Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[red_flanders]

What would give you more comfort or more doubt though. Numbers that hadnt changed or numbers that had changed? To be honest it would probably possible to spin the interpretation of the data (either way) to support or to try and debunk most peoples viewpoint on here.

More comfort? The only thing that would give me comfort is if the numbers were released by a truly independent testing body. That's not going to happen, so not to worry.

The crux of it all is the fact that they released EXACTLY the numbers that didn't mean anything. That is suspicious. It would have been far less suspicious to release nothing. That they go back exactly to the point of the transformation to me raises (yet another, must be 20 at this point) red flag. They know exactly what they're doing and they count on the cycling world being the pliable dupes they always have been.

To answer the question another way, what I would expect to see are values consistent with a mid-pack rider who had some potential. Otherwise, a la Tom Danielson and many other young(ish) hopefuls, his potential would have been sung from the hills every year. Which it decidedly was not. If his values were the same as they are now, the follow up questions would still be, "what changed?"

"Better bike handling" would still not be a convincing answer.

 

[Justinr]

More comfort? The only thing that would give me comfort is if the numbers were released by a truly independent testing body. That's not going to happen, so not to worry.

The crux of it all is the fact that they released EXACTLY the numbers that didn't mean anything. That is suspicious. It would have been far less suspicious to release nothing. That they go back exactly to the point of the transformation to me raises (yet another, must be 20 at this point) red flag. They know exactly what they're doing and they count on the cycling world being the pliable dupes they always have been.

To answer the question another way, what I would expect to see are values consistent with a mid-pack rider who had some potential. Otherwise, a la Tom Danielson and many other young(ish) hopefuls, his potential would have been sung from the hills every year. Which it decidedly was not. If his values were the same as they are now, the follow up questions would still be, "what changed?"

"Better bike handling" would still not be a convincing answer.

The point you make at the end of your second last paragraph is probably exactly what would happen. If the numbers hadnt changed there would be questions (as you point out), if the numbers had changed there would still be questions about how / why they had changed. As i said - easy to spin either way.

 

[Justinr]

Haemoglobin yes, retics and RBC count no, unless you have a massive infestation in which case you'd have assorted complications like fibrosis of the liver. Froome mentions that the parasites are in his lungs. If that's the case, then he'd have something much worse than a chest infection- he'd have blockages in his lungs eventually leading to an enlarged right side of the heart. His story doesn't make sense.

Do you have a decent link? Google and Bing are just telling me generalities and treatment options...

 

[ScienceIsCool]

What i said was that bil can reoccur and also that treatment doesnt always zap it first time - both actually true.

Actually, you're partially mistaken. Bilharzia cannot re-occur without reinfection. The reason it can't recur is because the parasite cannot reproduce mature worms inside a person. The best it can do is lay eggs. The eggs only mature in fresh water, and then infect a snail before it can become the parasite that infects humans.

Any eggs left in the body can cause long term effects, but they can not be treated with the drug normally taken to treat Bilharzia.

Which leads to the part you got right. Praziquantel is taken to kill the mature parasite, but it is less than 100% effective against "adolescent" worms. For that reason, treatment is often delayed by several weeks to make it more effective. Alternatively, a second dose is given if, after a month or so, there are still a few worms left in the blood.

So, you can see that for Bilharzia to "flare up", you must be re-infected with the parasite. And yes, a second dose of Praziquantel may be required, but not because the worm is making new worms in the blood.

John Swanson

 

[Nathan12]

The point you make at the end of your second last paragraph is probably exactly what would happen. If the numbers hadnt changed there would be questions (as you point out), if the numbers had changed there would still be questions about how / why they had changed. As i said - easy to spin either way.

I disagree. If the numbers were the same, or showed fluctuations that aligned with the bilharzia, then questions would be answered- because the potential that Froome backs up at the Vuelta 2011 would have been proven. I.e. if he was hitting Vuelta 2011, TdF 2012 and 13 numbers in training but falling away in races eg Tour of California 2011 then there'd be proof: Chris Froome always had the potential to be a superstar.

If they had changed, as I strongly suspect they did, THEN there would be questions, and rightly so.

 

[red_flanders]

The point you make at the end of your second last paragraph is probably exactly what would happen. If the numbers hadnt changed there would be questions (as you point out), if the numbers had changed there would still be questions about how / why they had changed. As i said - easy to spin either way.

OK, but so what? There are still (much larger) questions now. What about he rest of my post? There are at least 2 other major and more pertinent points.

Why choose the dates exactly at the same point of the transformation?
Why if Froome's numbers were great when he was younger did no one ever tout him?
Why did Brailsford pointedly not answer the direct question of why the limited dates?

The number of twisted explanations one has to believe to even consider Froome is clean is astounding to me. Then there's the obvious, simple answer which is supported by all the existing facts. Doping explains everything in one fell swoop. The 40 other twisted explanations are unsatisfying each one by itself. Taken as a whole story, they're preposterous.

Why is this difficult for people to see?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Well we know bil is a parasite that gets in to the blood - but does it affect the values that everyone measures (hemaglobin, hematocrit, reyiculocytes, etc.). If someone has a link that they can point me to that would be good (if i dont complete my biomedical science degree soon Hitch will tell me off when i post about Bil).

Start here: http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/schistosoma/index.html

University of Cambridge has a fantastic amount of information that is easy to understand if you are a lay person. Specifically, you might want to spend an hour and read the "Life Cycle", "Pathology", and "Treatment" sections.

John Swanson

 

[Bronstein]

If the numbers hadnt changed there would be questions (as you point out), if the numbers had changed there would still be questions about how / why they had changed.

What questions would there be if the numbers hadn't changed?

 

[Justinr]

So, you can see that for Bilharzia to "flare up", you must be re-infected with the parasite. And yes, a second dose of Praziquantel may be required, but not because the worm is making new worms in the blood.

John Swanson

Which is more what i meant - it can reoccur but you have to catch it (be infected) again. Thanks for the clear explanation.

 

[Nathan12]

Which is more what i meant - it can reoccur but you have to catch it (be infected) again. Thanks for the clear explanation.

So we agree that Froome is either lying or incredibly stupid? And probably the former since there aren't that many bilharzia-infested swamps in Monaco.

 

[Justinr]

OK, but so what? There are still (much larger) questions now. What about he rest of my post? There are at least 2 other major and more pertinent points.

Why choose the dates exactly at the same point of the transformation?
Why if Froome's numbers were great when he was younger did no one ever tout him?
Why did Brailsford pointedly not answer the direct question of why the limited dates?

The number of twisted explanations one has to believe to even consider Froome is clean is astounding to me. Then there's the obvious, simple answer which is supported by all the existing facts. Doping explains everything in one fell swoop. The 40 other twisted explanations are unsatisfying each one by itself. Taken as a whole story, they're preposterous.

Why is this difficult for people to see?

I don't disagree but i wanted to focus on the fact that either way there would likely be more questions / things wouldn't be answered by the numbers. Its interesting that you and Nathan gave differing views on what you would expect / or want to see from the numbers. Not saying either of you are wrong, but it does seem to highlight my point a bit.

 

[Justinr]

So we agree that Froome is either lying or incredibly stupid? And probably the former since there aren't that many bilharzia-infested swamps in Monaco.

Well he had been going home to Kenya and South Africa each year so its not beyond the bounds of possibilities that he has been reinfected.

I doubt he spends much time in Monaco - thats probably more to do with salary and tax reasons, much like it is for F1 drivers (sorry its not tax its because Monaco is a nice central base for the F1 races...)

 

[The Hitch]

You mean the post where you called me 'son' in a rather insincere way?

No the one after, where I explained to you why your theory (which you presented as justification for froomes performances), flies right in the face of c.f.'s own explanations and in the face of what you said as well.

There was, as always ends up being the case with bilharzia discussions, no room left to maneuver. So of course, you didn't respond.

But that's not the point, the point is you usr facts liberally then come in here and lecture others. Another example is when you tried to say bw was focused only on track until 2009. Factually incorrect, but hey don't let us stop pontificating

 

[red_flanders]

I don't disagree but i wanted to focus on the fact that either way there would likely be more questions / things wouldn't be answered by the numbers. Its interesting that you and Nathan gave differing views on what you would expect / or want to see from the numbers. Not saying either of you are wrong, but it does seem to highlight my point a bit.

It doesn't matter. Look at it like this. The situation is as follows:

Brailsford has 2 choices. Release all the numbers and answer the questions, or (and I'd have never guessed he'd do something so suspicious) release only the numbers from post transformation. Okay.

There are two possibilities for the numbers. One, that they have changed significantly, and two, they have not.

If they have not changed, what are the scenarios? They release the numbers and answer some questions (or not as Nathan suggests) about why he got so much better. All those questions would come into an environment where DB can point to the numbers and say, "Look, they guy has been legit all along". So the questions would have no legs and everyone would have to move on. Is there another plausible scenario?

If they have changed, DB gets hammered with questions and quite possibly there is enough pressure to get an investigation going, and certainly he has just made most of the few who actually believe in Froome strongly question the stories.

So, if the numbers are unchanged, huge upside and almost no downside. Why would anyone not choose this route?

If the numbers have changed, huge downside and no discernible upside. Why would anyone release numbers that basically prove blood manipulation?

Then apply this to the current scenario. Sky release only the numbers that don't matter and tout it as transparency which it pointedly is not. Is the current scenario supported by the likelihood of changed or unchanged numbers? That's ALL that matters.

The most likely situation is of course is that the numbers changed significantly and that's why they didn't release them all.

Is there something I'm missing?

 

[sniper]

Well he had been going home to Kenya and South Africa each year so its not beyond the bounds of possibilities that he has been reinfected.

you gotta be kidding me. how is anybody taking this seriously?

 

[The Hitch]

I saw an interview somewhere where a reporter asked why only from Vuelta 2011 onward, and Brailsford responded with something to the effect of "...it's never enough no matter what we do..." to which the reporter said...

Lol what.

And people seriously entertain the idea that this guy is legit

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

That is one disgusting twitter picture.

Not normal.

 

[Justinr]

It doesn't matter. Look at it like this. The situation is as follows:

Brailsford has 2 choices. Release all the numbers and answer the questions, or (and I'd have never guessed he'd do something so suspicious) release only the numbers from post transformation. Okay.

There are two possibilities for the numbers. One, that they have changed significantly, and two, they have not.

If they have not changed, what are the scenarios? They release the numbers and answer some questions (or not as Nathan suggests) about why he got so much better. All those questions would come into an environment where DB can point to the numbers and say, "Look, they guy has been legit all along". So the questions would have no legs and everyone would have to move on. Is there another plausible scenario?

If they have changed, DB gets hammered with questions and quite possibly there is enough pressure to get an investigation going, and certainly he has just made most of the few who actually believe in Froome strongly question the stories.

So, if the numbers are unchanged, huge upside and almost no downside. Why would anyone not choose this route?

If the numbers have changed, huge downside and no discernible upside. Why would anyone release numbers that basically prove blood manipulation?

Then apply this to the current scenario. Sky release only the numbers that don't matter and tout it as transparency which it pointedly is not. Is the current scenario supported by the likelihood of changed or unchanged numbers? That's ALL that matters.

The most likely situation is of course is that the numbers changed significantly and that's why they didn't release them all.

Is there something I'm missing?

I guess a third scenario is that they were random / variable from pre-vuelta that might / might not correspond with random / variable performances. Depending on which - these could probably be slotted in to the two scenarios above.

What you have outlined above is well put but I think it would also depend on what they published - power, blood, etc. as to how the questions would go and how each of the scenarios would play out. Either way i agree they could be a lot more transparent (one thing i have often said is that their PR needs to be better).

 

[Justinr]

No the one after, where I explained to you why your theory (which you presented as justification for froomes performances), flies right in the face of c.f.'s own explanations and in the face of what you said as well.

There was, as always ends up being the case with bilharzia discussions, no room left to maneuver. So of course, you didn't respond.

But that's not the point, the point is you usr facts liberally then come in here and lecture others. Another example is when you tried to say bw was focused only on track until 2009. Factually incorrect, but hey don't let us stop pontificating

Ok hands up on the focussing only on the track mistake - he did go road only for a couple of years with some smaller teams. But he was trying to do both in the run up to the 2008 games (but as a dom and not a gt contender) something i don't think would work well for anyone.

On your other point i will track back and re-read, cant be fairer than that. Might be tomorrow before i can though.

 

[Race Radio]

I saw an interview somewhere where a reporter asked why only from Vuelta 2011 onward, and Brailsford responded with something to the effect of "...it's never enough no matter what we do..." to which the reporter said...

...nothing. And smiled.

No Dave, it's not about what's "enough" it's about what's meaningful. Everyone understands that his data from Vuelta 2011 is going to show that he's got blood values which align with his performances. What everyone OBVIOUSLY wants to see is the difference between anonymous Froome and superman Froome.

This really is the question that everyone wants info on. I don't care about Vo2 or even his blood I just want a few pre September 2011 SRM files.

Grappe was clear that Froome's output did show much variation from the 2011 Vuelta to the 2013 Tour. That is pretty believable. His TT's improved but his peak climbing is about the same in Vuelta 2011, Tour 2012, Tour 2013.

Grappe is disingenuous when he says Froome's figures are stable as he is not addressing the time period people are curious about, pre-Vuelta 2011. Froome was a Pro for almost 5 seasons prior to the 2011 Vuelta, how is it there is ZERO information from that period? Nada, nothing......It makes no sense.

I hear lots of folks screaming for a Vo2 test but most teams don't focus on those much anymore.....but a power meter reading from 2009 showing him averaging 400 watts for an hour, like he did in the 2011 Vuelta, would make a huge statement.

Sky knows this is an issue. I talked with Yates at the Tour, he was very enthusiastic about Froome and his abilities but when I asked him about what caused his huge leap in form in the 2011 Vuelta he just shrugged, smiled, and said "I have no idea"

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

This really is the question that everyone wants info on. I don't care about Vo2 or even his blood I just want a few pre September 2011 SRM files.

Grappe was clear that Froome's output did show much variation from the 2011 Vuelta to the 2013 Tour. That is pretty believable. His TT's improved but his peak climbing is about the same in Vuelta 2011, Tour 2012, Tour 2013.

Grappe is disingenuous when he says Froome's figures are stable as he is not addressing the time period people are curious about, pre-Vuelta 2011. Froome was a Pro for almost 5 seasons prior to the 2011 Vuelta, how is it there is ZERO information from that period? Nada, nothing......It makes no sense.

I hear lots of folks screaming for a Vo2 test but most teams don't focus on those much anymore.....but a power meter reading from 2009 showing him averaging 400 watts for an hour, like he did in the 2011 Vuelta, would make a huge statement.

Sky knows this is an issue. I talked with Yates at the Tour, he was very enthusiastic about Froome and his abilities but when I asked him about what caused his huge leap in form in the 2011 Vuelta he just shrugged, smiled, and said "I have no idea"

That is exactly the issue. Pre-September 2011 power data for Froome seems to be non-existent. I have no confidence in anything Yates or any of the Sky team have to say on the matter. If we go by what we have observed, if Froome's power data were as impressive back then as it is now, why was he not under contract for the following year by the time the 2011 Vuelta rolled around?
No contract with anyone, even Sky. My expectation is that, if those power files ever see the light of day, they will expose Froome for a fraud. Otherwise, Sky would be rushing to release any such files.

 

[Benotti69]

How long can he and Wiggins hold onto those Knighthoods? I give it five years...

Royalty never had a problem with cheating, especially if it is for the good of the Empire

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Well we know bil is a parasite that gets in to the blood - but does it affect the values that everyone measures (hemaglobin, hematocrit, reyiculocytes, etc.). If someone has a link that they can point me to that would be good (if i dont complete my biomedical science degree soon Hitch will tell me off when i post about Bil).

Can anyone give a short summary of that Bazilla issue? It´s impossible for me to get trou 2.700 pages.
Did he got it twice or once?
Only thing I wonder is why he got it that late at all when he is born in Kenya.
I mean everybody who travels there as rookie is warned not to go to inland water seas (so I guess when you are born there, you know how to prevent it). AFIK it´s the worst in Victoria sea. Was he there? You can´t get it from oceans salt water.

 

[BYOP88]

Can anyone give a short summary of that Bazilla issue? It´s impossible for me to get trou 2.700 pages.
Did he got it twice or once?
Only thing I wonder is why he got it that late at all when he is born in Kenya.
I mean everybody who travels there as rookie is warned not to go to inland water seas (so I guess when you are born there, you know how to prevent it). AFIK it´s the worst in Victoria sea. Was he there? You can´t get it from oceans salt water.

Foxy, the thing with bilharzia is no-one not even Froome knows how many times he's had it.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Well he had been going home to Kenya and South Africa each year so its not beyond the bounds of possibilities that he has been reinfected.

But it´s (I must admit) very unlikely to get it once, leave alone twice if you follow simple instructions by your doc: Don´t go into inland waters. A grown up should be able to follow this easy instructions and warnings.