The Froome Files, test data only thread

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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

John Swanson

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

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

That's what I'm curious about.

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams!!

 

[fmk_RoI]

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?

 

[bewildered]

Re: Re:

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

For reals? bewildered by name, bewildering by nature.

Yes for reals. The wording is not unambiguous and a number of posters would agree. You seem to be the only person on here who is sure of what is meant by the passage.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

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

For reals? bewildered by name, bewildering by nature.

Yes for reals. The wording is not unambiguous and a number of posters would agree. You seem to be the only person on here who is sure of what is meant by the passage.

facts should never get in the way of a snappy retort

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

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

suggests (or, if you like, infers ) favourable outcome for the Froome....otherwise no need for any conspiracy theory..

 

[King Boonen]

From Ross Tucker:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/what-to-expect-from-chris-froomes-physiological-test-data/

I don't quite follow that efficiency is inverse to VO2max. I can understand it at a constant power, that's obvious, but I can't see why it logically follows at maximum effort/threshold/whatever.

 

[thehog]

Re:

From Ross Tucker:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/what-to-expect-from-chris-froomes-physiological-test-data/

I don't quite follow that efficiency is inverse to VO2max. I can understand it at a constant power, that's obvious, but I can't see why it logically follows at maximum effort/threshold/whatever.

I agree with Ross, hopefully we see his bio passport and biological data.

especially true if we see the 'chapters' from 2007 and 2015. The only way to link those is to provide biological data that would make the bilharzia (and asthma) a plausible explanation.

Without that, there will remain a gap that people will fill as they see fit, which is where this whole process is likely to be more divisive than it is to provide any clarity.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/34993220

Sir Brad:

releasing his independent physiological testing results will not change anything, including what people think.

 

[Benotti69]

Astana coach Slongo on Froome:

"We'll be able to see his current values at the moment but we won't learn anything based on [those] numbers."

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

From Ross Tucker:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/what-to-expect-from-chris-froomes-physiological-test-data/

I don't quite follow that efficiency is inverse to VO2max. I can understand it at a constant power, that's obvious, but I can't see why it logically follows at maximum effort/threshold/whatever.

It's a result found in studies.

 

[Merckx index]

Yes, as DW notes, several studies have provided some evidence that efficiency and V02max tend to be inversely correlated. The relationship isn't really logical, it's empirical. Tucker says, "if you are very efficient, then the demand for oxygen is lower, even at maximum exercise, so your VO2max tends to be lower." That assumes that there is some constant energy level that has to be maintained, but of course there isn't. The greater the energy created, the more power. IOW, an elite athlete will have a higher demand for oxygen than an amateur, and so could certainly benefit from both greater V02max and greater efficiency.

There could be an evolutionary logic behind an inverse relationship, though. Taking in oxygen, transporting it to the muscles, and converting it to energy has limits, even in an elite athlete. There are metabolic costs to having larger lungs and heart, more blood vessel area, and larger muscles. The most powerful of our ancestors may have run up against these limits, which would have resulted in selection pressure for an inverse relationship. IOW, there would be diminishing returns for greater energy at some point, so that the ideal individual would have an energy output within some broad range. Under these conditions, the highest V02max values would tend to be associated with lower efficiencies, and vice-versa. Not because logically the one goes with the other, but because as a matter of survival, higher values of one may have had greater survival value if they were associated with lower values of the other.

Some other comments on Tucker's article:

If I had to make some informed predictions, a rider who can produce those performances would require a VO2max between 85 ml/kg/min and 90 ml/kg/min, in combination with efficiency of between 23% and 23.5%. He could get away with a lower VO2max (smaller engine) if his efficiency is much higher, and vice-versa, but I suspect we'll see pretty much what's expected at the top end of what is known of human physiology.

This is exactly the V02max range I suggested earlier And I would add, Froome would have trouble with a higher V02max, as is would raise questions (even more than will be in any case) of why he wasn't better before 2011.

What would help is the pairing of this data with biological data, as well as more data over time (which, apparently doesn't exist, as Froome reportedly never did a VO2max test with Sky). However, biological data does, both from the passport and what would be regular medical checks by the cyclist...

That's especially true if we see the 'chapters' from 2007 and 2015. The only way to link those is to provide biological data that would make the bilharzia (and asthma) a plausible explanation.

If Tucker is saying that seeing data from both periods would allow us to evaluate how much effect schisto had on him, I have to assume he hasn't followed the schisto story very closely. As Hitch in particular has documented, there are major inconsistencies in that story that seriously undercut its plausibility for his improved performance in 2011. Froome isn't going to be able to point to lower values in 2007 and say, these occurred at the same time that my blood system was compromised with schisto, because we already know from what he has said that there is no correlation. He was being treated for schisto well after his transformation in 2011, indeed, one of his treatments came not long after his original Vuelta surprise. Furthermore, someone, was it Walsh? Grappe? I don't remember who, but someone claimed to have seen his passport values pre-2011, and said they were completely normal. Not to mention that the five treatments he has owned up to are virtually unprecedented and unexplainable for anyone with the disease.

I have no doubt that the testing will have been done to the highest standards. I know one of the researchers personally (Jeroen Swart) and I believe him to be one of the best physiologists in the world in cycling, and also someone who is sincere and who has integrity. I don't know what process was followed, or whether there were conditions that had to be met, but I believe that Jeroen is a trustworthy scientist, to the point that I think the data produced will be beyond reproach. Similarly, I know Ken van Someren who heads up the laboratory, and I've no reason to doubt his sincerity either.

Fair enough. Since Tucker pointed out earlier in this piece that the data aren't going to show that Froome either doped or is clean, there's no reason why the researchers shouldn't be trustworthy.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

Astana coach Slongo on Froome:

"We'll be able to see his current values at the moment but we won't learn anything based on [those] numbers."

This part is even better:

“Is it a risk for Froome to release these power numbers? His rivals will see them, for sure, but going from there to the races, what will it mean?” Slongo added.

“It’s like if your car goes 50kph and mine 48… I can see how fast yours goes but I can’t do anything legally to change my speed"

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Yes for reals.

You really - really - think that what was written means he got the 2007 WCC results and then did the GSK tests in August? You don't think it means that he did the GSK tests in August and after that - since when - he obtained from the WCC the results of his 2007 tests?

Since when did "since when" - as used by Tom Cary in that article - not mean "after which"?

Serious question: is English a foreign language for you? Genuine question, no barbs attached.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

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

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

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

It is definitely ambiguous. My reading could be completely wrong, but that is how data exchange would be talked about. The idiom is used incorrectly, so it should've been edited. As demonstrated above, I have never seen 'since when' used anywhere other than a question. JMO.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I have never seen 'since when' used anywhere other than a question.

Entry nine here.

If you think 'since when' can only be used as question, where was the question mark in Cary's article?

Try Googling something like "since when he has been"

 

[djpbaltimore]

I stand corrected about the usage of 'since when'. I originally thought that it was intended to be 'since then' and was a typo.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

I stand corrected about the usage of 'since when'. I originally thought that it was intended to be 'since then' and was a typo.

So it wasn't "definitely ambiguous" after all? One had to make an assumption in order to read it as such? You had to be, as a wiser man than I claimed, reading into it things that are not actually there, raising questions about how objectively that poster will look at anything else?

 

[bigcog]

Re:

Astana coach Slongo on Froome:

"We'll be able to see his current values at the moment but we won't learn anything based on [those] numbers."

Well that's incredibly rich coming from an Astana employee

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I stand corrected about the usage of 'since when'. I originally thought that it was intended to be 'since then' and was a typo.

So it wasn't "definitely ambiguous" after all? One had to make an assumption in order to read it as such? You had to be, as a wiser man than I claimed, reading into it things that are not actually there, raising questions about how objectively that poster will look at anything else?

its still ambigious for other reasons though...

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

So it wasn't "definitely ambiguous" after all? One had to make an assumption in order to read it as such? You had to be, as a wiser man than I claimed, reading into it things that are not actually there, raising questions about how objectively that poster will look at anything else?

That is right, I have to change my earlier opinion. Going by the definition you linked above, the meaning for that passage becomes evident. YMMV

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

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

I'm not sure what other/different test(s) you're talking about. I'm simply saying that whatever data/results/tests/etc Froome is doing to try to prove he's "cleans", most likely won't be anything that will nail him, or show any positives. It's all a calculated plan imo.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

Fair enough. Since Tucker pointed out earlier in this piece that the data aren't going to show that Froome either doped or is clean, there's no reason why the researchers shouldn't be trustworthy.

If what you're saying here is true, then this supposed current testing/release of info/ whatever by Froome is pointless then, because it won't show either way whether he's cleans or doping?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

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

suggests (or, if you like, infers ) favourable outcome for the Froome....otherwise no need for any conspiracy theory..

That's exactly what I was referring to.

 

[thehog]

Re:

If Tucker is saying that seeing data from both periods would allow us to evaluate how much effect schisto had on him, I have to assume he hasn't followed the schisto story very closely. As Hitch in particular has documented, there are major inconsistencies in that story that seriously undercut its plausibility for his improved performance in 2011. Froome isn't going to be able to point to lower values in 2007 and say, these occurred at the same time that my blood system was compromised with schisto, because we already know from what he has said that there is no correlation. He was being treated for schisto well after his transformation in 2011, indeed, one of his treatments came not long after his original Vuelta surprise. Furthermore, someone, was it Walsh? Grappe? I don't remember who, but someone claimed to have seen his passport values pre-2011, and said they were completely normal. Not to mention that the five treatments he has owned up to are virtually unprecedented and unexplainable for anyone with the disease.

Tucker is not saying that the testing from pre and post "transformation" will detail the effect of BadZhilla. He is saying that biological data would need to be provided between the two points and prior. Two stakes of testing in the ground only tell what Froome did on those two days and nothing in between.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Astana coach Slongo on Froome:

"We'll be able to see his current values at the moment but we won't learn anything based on [those] numbers."

Well that's incredibly rich coming from an Astana employee

Rich in knowledge