Re:
Absolutely. TBH though, I'm not sure why he didn't before. It's a long time since CF did the tests after all. Not suggesting there are 'reasons' behind it. But given the controversy around this, it would have made sense to double check straight away.
harryh said:
Absolutely. TBH though, I'm not sure why he didn't before. It's a long time since CF did the tests after all. Not suggesting there are 'reasons' behind it. But given the controversy around this, it would have made sense to double check straight away.
Re:
well...based on "it is my understanding" (i.e. somebody told me) I would suggest he has not checked the data singley let alone doubley...or as Burnely would say "not accountable for it"
its mark burnley that is "painfully stupid" for not understanding that it is the 2007 data which is the story...
harryh said:
well...based on "it is my understanding" (i.e. somebody told me) I would suggest he has not checked the data singley let alone doubley...or as Burnely would say "not accountable for it"
its mark burnley that is "painfully stupid" for not understanding that it is the 2007 data which is the story...
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
armchairclimber said:
The only thing that really need be copied was the header and border from 2007. The text contained in the document of the results could easily be modified and snapped into the former margin/header.
It looks like someone went to a degree of effort to give this document the appearance from 2007 with scratch marks and the like to give the impression it had been sitting in some file room somewhere and just discovered. This was 2007, scanners etc. existed back then.
The highlighted section is odd, with the text bleeding over the top on the Esquire version. A lot of over compensation.
There's a date from 2007 which demonstrates that this is not a re-issue but the original copy from the time of the testing.
I'm glad Swart is going to verify the data from 2007 but it might be difficult.
Anyway, back to the data!
Re: Re:
Do you have any riders on your list that turned 23 within the last 30 years?
Also, bizarrely since you basically saying that Froome's performances are all down to drugs, all the riders on that list, except for Lemond got busted for doping?
ScienceIsCool said:
Do you have any riders on your list that turned 23 within the last 30 years?
Also, bizarrely since you basically saying that Froome's performances are all down to drugs, all the riders on that list, except for Lemond got busted for doping?
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
My one issue with Moore is he tended to use the article for Vayer bashing which shouldn't have been the motive. He perhaps could have also explained why no HR due to equipment malfunction along with at least asserting the veracity of the "missing 2007 numbers".
If the objective of the testing was to come out with sound scientific output, he at least couid have tried to follow suit with this article. It's a bit soft but I don't have a huge objection.
Everyone likes to hold basic trust in others... that is normal but not in scientific testing.
gillan1969 said:Electress said:
presumably a journo with an inquiring mind like Moore R has got this covered
...and could always go to source and ask for another copy...
My one issue with Moore is he tended to use the article for Vayer bashing which shouldn't have been the motive. He perhaps could have also explained why no HR due to equipment malfunction along with at least asserting the veracity of the "missing 2007 numbers".
If the objective of the testing was to come out with sound scientific output, he at least couid have tried to follow suit with this article. It's a bit soft but I don't have a huge objection.
Everyone likes to hold basic trust in others... that is normal but not in scientific testing.
Re:
He is still the most transformed rider in history and these tests were never going to change that or explain why, that's the problem with them. He needs to explain how his super physiology kicked in overnight at the age of 26, ie his transformation.
Ventoux Boar said:
He is still the most transformed rider in history and these tests were never going to change that or explain why, that's the problem with them. He needs to explain how his super physiology kicked in overnight at the age of 26, ie his transformation.
Re: Re:
well, quite...and Swart is scientifically testing..
to Moore, a fair point and nobody is at war however.... surely any journalist of any seriousness woud have learnt about single source data after Gilligan's report on the 'se*ed up' dossier...what's worse is that the provenance of the source appears not to have been checked, not as a third party document...but as document supplied by an interested party......
thehog said:gillan1969 said:Electress said:
presumably a journo with an inquiring mind like Moore R has got this covered
...and could always go to source and ask for another copy...
My one issue with Moore is he tended to use the article for Vayer bashing which shouldn't have been the motive. He perhaps could have also explained why no HR due to equipment malfunction along with at least asserting the veracity of the "missing 2007 numbers".
If the objective of the testing was to come out with sound scientific output, he at least couid have tried to follow suit with this article. It's a bit soft but I don't have a huge objection.
Everyone likes to hold basic trust in others... that is normal but not in scientific testing.
well, quite...and Swart is scientifically testing..
to Moore, a fair point and nobody is at war however.... surely any journalist of any seriousness woud have learnt about single source data after Gilligan's report on the 'se*ed up' dossier...what's worse is that the provenance of the source appears not to have been checked, not as a third party document...but as document supplied by an interested party......
Re: Re:
Fair enough but it all seems simple minded logic to me.
Take Pantani. He won a load of races as a kid demonstrating he was true champion according to John Swanson's criteria. No suspicious leaps in ability there, just one steady progression.
Of the recent riders like Pinot and Bardet for example, I wonder how many races they would have won if they were 5 years older and there was no biological passport in place and their competitors behaved accordingly?
Anyway, that is a digression from the thread about Chris Froome's results.
hrotha said:
Fair enough but it all seems simple minded logic to me.
Take Pantani. He won a load of races as a kid demonstrating he was true champion according to John Swanson's criteria. No suspicious leaps in ability there, just one steady progression.
Of the recent riders like Pinot and Bardet for example, I wonder how many races they would have won if they were 5 years older and there was no biological passport in place and their competitors behaved accordingly?
Anyway, that is a digression from the thread about Chris Froome's results.
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Correct but again it's a entertainment magazine so I don't hold it against Moore, Swart should know better though.
The conclusion made is like saying it was 32 Celsius in a specific city in August 2015 and was 31 degrees Celsius in July 2007; therefore is it always 32c in this location.
Of course not. Swart took two data points eight years apart and drew a line between the two and said "look we have a match!"
He simply ignored 8 years of race/performance data to come to his conclusion. Did he think that somewhere in those 8 years might give him reason to test the veracity of the 2007 data? That's very poor analytics and science.
It is what it is, I look forward to the full report which is apparently coming soon.
The conclusion made is like saying it was 32 Celsius in a specific city in August 2015 and was 31 degrees Celsius in July 2007; therefore is it always 32c in this location.
Of course not. Swart took two data points eight years apart and drew a line between the two and said "look we have a match!"
He simply ignored 8 years of race/performance data to come to his conclusion. Did he think that somewhere in those 8 years might give him reason to test the veracity of the 2007 data? That's very poor analytics and science.
It is what it is, I look forward to the full report which is apparently coming soon.
thehog said:
you are more forgiving than I...
After the controvesy with Walsh and some of the quite ludicrous details (too many to list) which he appears to have taken at face vaue...you might have expected the next journo to come along to be slightly more circumspect about accepting things at face value......as I say probably worth a first check before having to go back and double check....although Swart has now got involved in discussing data which is not his....having made conclusions and comments on it. If his postion was unbiased before (and we have no reason to doubt it), this now unbiased postion becomes biased as it is now in his interest to find things which confirm his (arguably) premature assumptions
certainly a very interesting episode.....
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,092
- 28,180
thehog said:
Could you also please post in advance what proof of veracity of 2007 test results would be acceptable to you?
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,553
- 0
- 0
Re:
(Jumping in somewhat at random.)
An interesting question is whether the 2007 data belongs in any yet-to-be-written scientific paper. On the one hand, it certainly provides some context for these 2015 results. OTOH, if all that is available is numbers on a fax (even if authentic), then the merit of the data is questionable.
Hmm...to answer my own question, probably the best way to handle this would be to (if possible) describe the 2007 methods in the paper, and probably include those who conducted the test(s) as coauthors. You'd still be faced with the problem of comparing apples and oranges, but at least you'd have a good description of each piece of fruit.
ETA: As a scientist, I have to say that I wonder whether it would even be worth publishing Froome's data, even if the 2007 methods and results were fully available/verifiable. Coyle's data on Armstrong were of interest not only because they were the first to describe a multiple TdF winner (at the time, anyway!), but also because they included a number of different time points (albeit being only samples of convenience, and hence mostly in the off-season) and assessment of not only VO2max and LT, but also efficiency. By comparison, the data on Froome are much more meager, and information is now available on other TdF champions as well (although not in scientific journals). Thus, if I were a reviewer my reaction would likely be "meh."
harryh said:
(Jumping in somewhat at random.)
An interesting question is whether the 2007 data belongs in any yet-to-be-written scientific paper. On the one hand, it certainly provides some context for these 2015 results. OTOH, if all that is available is numbers on a fax (even if authentic), then the merit of the data is questionable.
Hmm...to answer my own question, probably the best way to handle this would be to (if possible) describe the 2007 methods in the paper, and probably include those who conducted the test(s) as coauthors. You'd still be faced with the problem of comparing apples and oranges, but at least you'd have a good description of each piece of fruit.
ETA: As a scientist, I have to say that I wonder whether it would even be worth publishing Froome's data, even if the 2007 methods and results were fully available/verifiable. Coyle's data on Armstrong were of interest not only because they were the first to describe a multiple TdF winner (at the time, anyway!), but also because they included a number of different time points (albeit being only samples of convenience, and hence mostly in the off-season) and assessment of not only VO2max and LT, but also efficiency. By comparison, the data on Froome are much more meager, and information is now available on other TdF champions as well (although not in scientific journals). Thus, if I were a reviewer my reaction would likely be "meh."
Re: Re:
I totally agree with your assessment. When I heard 2007 data was going to be included, I assumed it would be a data set, not merely a printed piece of paper with numbers on it. That would trouble me as a reviewer. As I mentioned yesterday, how the 2007 data integrates into the conclusions in the manuscript for the entire study is what interests me most at this point. Authorship does make the most sense.
acoggan said:
I totally agree with your assessment. When I heard 2007 data was going to be included, I assumed it would be a data set, not merely a printed piece of paper with numbers on it. That would trouble me as a reviewer. As I mentioned yesterday, how the 2007 data integrates into the conclusions in the manuscript for the entire study is what interests me most at this point. Authorship does make the most sense.
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
roundabout said:
Sure.
At the moment it is a copied piece of paper with numbers on it from the subjects wife. Generally when copies are reproduced there would be a stamp/insignia from the institution who issued the document with a present date. We've not seen the method used to obtain the results, or who conducted the tests etc. Swart based his conclusion on this sheet so we can only assume there must have been some other complimentary documentation to satisfy the level of authenticity.
At this point we have to accept Froome produced the numbers that he did on the day of this one off test and then fell off a cliff for the following 4 years.
Not sure I'm ready to accept the "always had a big engine" theorem based on this flimsy piece of photocopied, mislalighed, oddly adjusted document.
As Swart is following up with the Lausanne lab it's odd that he could scientifically come to the conclusion that he did. The bar doesn't appear high in the given example.
thehog said:
the optimism runs deep thehog
...i have a feeling that if there was data sitting behind it then Swart would have told his twitter friend that all would be revealed on publication...if nothing else to buy him more time to do the double checking...if he held the data then there was no need to answer until he had double checked.Re: Re:
Dr. Burnley comes off as having the most common sense of anybody other than Dr. Swart in that exchange IMO. From the tweets, it seems like the 2007 documents came directly from the lab in question, so that is encouraging. As a scientist, there is a degree of trust that your collaborators are doing 'good science'. There is every reason to take data like that at face value.
gillan1969 said:
Dr. Burnley comes off as having the most common sense of anybody other than Dr. Swart in that exchange IMO. From the tweets, it seems like the 2007 documents came directly from the lab in question, so that is encouraging. As a scientist, there is a degree of trust that your collaborators are doing 'good science'. There is every reason to take data like that at face value.
Re: Re:
To be fair I’m not au fait with twitter exchanges and the lack of characters may lead to exchanges that would be different under a different medium….however, bearing in mind the academic study is (primarily) designed for the great unwashed, for academics to converse amongst themselves with that level of disdain for the readership does Burnley no favours…..
e.g. Whilst I don’t know Brian Cox from Adam I can’t imagine him taking the p*ss out of somebody for not understanding the complexities of the universe on a public forum
either that or he too has assumed that Swart had done due diligence…….
djpbaltimore said:
To be fair I’m not au fait with twitter exchanges and the lack of characters may lead to exchanges that would be different under a different medium….however, bearing in mind the academic study is (primarily) designed for the great unwashed, for academics to converse amongst themselves with that level of disdain for the readership does Burnley no favours…..
e.g. Whilst I don’t know Brian Cox from Adam I can’t imagine him taking the p*ss out of somebody for not understanding the complexities of the universe on a public forum
either that or he too has assumed that Swart had done due diligence…….
I can see how some of the exchanges can come off as condescending or arrogant. But intent can easily be misread in 140 characters.
I think this is an important clue to the discussion of the faxes.
BySpoke @BySpoke 4h4 hours ago
@jeroenswart @drmarkburnley @ewonsprokler There are dissimilarities between the two documents. Seems to me it is legitimate to question why.
Jeroen Swart @JeroenSwart 39m39 minutes ago
.@BySpoke @DrMarkBurnley @EwonSprokler ok. I have confirmed that the alterations were made by Esquire to highlight certain sections.
I think this is an important clue to the discussion of the faxes.
BySpoke @BySpoke 4h4 hours ago
@jeroenswart @drmarkburnley @ewonsprokler There are dissimilarities between the two documents. Seems to me it is legitimate to question why.
Jeroen Swart @JeroenSwart 39m39 minutes ago
.@BySpoke @DrMarkBurnley @EwonSprokler ok. I have confirmed that the alterations were made by Esquire to highlight certain sections.
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
the optimism runs deep thehog
I fully concur. Swart has jumped in with both feet on this one, my sense is his young and in the limelight for the first time. He appears to have lost his head slightly. I fully understand why he wants to represent the 2015 data with confidence but the 2007 digits are not for him to declare.
I agree with Andy Coggan on this. Coggan does come in for criticism at times but I've never seen him get so involved with a test subject or a set of data point that he loses his critical thinking and application to the data. The 2007 data sheet is interesting from "wow look at that" perspective but hardly valid data to incorporate into a robust study.
I agree that Swart and/or his team should have done all the validation on the 2007 numbers before he made the "big engine" claim, one should remember that if the needle left or right on the weight scales or the fat percentage the results become vastly different to the point of discounting them.
There are some scientists who don't believe anything that comes out of other peoples' labs. Others take all data at face value until proven otherwise. There is a balancing act between critically challenging data and blindly believing anything in print. It is difficult to know the validity of the 2007 data because we are missing so much context on what was communicated between the labs and the individuals.
Dr. Swart comes off a bit flippant and defensive on twitter, but there is nothing that I have seen that would make me question his critical thinking. JMO
Dr. Swart comes off a bit flippant and defensive on twitter, but there is nothing that I have seen that would make me question his critical thinking. JMO
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
The sport is full of Sports Scientists and Doctors all giving out doping and other medications to riders who dont need them! Why trust any sports scientist or Sports doctor? They want to make money from their work and they know it wont be the big bucks with clean athletes......
Swart is getting a lot of publicity from this and Froome appears to be his client.
Swart is getting a lot of publicity from this and Froome appears to be his client.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Teams & Riders The "MVP" Mathieu Van der Poel Road Discussion Thread
- Latest: Axel Hangleck
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram