The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

Re:

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

Agreed.

I guess another way of looking at it is;

If you had a one night stand in July 2007, 8 years later there's a women on your doorstep claiming her 7 year old child is yours with a smudged up fax of paternity results, would you take it on face value?

Or seek further testing?

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

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.

so Mark (the world is stupid) Burnley acknowledges that the conclusion reached by Swart was done so on a non relavant fax and not on the relavant data...which is only now being checked out....

which one is laural and which one hardy I know...a bit harsh......

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ferrari's take, with his normal dry humour
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=137

Game, set, Michelle knows best

That was a fine joke.

Il Mito putting the hammer down.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

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.

so Mark (the world is stupid) Burnley acknowledges that the conclusion reached by Swart was done so on a non relavant fax and not on the relavant data...which is only now being checked out....

which one is laural and which one hardy I know...a bit harsh......

check out his twitter feed right now.
a man desperately trying to escape reality.
"BMI rounding failure on fax, so what"
If you want thick and thorough blinders, ask Mark Burnley where he bought his.

 

[djpbaltimore]

@thehog I plead the fifth.

C'mon, gillan1969, that is not what he tweeted. As I stated earlier, he often comes across as the voice of reason.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley Dec 6
@JeroenSwart you're doing a grand job here. Some of this stuff is painfully stupid.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley Dec 7
@JeroenSwart @maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler and there we have it - scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley Dec 7
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus he's received physiological feedback from a lab sent in good faith. Why assume invalid?

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

@thehog I plead the fifth.

C'mon, gillan1969, that is not what he tweeted. As I stated earlier, he often comes across as the voice of reason.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley Dec 6
@JeroenSwart you're doing a grand job here. Some of this stuff is painfully stupid.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley Dec 7
@JeroenSwart @maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler and there we have it - scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley Dec 7
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus he's received physiological feedback from a lab sent in good faith. Why assume invalid?

there was also the space in the hat bit...perhaps, a bit harsh but...

 

[thehog]

Swart deserves the time to verify the data as does Moore. The expectation that this would have been done prior but you know....

Some will be familiar with four-eyes procedure, this is where someone else will check your findings. We are all human, humans make mistakes so good to have secondary verification.

Personally, I think it's a stretch that a medical record would be falsified. But the document doesn't look sound. Esquire may have added the Photoshopping for effect but it's an awful lot of work to go to when the page is what it is - and why photoshop two seperate documents with alternate alternations?

The incorrect BMI value has peeked my interest. All values on the sheet have a decimal value bar BMI. That being the case it should be 22 not 21 as its rounded from 21.8 or just expressed as 21.8. Interestingly a BMI of 21 at 186cm = 72.6kg which to me looks like his actual weight at the time.

Still... Don't think I'm ready to believe that medical records have been doctored. I'm not there yet even if Swart has been a little sloppy.

 

[sniper]

thehog, as gillan1969 suggested previously, you're too forgiving!
from what i've seen thus far these guys (Mark Dunley, Swart et al) and their arguments+ad homs+deflections are right up there with what we used to get from the hardcore armstrong groupies.

 

[armchairclimber]

Good to see that there are plans for the testing to be longitudinal, with further sessions next year, including a field/road test on a hill.

 

[sniper]

Funny thing is,
when the other day people were pointing out the Common Wealth 2006 measurement of 68kg, Swart et al were first on the scene to point out that this couldnt be correct: because Froome's weight was incorrectly indicated, his weight must be incorrect as well, they said.
Now the BMI turns out to be incorrect, but they still don't doubt for a second that the weight might be off as well!

I hope they're on the payroll. If not, it wouldnt bode well for their thinking capacity.

 

[thehog]

thehog, as gillan1969 suggested previously, you're too forgiving!
from what i've seen thus far these guys (Mark Dunley, Swart et al) and their arguments+ad homs+deflections are right up there with what we used to get from the hardcore armstrong groupies.

I'm not forgiving, there are now two documents floating about with various inconsistencies. Moore has tried to explain to me on Twitter the mix-up. Alas even he can't explain the inconsistencies. Apparently Esquire did some "cleaning up"?! On two documents or one? They added "scratch marks" as part of the clean up? New binder holes? Titles on the names of the Doctors?

It beggars belief when the very essence of the this exercise was to build trust and now here we are with compromised data, doctored data? I don't know. All I can say is the 2007 document is so compromised that it's in question and therefore needs to be discounted.

2015 stands, 2007 out. The "big engine" claim has to be removed.

Period.

 

[harryh]

2015 stands, 2007 out.

On the contrary, full data sets of both tests in. Period.

 

[Rollthedice]

thehog, as gillan1969 suggested previously, you're too forgiving!
from what i've seen thus far these guys (Mark Dunley, Swart et al) and their arguments+ad homs+deflections are right up there with what we used to get from the hardcore armstrong groupies.

I'm not forgiving, there's two documents floating about with various inconsistencies. Moore has tried to explain to me on Twitter the mix-up. Alas even he can't explain the inconsistencies. Apparently Esquire did some "cleaning up"?! On two documents or one? They added "scratch makes" as part of the clean up? New binder holes? Titles on the names of the Doctors?

It beggars belief when the very essence of the this exercise was to build trust and now here we are with compromised data, doctored data? I don't know. All I can say is the 2007 document is so compromised that it's in question and therefore needs to be discounted.

2015 stands, 2007 out. The "big engine" claim has to be removed.

Period.

But that was the whole point of this testing, the essence on which the whole defense that Froome is clean was built. Who cares if Froome has good numbers today, it's obvious and especially if tested in a lab. The whole idea is to prove he was always good. That's why they miraculously found the missing proof, the X file. Based on this, undoubtedly, the only problem holding Froome back to crush doped performances clean, was the fat. Four years of abusing Nutella. If you dismiss the 2007 test, Froome remains the donkey turned race horse overnight

 

[thehog]

thehog, as gillan1969 suggested previously, you're too forgiving!
from what i've seen thus far these guys (Mark Dunley, Swart et al) and their arguments+ad homs+deflections are right up there with what we used to get from the hardcore armstrong groupies.

I'm not forgiving, there's two documents floating about with various inconsistencies. Moore has tried to explain to me on Twitter the mix-up. Alas even he can't explain the inconsistencies. Apparently Esquire did some "cleaning up"?! On two documents or one? They added "scratch makes" as part of the clean up? New binder holes? Titles on the names of the Doctors?

It beggars belief when the very essence of the this exercise was to build trust and now here we are with compromised data, doctored data? I don't know. All I can say is the 2007 document is so compromised that it's in question and therefore needs to be discounted.

2015 stands, 2007 out. The "big engine" claim has to be removed.

Period.

But that was the whole point of this testing, the essence on which the whole defense that Froome is clean was built. Who cares if Froome has good numbers today, it's obvious and especially if tested in a lab. The whole idea is to prove he was always good. That's why they miraculously found the missing proof, the X file. Based on this, undoubtedly, the only problem holding Froome back to crush doped performances clean, was the fat. Four years of abusing Nutella. If you dismiss the 2007 test, Froome remains the donkey turned race horse overnight

Correct. According to Richard Moore the Esquire sent out the original but did some tidying up on their version.

Magically scuff marks appeared on their version not on the original. Other marks appear on the original and not elsewhere. And then binder holes where deleted and added in alternate positions... I'm glad Moore / Swart verified the documents prior to publication

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

2015 stands, 2007 out.

On the contrary, full data sets of both tests in. Period.

Agreed, a bit like the Basso tests we saw the other day via @vetoo, that 2007 data is so conclusive....

Why cant any moderator see what Harry is up to here?

@haryy: you dont have to agree on anything on this topic but please make an effort or just go back where you came from, we both know where that is.

 

[Freddythefrog]

So a couple of days on and anyone have still not come up with a good explanation about the two copies of the fax Cound unearthed and the 2007 Dawg does not look like any 16.9% body fat cyclist I know.

Now for acoogan swart and the scientists. These two are busy writing their analysis of the data, but I have another teensie, weensie conundrum for them.

Our hero is hailed for his wide range of skills. One of those skill sets that enabled him to soar above the common herd was nicely described in this article from the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jul/19/chris-froome-kenyan-tour-de-france
Now I know that Chris and his wife are nearly as quick off the draw with their legal team, as Paula is, in getting them to contact any newspaper that prints unfounded allegations so I presume what is written is true. It would have had to pass the Cound/Froome "approval" test.


"Brailsford and Froome's paths crossed next at the world championships in Salzburg that year, after the youngster had hacked into the Hotmail account of the Kenyan cycling association to get his race entry in."

And my my, here is another take on that same episode. This time from the Telegraph - if you doubt my sincerity, you can read it here - after all Chris Froome hacking into someone's hotmail account and sending a false email pretending to be someone else - it is stranger than fiction isn't it ? You just wouldn't credit what some scalawags might get up to !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10144509/Tour-de-France-2013-the-incredible-rise-of-Chris-Froome-and-how-he-was-almost-killed-by-a-hippo.html

“He wanted to compete in the [under-23) world championships but the federation wouldn’t sanction it. But he was smart. We would read all their emails and we basically forged the entry forms to allow him to compete and kept it a big secret.”

What did I read there - his bestest mate kept the deception about the forgery a big secret ? Good job a super hero has mates who know when to keep their mouths shut isn't it.

Well I never, gosh ! A very good job lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place isn't it !

So acoggan and Prof Swart given a track record like that, would you really put your professional reputation on an 8 year old document that has suddenly been found by Mrs Froome, daughter of a World Champ body builder and age group cyclist, (who I rather doubt many would bet 10p on having achieved her "unique" body shape on bread and water alone), and Mrs Froome, with only millions of pounds of her husband's income at stake, along with lifestyle and reputation all in the balance, vested in respect of proving Mr Froome thrashed the times of dopers Lance and Pantani up the hills?

Well if you would invest your personal reputation on a document of such unproven provenance then I take my hat off to you - a braver man than I Gunga Din. May your god look after you.

 

[Rollthedice]

Beyond that, Swart said, "what transpired between 2007 and the 2011 Vuelta is something that we may not ever find the answer to."

The X files. The truth is out there.

Interesting read here at CN

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swart-defends-froomes-physiological-testing-more-data-to-be-released-in-2016/

Michelle hired Swart. Or maybe he did it just for fun?

 

[sniper]

epic!

 

[gillan1969]

this is all so much better than I thought it would be

 

[harryh]

A funny anecdote: aforementioned @Doctor_Hutch, who beated Froome a couple of seconds in 2010 Commonwealth Games, had higher Vo2max than Froome has in 2015. It may imply that Froome had not that bad engine already in 2010. Wonder what was the Vo2max of Millar back then...

https://twitter.com/Doctor_Hutch/status/672570892745105408?lang=fi

 

[djpbaltimore]

2015 stands, 2007 out.

On the contrary, full data sets of both tests in. Period.

Yes, that seems to be the main takeaway from the twitter summit. I also think that makes the faxes irrelevant as the data sets themselves would be re-scrutinized.

Just FYI, Swart is not an author on the esquire piece even though it was alluded to in a separate post above, nor do I think he had any imput on its overall editorial content. And it bears repeating that he does not think any of the numbers tells us whether Froome is clean or not. And he, like GSK, are not affiliated with Froome or SKY in any way.

EDIT where in the article does it state that Michelle hired Swart? That seems to be an unsubstantiated claim to attack his integrity. Any money above a certain threshold would have to be declared as a COI during the publication process.

 

[gillan1969]

2015 stands, 2007 out.

On the contrary, full data sets of both tests in. Period.

Yes, that seems to be the main takeaway from the twitter summit. I also think that makes the faxes irrelevant as the data sets themselves would be re-scrutinized.

Just FYI, Swart is not an author on the esquire piece even though it was alluded to in a separate post above, nor do I think he had any imput on its overall editorial content. And it bears repeating that he does not think any of the numbers tells us whether Froome is clean or not. And he, like GSK, are not affiliated with Froome or SKY in any way.

are we not expecting too much from the 2007 stuff (or what may remain of it) which is as yet uncovered...surely its run of the mill testing for run of the mill subjects...If it had formed part of a study perhaps, but would it not just have been to get baselines to guide coaching?

 

[mrhender]

Re:

So a couple of days on and anyone have still not come up with a good explanation about the two copies of the fax Cound unearthed and the 2007 Dawg does not look like any 16.9% body fat cyclist I know.

Now for acoogan swart and the scientists. These two are busy writing their analysis of the data, but I have another teensie, weensie conundrum for them.

Our hero is hailed for his wide range of skills. One of those skill sets that enabled him to soar above the common herd was nicely described in this article from the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jul/19/chris-froome-kenyan-tour-de-france
Now I know that Chris and his wife are nearly as quick off the draw with their legal team, as Paula is, in getting them to contact any newspaper that prints unfounded allegations so I presume what is written is true. It would have had to pass the Cound/Froome "approval" test.


"Brailsford and Froome's paths crossed next at the world championships in Salzburg that year, after the youngster had hacked into the Hotmail account of the Kenyan cycling association to get his race entry in."

And my my, here is another take on that same episode. This time from the Telegraph - if you doubt my sincerity, you can read it here - after all Chris Froome hacking into someone's hotmail account and sending a false email pretending to be someone else - it is stranger than fiction isn't it ? You just wouldn't credit what some scalawags might get up to !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10144509/Tour-de-France-2013-the-incredible-rise-of-Chris-Froome-and-how-he-was-almost-killed-by-a-hippo.html

“He wanted to compete in the [under-23) world championships but the federation wouldn’t sanction it. But he was smart. We would read all their emails and we basically forged the entry forms to allow him to compete and kept it a big secret.”

What did I read there - his bestest mate kept the deception about the forgery a big secret. Good job a super hero has mates who know when to keep their mouths shut isn't it.

Well I never, gosh ! A very good job lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place isn't it !

So acoggan and Prof Swart given a track record like that, would you really put your professional reputation on an 8 year old document that has suddenly been found by Mrs Froome, daughter of a World Champ body builder and age group cyclist, (who I rather doubt many would bet 10p on having achieved her "unique" body shape on bread and water alone), and Mrs Froome, with only millions of pounds of her husband's income at stake, along with lifestyle and reputation all in the balance, vested in respect of proving Mr Froome thrashed the times of dopers Lance and Pantani up the hills?

Well if you would invest your personal reputation on a document of such unproven provenance then I take my hat off to you - a braver man than I Gunga Din. May your god look after you.

Reminds me of the Brailsford famous quote.

"If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday.'

Btw thanks to all contributors, it has been an interesting thread to read so far.

About the fax (or what it is) I find it strange the paper would tidy it up at all, and that after already releasing one version of it. They must have known this was going to be scrutinized, so why take the risk?

 

[djpbaltimore]

I don't know TBH. It probably would not be comparable to the 2015 data set. But the key is that the scientists feel the data is 'good enough' to publish and is not restricted to what is on the aforementioned faxes.

 

[thehog]

2015 stands, 2007 out.

On the contrary, full data sets of both tests in. Period.

Yes, that seems to be the main takeaway from the twitter summit. I also think that makes the faxes irrelevant as the data sets themselves would be re-scrutinized.

Just FYI, Swart is not an author on the esquire piece even though it was alluded to in a separate post above, nor do I think he had any imput on its overall editorial content. And it bears repeating that he does not think any of the numbers tells us whether Froome is clean or not. And he, like GSK, are not affiliated with Froome or SKY in any way.

are we not expecting too much from the 2007 stuff (or what may remain of it) which is as yet uncovered...surely its run of the mill testing for run of the mill subjects...If it had formed part of a study perhaps, but would it not just have been to get baselines to guide coaching?

I have to say I'm disappointed.

The very fact that Moore/Swart had to take a timeout and check with the various sources with "WTF" was going on with the document or documents. The whole thing demonsrates what an abortion the whole effort was. The 2015 tests appear on solid ground but it's obvious the conclusion was already drawn before the magical "faxes" appeared from the house of Zorzoli.

Both them should have had a straight response without checking; "yes we received one fax along with letter of verification from the lab on its authenticity".

We wouldn't be here discussing "scuff marks" if they just spent a little time checking. They had all the time in the world to make sure. They didn't. One scientist and journalist, surely one of them would have checked, surely?

Wow, just wow.