The Froome Files, test data only thread

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

That makes absolutely no difference to my point though.

Sorry. I was responding to thehog's suggestion

Tucker's reference to Vayer I believe is because Moore's piece continually talks about Vayer

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

That makes absolutely no difference to my point though.

Sorry. I was responding to thehog's suggestion

Tucker's reference to Vayer I believe is because Moore's piece continually talks about Vayer

Ah ok, fair enough.

 

[Tonton]

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?

He hit 174 (data from Sky, PSM stage) so his max must be around 180... The plot (Belge) thickens...

 

[pastronef]

Froome with the front group on Croix de Fer 2008

https://www.twitter.com/RichN95/status/673271305400135684

 

[Night Rider]

Froome with the front group on Croix de Fer 2008

https://www.twitter.com/RichN95/status/673271305400135684

Riding alongside climbing specialist Johan Van Summeren lol

 

[Night Rider]

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.

This in my opinion is the most interesting piece of data in the whole article. What was on the other pages? I guess given we know blood was taken there will be blood results, probably more details on the actual tests summarized on the front page, who the report was cc'd to and who signed it off, did Froome and his own doctor get a copy in 2007? We need the whole report.

 

[Night Rider]

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.

Well we know from the 2011 Vuelta files he weighed between 69.4 and 70.2kg. I don't know why Tucker doesn't make more of the comparison to that one hour Vuelta ITT and this latest test. The weight is almost the same yet it appears the FTP now is lower. Something not right in the test.

 

[86TDFWinner]

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

Didn't LeMond finish big in his first TDF? Then won 3(more than the so called "G.O.A.T. Froome)TDFs? I don't recall him ever doping, explain please John?

Also, how is someone who's won 2 TDFs the "GOAT", and yet 4 other guys have 5 TDFs wins(3 more than Froome), and they're somehow not the "GOAT"?

Wouldn't that make those 4 the greatest greatest of all time, or no?

Again, please Explain someone?

 

[86TDFWinner]

I was coming here to post this hilarious article. I believe I said the same thing( that we won't ever find out if he's cleans).
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/opinion-dont-get-too-excited-about-chris-froomes-data-its-only-half-the-story-202614?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social

 

[Merckx index]

As noted, he was also 10 cm shorter back then if you take that record at face value.

It *is* probably not reliable.

So let’s correct the height record by adding 5.5%. And let’s do the same for the weight listed. We come up with about 71.5 kg, close to what he said he weighed at Barlo.

More seriously, I’ve done some more thinking about Froome’s weight in 2007, which is so much heavier than what he claimed he weighed at Barloworld. Just as the August test was carried out when Froome was considered to be several kg more than his ideal racing weight, maybe the 2007 test was, too.

The 2007 test date is listed as July 25. According to Froome’s wiki, he took third in an African road race on July 14. I assume that after that race, he returned to Switzerland, where his team was based, then had the tests. If Froome was thought to have gained three kg in a few weeks following the TDF, I think it’s reasonable to speculate that he gained a little following the African road race. AFAIK, he did not race again that year until about a month later in the U-23 WC.

If we use the same 3 kg he was thought to gain following the TDF this year, his racing weight would be 72.5 kg, which is close to the 70-71 he claimed he weighed at Barlo. That brings his W/kg to 5.79. Some will probably argue that as a major TDF contender, he would have lost—and thus regained—much more weight this year than for a road race in 2007. Fair enough, if we’re more conservative, and assume just a gain of 1.5 kg and a racing weight of 74 kg, the value is 5.67.

A lot has been said about the study's measuring only one of the big three--V02max, LT/utilization, efficiency. But the main reason we like to have all three is so an estimate of sustained power can be made, and the study did provide that. Moreover, just because we do have sustained power, we in effect know the product of utilization and efficiency, and given that we can make an educated guess about utilization, we can get a pretty good idea of efficiency, too.

As Tucker and others have pointed out, though, the 20-40 minute range for sustained power is too broad to be very helpful. IMO, what really is needed is just power measurements at various time intervals, as Pinot did. I think that is the single most important missing set of data. Even power at just a single time point would have been more helpful if we had known to some precision what that time was.

Wrt lack of blood data, one might take this as an indication that Froome is going to abandon the schisto story—a wise move in the view of many of us, given all the inconsistencies in that story—and center his claim completely on weight loss.

Point 6 reads, to me, as a slur against 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.

If this were purely an academic study, I would agree. But it isn’t. It’s basically a PR move. If it were being done for academic interest, it would have been done a long time ago, and there would be a lot more data--threshold, efficiency, power at various time intervals, etc. It’s being done specifically because of all the suspicions of Froome’s performance. In that light, I find Tucker’s suggestion a very good one.

 

[Bronstein]

Froome with the front group on Croix de Fer 2008

https://www.twitter.com/RichN95/status/673271305400135684

He finished 125th and 136th on the two preceding mountain stages before finishing 30th on Alpe d'Huez, losing over 11 minutes to Sastre.

Posting a photo of Froome in the front group on a climb isn't much of an indication of his supposed 'talent'.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

As noted, he was also 10 cm shorter back then if you take that record at face value.

It *is* probably not reliable.

So let’s correct the height record by adding 5.5%. And let’s do the same for the weight listed. We come up with about 71.5 kg, close to what he said he weighed at Barlo.

More seriously, I’ve done some more thinking about Froome’s weight in 2007, which is so much heavier than what he claimed he weighed at Barloworld. Just as the August test was carried out when Froome was considered to be several kg more than his ideal racing weight, maybe the 2007 test was, too.

The 2007 test date is listed as July 25. According to Froome’s wiki, he took third in an African road race on July 14. I assume that after that race, he returned to Switzerland, where his team was based, then had the tests. If Froome was thought to have gained three kg in a few weeks following the TDF, I think it’s reasonable to speculate that he gained a little following the African road race. AFAIK, he did not race again that year until about a month later in the U-23 WC.

If we use the same 3 kg he was thought to gain following the TDF this year, his racing weight would be 72.5 kg, which is close to the 70-71 he claimed he weighed at Barlo. That brings his W/kg to 5.79. Some will probably argue that as a major TDF contender, he would have lost—and thus regained—much more weight this year than for a road race in 2007. Fair enough, if we’re more conservative, and assume just a gain of 1.5 kg and a racing weight of 74 kg, the value is 5.67.

Point 6 reads, to me, as a slur against 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.

If this were purely an academic study, I would agree. But it isn’t. It’s basically a PR move. If it were being done for academic interest, it would have been done a long time ago, and there would be a lot more data--threshold, efficiency, power at various time intervals, etc. It’s being done specifically because of all the suspicions of Froome’s performance. In that light, I find Tucker’s suggestion a very good one.

Wrt lack of blood data, one might take this as an indication that Froome is going to abandon the schisto story—a wise move in the view of many of us, given all the inconsistencies in that story—and center his claim completely on weight loss.

Good post. Why anyone here even believed for 1 second that Froome/his camp released this as anything more than a PR move, is really surprising. Did anyone honestly think he'd/they'd allow anything to be released that wouldn't have Froome coming off as being cleans?

The naivity of some on this board is head scratching. Froome's not stupid, he's not going to release anything that says he doped and I can't believe some here would believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

Re: The 2007 UCI Data

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.

I didn't mean to suggest that the UCI should've necessarily gone pubic with the 2007 data themselves, but it was becoming a contentious issue over time, and Froome was unable to recall the specifics. So why not track it down, and at least make it available to Froome? And since Cound had to set out on her own scavenger hunt, clearly obtaining the info was deemed to be important to the newlyweds. I just don't understand why there was, apparently, so much difficulty in retrieving the data to begin with.

As far as proving an athlete clean:
We're not talking about just "an athlete." In Froome, we're talking about the current face of the sport. With such widespread controversy surrounding his performances, why wouldn't the UCI do their part to prove that their poster boy is riding clean, thereby redeeming the very activity that they are charged with overseeing, to whatever extent they could, and to whomever they were able to convince?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

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.

The one thing there I question Tucker on is this point:

He [Vayer] and Paul Kimmage should have been there if Froome and Sky wanted to shift the perception of this being a PR exercise.

It's been made very clear from the Froome camp that Sky was not involved with this (and Brailsford has confirmed as much). It was just Froome taking on this project, and supposedly above the objections of Sky. I'm not even touching the issue of whether or not that stance is to be trusted, but that's what we've been told.

More to your point of the implied slurs against the scientists actually involved with the testing:
Ross Tucker did make it abundantly clear elsewhere that he had complete trust is those overseeing the testing. It's a point that perhaps he should've revisited in his Eight Quick Thoughts, but I don't think he is trying to disparage anyone.

What to expect from Chris Froome’s physiological test data

Expert analysis from Prof Ross Tucker, PhD

Finally, in terms of the testing process, two thoughts.

First, as regards the quality, I have no doubt that the testing will have been done to the highest standards. I know one of the researchers personally (Jeroen Swart) and I believe him to be one of the best physiologists in the world in cycling, and also someone who is sincere and who has integrity. I don't know what process was followed, or whether there were conditions that had to be met, but I believe that Jeroen is a trustworthy scientist, to the point that I think the data produced will be beyond reproach. Similarly, I know Ken van Someren who heads up the laboratory, and I've no reason to doubt his sincerity either.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Valid points but I don't believe the objective was to verify doping or not.

OK, so why is this thread being discussed in the Clinic?

It was more to asses Froome current physiology, which was well established anyway.

So in that sense it tells us not much more that we already knew and doesn't inform on the doping question.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

I was coming here to post this hilarious article. I believe I said the same thing( that we won't ever find out if he's cleans).

Well since we won't (i.e. establish cleans via such testing), I'm not sure what you expect such people to say?

 

[MarkvW]

Froome's presentation of incomplete testing information, when he apparently can provide complete information, answers the question for me. Just another filthy day in a filthy sport. Keep your children away!

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

OK, so why is this thread being discussed in the Clinic?

Oh, come on. In the first place, the study was only undertaken because of all the doping suspicions surrounding Froome. It was not done as a scientifically interesting investigation into a dominant cyclist. On that ground alone, the study deserves discussion in the Clinic. The actual results could, of course, be discussed in another sub-forum, but the Clinic is the only appropriate place, because some discussion is going to involve doping. We frequently discuss things here that involve a lot of non-doping issues, with the understanding that we put them here so that anyone is free at any point to raise doping questions.

So in that sense it tells us not much more that we already knew and doesn't inform on the doping question.

While of course the study was never going to answer the question of whether he was doping--if it it did or could, we wouldn't need anti-doping tests, would we?--it could and IMO did clarify the problems with Froome. We know now that he had a large engine years ago. Assuming he wasn't doped for that test, or at least not any more than he hypothetically might have been doped for the current test, we know that weight loss is the major factor in his improvement. That certainly points to certain drugs if indeed he has been doping.That doesn't mean other substances or methods couldn't have been used, but when a rider loses that much weight, anyone suspicious of doping immediately focuses on certain drugs. One can argue that this focus was here before, but until this 2007 study came out, no one realized just how much weight loss he's claiming.

Though I strongly suspected this is what would result, it wasn't a foregone conclusion. He could have had an ordinary profile, accounting for his ordinary performance, but making his current performance even harder to explain. Or given what actually came out--a better than ordinary profile, but some improvement--it could have happened another way. He could have had a much lower V02max in 2007. Indeed, given he himself has said he weighed much less during that period than what the study reported, a much lower V02max with his self-reported weights would have been more consistent with everything else. Instead of 6.0+ liters, say, around 5.6, and instead of 420 W, around 390.

If the report had come out like that, then there would have been somewhat less questioning about why he didn't perform better at that time. Conversely, the big questions would have been how he increased his V02max while still losing a little more weight. It would have actually been more complicated, IMO.

Third, there is also information in what was not revealed. Nothing about schisto or blood parameters. As I noted earlier, that suggests he may be backing away from using the disease as a rationalization. Either that, or he just doesn't want to be put in the position of defending that position with actual data. As others have pointed out, this information could have been very useful. It would probably be the most relevant to the question of how he got so much better in so short a time. If he's avoiding that, that's useful to know.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Didn't CF refrain from taking food for several hours before the testing began?
Why was that?

Did the test lab take any blood or urine samples?
Has Esquire missed that bit out?

 

[damian13ster]

That is a very interesting discussion. one thing that really bothers me is dismissing the data from physiological testing based on the results (or lack thereof) around the time the testing.

I am not sure how many of you have any experience with competitive or semi-competitive sports, but those that do, I am sure are aware that results depend from much more than just physiological potential. Mentality is much bigger factor than that.

Stating that lack of results in races makes physiological test results implausible is being completely ignorant about what it takes to be a high-level athlete

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

OK, so why is this thread being discussed in the Clinic?

Oh, come on. In the first place, the study was only undertaken because of all the doping suspicions surrounding Froome. It was not done as a scientifically interesting investigation into a dominant cyclist. On that ground alone, the study deserves discussion in the Clinic. The actual results could, of course, be discussed in another sub-forum, but the Clinic is the only appropriate place, because some discussion is going to involve doping. We frequently discuss things here that involve a lot of non-doping issues, with the understanding that we put them here so that anyone is free at any point to raise doping questions.

So in that sense it tells us not much more that we already knew and doesn't inform on the doping question.

While of course the study was never going to answer the question of whether he was doping--if it it did or could, we wouldn't need anti-doping tests, would we?--it could and IMO did clarify the problems with Froome. We know now that he had a large engine years ago. Assuming he wasn't doped for that test, or at least not any more than he hypothetically might have been doped for the current test, we know that weight loss is the major factor in his improvement. That certainly points to certain drugs if indeed he has been doping.That doesn't mean other substances or methods couldn't have been used, but when a rider loses that much weight, anyone suspicious of doping immediately focuses on certain drugs. One can argue that this focus was here before, but until this 2007 study came out, no one realized just how much weight loss he's claiming.

Though I strongly suspected this is what would result, it wasn't a foregone conclusion. He could have had an ordinary profile, accounting for his ordinary performance, but making his current performance even harder to explain. Or given what actually came out--a better than ordinary profile, but some improvement--it could have happened another way. He could have had a much lower V02max in 2007. Indeed, given he himself has said he weighed much less during that period than what the study reported, a much lower V02max with his self-reported weights would have been more consistent with everything else. Instead of 6.0+ liters, say, around 5.6, and instead of 420 W, around 390.

If the report had come out like that, then there would have been somewhat less questioning about why he didn't perform better at that time. Conversely, the big questions would have been how he increased his V02max while still losing a little more weight. It would have actually been more complicated, IMO.

Third, there is also information in what was not revealed. Nothing about schisto or blood parameters. As I noted earlier, that suggests he may be backing away from using the disease as a rationalization. Either that, or he just doesn't want to be put in the position of defending that position with actual data. As others have pointed out, this information could have been very useful. It would probably be the most relevant to the question of how he got so much better in so short a time. If he's avoiding that, that's useful to know.

Excellent. Sane, rational and clear post.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

Stating that lack of results in races makes physiological test results implausible is being completely ignorant about what it takes to be a high-level athlete

I don't believe that to be an accurate assessment of the arguments that are often put forward.

There are plenty of riders who test great in the lab but fail to realize that potential on the road. The point often raised is that those same people have not gone on to dominate Grand Tours. You can't have it both ways. If you posses the physiological capabilities, AND you go on to become a dominant stage racer later in your career, then there will have been very early signs of such potential based on race results as well, and not just lab numbers.

That's what is missing from the Froome equation. It's not simply the lack of race results early in his career that makes the numbers implausible. It's the undeniable fact that he suddenly transformed himself into a winning machine later on.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

In the first place, the study was only undertaken because of all the doping suspicions surrounding Froome. It was not done as a scientifically interesting investigation into a dominant cyclist.

Very true. Of course that begs the question: Why wasn't it done previously "as a scientifically interesting investigation into a dominant cyclist" by either Team Sky themselves, or Froome on his own? How either of them could not have been interested in these numbers is bewildering to me. They were basically forced into the testing by all the suspicion surrounding Froome, and the sport in general. But now I fully expect both Froome and Sky to turn the narrative around and claim that this new data has now opened the door for even further marginal (and not so marginal) gains on their part.

"You see? It's all about science! We've used this data to enhance our training methods, and that's why Chris Froome has just won his 10th TdF!"

But the people asking for such data to begin with were dismissed as nefarious trolls. It will be both interesting and entertaining to see how this all plays out in the years to come.

 

[Franklin]

How Sky, of all teams on the entire planet, wouldn't be putting their most promising riders (if not their entire roster) through such testing, at least once a year, is mind boggling. In fact, it is so absolutely ludicrous that one might even be tempted to question Sky's credibility.

It is flat-out impossible they never tested their riders. The only possible conclusion is... that they are lieing.

And that only leads to the next question... why lie about these things?

Oh well, lazy journalism and fanboyism will take the day.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

That is a very interesting discussion. one thing that really bothers me is dismissing the data from physiological testing based on the results (or lack thereof) around the time the testing.

I am not sure how many of you have any experience with competitive or semi-competitive sports, but those that do, I am sure are aware that results depend from much more than just physiological potential. Mentality is much bigger factor than that.

Stating that lack of results in races makes physiological test results implausible is being completely ignorant about what it takes to be a high-level athlete

a lot of people in this thread do...the problem isn't that he didn't have a lack of race results for one race, one month, one season...it was his whole career until that point (or 4 years from 2007 data point). As Swanson (and Rasmussen M who you could say does have some experience ) has pointed out...putting out the 2007 figues you just don't get dropped...at the piunts he was getting dropped at and/or you go fast in an ITT...

a quick edit...when i say lack of results I mean lack of result as measured against his post 11 Vuelta level and his figures...he had enough rsults to be a mediocre pro which I am sure a lot of pople would be very happy with