The Froome Files, test data only thread

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

In the academic context the results need to be sent from the university in a sealed envelope to the employer or next intuition. You wouldn't see them. The results are the property of the university not the individual.

Per the testing, more often than not the testing center has provided its own funding for the tests so they will own the results and release them under payment or a larger anonymous study into the subjects.

The bold is incorrect, anybody can obtain their transcripts in the USA. I have done so in the past year. Most employers in my field of academia prefer unofficial copies for application packets. Official ones only at the time of hire.

As for Froome, you are correct that his test results are not his intellectual property. Getting the 2007 data in the paper requires some type of agreement between the UCI center, Froome, the authors writing the paper, and their institutions.

 

[bewildered]

Re:

The tests were carried out at the GlaxoSmithKline Human Performance Lab in London in August, since when the Kenyan-born cyclist is understood to have obtained the results of tests carried out when he first joined the UCI’s World Cycling Centre as a young rider out of Africa in 2007.

Can someone translate this into English?

The wording is unclear and can be read more than one way. To me it either means that he got his 2007 results in August and afterwards did his fresh tests with GSK the same month (ie he waited for the 2007 results and immediately did the tests) or he did his GSK tests in August and got his 2007 UCI results after he did the GSK tests. It depends what way you read 'since when' - does it mean 'since August' or 'since he did the tests'.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

In the academic context the results need to be sent from the university in a sealed envelope to the employer or next intuition. You wouldn't see them. The results are the property of the university not the individual.

Per the testing, more often than not the testing center has provided its own funding for the tests so they will own the results and release them under payment or a larger anonymous study into the subjects.

The bold is incorrect, anybody can obtain their transcripts in the USA. I have done so in the past year. Most employers in my field of academia prefer unofficial copies for application packets. Official ones only at the time of hire.

As for Froome, you are correct that his test results are not his intellectual property. Getting the 2007 data in the paper requires some type of agreement between the UCI center, Froome, the authors writing the paper, and their institutions.

Of course you can obtain your transcripts (and you pay for the copy) but a new employer or post graduate course will only accept an "official transcript" from the university itself in a sealed envelope with a stamp across the break.

Unofficial transcript upon application or from WES for overseas applications.


The results still remain the property of the institution not the individual.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

The wording is unclear and can be read more than one way. To me it either means that he got his 2007 results in August

For reals? bewildered by name, bewildering by nature.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

...so "since when" did he have sight of them?

You're the one trying to suggest he's never seen them, reading into thing things that are not there. How 'bout you do the heavy lifting here and provide the proof? Oh! that's right, you can't prove a negative, so it must be true.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

...so "since when" did he have sight of them?

You're the one trying to suggest he's never seen them, reading into thing things that are not there. How 'bout you do the heavy lifting here and provide the proof? Oh! that's right, you can't prove a negative, so it must be true.

i think we may be at cross purposes..of course he has seen them....he has very specifically seen them...those around him have very specifically seen them and wondered how they square the circle, or in Sir Dave's own words make the unbelievable believable.

However, if you had never happened upon froome (or cycling - it is a newspaper article) and read that article you could be forgiven for thinking he had not seen them up until he obtained them sometime in the very recent past..

And yes it may be more ***-up than conspiracy (and hence I may be reading things into it) however setting the ground work for a news release is common practice and so we get this as part of a managed package which sits alongside Moore's piece......

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

if you had never happened upon froome (or cycling - it is a newspaper article) and read that article you could be forgiven for thinking he had not seen them up until he obtained them sometime in the very recent past..

Only if you had performed a prefrontal lobotomy on yourself with a blunt pencil before reading the article.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

if you had never happened upon froome (or cycling - it is a newspaper article) and read that article you could be forgiven for thinking he had not seen them up until he obtained them sometime in the very recent past..

Only if you had performed a prefrontal lobotomy on yourself with a blunt pencil before reading the article.

this is a Telegraph article you realise...

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

if you had never happened upon froome (or cycling - it is a newspaper article) and read that article you could be forgiven for thinking he had not seen them up until he obtained them sometime in the very recent past..

Only if you had performed a prefrontal lobotomy on yourself with a blunt pencil before reading the article.

this is a Telegraph article you realise...

Two pages on Froome and no data has been released as yet!

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

if you had never happened upon froome (or cycling - it is a newspaper article) and read that article you could be forgiven for thinking he had not seen them up until he obtained them sometime in the very recent past..

Only if you had performed a prefrontal lobotomy on yourself with a blunt pencil before reading the article.

this is a Telegraph article you realise...

Two pages on Froome and no data has been released as yet!

well Sir Dave's not seen it and yet he gets an article out of it

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Two pages on Froome and no data has been released as yet!

Just wait 'til the article does arrives....

- Moore's misuse of an an unpaired comma on the second line of the fourth paragraph proves he is on Sky's payroll and cannot be trusted to offer independent analysis of the test results.
- Well, actually, you know, the concept of paired commas is just a convention, not a rule.
- No it isn't.
- Yes it is.
- No it isn't.
- Yes it is.
- No it isn't.
- Yes it is.
- Maybe it is. But it still proves that Moore is in league with Murdoch. He knows Brian Smith.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Who remembers when Joe Lindsey was given access to Wiggins's Garmin blood values? (((nostalgia)))

 

[ScienceIsCool]

So they're releasing the news/data on a Friday, huh? Must be good.

John Swanson

 

[armchairclimber]

And I was going to stay up til midnight tonight.

 

[harryh]

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

Who remembers when Joe Lindsey was given access to Wiggins's Garmin blood values? (((nostalgia)))

And now cannot find the articles as they were removed.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Who remembers when Joe Lindsey was given access to Wiggins's Garmin blood values? (((nostalgia)))

And now cannot find the articles as they were removed.

Have you tried the Wayback Machine

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Who remembers when Joe Lindsey was given access to Wiggins's Garmin blood values? (((nostalgia)))

And now cannot find the articles as they were removed.

Have you tried the Wayback Machine

Yep. Only works if you already have the URL, right?

And the images - the important bits - are still missing.

 

[observer]

Re: Re:

Who remembers when Joe Lindsey was given access to Wiggins's Garmin blood values? (((nostalgia)))

And now cannot find the articles as they were removed.

Have you tried the Wayback Machine

Yep. Only works if you already have the URL, right?

And the images - the important bits - are still missing.

is this the blood profile link you were after? http://road.cc/sites/default/files/wiggins-blood-profile_0.pdf

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Who remembers when Joe Lindsey was given access to Wiggins's Garmin blood values? (((nostalgia)))

And now cannot find the articles as they were removed.

Have you tried the Wayback Machine

Yep. Only works if you already have the URL, right?

And the images - the important bits - are still missing.

is this the blood profile link you were after? http://road.cc/sites/default/files/wiggins-blood-profile_0.pdf

Thank you but no. ON this page https://web.archive.org/web/20080731031623/http://www.bicycling.com/tourdefrance/article/0,6802,s1-7-483-17647-4,00.html

there are graphs of CVV and D Millar's blood parameters mentioned but the images are gone.

 

[Merckx index]

The tests were carried out at the GlaxoSmithKline Human Performance Lab in London in August, since when the Kenyan-born cyclist is understood to have obtained the results of tests carried out when he first joined the UCI’s World Cycling Centre as a young rider out of Africa in 2007.

Can someone translate this into English?

Add an "also" and it makes perfect sense. : "have also obtained" (but the meaning seems obvious even without that)

Nope. Still doesn’t make sense to me—and even if it did, it still would not be grammatically correct.

You’re welcome to explain what you think the obvious meaning is. The “since when” implies that the tests were carried out at GSK—not somewhere else, but specifically at GSK—because he obtained results from 2007, though the passage is still garbled.

I think what the writer might have been trying to say is:

The tests, which were carried out at the GlaxoSmithKline Human Performance Lab in London in August, are intended as a supplement to the results of other tests the Kenyan-born cyclist is understood to have obtained when he first joined the UCI’s World Cycling Centre as a young rider out of Africa in 2007.

But even if that is the intended meaning—which is not obvious to me given how substantially the passage has to be edited to come up with that—it still is ambiguous, because it leaves a huge gap between 2007 and the present. Why would one decide to have new tests when, and only when, he had obtained results from older tests carried out eight years ago?

Baltimore says: “it would suggest that the complete data set was collected for the purpose of the study. Those 2007 numbers wouldn't be publishable otherwise.”

Maybe, but it doesn’t say anything like that in the passage, does it? It’s not at all obvious that that is the intended meaning of the passage, is it?

Anyone who can look at that passage and conclude that the meaning is obvious is obviously reading into it things that are not actually there, raising questions about how objectively that poster will look at anything else.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

The tests were carried out at the GlaxoSmithKline Human Performance Lab in London in August, since when the Kenyan-born cyclist is understood to have obtained the results of tests carried out when he first joined the UCI’s World Cycling Centre as a young rider out of Africa in 2007.

Can someone translate this into English?

Lol! Hilarious and beat me to it!

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

So they're releasing the news/data on a Friday, huh? Must be good.

John Swanson

Q: Do you/ anyone honestly believe Froome doesn't already know what the reports are going to say? They're not going to be uncovering and releasing any guilty evidence here IMO. This is calculated by Froome and his camp to make him come out cleans. They'll then be on their "see we told you so" high horse and many folks will believe them.

UCI should not be involved in any way, knowing their shady past. Also, did Froome or his camp pick this so called "independent tester", or was it provided for him by our old friends at UCI? Also, how recent was this testing done? How well in advance did Froome know he would be tested? How do we know the samples taken/given are actually HIS and not someone else's? Is there some sort of EPO/doping timeframe where one can come off it after a certain time and it goes undetected?

That's what I'm curious about.

 

[harryh]

@86TDFWinner Are we talking about the same test? Anyway,

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

edited

You know what? It's just a convention, not a rule.