The Froome Files, test data only thread

[arcus]

Struck me as ironic that he chose to have his testing done at a GSK-associated exercise lab, since GSK have been involved in the clinical development of AICAR and "oxygen-in-a-pill" HIF-stabilizers....

Maybe he got a goody-bag on the way out

 

[bigcog]

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.

Pot and kettle spring to mind ...

 

[thehog]

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.

Pot and kettle spring to mind ...

Now that is a bit rich...

Let's get back to the data.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Nice summary of the data that Froome released.

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

That's a very good summary...

No doubt Sky have test data from Froome between 2010 and today. They should release it so it draws the same weight loss conclusion.

 

[TheSpud]

2007 tests in picture if you can read French:

So the engine was there afterall, who'd have thunk it ...

420watts - if he'd been 3kg lighter he would have registered about 5.8 w/kg ...

 

[Benotti69]

2007 tests in picture if you can read French:

So the engine was there afterall, who'd have thunk it ...

420watts - if he'd been 3kg lighter he would have registered about 5.8 w/kg ...

Really! If only he'd not stolen Sky's supply of nutella causing Brailsford to think they had a no nutella policy.....

 

[MikeS369]

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.

Even I noticed that. And cound in not a credible source.

 

[fmk_RoI]

If weight loss is the key takeaway from Esquire, what about this:

2008: weight 68 kilos

(Also look to his height - he's shot up 10cm in less than a decade!)

 

[thehog]

Really! If only he'd not stolen Sky's supply of nutella causing Brailsford to think they had a no nutella policy.....

The 2007 data is very interesting especially the amount of body fat and that it has never appeared prior, biography included. I do tend agree with Coggan that's it's lacking in detail along with the GSK test being stopped short.

Lactate threshold

Coggan noted that the GSK lab stopped its measurements short of pushing Froome to total fatigue, which resulted in underestimating his lactate threshold. The highest wattage in the test, 425W, was a perceived effort level of 17 out of 20 for Froome, and his heart rate had only reached 138bpm.

Incomplete information from 2007

The testing done on Froome in Lausanne in July 2007 only showed his peak power and VO2Max, so Coggan says comparing the data to 2015 is difficult.

"It is unfortunate that the UCI tests in 2007 apparently didn't entail any sort of submaximal assessment, just measurement of VO2max and peak power. That makes it impossible to say how much, if any, of the improvement in Froome's performance over the intervening period is due to an increase in threshold relative to VO2max and/or an improvement in efficiency," in addition to his weight loss.

"Assuming the data presented is correct, I would say that his performance (at least uphill) definitely improved due to simply losing weight, and might have also improved due to an improvement in lactate threshold and possibly also efficiency. The former is more likely than the latter but since his threshold apparently wasn't measured in 2007 and his efficiency has never been measured, it's also possible that they didn't improve at all."

 

[blackcat]

Re:

If weight loss is the key takeaway from Esquire, what about this:

2008: weight 68 kilos

(Also look to his height - he's shot up 10cm in less than a decade!)

but he did weigh more than that at Melbourne. woulda been ~73 kg.

 

[thehog]

Full report her albeit in slide set form:

https://www.gskhpl.com/dyn/_assets/_pdfs/ChrisFroome-BodyCompositionandAerobicPhysiology.pdf

 

[gillan1969]

2007 tests in picture if you can read French:

So the engine was there afterall, who'd have thunk it ...

420watts - if he'd been 3kg lighter he would have registered about 5.8 w/kg ...

was he not hitting 161 on ventoux?

 

[armchairclimber]

Really! If only he'd not stolen Sky's supply of nutella causing Brailsford to think they had a no nutella policy.....

The 2007 data is very interesting especially the amount of body fat and that it has never appeared prior, biography included. I do tend agree with Coggan that's it's lacking in detail along with the GSK test being stopped short.

Lactate threshold

Coggan noted that the GSK lab stopped its measurements short of pushing Froome to total fatigue, which resulted in underestimating his lactate threshold. The highest wattage in the test, 425W, was a perceived effort level of 17 out of 20 for Froome, and his heart rate had only reached 138bpm.

Incomplete information from 2007

The testing done on Froome in Lausanne in July 2007 only showed his peak power and VO2Max, so Coggan says comparing the data to 2015 is difficult.

"It is unfortunate that the UCI tests in 2007 apparently didn't entail any sort of submaximal assessment, just measurement of VO2max and peak power. That makes it impossible to say how much, if any, of the improvement in Froome's performance over the intervening period is due to an increase in threshold relative to VO2max and/or an improvement in efficiency," in addition to his weight loss.

"Assuming the data presented is correct, I would say that his performance (at least uphill) definitely improved due to simply losing weight, and might have also improved due to an improvement in lactate threshold and possibly also efficiency. The former is more likely than the latter but since his threshold apparently wasn't measured in 2007 and his efficiency has never been measured, it's also possible that they didn't improve at all."

Point of order, the reported perceived effort of 17 out of 20 was during the submaximal test.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Nice summary of the data that Froome released.

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

That's a very good summary...

No doubt Sky have test data from Froome between 2010 and today. They should release it so it draws the same weight loss conclusion.

IOW, like the Grappe and Coggan articles it says he's got a big engine, but nothing about being able to confirm a rider's doping status.

That's always going to be the case with power measurement/estimates, and physiological tests. They are snapshots which tell us about the rider's physiological characteristics, and if there are several over the years, how those characteristics may change over time. But they will never answer the question of what are the specific reasons for such characteristics or changes let alone isolate what role, if any, doping plays.

Tucker says as much. He talks of fuzziness with the data, but even with less fuzzy physiological data, one still isn't going to be able to parse out an answer to the doping question. And therein lies the rub with this stuff.

And this "fuzzy" data would have answered the doping question if Vayer and Kimmage were in the room when it was generated? lol. As if that would make one iota of difference to what people believe.

One thing I find frustrating with Tucker's analysis is the apparent over reliance on assuming physiological parameters are the only thing that matters wrt performance. For sure it's an important and necessary component of success and performance in elite road cycling, but it's not the only factor. Sometimes his comments seem quite naive wrt how cycling and cycling races work.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yes let's pick on the little bits of sand on the carpet, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room that is Froome doing nothing until 2011 despite the physiology of a World champion GT rider.

Even before I coached people I could recognise good riders from how they rode and their results.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Nice summary of the data that Froome released.

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

That's a very good summary...

No doubt Sky have test data from Froome between 2010 and today. They should release it so it draws the same weight loss conclusion.

IOW, like the Grappe and Coggan articles it says he's got a big engine, but nothing about being able to confirm a rider's doping status.

That's always going to be the case with power measurement/estimates, and physiological tests. They are snapshots which tell us about the rider's physiological characteristics, and if there are several over the years, how those characteristics may change over time. But they will never answer the question of what are the specific reasons for such characteristics or changes let alone isolate what role, if any, doping plays.

Tucker says as much. He talks of fuzziness with the data, but even with less fuzzy physiological data, one still isn't going to be able to parse out an answer to the doping question. And therein lies the rub with this stuff.

And this "fuzzy" data would have answered the doping question if Vayer and Kimmage were in the room when it was generated? lol. As if that would make one iota of difference to what people believe.

One thing I find frustrating with Tucker's analysis is the apparent over reliance on assuming physiological parameters are the only thing that matters wrt performance. For sure it's an important and necessary component of success and performance in elite road cycling, but it's not the only factor. Sometimes his comments seem quite naive wrt how cycling and cycling races work.

Valid points but I don't believe the objective was to verify doping or not. It was more to asses Froome current physiology, which was well established anyway. They introduced a dataset from 2007, 8 years previous to draw a correlation that Froome had the physiology to produce the results he does today because the "engine was always there" it was body fat holding him back.

Make of that what you will...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Nice summary of the data that Froome released.

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

That's a very good summary...

No doubt Sky have test data from Froome between 2010 and today. They should release it so it draws the same weight loss conclusion.

IOW, like the Grappe and Coggan articles it says he's got a big engine, but nothing about being able to confirm a rider's doping status.

That's always going to be the case with power measurement/estimates, and physiological tests. They are snapshots which tell us about the rider's physiological characteristics, and if there are several over the years, how those characteristics may change over time. But they will never answer the question of what are the specific reasons for such characteristics or changes let alone isolate what role, if any, doping plays.

Tucker says as much. He talks of fuzziness with the data, but even with less fuzzy physiological data, one still isn't going to be able to parse out an answer to the doping question. And therein lies the rub with this stuff.

And this "fuzzy" data would have answered the doping question if Vayer and Kimmage were in the room when it was generated? lol. As if that would make one iota of difference to what people believe.

One thing I find frustrating with Tucker's analysis is the apparent over reliance on assuming physiological parameters are the only thing that matters wrt performance. For sure it's an important and necessary component of success and performance in elite road cycling, but it's not the only factor. Sometimes his comments seem quite naive wrt how cycling and cycling races work.

Yep doping and the buying and selling of wins can't be tested for.....

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

I thought this thread was about the data? Please lets not turn it into another stupid photo assessment thread. There has been some really interesting discussion so far, don't ruin it.

It's not just the photo, this is about the data. It's one thing to judge pictures... it's another thing to accept he rode around with 17% fat.

Lieing about weight is an old one.

No, my comment was purely about photos. Absolutely no problem discussing weight, body fat % etc. that's all part of the equation. Assessing it based on photos is just ridiculous.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Nice summary of the data that Froome released.

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

Always interesting, thanks for the link.

Couple of things:

Same as with Grappe, they both know that there is a full paper coming soon so I think some of their criticisms are a bit harsh at the moment.

Point 6 reads, to me, as a slur agains the scientists involved. I see absolutely no reason why the presence of Kimmage or Vayer would make the data any more reliable. I'm not saying they couldn't or shouldn't have been there, I just don't like the implication.



I wonder if any of the other big contenders will submit to similar testing? I keep reading VO2max for a few big riders of the past (how accurate are these likely to be though? Especially as we don't get the meta-data with them) and one for Quintana but again without the meta-data, so can we really assess Froome against the values we have (that are from some pro riders but not top GT contenders).

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Nice summary of the data that Froome released.

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

Always interesting, thanks for the link.

Couple of things:

Same as with Grappe, they both know that there is a full paper coming soon so I think some of their criticisms are a bit harsh at the moment.

Point 6 reads, to me, as a slur agains the scientists involved. I see absolutely no reason why the presence of Kimmage or Vayer would make the data any more reliable. I'm not saying they couldn't or shouldn't have been there, I just don't like the implication.



I wonder if any of the other big contenders will submit to similar testing? I keep reading VO2max for a few big riders of the past (how accurate are these likely to be though? Especially as we don't get the meta-data with them) and one for Quintana but again without the meta-data, so can we really assess Froome against the values we have (that are from some pro riders but not top GT contenders).

Tucker's reference to Vayer I believe is because Moore's piece continually talks about Vayer. Vayer was hardly central to all of this but has been selected as the one anger must be shot against.

The guy lived Festina, his opinion is valid. He gets written off as a unqualified PE teacher by the Sky fans which is grossly unfair.

 

[acoggan]

Point of order, the reported perceived effort of 17 out of 20 was during the submaximal test.

No question, they pushed him hard enough to determine his LT using some of the methods and (just) his OBLA. The Dmax approach, however, is predicated on continuing the test to failure, such that the upper "anchor point" occurs at a much higher power output and blood lactate level.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/08/estimation-of-functional-threshold.html

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Nice summary of the data that Froome released.

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

Always interesting, thanks for the link.

Couple of things:

Same as with Grappe, they both know that there is a full paper coming soon so I think some of their criticisms are a bit harsh at the moment.

Point 6 reads, to me, as a slur agains the scientists involved. I see absolutely no reason why the presence of Kimmage or Vayer would make the data any more reliable. I'm not saying they couldn't or shouldn't have been there, I just don't like the implication.



I wonder if any of the other big contenders will submit to similar testing? I keep reading VO2max for a few big riders of the past (how accurate are these likely to be though? Especially as we don't get the meta-data with them) and one for Quintana but again without the meta-data, so can we really assess Froome against the values we have (that are from some pro riders but not top GT contenders).

Tucker's reference to Vayer I believe is because Moore's piece continually talks about Vayer. Vayer was hardly central to all of this but has been selected as the one anger must be shot against.

The guy lived Festina, his opinion is valid. He gets written off as a unqualified PE teacher by the Sky fans which is grossly unfair.

Yes and I think most of his estimates have turned out to be true? I just don't like the implication against the scientists involved in the testing. They are respected scientists and so is Tucker. He shouldn't be saying things like that.

As I said, I'd have no problem with them being there.

 

[pastronef]

comment from L.Warbasse (yes, Larry lives near Monaco too)

https://www.twitter.com/larrywarbasse/status/672870431947399168

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

Nice summary of the data that Froome released.

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

Always interesting, thanks for the link.

Couple of things:

Same as with Grappe, they both know that there is a full paper coming soon so I think some of their criticisms are a bit harsh at the moment.

Point 6 reads, to me, as a slur agains the scientists involved. I see absolutely no reason why the presence of Kimmage or Vayer would make the data any more reliable. I'm not saying they couldn't or shouldn't have been there, I just don't like the implication.



I wonder if any of the other big contenders will submit to similar testing? I keep reading VO2max for a few big riders of the past (how accurate are these likely to be though? Especially as we don't get the meta-data with them) and one for Quintana but again without the meta-data, so can we really assess Froome against the values we have (that are from some pro riders but not top GT contenders).

Tucker's reference to Vayer I believe is because Moore's piece continually talks about Vayer. Vayer was hardly central to all of this but has been selected as the one anger must be shot against.

The guy lived Festina, his opinion is valid. He gets written off as a unqualified PE teacher by the Sky fans which is grossly unfair.

Yes and I think most of his estimates have turned out to be true? I just don't like the implication against the scientists involved in the testing. They are respected scientists and so is Tucker. He shouldn't be saying things like that.

As I said, I'd have no problem with them being there.

Tucker's comments about Kimmage and Vayer were published prior the Esquire article by Stokes and on this website.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Nice summary of the data that Froome released.

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

Always interesting, thanks for the link.

Couple of things:

Same as with Grappe, they both know that there is a full paper coming soon so I think some of their criticisms are a bit harsh at the moment.

Point 6 reads, to me, as a slur agains the scientists involved. I see absolutely no reason why the presence of Kimmage or Vayer would make the data any more reliable. I'm not saying they couldn't or shouldn't have been there, I just don't like the implication.



I wonder if any of the other big contenders will submit to similar testing? I keep reading VO2max for a few big riders of the past (how accurate are these likely to be though? Especially as we don't get the meta-data with them) and one for Quintana but again without the meta-data, so can we really assess Froome against the values we have (that are from some pro riders but not top GT contenders).

Tucker's reference to Vayer I believe is because Moore's piece continually talks about Vayer. Vayer was hardly central to all of this but has been selected as the one anger must be shot against.

The guy lived Festina, his opinion is valid. He gets written off as a unqualified PE teacher by the Sky fans which is grossly unfair.

Yes and I think most of his estimates have turned out to be true? I just don't like the implication against the scientists involved in the testing. They are respected scientists and so is Tucker. He shouldn't be saying things like that.

As I said, I'd have no problem with them being there.

Tucker's comments about Kimmage and Vayer were published prior the Esquire article by Stokes and on this website.

That makes absolutely no difference to my point though.