The Froome Files, test data only thread

[bewildered]

Re: Re:

of course we should be talking about his weight. That is the most relevant thing in these tests. His physiological data in the GSK report was always going to be impressive, we already knew that from the numbers he's been pushing on climbs the last 4 years. If his 2007 tests didn't say the same thing then they wouldn't have been released.

We've been told for 4 years that Bilharzia was the reason he didn't ride like he is currently for 4 years between 2007 and 2011. Now we are being told that weight is the reason, despite Walsh stating in Inside Team Sky that he was 'consistently underweight' while he had Bilharzia and that he wasn't cured of all of his afflictions until 2012 or 2013.

There is nothing in these latest data that explains why he transformed as a rider in 2 weeks between Poland '11 and Vuelta '11 and has had the palmares of a completely different rider since or how he can dominate both TTs and climbs, something peculiar to the EPO era and since. These are the two biggest red flags and loss of weight and/or illness does not explain either,

So there's evidence of a drug out there that can transform an average athlete in '2 weeks' ? Seems as far-fetched as Sky saying they have extra round wheels lol!

Yes, it's called EPO. I don't know how long more modern drugs like AICAR take. Are you saying he's an 'average' athlete? Here's a study that gives findings after 4 weeks http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/ and another which shows a 4.5% increase in hematocrit after 3 weeks http://www.outsideonline.com/1924306/drug-test that's slap bang in the middle of the miraculous Vuelta but I'd imagine the effects are gradual and don't just kick in in the 3rd or 4th week. I'm sure Dr. Leinders knows a lot more about it than I do and he was on board since the previous December. And if he's doping it's unlikely to be only one substance.

Re the release of the 2007 tests, I doubt it would be open to the UCI to unilaterally release the results without Froome's consent. And it is not for a governing body to prove an athlete clean. They should never get involved in that although the IAAF are doing their best with Radcliffe.

 

[The Carrot]

The details of the Froome story have been changed so many times by Brailsford and his minions, that making the test fit the narrative was always going to be like 'nailing blancmange to the ceiling'. Which begs the question, why on earth did they bother?

 

[thehog]

Re:

It seems some people are struggling to accept the data which doesn't fit their existing opinion.
Ok.
It can be tough admitting you were wrong.

So as a 22 year old university drop out Froome had huge physiological potential, came from a relative cycling backwater and was a late developer in his career, showed some signs of this talent but took 4 years (2007 to 2011) to mature as a pro.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind want to speculate that if he was born in western Europe, even dare I say it the UK this talent may have been spotted earlier and he would have had a more conventional career path.

Makes you wonder just how many potential tour winners have finished the degree and got a nice job in a Big 4 firm like they were supposed to.

None of this of course proves he's clean. Some of the greatest physiological specimens in history have been doped to the eyeballs.

The problem is he didn't take "4 years" to develop as a pro. It took him 2 weeks in 2011 to suddenly output the performance of a GT contender. The 4 years he did literally nothing in pro ranks.

And because of this, the 2007 data is rather odd. Whilst his weight loss was progressive over this period, coming down from the reported 75.6kg to 69kg, his performances didn't correlate with that weight loss. It hit suddenly, in a two week period once given a second chance ride at the Vuelta with 3 months left on his contract.

What are the chances?

 

[meat puppet]

As Tucker posted on FB, Froomey wasn't even a major factor in the southafrican domestic scene, so the chances are astronomical. Or so we thought. But it turns out that Froome is just that good - from Poland 2011 on.

 

[thehog]

Re:

As Tucker posted on FB, Froomey wasn't even a major factor in the southafrican domestic scene, so the chances are astronomical. Or so we thought. But it turns out that Froome is just that good - from Poland 2011 on.

The big engine on the domestic SA scene in 100km races didn't work, what are the chances?

And once Froome unlocked the door after Poland to his great potential, the door remained unlocked. What are the chances?

Well, truth be told, the door in 2012 did lock again but magically unlocked just prior to the Tour in 2012 to the point he was able to do some hand twirling to the yellow jersey, again, what are the chances?

 

[SundayRider]

16.9% BF what on earth was eating! That is pretty fat even a weekend club rider.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

"
Are you misreading 14th as 4th?

Because just to make it clear, Froome finished 14th.

Nothing special for a 23 year old, nothing special at all. Keep digging through his results list though. Maybe something will stick."

Thanks for proving my point so eloquently. I did say you would say he should have finished first or near the very top even as first year pro.

And why not. Froome is a 2 time Tour de France champion. He's not some guy who cracks the top 10 every now and again, he's the dominant cyclist of his era and physiologically the greatest of all time.

And we shouldn't expect him to finish near the top as a first year pro?

Andy in his first year as a pro finished 2nd in the Giro (at 21 years old). Froome is way better than Andy ever was. Nairo was the 3rd best climber in the race in his first gt as a pro and finished 2nd in his 2nd (as a 22 and then 23 year old). Valverde podiumed a gt and a worlds. Sagan was winning races in his first year (at 19).

These are all people 2 or 3 levels below Froome in the "talent" stakes.

But Froome was really rocking that potential by finishing top 20 in one stage out of 21

Who said he's the greatest physiologically of all time ? I thought Lemond was held up as that individual. So if someone doesn't start immediately having big results they must be a fraud, ignoring their background, health etc.

Name *one* champion (that wasn't a big time doper) that didn't start immediately having big results. Either you've got the genetics or you don't.

John Swanson

 

[Tonton]

The weight loss justification was once used to explain how BigMig had become the dominant GT rider of his era. How he had gone from 82kg down to 78kg, which increased his power/weight ratio. I remember this article in l'Equipe, and at the time, I bought it. It made sense . Same story, more or less, for Wonderboy. Weight loss. Nothing that any rider, even at junior level, doesn't already know and watch: dead weight is no good. Duh.

So we don't know more than we did. What is Froome's real weight? Why is weight (67kg) that hasn't been scientifically recorded used to "correct" data, very much like governments "correct" unemployment figures? And we are asked to swallow that with his credibility on the line, Froome showed up to the lab out of shape. That's the excuse for "Photoshopping" the results. Abracadabra, VO2Max that once was 80 is measured at 84 (less than Pinot btw), and gets adjusted to 88.

The 20-40 minute power output also raises more questions than it gives answers: Pinot's data shows 6.4W/kg for 20 minutes, 6.1 for 30 minutes, and 5.9 for 45 minutes (Grappe). So what does 6.25W/kg really mean? Is it for 20, 30, or 40 minutes?

So we are left to speculate. Believers still believe, skeptics scratch their heads, many here blow their tops.

 

[danielovichdk2]

The 2007 test have been there the whole time without ever being mentioned. And then suddenly it shows up.

I honestly think Cound is the key to his transformation. Something happened when they met and his transformation began around the same time.

 

[gillan1969]

The weight loss justification was once used to explain how BigMig had become the dominant GT rider of his era. How he had gone from 82kg down to 78kg, which increased his power/weight ratio. I remember this article in l'Equipe, and at the time, I bought it. It made sense . Same story, more or less, for Wonderboy. Weight loss. Nothing that any rider, even at junior level, doesn't already know and watch: dead weight is no good. Duh.

So we don't know more than we did. What is Froome's real weight? Why is weight (67kg) that hasn't been scientifically recorded used to "correct" data, very much like governments "correct" unemployment figures? And we are asked to swallow that with his credibility on the line, Froome showed up to the lab out of shape. That's the excuse for "Photoshopping" the results. Abracadabra, VO2Max that once was 80 is measured at 84 (less than Pinot btw), and gets adjusted to 88.

The 20-40 minute power output also raises more questions than it gives answers: Pinot's data shows 6.4W/kg for 20 minutes, 6.1 for 30 minutes, and 5.9 for 45 minutes (Grappe). So what does 6.25W/kg really mean? Is it for 20, 30, or 40 minutes?

So we are left to speculate. Believers still believe, skeptics scratch their heads, many here blow their tops.

don't forget Riis.. Cecchini worked wonders for his weight

 

[gillan1969]

is it a fax btw? the 2007 page...

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re:

The 2007 test have been there the whole time without ever being mentioned. And then suddenly it shows up.

I honestly think Cound is the key to his transformation. Something happened when they met and his transformation began around the same time.

testosterone ?

 

[thehog]

The weight loss justification was once used to explain how BigMig had become the dominant GT rider of his era. How he had gone from 82kg down to 78kg, which increased his power/weight ratio. I remember this article in l'Equipe, and at the time, I bought it. It made sense . Same story, more or less, for Wonderboy. Weight loss. Nothing that any rider, even at junior level, doesn't already know and watch: dead weight is no good. Duh.

So we don't know more than we did. What is Froome's real weight? Why is weight (67kg) that hasn't been scientifically recorded used to "correct" data, very much like governments "correct" unemployment figures? And we are asked to swallow that with his credibility on the line, Froome showed up to the lab out of shape. That's the excuse for "Photoshopping" the results. Abracadabra, VO2Max that once was 80 is measured at 84 (less than Pinot btw), and gets adjusted to 88.

The 20-40 minute power output also raises more questions than it gives answers: Pinot's data shows 6.4W/kg for 20 minutes, 6.1 for 30 minutes, and 5.9 for 45 minutes (Grappe). So what does 6.25W/kg really mean? Is it for 20, 30, or 40 minutes?

So we are left to speculate. Believers still believe, skeptics scratch their heads, many here blow their tops.

Very good post.

Pinot's testing is how normal testing is conducted. They are important figures that help you plan training and knowing your thresholds during racing.

The GSK testing was done on regular bike on a turbo trainer? They appeared to have conducted a step test 4 x 5 minute outputs, raising the wattage at each step. The measurements are taken with each step and for the final minute.

Not extremely unusual but not extensive testing like in Pinot's example.

Adjusted V02 is odd. You can do it but it's not when he tested at. V02 is what it is on a given test.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Michael Rasmussen@MRasmussen1974 2h

1)I just don't understand why he didn't crush everybody in the ITT in 2007 if the watts where higher than 2015?

all this data and still more unanswered questions!

Shitty equipment and probably piss poor positioning, cadence & gearing.

And how did his positioning improve. It's not like he went into a wind tunnel. Froome himself admits he didn't until 2013. Yet he won the Olympic bronze in 2012. Something doesn't add up.

As for poor equipment, Hog can post the 2007 picture again if you like. Nothing shitty about that equipment at all.

Do you have a source for that? I find it extremely hard to believe that he didn't spend any time in a wind tunnel when Sky realised he may be worth a contract after all after the 2011 Vuelta. Not that that explains why he suddenly improved in the ITT as well for the Vuelta

sure my friend. He's said it more than once.

For example the first link when I type in "froome wind tunnel" into google brings up this-

Despite being the Olympic bronze medallist in the discipline and runner-up to Wiggins in both long time-trials in this year’s Tour, Froome has never tested his position and bike in a wind tunnel. In time-trial terms, he has been operating in the Stone Age, with elbows out as if riding a scooter.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

The details of the Froome story have been changed so many times by Brailsford and his minions, that making the test fit the narrative was always going to be like 'nailing blancmange to the ceiling'. Which begs the question, why on earth did they bother?

It was similar with Armstrong and his great big fanfare announcement for his comeback with Don Caitlin on board to do the regular testing to prove he was clean!

Froome & Co just need to do a certain amount for PR, the sky fans buy it and great it sells lots of cycling related stuff and the big wheel keeps on turning.

So many in the sport have vested interests in the smoke and mirrors approach.

Have lots in the sport come out and applauded Froome for releasing his numbers? I think more have voiced disapproval over disc brakes......

 

[thehog]

is it a fax btw? the 2007 page...

It's a neatly stacked pile of photocopied papers with phone numbers rubbed out with the photoshop smudge tool.

The key data is bolded and highlighted with the red background highlighter pen tool.

All the numbers appear to correlate with each other. I do wonder what's on the other theee pages though?

He had his haemoglobin measured at this time, so must have been badzhilla free to produce the supreme numbers.

 

[jens_attacks]

Re:

[quote="danielovichdk2"

I honestly think Cound is the key to his transformation. Something happened when they met and his transformation began around the same time.[/quote]

Good morning, america.

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

It seems some people are struggling to accept the data which doesn't fit their existing opinion.
Ok.
It can be tough admitting you were wrong.

So as a 22 year old university drop out Froome had huge physiological potential, came from a relative cycling backwater and was a late developer in his career, showed some signs of this talent but took 4 years (2007 to 2011) to mature as a pro.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind want to speculate that if he was born in western Europe, even dare I say it the UK this talent may have been spotted earlier and he would have had a more conventional career path.

Makes you wonder just how many potential tour winners have finished the degree and got a nice job in a Big 4 firm like they were supposed to.

None of this of course proves he's clean. Some of the greatest physiological specimens in history have been doped to the eyeballs.

The problem is he didn't take "4 years" to develop as a pro. It took him 2 weeks in 2011 to suddenly output the performance of a GT contender. The 4 years he did literally nothing in pro ranks.

And because of this, the 2007 data is rather odd. Whilst his weight loss was progressive over this period, coming down from the reported 75.6kg to 69kg, his performances didn't correlate with that weight loss. It hit suddenly, in a two week period once given a second chance ride at the Vuelta with 3 months left on his contract.

What are the chances?

You're assuming that every improvement in physical condition is going to be directly reflected in a smooth improvement in results. That's not necessarily going to be the case.

We should all now agree that in testing at the UCI Froome produced great numbers for a overweight university drop out.

Maybe the prosecution in the case of The Sceptical v Froome has taken a hit this week. We may still get a Perry Mason moment in the final scene the 2007 data revealed as "lies all lies" but it seems to be clutching at straws now.

---

***** can you fill me in on how Froome gets from SA to the UCI for testing in 2007. It implies that someone somewhere spotted some talent.
This may have been covered elsewhere but I don't recall.
PM it if you like to avoid distracting the thread.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

The details of the Froome story have been changed so many times by Brailsford and his minions, that making the test fit the narrative was always going to be like 'nailing blancmange to the ceiling'. Which begs the question, why on earth did they bother?

It was similar with Armstrong and his great big fanfare announcement for his comeback with Don Caitlin on board to do the regular testing to prove he was clean!

Froome & Co just need to do a certain amount for PR, the sky fans buy it and great it sells lots of cycling related stuff and the big wheel keeps on turning.

So many in the sport have vested interests in the smoke and mirrors approach.

Have lots in the sport come out and applauded Froome for releasing his numbers? I think more have voiced disapproval over disc brakes......

Seems to me this is just an end of year thank you to the fans. They spend all year doing the thankless task of throwing abuse at people like vayer, kimmage, tucker etc. So as a thank you, sky have given them this opportunity to go on Twitter and clinic and have a big - froome is clean, party. Notice how yesterday all of a sudden a bunch of accounts came out of nowhere. All reading from the same hymn sheet. All throwing there toys out of the pram the second some grinch points out the holes in the argument.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

It seems some people are struggling to accept the data which doesn't fit their existing opinion.
Ok.
It can be tough admitting you were wrong.

So as a 22 year old university drop out Froome had huge physiological potential, came from a relative cycling backwater and was a late developer in his career, showed some signs of this talent but took 4 years (2007 to 2011) to mature as a pro.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind want to speculate that if he was born in western Europe, even dare I say it the UK this talent may have been spotted earlier and he would have had a more conventional career path.

Makes you wonder just how many potential tour winners have finished the degree and got a nice job in a Big 4 firm like they were supposed to.

None of this of course proves he's clean. Some of the greatest physiological specimens in history have been doped to the eyeballs.

The problem is he didn't take "4 years" to develop as a pro. It took him 2 weeks in 2011 to suddenly output the performance of a GT contender. The 4 years he did literally nothing in pro ranks.

And because of this, the 2007 data is rather odd. Whilst his weight loss was progressive over this period, coming down from the reported 75.6kg to 69kg, his performances didn't correlate with that weight loss. It hit suddenly, in a two week period once given a second chance ride at the Vuelta with 3 months left on his contract.

What are the chances?

You're assuming that every improvement in physical condition is going to be directly reflected in a smooth improvement in results. That's not necessarily going to be the case.

We should all now agree that in testing at the UCI Froome produced great numbers for a overweight university drop out.

Maybe the prosecution in the case of The Sceptical v Froome has taken a hit this week. We may still get a Perry Mason moment in the final scene the 2007 data revealed as "lies all lies" but it seems to be clutching at straws now.

---

Tell me, as a scholar of the texts of David Walsh can you fill me in on how Froome gets from SA to the UCI for testing in 2007. It implies that someone somewhere spotted some talent.
This may have been covered elsewhere but I don't recall.
PM it if you like to avoid distracting the thread.

4 years of mediocrity vs a fax...and the case is closed...please don't ever join a law enforcement agency

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

It seems some people are struggling to accept the data which doesn't fit their existing opinion.
Ok.
It can be tough admitting you were wrong.

So as a 22 year old university drop out Froome had huge physiological potential, came from a relative cycling backwater and was a late developer in his career, showed some signs of this talent but took 4 years (2007 to 2011) to mature as a pro.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind want to speculate that if he was born in western Europe, even dare I say it the UK this talent may have been spotted earlier and he would have had a more conventional career path.

Makes you wonder just how many potential tour winners have finished the degree and got a nice job in a Big 4 firm like they were supposed to.

None of this of course proves he's clean. Some of the greatest physiological specimens in history have been doped to the eyeballs.

The problem is he didn't take "4 years" to develop as a pro. It took him 2 weeks in 2011 to suddenly output the performance of a GT contender. The 4 years he did literally nothing in pro ranks.

And because of this, the 2007 data is rather odd. Whilst his weight loss was progressive over this period, coming down from the reported 75.6kg to 69kg, his performances didn't correlate with that weight loss. It hit suddenly, in a two week period once given a second chance ride at the Vuelta with 3 months left on his contract.

What are the chances?

You're assuming that every improvement in physical condition is going to be directly reflected in a smooth improvement in results. That's not necessarily going to be the case.

We should all now agree that in testing at the UCI Froome produced great numbers for a overweight university drop out.

Maybe the prosecution in the case of The Sceptical v Froome has taken a hit this week. We may still get a Perry Mason moment in the final scene the 2007 data revealed as "lies all lies" but it seems to be clutching at straws now.

---

Tell me, as a scholar of the texts of David Walsh can you fill me in on how Froome gets from SA to the UCI for testing in 2007. It implies that someone somewhere spotted some talent.
This may have been covered elsewhere but I don't recall.
PM it if you like to avoid distracting the thread.

in relation to the UCI, presumably young talent goes straight to a trade team..e.g. david millar with a fraction of the raw talent was picked up at 18/19 sraight into cofidis I think..not sure about Froome's peers but would think they did as well or in some U23 squad in Toscana..

 

[Irondan]

Nice summary of the data that Froome released.

http://sportsscientists.com/2015/12/seven-quick-thoughts-on-the-froome-data/

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

It seems some people are struggling to accept the data which doesn't fit their existing opinion.
Ok.
It can be tough admitting you were wrong.

So as a 22 year old university drop out Froome had huge physiological potential, came from a relative cycling backwater and was a late developer in his career, showed some signs of this talent but took 4 years (2007 to 2011) to mature as a pro.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind want to speculate that if he was born in western Europe, even dare I say it the UK this talent may have been spotted earlier and he would have had a more conventional career path.

Makes you wonder just how many potential tour winners have finished the degree and got a nice job in a Big 4 firm like they were supposed to.

None of this of course proves he's clean. Some of the greatest physiological specimens in history have been doped to the eyeballs.

The problem is he didn't take "4 years" to develop as a pro. It took him 2 weeks in 2011 to suddenly output the performance of a GT contender. The 4 years he did literally nothing in pro ranks.

And because of this, the 2007 data is rather odd. Whilst his weight loss was progressive over this period, coming down from the reported 75.6kg to 69kg, his performances didn't correlate with that weight loss. It hit suddenly, in a two week period once given a second chance ride at the Vuelta with 3 months left on his contract.

What are the chances?

You're assuming that every improvement in physical condition is going to be directly reflected in a smooth improvement in results. That's not necessarily going to be the case.

We should all now agree that in testing at the UCI Froome produced great numbers for a overweight university drop out.

Maybe the prosecution in the case of The Sceptical v Froome has taken a hit this week. We may still get a Perry Mason moment in the final scene the 2007 data revealed as "lies all lies" but it seems to be clutching at straws now.

---

Tell me, as a scholar of the texts of David Walsh can you fill me in on how Froome gets from SA to the UCI for testing in 2007. It implies that someone somewhere spotted some talent.
This may have been covered elsewhere but I don't recall.
PM it if you like to avoid distracting the thread.

Not sure what David Walsh has to do with this. Maybe you're just getting pesonal?

The very report from GSK reported by Richard Moore states that it came down to "weight". That Froome always had the physical ability it was that he carried additional weight which hindered his performances.

“The engine was there all along,” says Swart. “He just lost the fat.”

That being the case as he lost weight between 2007 and 2011 his performances should have followed the very proposition put forward by Swart/Moore.

The relationship between weight loss and power should have followed itself, unless the numbers from 2007 are not as stated.

In terms of Froome's book written by David Walsh, the UCI test doesn't even get mentioned nor the results.

What are the chances?

 

[doperhopper]

so, in summary: if Dr Jeroen Swart says “the engine was there all along” - than the only thing missing was probably... THE FUEL!

 

[Benotti69]

so, in summary: if Dr Jeroen Swart says “the engine was there all along” - than the only thing missing was probably... THE FUEL!

Great post.