The Froome Files, test data only thread

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 10, 2015
479
0
0
Merckx index said:
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?
Yes

If not in that specific article then it must've been elsewhere. I haven't the time to locate it right now, but I will when I return.

On the surface, it may seem to contradict Swart's other statement, but I'll sort this out and explain later.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
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.


Apologies, I changed my mind.

He's not an employee of GSK? He is employed by the University of Cape Town.

That is interesting...
 
If Swart is the last author in a peer-reviewed paper, convention would suggest that he paid for the testing out of his own funds. The lead scientist is being paid by his academic institution. The number of 'last author' publications frequently is key in attaining tenure. Personally, I would forgo the monetary option for the greater academic benefit. I don't know how this study was set up, but the published paper will explicitly state where the funding came from.

GSK might just be the 'core facility' contracted out to carry out the research.
 
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.

Has he not?

"It's clear that he has done more than any other rider to be open and transparent with regards to various aspects of the physiological testing"

I thought Pinot had done more than any other rider?
 
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
If Swart is the last author in a peer-reviewed paper, convention would suggest that he paid for the testing out of his own funds. The lead scientist is being paid by his academic institution. The number of 'last author' publications frequently is key in attaining tenure. Personally, I would forgo the monetary option for the greater academic benefit. I don't know how this study was set up, but the published paper will explicitly state where the funding came from.

GSK might just be the 'core facility' contracted out to carry out the research.

No, he's not paying out of his own funds. Would anybody? He has his doctorate, his university will pay his salary and the Froome will cover the expenses/lab hire etc.

That's not unusual. No one should be expected to pay for their own time. That's absurd.

You're trying to turn him into some form of martyr. The guy has to eat like everybody else.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
djpbaltimore said:
If Swart is the last author in a peer-reviewed paper, convention would suggest that he paid for the testing out of his own funds. The lead scientist is being paid by his academic institution. The number of 'last author' publications frequently is key in attaining tenure. Personally, I would forgo the monetary option for the greater academic benefit. I don't know how this study was set up, but the published paper will explicitly state where the funding came from.

GSK might just be the 'core facility' contracted out to carry out the research.

No, he's not paying out of his own funds. Would anybody? He has his doctorate, his university will pay his salary and the Froome will cover the expenses/lab hire etc.

That's not unusual. No one should be expected to pay for their own time. That's absurd.

You're trying to turn him into some form of martyr. The guy has to eat like everybody else.

steady Hog...for 'greater academic benefit' read 'more better-paid gigs' due to increased exposure :)
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
thehog said:
djpbaltimore said:
If Swart is the last author in a peer-reviewed paper, convention would suggest that he paid for the testing out of his own funds. The lead scientist is being paid by his academic institution. The number of 'last author' publications frequently is key in attaining tenure. Personally, I would forgo the monetary option for the greater academic benefit. I don't know how this study was set up, but the published paper will explicitly state where the funding came from.

GSK might just be the 'core facility' contracted out to carry out the research.

No, he's not paying out of his own funds. Would anybody? He has his doctorate, his university will pay his salary and the Froome will cover the expenses/lab hire etc.

That's not unusual. No one should be expected to pay for their own time. That's absurd.

You're trying to turn him into some form of martyr. The guy has to eat like everybody else.

steady Hog...for 'greater academic benefit' read 'more better-paid gigs' due to increased exposure :)

Yes, that I get. Swart has become the lab technician to the stars :) We can expect the diet book and motivational talk tour in he coming year.

I jest, I'm sure Swart wants to uphold his reputation. I've not seen anything here to suggest he is compromised.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
No, he's not paying out of his own funds. Would anybody? He has his doctorate, his university will pay his salary and the Froome will cover the expenses/lab hire etc.

That's not unusual. No one should be expected to pay for their own time. That's absurd.

You're trying to turn him into some form of martyr. The guy has to eat like everybody else.

Sorry, my meaning was lost in translation from academic speak. His 'own funds' means his own grant money, not from out of his own pocket.

Where am I implying martyrdom? I am making an argument that his best interest might not be monetary.
 
Re:

harryh said:
https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/674609441078145025?lang=fi

Thank you....

This bears repeating. Saying that he was 'hired' by Michelle was reading too far into the passage from CN that I responded to earlier.

@gillan1969. I am not going to address your posts because you seem bent on derailing discussion.

@dearwiggo. There are a lot of perks that come with scientific notoriety even if it is restricted to a small niche. I won't deny that self-interest can come into play. I am merely stating how I would've handled things if I was in his position. My 2c..
 
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
harryh said:
https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/674609441078145025?lang=fi

Thank you....

This bears repeating. Saying that he was 'hired' by Michelle was reading too far into the passage from CN that I responded to earlier.

@gillan1969. I am not going to address your posts because you seem bent on derailing discussion.

Not sure I understand...Swart has derailed himself...firstly by conflating his research with older research conducted by someone else...and now by providing a wider commentry including the quote above..

He should restrict his comments to the work he has done and that's it

Being one of the people who would still have a lot of space for a hat...I have merely asked those who know their physiology better than me...has Pinot provided more data? If he has, Swart is demonstrably cheerleading for Froome no? Its not even just 'he has done more' Its "he has clearly done more...".

You don't think that is pertinent?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
djpbaltimore said:
harryh said:
https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/674609441078145025?lang=fi

Thank you....

This bears repeating. Saying that he was 'hired' by Michelle was reading too far into the passage from CN that I responded to earlier.

@gillan1969. I am not going to address your posts because you seem bent on derailing discussion.

Not sure I understand...Swart has derailed himself...firstly by conflating his research with older research conducted by someone else...and now by providing a wider commentry including the quote above..

He should restrict his comments to the work he has done and that's it

Being one of the people who would still have a lot of space for a hat...I have merely asked those who know their physiology better than me...has Pinot provided more data? If he has, Swart is demonstrably cheerleading for Froome no? Its not even just 'he has done more' Its "he has clearly done more...".

You don't think that is pertinent?

it is pertinent.
it's becoming an exercise in backtracking for Swart, Burnley et al.
 
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
harryh said:
https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/674609441078145025?lang=fi

Thank you....

This bears repeating. Saying that he was 'hired' by Michelle was reading too far into the passage from CN that I responded to earlier.

@gillan1969. I am not going to address your posts because you seem bent on derailing discussion.

@dearwiggo. There are a lot of perks that come with scientific notoriety even if it is restricted to a small niche. I won't deny that self-interest can come into play. I am merely stating how I would've handled things if I was in his position. My 2c..

I'll answer my own question :)

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf

6 years worth of data including the sort of 'on the road testing' which is presumably what Swart wanted to do with Froome but has been unable to thus far. Again, notwithstanding the gap in the hat (trademark)...I am presuming this is both far more data than Froome and far richer data than Froome?

So how can Swart state about Froome

"It's clear that he has done more than any other rider to be open and transparent with regards to various aspects of the physiological testing"

I would ask him on twitter but my account is dormant and its now in Finnish and so i ain't even going to try and retrieve a password :)

Yours confused....
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
djpbaltimore said:
harryh said:
https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/674609441078145025?lang=fi

Thank you....

This bears repeating. Saying that he was 'hired' by Michelle was reading too far into the passage from CN that I responded to earlier.

@gillan1969. I am not going to address your posts because you seem bent on derailing discussion.

@dearwiggo. There are a lot of perks that come with scientific notoriety even if it is restricted to a small niche. I won't deny that self-interest can come into play. I am merely stating how I would've handled things if I was in his position. My 2c..

I'll answer my own question :)

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf

6 years worth of data including the sort of 'on the road testing' which is presumably what Swart wanted to do with Froome but has been unable to thus far. Again, notwithstanding the gap in the hat (trademark)...I am presuming this is both far more data than Froome and far richer data than Froome?

So how can Swart state about Froome

"It's clear that he has done more than any other rider to be open and transparent with regards to various aspects of the physiological testing"

I would ask him on twitter but my account is dormant and its now in Finnish and so i ain't even going to try and retrieve a password :)

Yours confused....

Maybe he meant "GT winning rider" :)
 
A lot of this thread currently seems to be about the integrity of the researchers. Ross Tucker just gave Dr. Swart's character a big personal endorsement on twitter.

I do like the hashtag WasntEvenPaidForTheGrief that I saw someone using.


EDIT.Jeroen Swart

@SamueleMarcora @Scienceofsport @Cyclingnewsfeed @GSK_HPL there would always be a hint of bias if I got paid. Never even considered it.
 
Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
It has been quite obvious from the start that Swart have no clue about who has done what testing within the pro peloton. He should keep quiet about those things and stick to his research. Of course, that is easier said than done when you have been hand picked by the accused.
 
Re:

zigmeister said:
PMs have come a long way in just the past 8yrs and the amount of PMs/methods they use to calculate power directly.
Well when talking about the numbers wrt physiological tests, whether accurate or with a large range of error matters or not depending on what you are trying to interpret from them. Some discussions ball park figures are all that matters, for others it helps to nail it down more tightly.

For the latter then, it does matter that we understand the process, and the equipment used because the results are sensitive to such things. e.g. peak power / MAP test results are protocol dependent.

WRT to comment about power meters coming a long way in 8 years. yes, they have added a lot of features and many new brands and models are available and prices are much less. However the one thing that has not been improved is accuracy. Indeed accuracy in many cases has been sacrificed for other features (e.g. for price reasons or for convenience reasons - such as use of wireless tech like ANT+ instead of using proprietary data capture methods).

zigmeister said:
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?
Peak power / MAP tests are not meant to be steady state. They are a constant increase in load, which in this test's case was programmed into the erg controller of the Computrainer.

It's when conducting sub-maximal blood lactate testing that you need steps at constant power load that are long enough for lactate to reach a steady state (or not eventually). Blood is then sampled in the final period (e.g. final 30 seconds) of the step.
 
Oct 22, 2009
48
0
0
Merckx index said:
acoggan said:
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.


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

My weight was about 72kg's.


My FTP is an estimate as we did not have easy access to power meters back in the day. I am estimating based on a stepped protocol conducted by my national federation. IIRC, it was 3 min stepped protocol. i can't remember all the details of the starting power (probably 200w), but I think it was 30w increments for 3 min. IIRC, I completed the 400w, 440W stages, but I can't remember how long I went into the 470W stage.... I assume that a FTP (as I understand it) around 400W. My best flat 40km TT was around the 46km/h average on circa 1990's equipment (Distinctly remember the corima 4 spoke).


I realize that TDF is not won in the lab, and that there are other factors, but I will contend that aerobic capacity is still the largest predictor of race success, and further I contend that 6 l/min does not fully account for his TDF performance. The Phil Gaimon data, is further support to this.
 
Jan 20, 2010
713
0
0
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 2007 document is more important than all those other factors. Producing the whole document and it being verified by the tester, anyone present at the test, and people it was sent to would dispel a lot of the doubters. I don't know why they would just put the first page in the article and why now not just release the whole thing.

If the blood data is all above board and those are indeed the numbers then there was a shocking mismanagement by his coach and team and Swart is correct, the engine was there he was just a fat bstard.

Btw, even if the engine was there, it doesn't mean he wasn't a cheat. One doesn't preclude the other.
 
Re: Re:

Johnny told me to do it - I didn't know.............

3rd grader excuse for how it all went wrong

acoggan said:
I haven't a clue why you're directing your question at me. I was asked by Laura Weislo to comment on Froome's physiology, and did so under the assumption that the data as presented are correct. Indeed, given that I have no more access to the raw numbers, etc., than anyone else here (and much less stomach for conspiracy theories), that's all I really could do.

By your response you proved my point. Science should be fact based. Sadly this is a sport when many participants view deception of the public as first nature. Given the pressure relating to this "proof" the very first thing to do was to determine the provenance of the document before any analysis. And without a second thought, you abrogated that responsibility to Laura by "presumption" not even asking her ? what steps she had taken to verify it and in reality, you should have taken on board that responsibility as part of the task - being the hired in expert.

Instead Froome, Cound & Brailsford, exactly like Lance before them and so many others know they don't have to get up early in the morning to pull the wool, regardless of whether they do or don't have to in this instance. They know psychology and how to play people, well Lance did until he came back for an 8th bite at the cherry. Give someone a chance to get 15 minutes of fame and normal caution and sense has gone out of the window. It works nearly every time.

We are in the 21st century. Just how difficult is it to receive a document and fire off an email to the lab and wait 24 hours for confirmation ? It is dead easy and yet no-one, absolutely no one in the long chain of people so desperate to get their opinion on the facts regarding this fax, does it.

I cannot understand why, but could see that esquire might "s e x " up the copy with highlighting and boldening of text. But I would say, 7 years lost and then found by someone with so much vested interest - the stakes are so great - I would not put it past several at the lab being bought, this is professional cycling after all. I don't care about esquire doing their stuff, I do care about the document that was sent to them, esquire just proved how easy it is to fake it, what about the version sent to them ? Without verification it is worth nothing.

Right now, what is the value to Mr and Mrs Froome of a "no" being a "Yes - it came from here" ? Several people could well gain more than a couple of year's salary at a stroke. The Verification process should be to the max. instead what do we get ? The same old cycling story. Lance is clean, Tyler had a phantom twin - the scientist says so. No, the scientist who - and there is no easy way to say this - you left yourself wide open with your casualness and last response - the scientist who is so keen on getting a slice of the action they leave their brain at home, says so.

Take a step back. Have a couple of days break and then come back at it. One test in 2007 and some tests in 2015. "Froome is clean" is a conclusion that is mutually exclusive to this data set, even if the provenance can be proved - and that is still a some way off. This is professional cycling.

I know you are not going to like what I wrote - but give it six months.
 
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
gillan1969 said:
djpbaltimore said:
harryh said:
https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/674609441078145025?lang=fi

Thank you....

This bears repeating. Saying that he was 'hired' by Michelle was reading too far into the passage from CN that I responded to earlier.

@gillan1969. I am not going to address your posts because you seem bent on derailing discussion.

@dearwiggo. There are a lot of perks that come with scientific notoriety even if it is restricted to a small niche. I won't deny that self-interest can come into play. I am merely stating how I would've handled things if I was in his position. My 2c..

I'll answer my own question :)

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/pinot-ppr.pdf

6 years worth of data including the sort of 'on the road testing' which is presumably what Swart wanted to do with Froome but has been unable to thus far. Again, notwithstanding the gap in the hat (trademark)...I am presuming this is both far more data than Froome and far richer data than Froome?

So how can Swart state about Froome

"It's clear that he has done more than any other rider to be open and transparent with regards to various aspects of the physiological testing"

I would ask him on twitter but my account is dormant and its now in Finnish and so i ain't even going to try and retrieve a password :)

Yours confused....

Maybe he meant "GT winning rider" :)

armchairclimber, that wasn't nice :p . And I predict a GT in '17 :cool: .

gillian69, agree that it's not even close: Pinot has released, by far, the most detailed and complete data, I would argue, ever by a world class athlete. Froome's stuff is incomplete to say the least, with published data that seemed cherry picked to fit an agenda. But by the same token, I'd also like to see Nibali's, Contador's, Aru's, and several others' data. Landa, Majka, TJVG. Valverde, who cares? We all know.

After all, we may see a day when the truth is revealed and Skybots argue that it was a level playing field after all :rolleyes: .
 
Re: Re:

Night Rider said:
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 2007 document is more important than all those other factors. Producing the whole document and it being verified by the tester, anyone present at the test, and people it was sent to would dispel a lot of the doubters. I don't know why they would just put the first page in the article and why now not just release the whole thing.

If the blood data is all above board and those are indeed the numbers then there was a shocking mismanagement by his coach and team and Swart is correct, the engine was there he was just a fat bstard.

Btw, even if the engine was there, it doesn't mean he wasn't a cheat. One doesn't preclude the other.

Correct. If there was no 2007 data, the story would be a bland. Everyone does testing. Not just Froome or Pinot etc. It's not new.

The Esquire story relied on the dramatic end part that the 2015 data matched the big engine from 2007. Without it, there was no story.

Which is why those faxes are so interesting in the manner that they were presented along with Moore/Swart hopelessly not being able to explain the oddities contained within them...