 weeks in between these two tests where each subject can do pretty much anything they like – they could overtrain, they could recover from overtraining (if they were overtraining before), they could change their bike position, they could pick up a minor injury, they could recover from a prior injury, they could improve their diet, they could take other supplements, they could reduce their stress levels etc etc. The list is huge. Indeed, they could also take PEDs.

Any of these changes, which cannot be controlled, could significantly affect the performance in the second TT test, and appear to be due to the supplement that the study is investigating, resulting in a false-positive result. And this is why studies are generally considered to be of better quality if the number of subjects is large – because it dilutes the effect of many of these uncontrollable variables.
Many of these uncontrollable variables will be neither recorded in the data, nor noted in the discussion in the study, because there are so many possible variables as to render the task unmanageable.
This is the reason why doping is so often NOT considered to be a relevant data or discussion point – because there is a general unwritten acceptance that lots of stuff hasn’t been tightly controlled for.

All of that is to say – let’s again not tar all of Sport Science with the same brush. As Alex RST points out – not dealing with doping in a particular study does not necessarily render it bad science or pseudoscience.

That being said however, there are certainly a large number of instances where Sport Science demonstrates a startling disconnect from the real world of performance and competition (see the writings of Steve Magness for an interesting examination of this).
And I agree with the OP that in certain cases, and in certain intervention studies, to not acknowledge the possibility of doping as a factor (either by recording self-reported measures in the data or by adding it to the discussion) is to reduce the quality & potential application of the science undertaken, and to do a disservice to the topic at hand.
There are some intervention studies performed using elite or high-level amateur athletes. These should absolutely acknowledge the possibility of doping as a factor.


Regarding descriptive studies of elite athletes…

I have less to add here, other than to point out that if a study is simply “describing” an athlete’s physiology, then it’s often because the remit of the study doesn’t extend beyond that “descriptive” element. It’s important to realise that the remit of most individual scientific studies is indeed very narrow. To include a discussion of doping is no more relevant than to include a discussion of nutrition, or of physiotherapy treatments, or specific training programs.
Again, let’s not tar all descriptive studies with the same brush. A discussion of doping simply isn’t relevant or necessary in a lot of descriptive studies, and its exclusion does not necessarily render it bad science or pseudoscience.

However, that being said, if any particular study is attempting to branch out beyond that narrow remit, then I once again agree that to ignore the possibility of doping is to reduce the quality of that discussion.

I wonder though, if there are any legal reasons as to why this may happen as part of the publishing process – would journals be reticent (or simply refuse) to publish a paper that discusses doping of one or a number of athletes, even in an objective manner? Would there be grounds for libel if, for example, the upcoming study on Froome were to contain a lengthy but objective & considered discussion on the possibility of him doping, and the type of doping that would result in his test results?

thanks for contribution...the below may belong in the Froome study thread…but is based on your post and your thoughts would be welcome..

I am wondering where you might place the curious case of the inside fat?

Can I presume that you think the froome study was 'descriptive'? And, can I ask what you think the remit is and if it is ‘narrow’?

Certainly GSK (Swart) didn't advertise for a (any) GT winner to subject themselves to testing so that they could see what it took (physiologically) to be a double GT winner (one remit on front page of report). That might be called a narrow remit?

Although arguably is was/should have been tighter still, are the performances even possible without dope i.e. ‘mutant’? Or even can someone ‘transform’ in the manner of the subject?

However, the GT winner approached them due to the abuse he was receiving (his narrative), or in his manager's words, to make the 'unbelievable believable' (his manager’s remit). In cyclingnews's words, Swart was 'reached out' to (suggesting ‘help’ was required. Page 1 of the 'report' also is clear that the doping was a motivating factor (i.e. the remit was to try and disprove doping). So, in another sense the remit was also clear…to help persuade the world that Froome was not doping to achieve his success.

In your analysis, what Swart and Burnley (and some here) appear to be upset about is a challenge to that initial narrow descriptive study, if indeed that is what it was, undertaken by GSK/Swart. BUT, the peculiar genesis of the study (i.e. why Froome and his manager wanted the study undertaken ), the comments on the 2007 ‘fax’, speculation about weight loss and speculation about the ‘fat inside’ (could be a Kate Bush song) mean that the narrow descriptive study (if it is one) is but one part of what those commissioning the exercise wanted to achieve.

Of course having scientists having a go at pseudo-scientists is also part of that picture/exercise and again one which Swart seems to be playing his part…with the narrower report being conflated with the other non-report factors (weight, 2007 etc) and reported as one….

It is the overall picture/narrative that is the problem for some and ….Swart is but a bit player, I think he thinks he is the main event………..

Of course none of the above even touches on the descriptive study being one where the the biggest variable (Froome) may have sought to vary the outcome to help achieve his aims and remit....after all dopers don't try and evade testers...do they?????

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Has any study been done with athletes actually administered PEDs? Would that be legal from a medical POV, IOW administering drugs to subjects outside of their intended use?

That way you could compare to their allegedly clean data set and see the affect PEDs have on performance. This doesn't even have to be professional athletes to give a sense of the impact. All we have now are times up mountains and conjecture on % increase in performance.

last year there were two TV programs (one french, one from the BBC) where the effects of EPO were investigated.
ironic, innit, journalists doing the work that sports scientists should be doing.

Mind you, it’s also a bit ironic that the BBC, widely believed to be the main cheerleader of the “Brits don’t dope” and “Frome and Wiggins are sporting gods” faction, broadcast this programme......how were they allowed to do that by the Sky/BC Illuminati ????
By the way, all the sports scientists who aren’t “on the take” appear to spend their time posting on here……..


{Incidentally, that Alanis Morrisette song Ironic……………….none of the examples she gives are actually irony at all – they’re all just bad luck ! }

How were the BBC allowed to broadcast that program? To show what those good, clean, Eton/Gordonstoun/Harrow/Oxbridge boys are up against every time they compete on the continent?

Since when is covering the effects of doping an accusation?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Since when is covering the effects of doping an accusation?

possibly related, this might be an interesting read:
https://twitter.com/dijkmichielvan/status/686481611785912321

 

[Davesta]

thanks for contribution...the below may belong in the Froome study thread…but is based on your post and your thoughts would be welcome..

I am wondering where you might place the curious case of the inside fat?

Can I presume that you think the froome study was 'descriptive'? And, can I ask what you think the remit is and if it is ‘narrow’?

Certainly GSK (Swart) didn't advertise for a (any) GT winner to subject themselves to testing so that they could see what it took (physiologically) to be a double GT winner (one remit on front page of report). That might be called a narrow remit?

Although arguably is was/should have been tighter still, are the performances even possible without dope i.e. ‘mutant’? Or even can someone ‘transform’ in the manner of the subject?

However, the GT winner approached them due to the abuse he was receiving (his narrative), or in his manager's words, to make the 'unbelievable believable' (his manager’s remit). In cyclingnews's words, Swart was 'reached out' to (suggesting ‘help’ was required. Page 1 of the 'report' also is clear that the doping was a motivating factor (i.e. the remit was to try and disprove doping). So, in another sense the remit was also clear…to help persuade the world that Froome was not doping to achieve his success.

In your analysis, what Swart and Burnley (and some here) appear to be upset about is a challenge to that initial narrow descriptive study, if indeed that is what it was, undertaken by GSK/Swart. BUT, the peculiar genesis of the study (i.e. why Froome and his manager wanted the study undertaken ), the comments on the 2007 ‘fax’, speculation about weight loss and speculation about the ‘fat inside’ (could be a Kate Bush song) mean that the narrow descriptive study (if it is one) is but one part of what those commissioning the exercise wanted to achieve.

Of course having scientists having a go at pseudo-scientists is also part of that picture/exercise and again one which Swart seems to be playing his part…with the narrower report being conflated with the other non-report factors (weight, 2007 etc) and reported as one….

It is the overall picture/narrative that is the problem for some and ….Swart is but a bit player, I think he thinks he is the main event………..

Of course none of the above even touches on the descriptive study being one where the the biggest variable (Froome) may have sought to vary the outcome to help achieve his aims and remit....after all dopers don't try and evade testers...do they?????

Firstly, apologies for the long wait for my reply! Christmas & then work have been sucking up all of my time!

I think it's important, when discussing anything regarding the Froome study (and I mean specifically in this thread with regards to sport science, but perhaps more widely too), to note that nothing has yet been published in the scientific literature. All we've seen so far is a magazine article - journalism. Journalism that is based on a scientific study and includes some data, yes, but not a scientific study itself. There is a lot more rigour that is applied to a scientific publication than there is to a magazine article - there will be a clear definition of the aims of the study, references to relevant sources and information, detailed discussion of various topics, a peer-review prior to publication etc. There will also be no desire to create a “simplified, readable narrative”; a story; that magazine articles so often like to create.
As such, as tempting as it is, we shouldn’t draw too many conclusions from something that we’ve not yet seen.

It’s also important to separate the remit & aims of the study in a scientific sense, from the motivations of those who instigated it (i.e. Froome & Cound, possibly Brailsford). Froome no doubt wants to persuade the world that he wasn’t doping; to win over the doubters. But this doesn’t appear to be the remit of the study (of course, again, we don’t know for sure cos it hasn’t been published yet!) – the remit of the study appears to be to describe various aspects of the physiology of a TdF winner. In that regard, the remit of the study is narrow, and it will be largely ‘descriptive’ - there won't be any intervention performed to establish any kind of cause and effect, and Swart (and other scientists) have publicly noted that the data that has reportedly been collected cannot be used to prove or disprove doping.
What there likely will be, of course, is reference to the 2007 data and perhaps some hypotheses/conclusions drawn from this. This will be very interesting to see, especially with regards to the scrutiny of the 2007 data's validity, and also to see what conclusions are drawn from it (and, perhaps more importantly, how strongly any conclusions are worded). I appreciate here that some will consider the quote in Esquire – “he just lost the fat” – to be such a conclusion, but I consider it to be on the same level as quotes on movie posters! I don’t want a quick, possibly shortened, potentially out-of-context soundbite; I want to read the full review!


With regards to the overall narrative - there is clearly a large element of PR involved in Froome's decision to undergo testing. In fact, the decision is likely entirely PR-driven (with perhaps a bit of vanity thrown in!). I doubt that the data holds much practical importance to him - he's not going to use it to change his training regime, for example!
But the fact that PR is the initial motivation for the study to take place, does not necessarily mean that the scientific rigour applied is compromised. It's no different to the fact that many studies are funded by industry - just because a study is funded by a drugs company does not automatically mean that the study is invalid or that "bad science" has taken place.
From the relatively little I knew of Jeroen Swart prior to his involvement with the Froome study, there is no reason to question his integrity as a scientist. And for me, endorsements from the likes of Ross Tucker speak volumes.

That said, I personally think Swart has made a big mistake in this instance (possibly out of naivety, although perhaps it was out of his hands) - and that is to agree to the "drip-feeding" of information to the public; the "genesis of the study", as you refer to it. Ross Tucker has spoken a lot in the recent past about the fact that half-truths and limited data pose more questions than they answer. And that is unfortunately exactly what has happened here - first we got a magazine article with bite-size pieces of information & a throwaway quote; then we got a powerpoint presentation with a few more snippets; then some interviews and twitter chat; a few mis-quotes and some clarifications from Swart; some more info about Froome’s body type and where he stores fat; and in the end - more questions and more scepticism! But at no point have we had an actual published study, full and complete data, or any detailed & scrutinisable conclusions!

A much much better approach, in my view, would have been to release the study and the magazine article at the same time. Then if there were questions that arose from the limited information in the article, the answer is simple - "look at the study". Let the public enjoy the simplified narrative in Esquire, and let the scientists & other interested parties see the full detail. We'd also have the full picture around the 2007 data and the detailed conclusions that Swart et al had drawn from it, rather than the current situation where a short quote from a journalist is being used, by some, to hang Swart and question his integrity.

It is regrettable that it has happened this way. It was also avoidable. And that is the biggest disappointment for me - because I feel that when the study is finally published, there will be a lot less ‘collective trust’ in what is presented. And understandably, perhaps even rightly so.

 

[sniper]

Firstly, apologies for the long wait for my reply! Christmas & then work have been sucking up all of my time!

I think it's important, when discussing anything regarding the Froome study (and I mean specifically in this thread with regards to sport science, but perhaps more widely too), to note that nothing has yet been published in the scientific literature. All we've seen so far is a magazine article - journalism. Journalism that is based on a scientific study and includes some data, yes, but not a scientific study itself. There is a lot more rigour that is applied to a scientific publication than there is to a magazine article - there will be a clear definition of the aims of the study, references to relevant sources and information, detailed discussion of various topics, a peer-review prior to publication etc. There will also be no desire to create a “simplified, readable narrative”; a story; that magazine articles so often like to create.
As such, as tempting as it is, we shouldn’t draw too many conclusions from something that we’ve not yet seen.
...
With regards to the overall narrative - there is clearly a large element of PR involved in Froome's decision to undergo testing. In fact, the decision is likely entirely PR-driven (with perhaps a bit of vanity thrown in!). I doubt that the data holds much practical importance to him - he's not going to use it to change his training regime, for example!
But the fact that PR is the initial motivation for the study to take place, does not necessarily mean that the scientific rigour applied is compromised. It's no different to the fact that many studies are funded by industry - just because a study is funded by a drugs company does not automatically mean that the study is invalid or that "bad science" has taken place.
From the relatively little I knew of Jeroen Swart prior to his involvement with the Froome study, there is no reason to question his integrity as a scientist. And for me, endorsements from the likes of Ross Tucker speak volumes.

That said, I personally think Swart has made a big mistake in this instance (possibly out of naivety, although perhaps it was out of his hands) - and that is to agree to the "drip-feeding" of information to the public; the "genesis of the study", as you refer to it. Ross Tucker has spoken a lot in the recent past about the fact that half-truths and limited data pose more questions than they answer. And that is unfortunately exactly what has happened here - first we got a magazine article with bite-size pieces of information & a throwaway quote; then we got a powerpoint presentation with a few more snippets; then some interviews and twitter chat; a few mis-quotes and some clarifications from Swart; some more info about Froome’s body type and where he stores fat; and in the end - more questions and more scepticism! But at no point have we had an actual published study, full and complete data, or any detailed & scrutinisable conclusions!

A much much better approach, in my view, would have been to release the study and the magazine article at the same time. Then if there were questions that arose from the limited information in the article, the answer is simple - "look at the study". Let the public enjoy the simplified narrative in Esquire, and let the scientists & other interested parties see the full detail. We'd also have the full picture around the 2007 data and the detailed conclusions that Swart et al had drawn from it, rather than the current situation where a short quote from a journalist is being used, by some, to hang Swart and question his integrity.

It is regrettable that it has happened this way. It was also avoidable. And that is the biggest disappointment for me - because I feel that when the study is finally published, there will be a lot less ‘collective trust’ in what is presented. And understandably, perhaps even rightly so.

good post.
some comments, touching only on a small part of your excellent post, mind. mainly concerning the issue of whether there is any a priori reason to question science and scientists. I say there is.

For starters, don't forget Moore and Swart went to length to present the testing as "independent". Yet it clearly wasn't independent by any stretch of the word. So when you say "I have no reason to question Swart", I say: him falsely claiming independence, isn't that one reason? There are many other reasons, will come back to that.
In any case, imo you're off when you say "a short quote from a journalist is being used, by some, to hang Swart and question his integrity". I haven't seen anybody hang Swart, firstly. Secondly, yes he's been criticized, but not solely on the basis of that one quote.
Also keep in mind that questioning does not equal accusing.

And the thing is, even if you knew nothing about Moore and the three testers, it would still be your good right to question them. Our knowledge of all sorts of fraud in all ways of present-day society including (o so prominently) in present-day topsport and the related antidoping bodies&scientists warrant - or even oblige us to apply - thorough and questioning.
Not questioning = inviting fraud. Such is the state of this society.
With all due respect, one central reason why there is currently so much fraud in science and topsport, is because of the "No reason to question him" attitude you display in your (otherwise excellent) post. Fact is recent history gives you all sorts of reasons.
And mind: questioning is not accusing. But let's hold our breath on whether somebody is legit or not until after the process of questioning/scrutinizing has been completed.
There is so much wrong with the sport, so many lies, so many liars, so many innocent people hurt, so many frauds. All those times the press and other observers have been forced to admit "if only we had been more questioning earlier on".

So what I'd suggest is: turn your thought-process around. Instead of saying "no reason to question xyz", you c/should say "no reason not to question xyz".

Bottom line" sports science, coaches and the rest of cycling is an industry and those involved have a financial interest in de-emphasizing doping. The cycling industry has to maintain the lie that doping is not as effective as other, legal gains.

As for Swart, I am not accusing him, but even the most diminutive of glimpses at his CV gives you a few reasons to at least kindly question him before placing any credibility in his alleged independence when working with Froome. Again, the (recent) history of the sport, the many forms of fraud and the many victims, they oblige us to scrutinize the froome testing and the people involved it it, before calling it legit.

For one, you have to question how anyone can be involved in so many things and be doing a good job.
How can someone be a selector, a 'coach', a 'researcher', 'scientific expert' and be involved in SA anti-doping and be doing a good job at all of that? Anyone understands that testing South African athletes whilst working for SA antidoping is a conflict of interest. Yet Swart claims it isn't. Also he was longtime coach of Froome's best friend John Lee Augustyn. And this person is then put forward as an independent external expert? Again, a "questioning warranted" flag should appear.

The other two testers of the GSK institute have been involved with BC and one is currently with UKAD.
Moore has written several books on Sky. Again, good reasons to question.

bottom line: it's not only our right to question, it is our duty.

 

[harryh]

How do you think Froome took advantage of the "independency" (by your definition)? If some else would have done the testing, do you think that then it would have appeared that Froome hasn't the physiology of TdF winner? Btw, if Tucker has been in the lab during the testing, it wouldn't have been an indepedent test by your standards because Tucker and Swart are friends

 

[harryh]

Maybe you too have seen this twitter discussion: https://twitter.com/IMLahart/status/633731478912827392?lang=fi

Furber and his work on UKAD:
@EwonSprokler do you think educating athletes about how to stay clean, & then testing & supporting athletes is a COI?

Swart and his work on SAIDS:
@EwonSprokler @IMLahart no. The work I do for SAIDS is coded and blinded. So there is no way to influence the outcome.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Maybe you too have seen this twitter discussion: https://twitter.com/IMLahart/status/633731478912827392?lang=fi

Furber and his work on UKAD:
@EwonSprokler do you think educating athletes about how to stay clean, & then testing & supporting athletes is a COI?

Swart and his work on SAIDS:
@EwonSprokler @IMLahart no. The work I do for SAIDS is coded and blinded. So there is no way to influence the outcome.

Coded and blinded? In what way? The SA testing pool is small. Swart also coaches, tests and manages a lot of SA cyclists. You don't think he'd know their race program and when they were tested?

For example, an athlete could tell Swart when they were tested and the code signed across the lid of the sample, yes? They could share their passport with him as he coaches them. Not hard.

On the passport he could most certainly influence the outcome if it was shared with him. Along with threshold results on test samples.

I'm not saying he is doing this but it is possible and therefore a conflict.

 

[harryh]

Well, at least in Finland the delivery of a doping sample to the laboratory goes like this:

At the end of a doping test, the doping control officer (DCO) places the sealed sample containers in their original shipping box for transport. NB: The enclosure is only used for protecting the sample containers during transport. It is not part of the sealing of the samples. The DCO takes care of the appropriate and reliable storage of the sample containers.

The sealed samples and laboratory copies of the test forms, which do not include information indicating the identity of the athlete, are sealed in a transport container. The DCO in charge fills in the supervision record for the transport.

The samples are delivered to a laboratory accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA for analysis (in Finland, United Medix Laboratories Ltd) either by the DCO, courier or post.

The laboratory acknowledges the receipt of the samples and ensures that the transport bag is sealed and that its content is appropriate. The laboratory also registers the samples.

http://www.antidoping.fi/web/en/doping-samples-at-the-laboratory

 

[Davesta]

...

Perhaps I got a little colourful with my language when I said that some have "hung" Swart. But, there has certainly been a lot of discussion criticising him for arriving at that "conclusion", with regards to the veracity of the data, or the simplicity of the explanation, or the fact that it doesn't explain the pre-Vuelta transformation etc.
My stance on this is that the quote in the Esquire article does not constitute a formal conclusion - If there's one group of people I trust less than elite athletes or politicians, it's journalists! Moore was clearly presenting the Esquire article with a story-arc that is easily digestible by casual readers, and Swart's quote fitted in nicely with that. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was taken out of context, or omitted various caveats & explanations, or was in fact an answer to a different question than the one inferred by Moore.
It may, in the end, be the conclusion that Swart comes to. It may not be. But until I see his detailed conclusion in a peer-reviewed publication, I'm not going to judge either way.
My point here though, to recap, was that to publish the article without the full study alongside was a big mistake, because incomplete data poses more questions than it answers. And it's a mistake that's coming back to bite Swart with some questioning his credentials, and distrusting his work.

Where I say that "there is no reason to question Swart", please note my full statement - "there is no reason to question his integrity as a scientist". And perhaps I should have been more clear in my language here, so allow me to elucidate. Because by this, I meant that I don't see any reason to believe, without subsequent evidence coming to my attention, that he is conducting any of his scientific research in anything other than an honest and unfraudulent manner. I don't believe he is falsifying data, for example, or intentionally mis-calibrating the ergo!
This doesn’t mean that I haven’t adopted a sceptical position with regards to the whole Froome-physiological-testing exercise. But at some point you have to put your trust in someone. Unless you’re personally going to train as a top sports physiologist and perform testing on Chris Froome, you need to trust that the person performing the testing has done it and reported it in an honest and robust manner. And I see no reason to believe that Swart has not done this - I personally don’t see a need to distrust his professionalism. Perhaps my burden of trust is lower than yours? And if so, that’s fine

With regards to accusing vs questioning – please note that I have not used the word “accuse” (or any variations) in my post.
But this does raise an important point which I would like to pass back to you for consideration, if I may (apologies if this is going off-topic now, but I see that HarryH has asked a relevant question on a similar subject) – questioning, as you rightly suggest, is very important indeed. It is the basis of the sceptical approach which the majority of the clinic practice, and do so to their credit. But if you question from a position of scepticism, you should also have in mind the answers that would satisfy that scepticism and ‘put your mind at rest’.
So, what answers would you accept as justification for being able to work effectively as a selector/coach/researcher/expert? What would constitute true independence, and is this achievable (i.e. are there any such qualified people who don’t have some form of link to Froome)?
We all have limitations of knowledge in many areas, and as such, would an acceptable answer for you be “I don’t have enough knowledge about this particular area to be able to judge effectively, therefore I will have to put my trust in a source”? Would you, for example, entertain the possibility that it is possible to work effectively as a selector/coach/researcher/expert, but you personally don’t have enough knowledge of the profession to judge effectively?

These are not necessarily questions for you to answer, but for everyone to consider rhetorically.
Without having acceptable answers, and without being able to identify our limitations in knowledge and allowing ourselves to put some trust in others at certain times, we move from a position of scepticism into a position of blind cynicism. Which is as unhelpful as blind belief.

 

[sniper]

good post hog.

finland? how pertinent.

Two other things:
1. harryh, didn't you ask me to move on from this topic only yesterday? Whence your revived interest in the topic?

2. Swart himself has admitted on twitter that he wouldn't have tested Froome if he'd been working for the UCI.

Jeroen Swart
@EwonSprokler @IMLahart I'm not policing Chris. If I worked for the UCI then it would be a COI and I would have declined

.So from that it seems he's fully aware of what a conflict of interest is, which makes it awkward that he denies it in the context of his multiple SA cycling engagements (working for both CSA and SAIDS whilst testing/consulting individual SA athletes).

 

[thehog]

Re:

good post hog.

finland? how pertinent.

Two other things:
1. harryh, didn't you ask me to move on from this topic only yesterday? Whence your revived interest in the topic?

2. Swart himself has admitted on twitter that he wouldn't have tested Froome if he'd been working for the UCI.

Jeroen Swart

@EwonSprokler @IMLahart I'm not policing Chris. If I worked for the UCI then it would be a COI and I would have declined

.So from that it seems he's fully aware of what a conflict of interest is, which makes it awkward that he denies it in the context of his multiple SA cycling engagements (working for both CSA and SAIDS whilst testing/consulting individual SA athletes).

Here's the thing about COI. The person who is the main lead to the "conflict" cannot themselves decide whether its a conflict of interest or not. That in itself is a conflict. Secondly to this is a conflict of interest can be a "perceived" conflict. Meaning even if there has been no actual untoward actions the fact that the person could be seen in a position of conflict it is enough and they should at least remove themselves from the situation.

In this case you cannot be coaching and have personal relationships with the very people you are independently drug testing and sanctioning. The Impey case is very good example of how this type of conflict can play out.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Just telling how the coding of doping samples is done here in Finland.

that's fine and interesting, but it's not relevant to establishing whether or not there's a conflict of interest (as just explained neatly by thehog). Even Swart understands that

Swart: "If I worked for the UCI then it would be a COI and I would have declined"

 

[harryh]

Re: Re:

Just telling how the coding of doping samples is done here in Finland.

that's fine and interesting, but it's not relevant to establishing whether or not there's a conflict of interest (as just explained neatly by thehog). Even Swart understands that

Swart: "If I worked for the UCI then it would be a COI and I would have declined"

He's not working for the UCI and the work he does for SAIDS is coded and blinded, so where's the COI?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Just telling how the coding of doping samples is done here in Finland.

that's fine and interesting, but it's not relevant to establishing whether or not there's a conflict of interest (as just explained neatly by thehog). Even Swart understands that

Swart: "If I worked for the UCI then it would be a COI and I would have declined"

He's not working for the UCI and the work he does for SAIDS is coded and blinded, so where's the COI?

you're now either being deliberately disingenuous or...the other option.

mods, this is going nowhere. it's just been explained in detail.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Just telling how the coding of doping samples is done here in Finland.

that's fine and interesting, but it's not relevant to establishing whether or not there's a conflict of interest (as just explained neatly by thehog). Even Swart understands that

Swart: "If I worked for the UCI then it would be a COI and I would have declined"

He's not working for the UCI and the work he does for SAIDS is coded and blinded, so where's the COI?

Its a very poor argument. Whilst he does not work directly for the UCI, SAIDS has a direct relationship with the UCI, CADF and WADA and supposedly follows their mandate. That is a COI. I'm not sure what "not working for the UCI" actually means?

 

[Irondan]

If you guys know of any info has already been explained in this thread please refer to the page number so harryh can go back and read it.

Harryh please read some of the previous comments that already discussed Swart rather than rehashing an old conversation. If you have something new to add by all means share it.

Cheers!

Mods

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Just telling how the coding of doping samples is done here in Finland.

that's fine and interesting, but it's not relevant to establishing whether or not there's a conflict of interest (as just explained neatly by thehog). Even Swart understands that

Swart: "If I worked for the UCI then it would be a COI and I would have declined"

He's not working for the UCI and the work he does for SAIDS is coded and blinded, so where's the COI?

Its a very poor argument. Whilst he does not work directly for the UCI, SAIDS has a direct relationship with the UCI, CADF and WADA and supposedly follows their mandate. That is a COI. I'm not sure what "not working for the UCI" actually means?

that,
and we were talking about the COI of Swart working with SA athletes whilst at SAIDS.

@harryh:
If Swart understands and agrees that
(a) working for UCI + testing Froome = COI (which he does, he said so);
then he should understand and agree that
(b) working for SAIDS + CSA + testing/consulting SA athletes = (multiple) COI(s)
Swart admitting that (a) holds, but denying that (b) holds, that's odd.