The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re: Re:

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?

How in the name of God are you involving UCI in this? How? It's Froome's initiative, his response to those calling for such test data. How are you linking this to UCI?

Also, how recent was this testing done? How well in advance did Froome know he would be tested?

Are you keeping up with *any* of this? The GSK tests were August. The WCC tests were 2007.

How do we know the samples taken/given are actually HIS and not someone else's?

You are assuming there are blood/urine tests - beyond lactate tests - in addition to the physiological ones? Or are you asking how we can know he didn't find his doppelgänger and send him in to do the tests?

Is there some sort of EPO/doping timeframe where one can come off it after a certain time and it goes undetected?

I thought this was Doping 101 round here, you know the glow time, you know how long it''ll impact a passport profile?

Who needs a doppelgänger....................I've got some lovely pictures of my kids flying broomsticks, but they were produced using green screen at Harry Potter World.

I've said before, the only way to be certain is a Truman Show style setup, where Froome can be observed 24 hours a day on a dedicated channel...................maybe Christophe Bassons could be persuaded to move in with the Froomes for a year or so as a trustworthy observer - that might add some credibility, though probably not here cos he just might just say Froome isn't Voldemort Mk2.

Bottom line is whatever data is released will be interpreted however some people want to interpret it, so I'm not certain what any of this is going to achieve and whether it was worth doing at all - the people who already believe Froome is Jebus will just say this backs them up; the people who are vaguely interested because they love cycling won't be too bothered either way; and the people who believe everyone with a pulse and a Raleigh Chopper dopes just say it's all a sham whatever...........

So the only solution is my "Froome Show" idea (and I'm claiming copyright on it !!!)

 

[bewildered]

Re: Re:

sorry where is it stated that it's a fax?

You're right, it says report.

That's not what i meant. It appears to be a plain (ie uncertified) photostat copy of the first page of a multiple page report. If it were presented in court it wouldn't be acceptable as evidence without further verification, the court would look for either the original complete report or a copy thereof certified by a trustworthy source who had sight of the original to compare it with. In that sense it seems quite dangerous to accept it as gospel by anyone. And that's without suggesting there is anything untoward going on in relation to the data in it.

Calling it a fax indicates it was either faxed to Zorzoli or Cound. There is no indication of that and we don't know if Cound was sent a copy of it recently or rooted it out of the attic from a bunch of old papers, which I also think it is quite relevant to determine.

Can we stop referring to it as a fax as it's just inaccurate and misleading or am I missing something here?

 

[acoggan]

Ferrari's take, with his normal dry humour

Futile & Incomplete Froome's Tests
By: Michele Ferrari
Published: 6 Dec 2015



Three weeks after the victorious TdF 2015, forced by the inevitable suspicions of doping, Chris Froome was submitted to a lab test at the GSK Human Performance Lab in London.
It took more than 100 days for his entourage to filter and make the results finally public.
The report presents all the limitations of a test carried out in a laboratory, but some information is interesting.

Prior to the actual performance testing, Froome was recorded to have a weight of 70.8 kg (9.8% fat), a whopping 3.8 kg above the weight declared at the TdF (67 kg), which is basically like saying that, after the 3-week stage race, he accumulated an average of 180g of weight per day, corresponding to an overfeeding of 1628 Kcal per day. A real sponge, which is suggesting of previous important caloric restrictions.

After only 10min (sic) of warm-up, Chris was subjected to a "sub-maximal aerobic test": 8x 4min starting from 250w, with steps of 25w, up to a maximum of 425w.
The pedaling cadence was not given, a fundamental parameter for evaluating cycling performances, those of Chris Froome in particular.
It is not so much the values of AT2 = 379w and AT4 = 419w that grab my attention, but their ​​Heart Rate values: 127 and 138 ppm respectively, compared with a HRmax of around 175 bpm, as reported by Froome himself. The Report, seriously lacking, does not mention the value of HR max reached in the next test (VO2max).

But even more surprising is the modest increase of Heart Rate in the progression from 250w to 425w: about 35bpm (the Report does not show the exact data), equal to 5.0 w/beat, which shows
a cardiac efficiency truly above average; this in my opinion is the most significant data out of all the testing.

The value of AT4 = 419w is definitely an underestimation by approximately 10% of the value recorded by Froome in a road test: in his autobiography "The Climb", Chris himself wrote he climbed the Col De La Madone in 30'09", six days before the start of the TdF 2013, developing an average FTP of 459w (6.85 w/kg with his TdF weight)...

Just to satisfy the curiosity, here are the times and relevant wattages recorded by some of the best cyclists in recent years on the Col De La Madone (13.1 km at an average gradient of 7%):

Richie Porte - 62kg (2014) in 29'40" - 431w - 6.96w/kg
Chris Froome - 67kg (2013) in 30'09" - 459w - 6.85w/kg
Tom Danielson - 59.5kg (2006) in 30'24" - 410w - 6.89w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 74.5Kg (1999) in 30'47" - 492w - 6.60 w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75kg (2005) in 31'11" - 488w - 6.50w/kg
Lance Armstrong - 75 kg (2010) in 32'20" - 479w - 6.38 w/kg

15min after the "sub-maximal aerobic test", Froome performed the "incremental maximal test", starting from 150w with increments of 30w/min and measurement of oxygen consumption (VO2) taken on the average of 30". Again the cadence is completely unreported, if not for the fact that the test gets interrupted when the pedaling falls below 70RPM. The same omission is repeated with regards to the HR max achieved in the test.
VO2max is 5.91 l/min = 84.6 ml/kg/min = 88.2ml/kg/min with TdF weight (67kg).
An excellent value, but not significant in predicting performance, as premised by the very same carrying out the testing and as can be so easily guessed by comparing the "stratospheric" 92.0 ml/kg/min attributed to Greg Lemond for his Alpe d' Huez record (48min in the TdF 1985 together with Bernard Hinault), 10min away from the best times.

The Report also proposes the comparison with the test Froome carried out on 07/25/2007 at the Swiss Olympic Medical Center: 75.6 kg, 16.7% body fat, VO2max = 6.07 l/min = 80.2 ml/kg/min. This is also a value that is higher than the average of the professional cyclists, further confirming the futility of this measurement if we compare it with the inconsistent racing results of Froome back then.

Lastly, one can't help but smile at the conclusion of the South African physiologist Jeroen Swart: "He just lost the fat"... (a remark I seem to remember I already heard about 16 years ago).

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=137

1. Ferrari's emphasis on cadence is misguided. Even if it were a significant determinant of performance on the road - which it isn't - the loading conditions provided by a trainer or ergometer could very well cause a cyclist to adopt a different cadence. The fact that such values aren't presented is therefore irrelevant.

2. That Froome's power at OBLA and his reported power when climbing Col De La Madone are different is not surprising. Lactate testing only provides an *estimate* of an individual's sustainable power, and it is quite common for OBLA to occur at a lower power, at least in a trained male cyclist.

 

[sniper]

did a bit of digging in the thread. The first to mention it a "fax", afaict, was rollthedice, maybe he can shed light on it?

To be sure, whether it's a fax or not doesn't seem to have bearing on the question whether it is a fake/fabrication.
It's pretty clear that the document was issued one time only, i.e. printed, then stored somewhere.
At least that's how they wanted to make it look.
So the existence of two differently formatted versions with differently placed binder holes and (to top it) scuff marks disappearing underneath the text remains highly suspect (m2c).

 

[Benotti69]

Ferrari won the TdF how many times?

Before dismissing the guy please remember this guy knows how to get performances from riders and knows exactly where and what to look for!

Froomes tests were nowt more than PR. Designed to keep fans onside. The various articles that came out before the tests were published illustrate this. The doubters will still doubt etc

 

[acoggan]

Re:

Ferrari won the TdF how many times?

Before dismissing the guy please remember this guy knows how to get performances from riders and knows exactly where and what to look for!

I have never seen any evidence that Ferrari understands the physiology of exercise any better than a well-trained masters student. Now pharmacology, OTOH....

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Ferrari won the TdF how many times?

Before dismissing the guy please remember this guy knows how to get performances from riders and knows exactly where and what to look for!

I have never seen any evidence that Ferrari understands the physiology of exercise any better than a well-trained masters student. Now pharmacology, OTOH....

Ferrari's experience counts as he knows what he is looking at. His understanding of bike riders is up there. To discount the guy is at one's peril.

 

[thehog]

Re:

did a bit of digging in the thread. The first to mention it a "fax", afaict, was rollthedice, maybe he can shed light on it?

To be sure, whether it's a fax or not doesn't seem to have bearing on the question whether it is a fake/fabrication.
It's pretty clear that the document was issued one time only, i.e. printed, then stored somewhere.
At least that's how they wanted to make it look.
So the existence of two differently formatted versions with differently placed binder holes and (to top it) scuff marks disappearing underneath the text remains highly suspect (m2c).

Fax got brought up because the document looks so beat up its hard to imagine why? If it's an original copy from the lab it's hard to understand why it contains so many "scratch' and 'photocopier marks". It's not like this document would be a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy for the document to appear this way. The text is strong, bold and dark but oddly has all this copier marks layered onto which doesn't disturb the text.

It truly is a odd looking document, one which the center text doesn't align the header and border, how they managed to print this document is beyond explanation, unless it was built like this in photoshop pasting in the old margin and header from 2007.

Considering this document had been missing for so long, it's hard to imagine why it doesn't look clean, why so many markings on the page? Who knows...

 

[sniper]

the scratch marks etc. suggest they had to literally retreive that document from under the carpet where it had been shoved under in 2011 when chris transformed

 

[thehog]

Re:

the scratch marks etc. suggest they had to literally retreive that document from under the carpet where it had been shoved under in 2011 when chris transformed

The text in the document is on AICAR as its able to superimpose itself over the old copier/scratch marks... truly amazing

 

[Taxus4a]

Absolute hilarious joke for Froome to try to claim he was ever anywhere near 17% body fat as a pro cyclist. I gained 30 pounds over the last 3 years after I quit bike racing and went to night school - this brought me up to 18% body fat. I'm now back down to 15%, having lost 15 pounds of fat over the past year since I got my degree and have been riding the bike again. Still fat as can be (for a cyclist) and have a disgusting gut roll.

Anyway, back in my racer boy days I didn't know a single Cat 4 who was over 12% body fat. I raced Cat 3 road, Cat 1 XC mountain bike, Cat 3 cyclocross for 5 years or so, always consistently around 10% body fat. No we were not getting hydrostaticly tested but all of us had wifi body fat scales and would weigh ourselves daily. Not that electrical impedance home body fat scales are all that accurate, but you've got years of data with weight and body fat % and you know at all times what your weight, approximate body fat %, and more important the trend change in these measurements is. It's obviously so hugely important even for a middle category amateur racer.

17% for a pro cyclist is ludicrous crazy town obese fat bastard territory. No chance any pro comes anywhere near that number ever, especially when being fast on the bike is your livelihood.

Clearly nothing has changed in pro cycling after all these years - teams still treating the fans as if they're all absolute idiots.

He was 17 %, and I saw him when he was like that. It is hilarious just becouse you say that, not for any other reason. it is just the truth.

tipycal face of 20 % fat:

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I think he does enjoy the twitter attention. He would've stopped long ago if he did not IMO. I do wish he would take a few extra seconds to proofread.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 20m20 minutes ago
@vamosalberto @festinaboy @chrisfroome maybe you should preach those words to some of the lunching mob in July? And to Antoine.

This is why most scientists should stick to being simply researchers. Collect the data, leave the conclusions to others. Swart is turning into a payed beard and he may not even know it.

Who would you prefer to make the conclusions? Assigning researchers the role of merely 'collecting data' really undersells their role in the scientific process IMO. In Swart's defense, his main conclusion is that the data tells us 'absolutely nothing' about whether Froome is clean or not. It seems like the twitter summit is now officially over. It is not a great place to have a nuanced discussion, but at least it does give individuals outside the normal hierarchy a way to participate.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I think he does enjoy the twitter attention. He would've stopped long ago if he did not IMO. I do wish he would take a few extra seconds to proofread.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 20m20 minutes ago
@vamosalberto @festinaboy @chrisfroome maybe you should preach those words to some of the lunching mob in July? And to Antoine.

This is why most scientists should stick to being simply researchers. Collect the data, leave the conclusions to others. Swart is turning into a payed beard and he may not even know it.

Who would you prefer to make the conclusions? Assigning researchers the role of merely 'collecting data' really undersells their role in the scientific process IMO. In Swart's defense, his main conclusion is that the data tells us 'absolutely nothing' about whether Froome is clean or not. It seems like the twitter summit is now officially over. It is not a great place to have a nuanced discussion, but at least it does give individuals outside the normal hierarchy a way to participate.

that is not the main conclusion Moore was 'selling' on the Today programme last week though...it was the 2007 data which unwittingly (it would appear) Swart has endorsed...good work from Moore and the team...

 

[thehog]

It's clear what occurred;

Swart conducted his tests. During this time or after some of Froome 2015 results came apparent, the 2007 data appeared with almost identical power output and v02. Michele shows the 2007 battered, over copied document to Moore. Moore then asks Swart for his opinion based on that over scanned copy if the 2007 results. Swart replies "appears he always had a big engine" - case closed.

Or so it would seem...

What Swart should have done was state, "that's interesting, I will now contact the Lausanne lab and obtain a official verified version of the results and make a determination at a later date". Sadly he didn't.

And now we have this...

If you note the left copy, left margin which is the Eqsuire version 'Chef de Service' has a punch hole through it. On the right copy from CyclingWeekly the punch hole is cleared up and 'Chef' is added in. However it's added in 'italic' and not consistent with the remaining titles that are non-italic. It's also pulled slightly to the left. It's clear they cut the 'Chef' from the heading and pasted it just below and cut the underline of 'Chef du Service' out.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

And now we have this...

In the murkiness, I seem to have lost track.

Would you mind recapping, briefly, as to where these two different versions of documents first came to our attention?

Thanks.

 

[thehog]

And now we have this...

In the murkiness, I seem to have lost track.

Would you mind recapping, briefly, as to where these two different versions of documents first came to our attention?

Thanks.

Link here: viewtopic.php?p=1844882#p1844882

Left copy from the Esquire story, right copy from CyclingWeekly and other publications.

Eqsuire confirmed they added the red highlighting to the left copy.

Hi-Res left side markup:

http://commercial-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/shorthand/esquire/chrisfroome/froome-scan-hr_lgcg8r4.jpg

Hi-Res right side presumed original:

https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/12/CHRIS_FROOME_SWISS_DOC.jpg

 

[djpbaltimore]

It's clear what occurred;

Swart conducted his tests. During this time or after some of Froome 2015 results came apparent, the 2007 data appeared with almost identical power output and v02. Michele shows the 2007 battered, over copied document to Moore. Moore then asks Swart for his opinion based on that over scanned copy if the 2007 results. Swart replies "appears he always had a big engine" - case closed.

Or so it would seem...

What Swart should have done was state, "that's interesting, I will now contact the Lausanne lab and obtain a official verified version of the results and make a determination at a later date". Sadly he didn't.

And now we have this...

If you note the left copy, left margin which is the Eqsuire version 'Chef de Service' has a punch hole through it. On the right copy from CyclingWeekly the punch hole is cleared up and 'Chef' is added in. However it's added in 'italic' and not consistent with the remaining titles that are non-italic. It's also pulled slightly to the left. It's clear they cut the 'Chef' from the heading and pasted it just below and cut the underline of 'Chef du Service' out.

Obviously, you are free to express an opinion. However, I think it is quite appropriate to take the data at face value for the purpose of discussion with a journalist. It is the same argument I made last week about official vs unofficial transcripts. The situation often dictates the proper level of scrutiny required.

 

[harryh]

It's clear what occurred;

Swart conducted his tests. During this time or after some of Froome 2015 results came apparent, the 2007 data appeared with almost identical power output and v02. Michele shows the 2007 battered, over copied document to Moore. Moore then asks Swart for his opinion based on that over scanned copy if the 2007 results. Swart replies "appears he always had a big engine" - case closed.

Or so it would seem...

What Swart should have done was state, "that's interesting, I will now contact the Lausanne lab and obtain a official verified version of the results and make a determination at a later date". Sadly he didn't.

I think it's a a good thing that he didn't do that. Because now he was put under pressure for his sloppiness, and therefore in the forthcoming paper there is not only the limited data appeared in the fax but the complete data set of the 2007 test, more or less similar to that in the GSK report. At least that's what he promised, but of course you never know what's gonna happen

 

[thehog]

It's clear what occurred;

Swart conducted his tests. During this time or after some of Froome 2015 results came apparent, the 2007 data appeared with almost identical power output and v02. Michele shows the 2007 battered, over copied document to Moore. Moore then asks Swart for his opinion based on that over scanned copy if the 2007 results. Swart replies "appears he always had a big engine" - case closed.

Or so it would seem...

What Swart should have done was state, "that's interesting, I will now contact the Lausanne lab and obtain a official verified version of the results and make a determination at a later date". Sadly he didn't.

And now we have this...

If you note the left copy, left margin which is the Eqsuire version 'Chef de Service' has a punch hole through it. On the right copy from CyclingWeekly the punch hole is cleared up and 'Chef' is added in. However it's added in 'italic' and not consistent with the remaining titles that are non-italic. It's also pulled slightly to the left. It's clear they cut the 'Chef' from the heading and pasted it just below and cut the underline of 'Chef du Service' out.

Obviously, you are free to express an opinion. However, I think it is quite appropriate to take the data at face value for the purpose of discussion with a journalist. It is the same argument I made last week about official vs unofficial transcripts. The situation often dictates the proper level of scrutiny required.

I agree. I think in this case is that whilst Swart wrote the lyrics, Moore had the backtracking and melody already laid down and ran with the story. The end result is the Eqsuire story which gives the impression that Swart's opinion to a simplified question was his "professional standpoint". Here we have the two merged. What one might think in a personal environment compared to a professional environment.

That's why a "observer" or "reviewer" can caution Swart and/or Moore that this is only personal opinion, nothing more. That's where Tucker is much more unshakable. Swart lost himself a little here and forgot that it was a lab test and not a PR meeting.

 

[sniper]

Jeroen can still back out of this without it affecting his rep.
It hasn't been his fault.
If he commits further to the 2007 data, he'll be partially accountable.

 

[gillan1969]

It's clear what occurred;

Swart conducted his tests. During this time or after some of Froome 2015 results came apparent, the 2007 data appeared with almost identical power output and v02. Michele shows the 2007 battered, over copied document to Moore. Moore then asks Swart for his opinion based on that over scanned copy if the 2007 results. Swart replies "appears he always had a big engine" - case closed.

Or so it would seem...

What Swart should have done was state, "that's interesting, I will now contact the Lausanne lab and obtain a official verified version of the results and make a determination at a later date". Sadly he didn't.

And now we have this...

If you note the left copy, left margin which is the Eqsuire version 'Chef de Service' has a punch hole through it. On the right copy from CyclingWeekly the punch hole is cleared up and 'Chef' is added in. However it's added in 'italic' and not consistent with the remaining titles that are non-italic. It's also pulled slightly to the left. It's clear they cut the 'Chef' from the heading and pasted it just below and cut the underline of 'Chef du Service' out.

Obviously, you are free to express an opinion. However, I think it is quite appropriate to take the data at face value for the purpose of discussion with a journalist. It is the same argument I made last week about official vs unofficial transcripts. The situation often dictates the proper level of scrutiny required.

is this not the problem though?...knowing that it may be appropriate to take a face value it was presented as such and quote from credible scientist was obtained and the headlines written...discussion over the appropriopriatness (or otherwise) will be relegated to the confines of the clinic and its ilk whilst Moore got the job done insofar as the 'takeaway' for the mainstream press is that he always had the engine...

i.e. Swart was naive

 

[djpbaltimore]

I agree. I think in this case is that whilst Swart wrote the lyrics, Moore had the backtracking and melody already laid down and ran with the story. The end result is the Eqsuire story which gives the impression that Swart's opinion to a simplified question was his "professional standpoint". Here we have the two merged. What one might think in a personal environment compared to a professional environment.

That's why a "observer" or "reviewer" can caution Swart and/or Moore that this is only personal opinion, nothing more. That's where Tucker is much more unshakable. Swart lost himself a little here and forgot that it was a lab test and not a PR meeting.

You definitely make good points. I think this episode really portrays just how informal science often operates. I can count on 0 fingers how many times a collaborator/ coauthors has asked to see the original data (lab notebooks) when publishing a journal article together. And when including data from other co-authors from other institutions, I have also never asked to see their raw data. Maybe this will shock people, but that is how it works in my area of biomedical research. So, my opinion is viewed through this particular perspective.

EDIT. @gillan69. Maybe the fact that the data was too similar to what was just acquired (except for the kg) should've been a red flag, but then again maybe that suggests the data set is internally consistent! And unknowingly commenting on a forged document (worst case scenario) is not really damaging to one's reputation. Maybe we scientists all are too naive. Maybe you all are too cynical. I think this is a gray area worthy of discussion.

 

[thehog]

I agree. I think in this case is that whilst Swart wrote the lyrics, Moore had the backtracking and melody already laid down and ran with the story. The end result is the Eqsuire story which gives the impression that Swart's opinion to a simplified question was his "professional standpoint". Here we have the two merged. What one might think in a personal environment compared to a professional environment.

That's why a "observer" or "reviewer" can caution Swart and/or Moore that this is only personal opinion, nothing more. That's where Tucker is much more unshakable. Swart lost himself a little here and forgot that it was a lab test and not a PR meeting.

You definitely make good points. I think this episode really portrays just how informal science often operates. I can count on 0 fingers how many times a collaborator/ coauthors has asked to see the original data (lab notebooks) when publishing a journal article together. And when including data from other co-authors from other institutions, I have also never asked to see their raw data. Maybe this will shock people, but that is how it works in my area of biomedical research. So, my opinion is viewed through this particular perspective.

Raw data is not expected but a certified copy of the results would be from source.

A statement like; "I'll have to verify the results with the Lausanne lab but on first glance of this copy, it looks like he always has a big engine but let me conduct the analysis", would be much more acceptable.

A second datapoint 8 years apart is a stretch to make that type of conclusion. If he had 5-10 data points through the years then he'd be on more stable ground. He made one huge leap from 2015 to 2007.... Wow.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I don't know, but from my perspective, unofficial tabulated results and official tabulated results are pretty much identical. Both are representations of raw data that you are not analyzing yourself. The difference only arises if you think that you are intentionally having the wool pulled over your eyes by a third party. JMO

 

[sniper]

it is indeed a fax (not that it changes much):

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 7. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke it's a fax of test feedback. Only the primary data is relevant and Jeroen is checking that out.