The Froome Files, test data only thread

Page 29 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Poursuivant said:
djpbaltimore said:
Moore did say that the documents were verified before publication. I doubt he would have any role in the imaging of the documents. He is only a writer after all.

If Swart comes out tomorrow with the original 2007 files, people on here will just shift focus to something else, like Froome's weight, Tour of Poland, Inhalers etc. And the squabbling and nit picking over whether Times New Roman was around in 2007 will be forgotten. That's the great advantage about being a skeptic: you can just keep questioning and questioning, it doesn't matter that you claim something smells fishy because then if you get shown to be wrong, you can shift the argument and point at something else and can afford to be wrong over and over, whereas Froome cannot make the slightest mistake without it being analysed relentlessly. Because with the Froome story there is never going to be a 100% accepted answer to his transformation in 2011, it is Cycling's groundhog day.

he's the one thats's getting the money.....
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Jacques de Molay said:
I don't think enough credit is being given to Swart for what he is actually saying about this and future testing.
There's obviously a lot more to come. And now that Swart has publicly acknowledged that, I think that all parties involved would have a very difficult time backpedalling on such promises.
Credit for Swart and 'what he's actually saying'?
Assuming he's an independent scientist he's said the silliest of things both in esquire and on twitter, remaining completely deaf to any suggestions that there might be errors in those 2007 data.
The guy is on the bandwagon and unlikely to jump off any time soon.

Now in the Shane Stokes interview Swart wisely stays silent on the 2007 data.

I'd like Shane to be much more direct and less of a softballer, but he's still so much better than the majority of journos out there.
This interview with Swart is not bad. I like especially how Shane subtly rubbing Swart's own contradiction in his face, Swart stressing that athletes shouldnt publish their data ("circus!"), while on the other hand admitting that we need more data in order to be able to say if they're clean.
Swart wisely admits that Ashenden / Parissotto should be allowed to see Froome's passport data. Well then, Swart, tell me why don't Sky make it happen.
 
Oct 22, 2009
48
0
0
Here are my two cents:

6 l/min at what ever weight you want to divide by is good, but I doubt this is high enough to account for his performance.

I have seen with my own eyes a current WT rider test at 6.2 l/min as an untrained amateur and pure as fresh snow. He is holding WT, but not winning many races.

If 6l/min is good enough to win the TDF and make millions as in the protour. I am pissed even more at the EPO era. I had multiple tests on different equipment confirming 5.8 l/ min or about 80 ml/min/kg using the exact same 30w/min ramped protocol in the EPO era as an unsupported fat amateur.My absolute numbers (525 peak, 400 ftp) were essentially the same as Froome, but I was heavier. I did well as a clean amateur, but blown away in the few "real races" I did. (2.1, etc).

These data likely represent the clean baseline for CF. I doubt these numbers are enough to win the TDF.

I am still facinated by his low HR. He was sustaining (or peaking?) 425w at 140bpm. That is crazy low. His LV stroke volume must be off the charts.
 
Jacques de Molay said:
And there's more. :)

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/12/t...-results-his-conclusions-and-what-comes-next/
Testing Chris Froome: what does the physiologist who conducted the tests make of the data?
by Shane Stokes
December 9, 2015

CyclingTips spoke in detail to Dr Swart about this subject, about what other testing he hopes to do with Froome and also what else the Briton could do to show he is clean.

Well worth the read. Out of respect for Shane, I don't want to quote any of it here just yet.

Well, I will.

There was a surprising bit of data. One is his peak power output relative to his sustainable power output… the value that we compare it is at 4 mmol of blood lactate power output. If you look at the studies that have been published, that is a value that coincides with what you can sustain for approximately somewhere between 40 minutes and an hour. And that ratio [with Froome] is under 80 percent.

So he is not riding at an extremely high percentage of his max. I thought it would be higher. With amateur athletes and a lot of elite athletes I have worked with, those ratios are sometimes as high as 85 or so. Whether or not he can sustain closer to 85 percent we don’t know, as we haven’t put in that particular workload and said, ‘okay, ride until you fall off the bike.’ Those sorts of tests are still possibly to come.

Oh, boy, Coggan, you need to comment on this. You pointed out to me, and I was convinced, that that 80% figure is not an indication of sustainable power. That the lactate value is low in the sub-maximal test, and even more important, that the peak power is overestimated because of the design of the test. He's not only saying that Froome was 80%, but he implies that 85% is about as high as it goes, not 90% that you and Alex keep claiming. But then again, now we’re talking about 40-60 minutes, vs. the 20-40 that was being bandied about earlier. So I'm a little confused here. Grappe’s study of Froome showed about an 85% ratio of power at one hour vs. power at 20 minutes, so that might explain the difference.

From the inference in terms of his blood lactate concentration, he can certainly ride at six watts per kilo at the weight we have tested him at. And if he managed to maintain the same power, and lose a few kilos to be at his Tour weight – and that is always a speculative thing, if he can do the same power at his Tour weight – then 6.2 watts per kilos for him is under 80 percent of max.

But now we’re talking 6.2 W/kg for 40-60 minutes. Ross Tucker would almost certainly call this very suspicious. If he can put out 6.2 for one hour, Grappe's results indicate 7.15 at 20 minutes. Obviously power at different times would be the most important information to have.

CT: The South African sport scientist Ross Tucker mentioned that there wasn’t an efficiency value. Will that come in the paper?

Yes, it will come in the paper, and so will a whole bunch of other data. We did two tests in two different ambient conditions, basically step tests where each step was a longer duration that we did in the VO2 max test. In that test we measured core temperature, expired gasses, heart rate, blood lactate concentration, sweat production…there might have been other ones too.

So they’re sitting on a lot of data that weren’t mentioned in the Esquire article? It seems they have efficiency already, and from the other data, they should have threshold. That is, if they really have credible values for the other parameters, then they should know threshold. If they're not sure if Froome's threshold can be a little higher, then those other values aren't certain, either.

All that is going to happen if you release your entire biological passport is you are going to have armchair scientists around the world throwing all sorts of comments out and speculating.

Yes, that’s what transparency entails. If you don’t like it, at least release the data to some scientists for analysis. Which he later in the interview does agree is a good idea.

But there is another issue here. It's not just about addressing the doping possibility, also evaluating his claims about having schisto. Froome and Sky were the ones who brought this up, suggesting it could have been a factor in his relatively poor performance pre-2011. Beyond the inconsistencies in his story, it's hypocritical to raise this possibility, then not furnish data that are relevant to determining whether the disease could have affected him, indeed, relevant to determining whether he ever even had the disease.

By the way, am I the only one in the Clinic who sees the name Swart and thinks of someone else?
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
The legitimacy of the 2015 test results requires the 2007 results to be a true record. Doing more testing is not useful whatsoever to showing anything about his clean ability or subsequent quantum shift in 2011.

This. It is 2011 that is the major red flag, and in particular August-September 2011, for all of the doubters. I like Ross Tucker and what he has done for the doubters in pushing for more information from Froome but both the scientists and Froome have been pushing for current physiological testing and analysing current performances and physiological test results and now moving us towards more physiological tests in 2016 which will take us further away from the core issue of the last 4 years, the transformation mid 2011.

They are both derailing from the core issue here which is getting Froome to explain what changes he made in mid 2011 to make the quantum leap and turn his palmares into that of a completely different rider. Any physiological tests from any part of his career which were made public were never going to show anything other than a rider who can push huge W/Kg numbers and we have known he is capable of doing this for 4 years since the Vuelta 2011. He is in control of the narrative and the scientists have a vested interest in analysing more physiological tests as that is their area of expertise and that perpetuates their relevance in the whole discussion. It's time for a journalist with the balls to ask the question to step in and take control and ask flat out for an explanation for the 2011 quantum leap. If he can explain that or offer scientific data to explain it, then get the scientists back in to analyse that.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
There was a surprising bit of data. One is his peak power output relative to his sustainable power output… the value that we compare it is at 4 mmol of blood lactate power output. If you look at the studies that have been published, that is a value that coincides with what you can sustain for approximately somewhere between 40 minutes and an hour. And that ratio [with Froome] is under 80 percent.
4mmol is an arbitrary BL number associated with "threshold".

BL at MLSS would be much better indicator for functional threshold / 40km TT power. 4mmol is actually a relatively low lactate level for many elite athletes and would represent sub-threshold intensity. Many sustain a much higher BL at MLSS / 40km TT pace. e.g.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9504136

20-min power would be higher BL again.

Here's another example where you can see from a group of non-elite cyclists/triathletes of various ages (VO2max all <60ml/kg/min), there are quite a number with MLSS above 80% to ~85% VO2max (mostly the younger age groups):
http://jap.physiology.org/content/95/6/2576
 
fausto ‏@faustonef 20 min20 minuten geleden
@JeroenSwart a funny question: before Dec 3, had you any idea of the madness you would be thrown into? :)

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 18 min18 minuten geleden
@faustonef I had an inkling. But I was taken aback somewhat by the rabid mania of the zealots who are Hell bent that he is doping.

@JeroenSwart @faustonef You're not coming out of this looking too pretty, Dr Swart! Showing your colors. Not very professional.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 3 min3 minuten geleden
.@vamosalberto @faustonef case in point. Slight contrast to other opinions.

Fleur ‏@vamosalberto 2 min2 minuten geleden
@JeroenSwart @faustonef Curiosity and sceptisism are healthy. I'm shocked you're calling those who ask questions "rabid zealots".

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 2 min2 minuten geleden
.@vamosalberto @faustonef it seems a good percentage of them are Dutch. Which is interesting.

Fleur ‏@vamosalberto 1 min1 minuut geleden
.@JeroenSwart @faustonef Maybe we've been taught to use our brain and form our own opinions!

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 1 min1 minuut geleden
@vamosalberto @faustonef in case you missed it: I have made no judgement on Chris. Only presented the data as we have it. A contrast again.

Fleur ‏@vamosalberto 22 sec22 seconden geleden
@JeroenSwart @faustonef You have made no judgement on Chris. But you're judging those who think he is doping. See the issue?

:confused:
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
great tweet at the end, nicely pointing out how he's contradicting himself.
but don't expect him to grasp it.
the guy is sold. sold out.

btw, how does being dutch have to do with anything here.
what a weak strawman. not his first.
 
LaFlorecita said:
fausto ‏@faustonef 20 min20 minuten geleden
@JeroenSwart a funny question: before Dec 3, had you any idea of the madness you would be thrown into? :)

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 18 min18 minuten geleden
@faustonef I had an inkling. But I was taken aback somewhat by the rabid mania of the zealots who are Hell bent that he is doping.

@JeroenSwart @faustonef You're not coming out of this looking too pretty, Dr Swart! Showing your colors. Not very professional.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 3 min3 minuten geleden
.@vamosalberto @faustonef case in point. Slight contrast to other opinions.

Fleur ‏@vamosalberto 2 min2 minuten geleden
@JeroenSwart @faustonef Curiosity and sceptisism are healthy. I'm shocked you're calling those who ask questions "rabid zealots".

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 2 min2 minuten geleden
.@vamosalberto @faustonef it seems a good percentage of them are Dutch. Which is interesting.

Fleur ‏@vamosalberto 1 min1 minuut geleden
.@JeroenSwart @faustonef Maybe we've been taught to use our brain and form our own opinions!

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 1 min1 minuut geleden
@vamosalberto @faustonef in case you missed it: I have made no judgement on Chris. Only presented the data as we have it. A contrast again.

Fleur ‏@vamosalberto 22 sec22 seconden geleden
@JeroenSwart @faustonef You have made no judgement on Chris. But you're judging those who think he is doping. See the issue?

:confused:

he seems not to understand (willfully) that the whole reason the testing was done was because there were allegations of doping..

is he aware of the Vrijman report??????

lets go back in time...imagine accusing a world governing body of presenting dodgy information to present an athlete as clean...maybe they would be a rabid mania of zealots?

Swart and his mate Burnley should temper their language somewhat...
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
gillan1969 said:
he seems not to understand (willfully) that the whole reason the testing was done was because there were allegations of doping..

is he aware of the Vrijman report??????

lets go back in time...imagine accusing a world governing body of presenting dodgy information to present an athlete as clean...maybe they would be a rabid mania of zealots?

Swart and his mate Burnley should temper their language somewhat...
good post.
on twitter he was told about Vrijman/Coyle, and he (or Burnely) countered with something like "but Froome isnt Armstrong".
so lame. you can't have a discussion about doping with these guys.
 
IDK, like I should be surprised at this point with this forum, why people are so bent out of shape as usual over really nothing. There are many testing methods/ways to go about the process.

Lactic threshold, VO2 and certain scientific measurable tools that can be used are pretty reliable. But we could go on and on about maybe their equipment was not calibrated proper blah blah blah. Then people get all bent out of shape about, wait, what method was used, I use a 150w starting power (Oh wait, you assume the PM is calibrated within a specific percentage, and we know those are wrong with at least 1.5% accuracy right there, so to say the wattage is the same is already B.S.) different PMs, different conditions, different yada yada...so give up on the 2007 comparison...PMs have come a long way in just the past 8yrs and the amount of PMs/methods they use to calculate power directly.

I digress, back to the testing method, I start at 150w, go up 25w per minute until implosion...but wait, some other guy testing uses 100w, then 30w/minute increase. How exactly does one maintain exactly 25w increase in power and maintains an exact steady state?

Also, there are many World Pro Tour guys who have measured 88+ V02 Max. Phil Gaimon is one. I posted his info earlier, but mods wanted to ban me saying I was derailing the thread, when somebody asked for known published numbers of Pros. So 88.7 in 2012 was Phil Gaimon. There is a reason is resigned with Garmin at the World Level, but he knows that V02 Max isn't everything, because his real life performances aren't up to the Nibalis, Froomes, Contadors and even guys we don't know much about.

So, this whole testing data is a good start, but it isn't the end all be all.

I really believe a much better reflection of the performance is our climbing/power threads. A real world time to perform the same climb year over year at certain races by people. That is reality, not some mannequin on a bike in a wind tunnel or guy hooked up on a trainer spinning around with a mask on and needles in his arm (not those kind of needles!!!)
 
sniper said:
gillan1969 said:
he seems not to understand (willfully) that the whole reason the testing was done was because there were allegations of doping..

is he aware of the Vrijman report??????

lets go back in time...imagine accusing a world governing body of presenting dodgy information to present an athlete as clean...maybe they would be a rabid mania of zealots?

Swart and his mate Burnley should temper their language somewhat...
good post.
on twitter he was told about Vrijman/Coyle, and he (or Burnely) countered with something like "but Froome isnt Armstrong".
so lame. you can't have a discussion about doping with these guys.

Froome Scientific Study:
Authors: Swart & Burnley
Brief: Is Froome Armstrong?
Conclusions: No

Moore - Froome is clean as he's always had an engine and used to be fat

is that where we currently are?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Re:

Merckx index said:
Jacques de Molay said:
And there's more. :)

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/12/t...-results-his-conclusions-and-what-comes-next/
Testing Chris Froome: what does the physiologist who conducted the tests make of the data?
by Shane Stokes
December 9, 2015

CyclingTips spoke in detail to Dr Swart about this subject, about what other testing he hopes to do with Froome and also what else the Briton could do to show he is clean.

Well worth the read. Out of respect for Shane, I don't want to quote any of it here just yet.

Well, I will.

There was a surprising bit of data. One is his peak power output relative to his sustainable power output… the value that we compare it is at 4 mmol of blood lactate power output. If you look at the studies that have been published, that is a value that coincides with what you can sustain for approximately somewhere between 40 minutes and an hour. And that ratio [with Froome] is under 80 percent.

So he is not riding at an extremely high percentage of his max. I thought it would be higher. With amateur athletes and a lot of elite athletes I have worked with, those ratios are sometimes as high as 85 or so. Whether or not he can sustain closer to 85 percent we don’t know, as we haven’t put in that particular workload and said, ‘okay, ride until you fall off the bike.’ Those sorts of tests are still possibly to come.

Oh, boy, Coggan, you need to comment on this.

Not much more to say. As I indicated before, the ratio of power at OBLA to peak power during an incremental exercise test is not the same as the ratio of VO2 at OBLA to VO2max.

Furthermore, as I pointed out to Mark Burnley on twitter, and as Alex Simmons discussed in this thread, for trained male cyclists maximal lactate steady state (which represents an intensity that can be maintained for 30-60 min) is typically higher than OBLA.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Re:

momotaro said:
Here are my two cents:

6 l/min at what ever weight you want to divide by is good, but I doubt this is high enough to account for his performance.

I have seen with my own eyes a current WT rider test at 6.2 l/min as an untrained amateur and pure as fresh snow. He is holding WT, but not winning many races.

If 6l/min is good enough to win the TDF and make millions as in the protour. I am pissed even more at the EPO era. I had multiple tests on different equipment confirming 5.8 l/ min or about 80 ml/min/kg using the exact same 30w/min ramped protocol in the EPO era as an unsupported fat amateur.My absolute numbers (525 peak, 400 ftp) were essentially the same as Froome, but I was heavier. I did well as a clean amateur, but blown away in the few "real races" I did. (2.1, etc).

These data likely represent the clean baseline for CF. I doubt these numbers are enough to win the TDF.

There is a lot more to endurance performance than just VO2max.
 
Oct 10, 2015
479
0
0
Re:

sniper said:
Jacques de Molay said:
I don't think enough credit is being given to Swart for what he is actually saying about this and future testing.
There's obviously a lot more to come. And now that Swart has publicly acknowledged that, I think that all parties involved would have a very difficult time backpedalling on such promises.
Credit for Swart and 'what he's actually saying'?
Yes.
Assuming he's an independent scientist he's said the silliest of things both in esquire and on twitter
Maybe so, but my comment was directly in relation to the CN article linked.

What he is saying, and what I find interesting, is that field testing was originally part of the plan, but logistically it just wasn't possible. There is to be more testing in the future, and field testing will likely occur then. What we've seen so far is not the complete picture. That's what Swart is saying, in that article.

People have been questioning why certain parameters weren't covered, yet it's been explained that not all the data has been released yet (March 2016 is now the target date for that, and the CylingTips article explains why), and Swart himself explained that some of the tests could've been pushed to a higher threshold but that they hadn't anticipated Froome's higher-end capabilities at the time. Going forward, they will be better equipped to analyze his performance capabilities more thoroughly.

sniper said:
Swart wisely admits that Ashenden / Parissotto should be allowed to see Froome's passport data. Well then, Swart, tell me why don't Sky make it happen.
Maybe because it's well beyond Swart to determine what Sky does and does not do? He's not Murdoch...or the Queen.


Merckx index said:
So they’re sitting on a lot of data that weren’t mentioned in the Esquire article?
FFS, yes! This is exactly what I'm referring to. This has been openly acknowledged since Swart began discussing the matter.

I realize that this may paint me into a corner of being a Swart apologists, but I'm merely trying to inject some reason into a discussion that is getting unnecessarily complicated due to static noise.
 
acoggan said:
Not much more to say. As I indicated before, the ratio of power at OBLA to peak power during an incremental exercise test is not the same as the ratio of VO2 at OBLA to VO2max.

Yes, but Swart is suggesting that 85% is pretty typical for elite riders. That is not much lower than the 90% or so for sustained V02/V02max in elite riders, and not much lower than the 86-87% ratio of FTP/5 minute power from your own tables (even adjusted upwards for a climber/GT type, and because V02max is probably sustained at a slightly lower power than that at five minutes). So even though the ratios are not the same, they don’t seem to be that different, either.

Furthermore, as I pointed out to Mark Burnley on twitter, and as Alex Simmons discussed in this thread, for trained male cyclists maximal lactate steady state (which represents an intensity that can be maintained for 30-60 min) is typically higher than OBLA.

OK, if 4 mM is low for a sustained effort, as Alex’s links suggest, then the 420 W measured for Froome is probably low. He would put out more power if the test were carried out to a higher lactate level. Now I think you said at one point it’s probably just a minor difference, but if we assume, as Swart says, that 85% is a more expected ratio of FTP/peak power, then his peak power implies an FTP of 445 W—which is about 6.65 W/kg. at 67 kg. If he could really maintain that for an hour, most people would find that very suspicious, even 40 minutes at that level would be suspicious. And again, adding Grappe’s finding to this, we come up with 505 W at 20 minutes, or about 7.50 W/kg, which is crazy high, even for such a short time.

If we apply the same logic to the 2007 data--and admittedly, this is a lot more speculative--we come up with 460 W and nearly 6.1 W/kg for this overweight rider.

There is a lot more to endurance performance than just VO2max.

Momotaro gave his FTP, so it’s not just about V02max. But I would ask you, Momo, how much do you weigh? You said more than Froome, if it’s 80 kg, then your FTP/kg is about 5 W/kg. You probably can’t expect to ride in the pros with that level.

Jacques de Molay said:
Swart himself explained that some of the tests could've been pushed to a higher threshold but that they hadn't anticipated Froome's higher-end capabilities at the time.

Really?

CT: What is your reaction to Chris Froome’s test results?

JS: I wasn’t really surprised, knowing what is required to produce the kind of performances that he did. As I said, I had predicted roughly what VO2 max we would expect from him. And so it wasn’t at all surprising that he was in the 80s. The question was whereabouts in the 80s will he end up? Would it be lower 81, 82, or would it be a high 80s result? And that is exactly what he delivered.

So it was really confirmatory rather than surprising in any way.
 
Jacques de Molay said:
djpbaltimore said:
where in the article does it state that Michelle hired Swart? That seems to be an unsubstantiated claim to attack his integrity.
It's right there, in the middle of it all. :)
When Froome decided to answer the critics and submit to physiological testing, his wife Michelle Cound reached out to Swart, who Froome had met backstage at the South African television station SuperSport, where they were both booked for a segment in 2011. They kept in touch occasionally, and then Cound reached out during this year's Tour de France.

"After all the abuse he suffered, I got a call out of the blue from Michelle, who asked whether I'd be interested in doing the testing," Swart said.

Hmmm....That does not say that he was hired by Michelle. There is no indication that money was changing hands. People need to read these things more critically.
 
djpbaltimore said:
Jacques de Molay said:
djpbaltimore said:
where in the article does it state that Michelle hired Swart? That seems to be an unsubstantiated claim to attack his integrity.
It's right there, in the middle of it all. :)
When Froome decided to answer the critics and submit to physiological testing, his wife Michelle Cound reached out to Swart, who Froome had met backstage at the South African television station SuperSport, where they were both booked for a segment in 2011. They kept in touch occasionally, and then Cound reached out during this year's Tour de France.

"After all the abuse he suffered, I got a call out of the blue from Michelle, who asked whether I'd be interested in doing the testing," Swart said.

Hmmm....That does not say that he was hired by Michelle. There is no indication that money was changing hands. People need to read these things more critically.


Swart is a professional. He gets paid to do his job by GSK, GSK are paid by the Froome's. It fairly straight forward.

It's not a charity nor should it be. People being paid to perform duties is not a conflict. I have no issue with the lab/swart being contacted directly by Michelle.
 
Richard Moore has confirmed the 2007 data was authenticated and is verified as real. He wouldn't or couldn't verify the verifiable however but just said it was verified. He said we should all wait until the full report comes sometime in 2016.

Make of that what you will...
 
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
CVyfIK7VAAA_35A.jpg:large


https://twitter.com/Bicycling_SA/status/674589008492699652?lang=fi
 
I'm not certain you can make this claim without evidence. Outside of travel expenses, which could be covered from his own grant for all we know, I doubt that he was paid for this project. We will know more when the paper is published and COI are declared.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 4h4 hours ago
@vamosalberto @faustonef in case you missed it: I have made no judgement on Chris. Only presented the data as we have it. A contrast again.
 
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
I'm not certain you can make this claim without evidence. Outside of travel expenses, which could be covered from his own grant for all we know, I doubt that he was paid for this project. We will know more when the paper is published and COI are declared.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 4h4 hours ago
@vamosalberto @faustonef in case you missed it: I have made no judgement on Chris. Only presented the data as we have it. A contrast again.


It's a moot point, I don't know why people even care if he is paid. People are paid to perform their jobs and duties. He is an employee of GSK and gets a salary.

It's absurd to think he skipped a pay cheque due to objectivity.

He wasn't directly paid by the Froome's, GSKs lab time and facilities have to be paid and it should be paid for. That doesn't mean Swart was compromised.